THE CAMBRIDGE BIBLE 
 FOR SCHOOLS & COLLEGES 
 
 EZRA & NEHEMIAH 
 
 EDITED BY 
 
 H. E. RYLE, B , D 
 
 GEMEMAL EDITOR 
 
 J.J. S. PEROWME, D,a 
 
 BISHOP OF WORCESTER 
 
LIBRARY OF 
 JOHN S. McKEE. 
 
 No Cost.A.^.^^ 
 
 Cibrarjp of t:he t:heolo0ical ^eminarjp 
 
 PRINCETON . NEW JERSEY 
 
 PRESENTED BY 
 
 Edward Bates "burner 
 
 

CI)e CamijiiUse Bible for ^c|)cu3ls 
 anil ColUfles. 
 
 THE BOOKS OF 
 
 EZRA AND NEHEMIAH 
 
EonHon: C. J. CLAY AND SONS, 
 
 CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE, 
 
 AVE MARIA LANE. 
 
 arambrilige : DEIGHTON, BELL, AND CO. 
 
 Icipjig: F. A. RROCKHAUS. 
 
 i^ehj gorfe: MACMILLAN AND CO. 
 
I "'"'TiKn^ 
 
%ijt CamljriDse !SiI)le for ^ti)0i3ls 
 aitU Colleges. 
 
 General Editor:—}. J. S. PEROWNE, D.D. 
 Bishop of Worcester 
 
 THE BOOKS OF^ 
 
 EZRA AND NEHEMIAH 
 
 IVITIf INTRODUCTION, NOTES AND MAPS 
 
 HERBERT EDWARD RYLE, B.D. 
 
 HULSEAN PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY, 
 
 PROFESSORIAL FELLOW OF KING'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE; AND EXAMINING 
 
 CHAPLAIN TO THE LORD BISHOP OF RIPON. 
 
 EDITED FOR THE SYNDICS OF THE UNIVERSITY PRESS, 
 
 CAMBRIDGE : 
 
 AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 
 
 1893 
 \AIl Rights reserved.} 
 
Camijritigc 
 
 rRJNTED BY C. J. CLAY M.A. AND SONS 
 AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS 
 
PREFACE 
 BY THE GENERAL EDITOR. 
 
 The General Editor of The Cambridge Bible for 
 Schools thinks it right to say that he does not hold 
 himself responsible either for the interpretation of 
 particular passages which the Editors of the several 
 Books have adopted, or for any opinion on points of 
 doctrine that they may have expressed. In the New 
 Testament more especially questions arise of the 
 deepest theological import, on which the ablest and 
 most conscientious interpreters have differed and 
 always will differ. His aim has been in all such 
 cases to leave each Contributor to the unfettered 
 exercise of his own judgment, only taking care that 
 mere controversy should as far as possible be avoided. 
 He has contented himself chiefly with a careful 
 revision of the notes, with pointing out omissions, with 
 
6 PREFACE. 
 
 suggesting occasionally a reconsideration of some 
 question, or a fuller treatment of difficult passages, 
 and the like. 
 
 Beyond this he has not attempted to interfere, 
 feeling it better that each Commentary should have 
 its own individual character, and being convinced 
 that freshness and variety of treatment are more 
 than a compensation for any lack of uniformity in 
 the Series. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 I. Introduction. 
 
 § I. Ezra and Nehemiah : originally one work ix— xiii 
 
 § 2. Name xiii — xv 
 
 §3. Contents xv— xvii 
 
 §4. Structure xvii— xxiii 
 
 § 5. Date and Authorship : Relation to the Books 
 
 of Chronicles xxiii — xxix 
 
 § 6. Outline of History xxix — xlv 
 
 § 7. Antiquities xlv — lix 
 
 § 8. Aramaic Dialect and Hebrew Characters lix — Ixiv 
 
 §9. Place in the Canon Ixv, Ixvi 
 
 § 10. Relation to other literature Ixvi — Ixix 
 
 §11. Importance of Ezra and Nehemiah Ixix — Ixxi 
 
 § 12. Bibliography Ixxi— Ixxii 
 
 II. Text and Notes i — 320 
 
 Index 321—328 
 
 Maps 
 
 Western Asia To face Title 
 
 Jerusalem at end of volume 
 
 Environs of Jerusalem at end of volume 
 
 The Text adopted in this Edition is that of Dr Scrivener's 
 Cambridge Paragraph Bible. A few variations from the ordi- 
 nary Text, chiefly in the spelling of certain words, and in the 
 use of italics, will be noticed. For the principles adopted by 
 Dr Scrivener as regards the printing of the Text see his In- 
 troduction to the Paragraph Bible, published by the Cambridge 
 University Press. ' 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 § I. Ezra and Nehemiah : 07'iginally one luork. 
 
 Ezra and Nehemiah are not, as the Enghsh reader is apt to 
 suppose, two distinct books, but the two portions into which a 
 single work has been divided. It has been due to what might 
 almost be called a literary accident that the two portions are not 
 even now known as the First and Second Books of Ezra. If 
 the use of that ancient appellation had been retained in the 
 Enghsh Bible, the relation between the two portions of the 
 work would more generally have been seen to be the same as 
 that which subsists between the two Books of Samuel, be- 
 tween the two Books of Kings, and between the two Books of 
 Chronicles. 
 
 The original unity of the two books appears indeed from 
 a close examination of their contents and structure ; and to this 
 it will be necessary to refer later on. But, apart from the in- 
 ternal evidence, the testimony of antiquity is practically con- 
 clusive upon the subject. For it leaves us in no sort of doubt 
 that, in the Hebrew Canon of Scripture, our books of Ezra and 
 Nehemiah ranked from the first as one book bearmg the title 
 of Ezra. 
 
 {a) When Josephus speaks of the Jewish Scriptures as 
 twenty-two books in all, and as containing the Pentateuch, 
 thirteen historical books, and four books of poetry and moral 
 
 EZRA b 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 maxims, it is generally admitted that he reckons Ezra-Nehemiah 
 as one of the historical works ^ 
 
 ib) When, again, Melito, Bishop of Sardis, writing about 
 1 80 A.D., enumerates the twenty-two books of the Hebrew 
 Scriptures according to a Hst which he has obtained from 
 Jewish sources in Syria, he mentions "Ezra" alone (ap. Euseb. 
 Hist. EccL, iv. 26). 
 
 {c) The ancient Jewish tradition preserved in the Talmud 
 {Baba bathra fol. 14 c. 2), respecting the order and authorship of 
 the Hebrew Scriptures, mentions "Ezra" alone, and makes no 
 reference to Nehemiah, 
 
 {d) The Massoretes, the renowned but nameless Jewish 
 Scholars of the Middle Ages, who appended to each book in 
 the Hebrew Bible notes relating to the number of words, letters, 
 sections &;c. in the book, treated Ezra and Nehemiah as a single 
 continuous work. No Massoretic notes are found after Ezra x. 
 44 till we come to the end of Nehemiah, and then they relate to 
 the contents of our two books reckoned together. For instance, 
 they state Neh. iii. 22 to be the middle verse of the book. 
 
 {e) In the great Jewish Commentaries, e.g. of Rashi, Aben 
 Ezra, the exposition passes directly from Ezra x. 44 to Neh. i. i. 
 The transition is, not that from one book to another, but, as it 
 were, from one paragraph or chapter, in the same author, to 
 another. 
 
 (/) In the Hebrew MSS.,theearliest of which dates from about 
 the tenth cent. A.D., Ezra and Nehemiah are found as one book. 
 In some instances, slight marks of the division have been intro- 
 duced, generally by a later hand; they indicate the departure 
 from the customary Hebrew tradition, and have been inserted, 
 by way of concession to the influence of the Christian Bible, 
 and for the sake of facilitating reference. 
 
 It is not until the i6th cent. A.D. that the practice of dividing 
 
 ^ In all probability Josephus included in his numeration of tliirteen, 
 (i) Joshua, {2) Judges and Ruth, (3) Samuel, (4) Kings, (5) Isaiah, 
 (6) Jeremiah and Lamentations, (7) Ezekiel, (8) Minor Prophets, (9) 
 Job, (10) Daniel, (11) Esther, (12) Ezra-Nehemiah, (13) Chronicles. 
 {Contra Apioncin, c. 8.) 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 the one book into two is found introduced in Jewish copies of 
 the Hebrew Scriptures. The division appears in the prmted 
 Hebrew Bible of Daniel Bomberg (Venice, 1525); and is now 
 generally adopted. 
 
 In the Christian Church, the evidence tends to show that 
 the division into two books was not the earliest form in which 
 they were known. In the oldest of the MSS. of the LXX. 
 Version (the Vatican, Sinaitic, Alexandrine) Ezra and Nehe- 
 miah are one book: in the Vatican, Neh. i. i begins in 
 the same line with Ezra x. 44. The Syriac and the Old 
 Latin Versions made no division ; and the Fathers, in enu- 
 merating the contents of the Old Testament, reckon "Ezra" 
 as a single book, although they accepted its division into two 
 portions. 
 
 Origen {ob. 253) is the first who speaks of two books, which he 
 calls the First and Second Ezra. But as he is careful to state that, 
 in the Hebrew, they were one book, his evidence enables us to 
 infer with confidence, (i) that the division into two books did 
 not, in Origen's opinion, represent the original Hebrew usage, 
 (2) that the division into two books very possibly had its rise in 
 Alexandria, and either originated among the Christians, or was 
 borrowed by them from the Jews, of that city. 
 
 The separation into two books came into general use in the 
 Church. The Fathers, however, were careful to reckon them, 
 not as two books, but as two portions of the same book, like the 
 books of Samuel and Kings. It was recognised that the Chris- 
 tian usage differed from that of the Jewish Church (cf. Jerome, 
 Prol. Gal., Esdras qui et ipse apud Graecos et Latinos in duos 
 libros divisus est). 
 
 Some scholars, indeed, have made the suggestion that the 
 divided form of the books is the original one. They have 
 pointed out that, according to the tradition, the Twelve 
 Minor Prophets were collected by the Jews into a single 
 volume lest writings of so small a size should be lost sight of, 
 and that they then ranked as one book among the Hebrew 
 Scriptures. On that analogy, it has been asked, may not Ezra 
 and Nehemiah have been similarly treated by the Jews as one 
 
 d2 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 work, and by the scribes have been united although originally 
 separate treatises ? May not the tradition of the Alexandrian, 
 and, if so, of the Christian usage, be more strictly true to literary 
 history than the tradition of Hebrew usage? 
 
 This plea has generally been put forward on the assumption, 
 now generally rejected, that the two books were written, the one 
 by Ezra, and the other by Nehemiah. But while this view as to 
 authorship cannot now, at any rate, be tacitly assumed, the 
 analogy also of the Twelve Minor Prophets proves, on closer 
 inspection, to be most misleading. 
 
 (i) Hebrew Tradition, it is true, treated the Twelve Minor 
 Prophets as one book ; but Hebrew Tradition never lost sight 
 of the fact that they were twelve distinct literary compositions. 
 On the other hand, there is no indication in Hebrew Tradition, 
 that Ezra was ever regarded as a combination of two books. 
 
 (2) The Twelve Minor Prophets were collected into one book 
 because of their brevity, lest they should be lost, and also pro- 
 bably, that, when united, they might rank in size with Isaiah, 
 Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. But neither Ezra nor Nehemiah was 
 so small that there could be any fear of their being lost sight 
 of On such an hypothesis, why should Esther have been left 
 by itself? 
 
 (3) The Twelve Minor Prophets, although treated as one 
 book, are obviously distinct from one another, in subject-matter, 
 style, and structure. But with Ezra and Nehemiah, the case is 
 quite different. The same method of treatment runs through- 
 out both books; both are narratives formed by compilation; 
 there is less break between Ezra x. and Nehemiah i. than there 
 is between Ezra vi. and Ezra vii. 
 
 (4) Finally, it is due to a misconception, to suppose that 
 there is any conflict between Hebrew usage and the Alexandrine 
 or Christian usage. The oldest MSS. of the LXX, agree with 
 the Hebrew use ; and the Fathers who adopt the division of 
 Ezra into two books, adopt it as the custom of the Greek and 
 Latin Bible, but make no claim for its superior antiquity to the 
 Hebrew usage. 
 
 The only appropriate analogy is that which is offered by the 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 other narrative books of the Old Testament. In the Hebrew 
 Scriptures, Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles ranked each as one 
 book. In the Greek and Latin Bibles, they were each divided 
 into two portions, called First and Second. The parallel is com- 
 plete. In the Hebrew Bible, "Ezra" was one book; in the 
 Christian Bible, it appears as two books with the names of 
 First and Second Ezra. 
 
 When we enquire the reasons that led to the subdivision of 
 Ezra and of the other historical books, we can only conjecture 
 that they were considerations of a purely practical nature, e.g. 
 the desirability of having books uniform in size, more portable, 
 or easier for purposes of reference. 
 
 § 2. Name. 
 
 Among the Jews, the name of Ezra was invariably given to the 
 work which comprised our Ezra and Nehemiah. 
 
 In the Christian Church, there has been a certain amount of 
 variation in the designation employed. 
 
 (i) In lists of the Old Testament books, which agreed with 
 the Hebrew Canon of Scripture, the title of "Ezra" was generally 
 adopted ; and wherever the division into two books was followed, 
 the two books were called the First and Second of Ezra. 
 
 (2) In lists of the Old Testament which include the 
 Apocryphal books, an element of confusion is caused by the 
 Apocryphal "Ezra," our First Book of Esdras. In the LXX. 
 Version, the Old Latin, and the Syriac, this Apocryphal 
 Greek Book was placed, out of regard probably for chronology, 
 before the Hebrew Ezra, and was called the First of Ezra 
 ("Eo-Spas a'), while our Ezra and Nehemiah appeared as one 
 book, with the title of the Second of Ezra ("Eo-§pas- /3'). 
 
 (3) In his translation of the Vulgate, Jerome did not recog- 
 nise the Canonicity of the Apocryphal Books. He translated 
 the Hebrew Ezra (our Ezra and Nehemiah) as one book with 
 the title of Ezra; but he acquiesced in the division of the 
 Canonical Ezra into two books, for he speaks of the Apocryphal 
 books as the Third and Fourth of Ezra. "Nee quemquam 
 
xiv INTRODUCTION. 
 
 moveat quod unns a nobis editus liber est : nee apocryphorum 
 tertii et quarti somniis delectetur: quia et apud Hebraeos Ezrae 
 Nehemiaeque sermones in unum volumen coarctantur ; et quae 
 non habentur apud illos nee de viginti quatuor senibus sunt, 
 procul abjicienda" {Praefat. hi Ezrain). In the Vulgate, ac- 
 cordingly, Ezra and Nehemiah were called the First and Second 
 of Ezra ; the Apocryphal Greek Ezra was called the Third of 
 Ezra; the Apocalyptic work, the Fourth of Ezra. 
 
 The name of "Nehemiah," given to the Second Book of Ezra, 
 is first found in the writings of Jerome. 
 
 In the Codex Alexandrinus, the title of Ezra and Nehemiah 
 is "Ezra the Priest." 
 
 In the Syriac Version, Ezra is called, "the Book of Ezra the 
 Prophet;" in the Arabic Version, "the First Book of Ezra the 
 Priest, the Scribe." In the Arabic Version, Nehemiah is called 
 "the Second Book of Ezra the Priest" (cf. Walton's Polyglott). 
 
 The influence of the Vulgate caused the names applied to 
 the books in that version to be generally adopted in the West. 
 At the Council of Trent, Ezra and Nehemiah are called " the 
 first book of Ezra and the second of Ezra which is called 
 Nehemiah" (Esdrae primus et secundus qui dicitur Nehemias). 
 
 In the English Bibles, they were, at first, always called, "The 
 First and Second of Ezra." But the names "Ezra," "Nehemiah," 
 gradually came into favour during the latter part of the i6th 
 cent. The following titles will illustrate the change. 
 
 In Wychffe's Bible, the titles are "The First and Second 
 Books of Esdras." 
 
 In Myles Coverdale's Translation (1535) Ezra is called, "The 
 first boke of Esdras," and Nehemiah, "The seconde boke of 
 Esdras, otherwyse called the boke of Nehemias." 
 
 In the first edition of Matthew's Bible (1537) we find, "The 
 fyrst boke of Esdras the Prophete," and "The seconde boke of 
 Esdras, otherwyse called the boke of Nehemiah," but in the 
 edition of 1551 this latter title appears as "The boke of Nehe- 
 mias, otherwyse called the second booke of Esdras." 
 
 Similarly the title, "The seconde booke of Esdras, otherwise 
 called the booke of Nehemia," in the 1568 edition of the 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Bishops' Bible, appears in the 1595 edition as "The booke 
 of Nehemias, or seconde booke of Esdras." 
 
 In the Geneva Bible (1560) we find the titles "Ezra" and 
 "Nehemiah." 
 
 The Douay Bible (1609) has "The First Booke of Esdras," 
 and "The Booke of Nehemias which is also called The Second 
 of Esdras." 
 
 The discontinuance of the Titles, "The First and Second of 
 Ezra," is not so much due to any controversial desire for a 
 departure from the custom of the Vulgate version as to the 
 influence of the principle that the translation of the Old Testa- 
 ment was to be taken from the Hebrew text ; and, as has been 
 shewn, the old Hebrew text knew nothing of the division into 
 a First and a Second Book of Ezra. But the alternative title 
 of "Nehemiah" had been in common ecclesiastical use; it 
 seemed to be sanctioned by the great authority of Jerome ; and 
 the superscription at the head of the second portion of the 
 Hebrew book had caused this name to be attached to it in the 
 more modern Hebrew Bibles. "Ezra," therefore, was the name 
 reserved for the first portion of the Hebrew book, "Nehemiah" 
 was the name given to the second. The two Apocryphal 
 books, being distinguished from the Canonical, by the Latin 
 name for Ezra, 'Esdras,' received in the English Bible the 
 titles which, in the Vulgate, belong to the two Canonical Books. 
 
 § 3. Contents. 
 
 The period of history, comprised in the books Ezra and 
 Nehemiah, extends over a little more than a century. Ezra 
 opens with the Decree of Cyrus (538). The last chapter of 
 Nehemiah records incidents which occurred in 432 B.C. (xiii. 6). 
 It is true that lists in Neh. xii. contain the names of personages 
 who flourished in the 4th cent. (xii. 10, 22). But the narrative 
 proper is concerned with events that took place in a particular 
 period of less than a hundred and ten years (538 — 432). The 
 occurrence of names belonging to a later generation only proves 
 that the formation of the whole work, in its present form, dates 
 from a period, in all probability, subsequent to the lifetime of the 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 individuals referred to, and therefore very considerably later 
 than the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. 
 
 In neither book do we find a continuous history of any large 
 number of years. Indeed, no attempt is made to supply a con- 
 secutive narrative. For the most part, the books Ezra and 
 Nehemiah consist of records containing the narrative of two 
 most important epochs in the history of the people, (i) the 
 Return from the Captivity, and the Building of the Temple, 
 (2) the Reform.s of Ezra, and the Governorship of Nehemiah. 
 It is, however, particularly noteworthy that the interval of 
 nearly 60 years which separates these epochs is passed over in 
 complete silence, save for the reference in Ezra iv. 6 and Neh. 
 xii. 26, and that shorter intervals, one of 15 years, 536—521 B.C., 
 one of 13 years, 458 — 445 B.C. (save for the misplaced episode 
 of Ezra iv. 7—23), and another of 12 years, 444—432 B.C., are 
 practically omitted from the history. 
 
 This treatment of the narrative points to the following rough 
 analysis of the contents of the two books, the longest interval of 
 silence being treated as the main natural division. 
 
 A. The Restoration, 538—516 B.C. 
 Ezra i. — vi, (except iv. 7 — 24). 
 
 (^) 538 — 536 B.C. The Return from Babylon, the Dedication 
 
 of the Altar, the Laying of the Temple Foundations (Ezra 
 
 i. — iii.). 
 {^) 536,521 — 516 B.C. Samaritan Opposition ; Resumption of 
 
 the work, and Completion of the Temple (Ezra iv. 1—6, 
 
 v., vi.). 
 
 B. The Foundation of Judaism, 458 — 432 B.C. 
 Ezra vii. — x., iv. 7 — 24. Nehemiah. 
 
 (a) 458 — 457 B.C. The Mission of Ezra, and the Expulsion of 
 
 the Foreign Wives (Ezra vii. — x.). 
 [b] 456—445 B.C. (?) HostiHty to the Jews (Ezra iv. 7—24); 
 
 an unknown disaster. 
 (^) 4^^g — 444 B.C. Nehemiah's Governorship, the Rebuilding 
 
 and Dedication of the Walls, the Covenant of the Law, 
 
 Reforms (Neh. i. — xii.). 
 [d) 432 B.C. Nehemiah's Second Visit to Jerusalem (Neh.xiii.}, 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 This brief analysis is enough to show that the contents of 
 these books are not so much a continuous history as a selec- 
 tion of incidents which illustrate the beginnings of Judaism. 
 The loose manner in which the incidents follow one another 
 arises from the character of the work. Our two books, like the 
 other historical books of the Hebrew Scriptures, are, in the 
 main, a compilation from various sources, and, in their prepara- 
 tion, little effort has been made to connect the materials together 
 artistically. The Jewish historian was not careful to conceal 
 the composite structure of his narrative. 
 
 § 4. Structure. 
 
 The process by which the contents of these books were com- 
 piled, is rendered apparent by 
 
 (i) The abruptness of transition from one incident or subject 
 to another, e.g. in Ezra ii. i, v. i, vii. i, ix. i ; Neh. i. i, 
 vii. 73 (^-j xii. 27, xiii. 4; 
 
 (2) The intermittent usage of the ist Person without any 
 words to explain the cause of its introduction or its disuse ; 
 
 (3) The insertion of two considerable sections written in the 
 Aramaic dialect, i.e. Ezra iv. 8 — vi. 18, vii. 12—26; 
 
 (4) The abrupt introduction of lists without any immediate 
 relevance to the context in which they occur, e.g. Neh. vii. 
 6—73, xi. 3—36; xii. 1—26; 
 
 (5) And the mention of important names, without explana- 
 tion, as if they had occurred in the foregoing context, e.g. 
 Zerubbabel, Ezra ii. 2, iii. 2 ; Ahasuerus, Darius, Ezra iv. 5, 6, 
 vi. 15, Neh. xii. 22; Hoshaiah, Neh. xii. 32. 
 
 The various writings included in the compilation of Ezra and 
 Nehemiah may be roughly classified as follows : 
 
 A. Extracts from the personal memoirs of 
 (i) Ezra, Ezra vii. 27 — viii. 34, ix. i — 15. 
 (2) Nehemiah, Neh. i. i— vii. "j^,, xii. 27—43, xiii. 4— 3i- 
 
xviii INTRODUCTION. 
 
 B. Lists, Slc, presumably obtained from official sources, of 
 (i) The vessels of the Temple, (Ezra i. 9 — 11). 
 
 (2) The Jews that returned with Zerubbabel, (Ezra ii. 
 
 I — 70; Neh. vii. 6 — 73). 
 
 (3) Those that married strange wives, (Ezra x. 20 — 44). 
 
 (4) Those that builded the wall, (Neh. iii.). 
 
 (5) Those that sealed the Covenant, (Neh. x. i — 27). 
 
 (6) The dwellers in Jerusalem and in other cities, (Neh. 
 
 xi. 3—36). 
 
 (7) Priests and Levites, (Neh. xii. i — 26). 
 
 C. Extracts, with certain adaptations, from Aramaic writings, 
 (i) An Aramaic historical work, Ezra iv. 7 — vi. 18. 
 
 (2) The royal rescript in Ezra vii. 12 — 26. 
 
 D. Extract from, or adaptation of, a contemporary chronicle, 
 Neh. vii. 73^— x. 
 
 E. The Compiler's own writing, Ezra i. i — 8, iii. — iv. 6, 
 vi. 19 — 22, vii. I — II (viii. 35, 36), x. i — 19; Neh. xii. 44 — xiii. 3. 
 
 A. (i) The extracts quoted above from the Memoirs of Ezra 
 are distinguishable by the use of the ist pers. sing., Ezra vii. 
 27, 28, viii. I, 15—17, 21—26, 28, 31, 32, ix. I, 3—6, 7, 8, where 
 Ezra is clearly the spokesman. The authorship of these ex- 
 tracts has never been disputed. They have a fairly distinct 
 style. Where the 3rd person is resumed, the Compiler pro- 
 bably abridges Ezra's Memoirs, or follows another source of 
 information. Characteristic of Ezra's writing are vii. 28, "ac- 
 cording to the hand of the Lord my God upon me," viii. 18 
 "according to the good hand of our God upon us," 22, 31 
 (cf. Neh. ii. 8); the mention of "males" in the list contained in 
 viii. 3 — 14; the description of acts of worship, viii. 21 — 23; 
 ix. 3—6; the mention of details of locality, e.g. viii. 15 "the 
 river that runneth to Ahava"; 17 "at the place Casiphia"; 
 21, 31 "at the river Ahava"; of time, e.g. viii. 15 "three days"; 
 31 "the twelfth day of the first month"; 32 "three days"; 33 
 "the fourth day." 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 (2) The extracts from the Memoirs of Nehemiah may also be 
 recognised by the use of the ist pers. sing, throughout Neh. 
 i. I — vii, 5. The style, moreover, of Nehemiah, is more distinct 
 and vigorous than that of Ezra. It is marked by his fondness 
 for particular expressions, e.g. "my God," ii. 8, 12, 18, v. 19, 
 vi. 14, vii. 5, xiii. 14, 22, 29, 31 ; "God of heaven," i. 4, ii. 4, 20; 
 "the nobles and the rulers," ii. 16, iv. 19, v. 7, vii. 5 (xii. 40), 
 xiii. II, 17 ; "my servants" lit. "young men" iv. 23, v. 10, 16, xiii. 
 19. His language brings the writer's character vividly before 
 us ; the somewhat self-complacent tone of the prayer for personal 
 recompense, Neh. v. 19, xiii. 14, 22, 31 ; the energetic vigour of 
 the man, e.g. ii. 12 — 15, iv. 13 — 23, v. 13, vi. 10, xiii. 8, 19 — 21, 
 25 ; his hatred of the Samaritans, ii. 10, 19, 20, iv. i — 5, vi. 14, 
 xiii. 29. 
 
 B. Respecting the Lists embodied in these Books, it may be 
 said that they are generally of a kind which we should expect to 
 be kept in a pubhc record office, and that the abruptness with 
 which they are introduced is an indication of their being genuine 
 extracts. 
 
 The practical identity of Ezra ii. i &c. with Neh. vii. 6 &c. is 
 noteworthy. It is clear from Neh. vii. 5, that Nehemiah, find- 
 ing this list of those that returned with Zerubbabel, deemed it of 
 such importance that he transcribed it into his own memoirs. 
 The Compiler, either copying from the same original list, or 
 extracting it from Nehemiah's Memoirs, introduced it in Ezra ii. 
 at the suitable point in his narrative. 
 
 It appears probable that the lists, and extracts from lists in- 
 serted into the narrative, were considerably abridged by the 
 Compiler, or modified to suit his purpose. In illustration of 
 this, the reader should compare the genealogy of Ezra in Ezra 
 vii. I — 5, with that in i Chron. v. 29 — 41, and the Hsts of the 
 Priests and Levites in Neh. xi. with those in i Chron. ix. Even 
 Nehemiah's Hst of those that cooperated in the Restoration of 
 the Walls bears signs of being incomplete. (See the notes on 
 Neh. iii.) Whether the list had become mutilated or the Com- 
 piler was not careful to transcribe it in its entirety, we cannot 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 attempt to say. The fact also that it is often very difficult to 
 distinguish in these lists whether the names indicate individuals 
 or houses, e.g. in Ezra x. 20 — 43, Neh. xi., xii., suggests that 
 the names are derived from ancient lists which were often 
 copied and often probably epitomised. At any rate, the same 
 ambiguity does not present itself in the Memoirs of Ezra and 
 Nehemiah, and is very probably to be accounted for by the curt 
 and technical language of official registers. 
 
 C. The Aramaic portions (Ezra iv. 8 — vi. 18, vii. 12 — 26) are 
 an interesting feature in the Book of Ezra. It is to be observed 
 that the use of the Aramaic language is not confined to the 
 contents of the official letters (iv. 11 — 16, 17 — 22, v. 7 — 17, vi. 
 3 — 12, xii. II — 26), but is employed also in the narrative setting 
 in which the letters stand (iv. 8—10, iv. 23 — v. 7, vi. i — 3, 13 — 
 18). It is not, therefore, correct to say that the Aramaic por- 
 tions are merely the exact reproduction of public documents 
 written in the official language of the day. The use of the 
 Aramaic by itself is no proof that the actual documents are 
 reproduced. For the Aramaic employed is the Hebrew variety 
 of that dialect ; and it is not probable that this would be the 
 type of speech adopted at the court of Susa, as well as by the 
 officials of the Samaritans. The most probable explanation 
 seems to be that the Compiler has, in the former passage, and 
 possibly, also, in the latter, availed himself of an historical work 
 written in Aramaic, from which he has made extracts. But he 
 does not appear to have considered himself bound to reproduce 
 the extracts with any rigid exactness. The Compiler himself 
 could write in Aramaic with as much freedom as in Hebrew, 
 and there seems good reason to suppose that he has interpolated 
 his own sentiments into the Aramaic extract, and even expanded 
 it in order to make it harmonize with the rest of the work. Thus, 
 iv. 24, in the Aramaic section, clearly refers back to iv. 5 in the 
 Hebrew; the transition from the Aramaic vi. 18 to the Hebrew 
 vi. 19 is unaccompanied by any change in subject or even in 
 style, and the whole passage (vi. i— 18), which precedes the 
 resumption of the Hebrew, if based on the Aramaic source. 
 
INTRODUCTION. xxi 
 
 reflects the modifying influence of the Compiler's own style, e.g. 
 vi. 9 compared with iii. 4 ; vi. 9, 10 the title "God of heaven," 
 cf. i. 2; vi. 12 "the God that hath caused his name to dwell 
 there"; vi. 14 "the king of Persia"; vi. 16 — 18, the description 
 of Levitical worship. 
 
 D. Neh. vii. ']'}, b — x. The introduction of this section inter- 
 rupts the Memoirs of Nehemiah (Neh. i.~vii. ']'})Ci). Both Ezra 
 and Nehemiah are referred to in the 3rd pers. sing. (viii. i — 6, 
 9, 13, 18, X. 2), while the use of the ist pers. plur. in chap. x. i, 
 31, 33, 40, suggests the writing of an eye-witness, or of a con- 
 temporary, but not of Nehemiah or Ezra. The characteristic 
 style of Nehemiah disappears. Nehemiah himself suddenly 
 recedes into the background, and is only mentioned twice (viii. 
 9, X, i), and then as Tirshatha, a title he himself never uses in 
 his undisputed Memoirs. 
 
 There is nothing to justify the theory that the section comes 
 from Ezra's pen. If it contained his "Memoirs" we should 
 expect the use of the ist pers. sing, as in Ezra vii. 27 — ix. 15. 
 The possibility may be admitted that the Compiler has here, 
 instead of incorporating extracts from Ezra's Memoirs, contented 
 himself with summarizing their contents, as in Ezra x. 
 
 But the most probable opinion is that Neh. vii. 'j'^b — x. is 
 derived from a distinct historical source, from a narrative com- 
 posed at, or shortly after, the time of the events described. 
 
 From the prominence given to the Levites throughout the 
 section, and from many similarities in style and language, it is 
 perhaps natural to compare Neh. vii. 'J2) — x. with Chronicles. 
 But the details which characterize this section suggest a much 
 earher date for its composition than the age of the Chronicler. 
 And the similarity of style is due, partly to the presence of the 
 prevalent features of post-Exilic writing, partly to the process of 
 editing, in the course of which the Compiler doubtless intro- 
 duced many of his own later turns of expression. 
 
 E. The remaining sections of these Books (Ezr. i. i — 8, iii. 
 I— iv. 6, vi. 19— 22, vii. i— 11 (viii. 35, 36), x. i— 19; Neh. xii. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 44 — xiii. 3), bear a very scanty proportion to the whole. Even 
 of these it is difficult to say how far the Compiler is basing his 
 narrative on existing historical material, and how far they are 
 his own composition and rest on oral tradition. They are 
 marked by certain clear characteristics of style and language, 
 which, coupled with a general resemblance in the treatment of 
 the narrative, have given such great probability to the view 
 that the Compiler of Ezra and Nehemiah is identical with the 
 Chronicler or Compiler of the Books of Chronicles. (For the 
 statement of this theory, see below.) 
 
 It has often been maintained that Ezra vii. i — ii,x. i^ — 19, 
 were written by Ezra, and Neh. xii. 44 — xiii. 3 by Nehemiah. 
 
 Respecting Ezra vii. i— 11, x. i— 19, it should be enough to 
 point out the use of the 3rd pers. when Ezra is spoken of, and to 
 compare it with the undisputed extract from Ezra's writing 
 (vii. 27 — ix. 15) in which he employs the ist person. Moreover, 
 it is not consistent with what we should expect from Ezra's 
 authorship, either that he should begin his genealogy, not with 
 his father, but with an ancestor who had died more than a 
 century before (vii. i, "Ezra, the son of Seraiah"), or that he 
 should refer to himself in such terms of eulogy, as in vii. 6, 10, 
 or that in vii. 7 — 9, by the mention of his journey to Jerusalem, 
 he should anticipate in the 3rd pers. the full autobiographical 
 memoir of the same event contained in chap. viii. 
 
 In Ezra x. i— 19 the sudden resumption of the 3rd pers. sing, 
 in reference to Ezra, indicates unmistakably that the Compiler 
 ceases to reproduce the memoir. The theory that Ezra speaks 
 of himself in the 3rd person because he describes himself as 
 acting in an official capacity seems to carry its own refutation 
 with it ; and the Memoirs of Nehemiah the Governor, indeed of 
 Ezra himself, in chaps, viii. and ix., are a conclusive argument 
 against its correctness. On the other hand, from the strangely 
 unfinished character of the narrative in Ezra x. (e.g. vv. 15, 19), 
 as compared with chap, ix., and from the interval that clearly 
 intervenes between the arrival of Ezra in Jerusalem and the 
 arrival of Nehemiah, we might reasonably infer that the Com- 
 piler had no longer before him the actual Memoirs of Ezra, or 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 that he had been relying upon a narrative in which those 
 Memoirs suddenly failed. 
 
 Another solution proposed, is, that the remainder of Ezra's 
 Memoirs contained a record of disaster and disappointment 
 which the Compiler was not wilhng to incorporate into his 
 narrative. 
 
 The short passage, Neh. xii. 44 — xiii. 3, which refers generally 
 to the period of Nehemiah as "that day" should probably be 
 ascribed to the Compiler. In style and phraseology it stands 
 in fairly evident contrast to the vigorous style of Nehemiah's 
 Memoirs. 
 
 § 5. Date and Authorship : Relation to the Books of 
 Chronicles. 
 
 The date to be assigned to the compilation of Ezra and 
 Nehemiah can hardly be earlier, and is very possibly later, than 
 320 B.C. 
 
 This, at any rate, is the inference from the language used in 
 Neh. xii. In verse 26 "These were in the days of Joiakim the 
 son of Jeshua, the son of Jozadak, and in the days of Nehemiah 
 the governor, and of Ezra the priest, the scribe," and in verse 
 47 "in the days of Zerubbabel, and in the days of Nehemiah," 
 the period of Nehemiah is regarded as one that is already long 
 past ; while from verses 10, 1 1, 22 we certainly are led to 
 conclude that at least two generations had elapsed since the 
 generation of Nehemiah. In verses 10, 11 we read "Ehashib 
 begat Joiada, and Joiada begat Jonathan, and Jonathan begat 
 Jaddua"; in verse 22 we find mentioned "the days of Eliashib, 
 Joiada, and Johanan, and Jaddua." Now, undoubtedly, these 
 names are the names of High Priests. In Nehemiah's time, 
 the High Priest was Eliashib (Neh. xiii. 4, 28) ; in the time of 
 Alexander the Great, the name of the High Priest, according to 
 Josephus {A7it. xi. 7, 8), was Jaddua. The reference to " the 
 days of" Eliashib, Joiada, Johanan and Jaddua is obviously an 
 attempt to reckon the chronology of former times by the Jewish 
 High-Priesthood. The use of the expression, "in the days of 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 ...Jaddua," suggests that Jaddua's High-Priesthood was already 
 past history at the time when this chapter was compiled. 
 
 In confirmation of this late date should be mentioned (a) the 
 reference in xii. 23 to " the book of the Chronicles," a work which 
 seems to have contained the register of the Levites down to the 
 High-Priesthood of Johanan, if not of Jaddua ; (d) the mention 
 in xii. 22 of Darius the Persian, who, in all probability, is to be 
 identified with Darius Codomannus (335 — 330 B.C.), the contem- 
 porary of Jaddua, who was overthrown by Alexander the Great. 
 
 The use of the formula " the King of Persia" in Ezra i. i, 2, 
 8, iii. 7, iv. 3, 5, 7, 24, vi. 14, vii. i, as compared with the simple 
 appellation of "the King" used in the writings of Ezra and 
 Nehemiah (e.g. Ezra viii. i ; Neh. ii. i, v. 14) is also very 
 possibly to be regarded as an indication that the compiler, 
 whose hand is unmistakable in these portions of the narrative, 
 wrote at a time when the Empire of Persia had been broken up 
 and the defining words " of Persia " would not be superfluous. 
 
 This evidence for the late date to which the compilation of 
 Ezra and Nehemiah should be assigned, has sometimes been 
 discredited on the ground that it consists chiefly of words and 
 phrases which might easily have been interpolated by scribes, 
 or introduced at some late revision of the work. But the exist- 
 ing authorities for the text fail to show variations of reading in 
 connexion with the words and phrases in question. And it is 
 evident that the allegation of their recent insertion is only put 
 forward with the object of upholding or rendering possible the 
 traditional views of authorship. 
 
 According to Jewish tradition, " Ezra wrote his own book," 
 i.e. the whole Hebrew work which comprises Ezra and Nehe- 
 miah. But in the Christian Church, it has been the opinion 
 most commonly held that Ezra and Nehemiah wrote the books 
 to which their names are given. Yet this traditional opinion 
 rests on no trustworthy evidence, and is very largely based upon 
 the accident of the title. 
 
 In the case of the book of Ezra, Ezra's own share in the work 
 is unmistakable. But there is no appearance of his being the 
 writer of the remainder, and no such claim is made on his 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 behalf. The events which he describes as an eye-witness relate 
 to a few months only. His personal narrative breaks off 
 abruptly at a point very shortly after his arrival at Jerusalem. 
 Had Ezra himself been the Compiler of the book, it is incon- 
 ceivable that he should have passed over the interval between 
 516 B.C. and 458 B.C. without a word: for the events of that 
 interval would have been well known to him, and would probably 
 have explained the purpose of his mission. Had Ezra himself 
 been the Compiler, he would surely not have devoted so much 
 space to the preliminaries of his mission, and then have recorded 
 but one incident of his administration. 
 
 Again, had Ezra been the Compiler there was no need for him 
 to pass from the 3rd Pers. to the ist, and then again from the 
 I St to the 3rd, in the description of scenes in which he himself 
 was an actor. 
 
 All, however, is explained when the book of Ezra is viewed as 
 a compilation made at a much later date. The narrative is not 
 continuous, because the Compiler's object is to preserve parti- 
 cular records, not to weave an artistic history. Ezra's autobio- 
 graphical Memoirs are sometimes transcribed verbatim^ and 
 then the ist Person remains; at other times, they are only sum- 
 marised, and then the ist Person is changed to the 3rd. 
 
 In the case of the book of Nehemiah, the claim that Nehe- 
 miah was himself the Compiler is equally improbable. The 
 extracts from his Memoirs are, from their marked characteristics 
 of style, more easily separable from the rest of the work. Had 
 Nehemiah himself been the Compiler, he would never have 
 interrupted his own narrative by the section vii. 73 b — x. 39, 
 leaving the substance of vii. i — 5 incomplete ; nor should we 
 have been left in ignorance as to the length of his Governorship, 
 nor, as has before been pointed out, would the reference in 
 Neh. xii. 26, 47 to "the days of Nehemiah" have been found on 
 either side of a passage (vv. 27 — 43) containing the autobio- 
 graphical words of Nehemiah himself. 
 
 The attempts however to identify the Compiler of this book 
 with Nehemiah have led to the most fanciful explanations of 
 the mention of the name of Jaddua (330 B.C.) in Neh. xii. 11, 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 22. Thus it has been conjectured, that the Artaxerxes whom 
 Nehemiah served was Artaxerxes 11. Mnemon (404 — 361 B.C.); 
 that Nehemiah was governor so late as 371 B.C.; and that 
 Jaddua is referred to not in his capacity of High-priest, but as 
 the youngest member of the High-priestly family in direct 
 succession. Others have preferred the simpler but more violent 
 remedy of condemning the obnoxious passages in Neh. xii. 11, 
 22, 23, 47 as later interpolations. 
 
 But these conjectures are not needed. The claim of author- 
 ship advanced for Ezra and Nehemiah rests on no foundation. 
 The difficulties presented by the structure are capable of a 
 natural explanation upon the view that the books are the result 
 of compilation, and that the Compiler did his work at the close 
 of the fourth or the beginning of the third century B.C. This is 
 the conclusion to which an investigation of the structure and 
 contents irresistibly impels us. And this conclusion leads to 
 another enquiry by which the unknown Compiler is possibly to 
 be more closely identified. At this point therefore is to be 
 noticed the interesting question of the connexion of our 
 books, Ezra and Nehemiah, with the Books of Chronicles. 
 The close resemblance which exists between them has long 
 attracted the observation of Biblical students. The opinion has 
 become increasingly prevalent that such a resemblance cannot 
 be accidental. And indeed a careful investigation of the evi- 
 dence shows how strong is the probability that the compiler of 
 Chronicles is the same as the compiler of Ezra and Nehemiah. 
 
 1. The general character of the books is the same. The 
 historical narrative consists chiefly of extracts compiled from 
 different sources, and especial prominence is given to genea- 
 logical lists. 
 
 2. The historical treatment is the same. The narrative is 
 concerned with great crises in the religious history of the people. 
 The so-called " Levitical tendency," which characterizes the 
 Books of Chronicles, is conspicuous also in Ezra and Nehemiah, 
 although there the insertion of continuous extracts from con- 
 temporary memoirs ofters by comparison less scope. 
 
 Under this head, the following points may be noticed: 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 ((7) In Ezra and Nehemiah there is the same fondness for 
 statistical and genealogical lists as in the Books of Chronicles. 
 
 Ezra i. 9 — 11, the list of sacred vessels and implements ; ii. the 
 list of those who returned with Zerubbabel;vii. i — 6, the genealogy 
 of Ezra; viii. i — 14, 18 — 20, the list of those who returned with 
 Ezra; x. 20 — 44, the list of those who "married strange women." 
 
 Nehemiah iii. the list of those who took part in the restoration 
 of the walls ; vii. 6 — 73, the same list as Ezra ii. ; x. i — 27, the 
 list of those "that sealed" the covenant ; xi. 3 — 36, the hst of 
 the dwellers in the cities of Judah and Benjamin; xii. i — 26, the 
 lists of priests and Levites. 
 
 {b) In Ezra and Nehemiah, as in the Books of Chronicles, 
 religious festivals and observances are described with great 
 minuteness. 
 
 Ezra iii. 1—7, the dedication of the altar of burnt offering; 
 iii. 8 — 13, the foundation of the Temple; vi. 15 — 18, the dedica- 
 tion of the Temple; vi. 19 — 22, the celebration of the Passover; 
 viii. 35, the burnt offerings; x. i — 14, the people's confession of 
 guilt. 
 
 Nche7mah vii. 'j'}^ — viii, 12, the reading of the Law; viii. 13 — 18, 
 the celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles ; ix. i — 5, 38, the 
 Confession and the Covenant ; x. 29 — 39, the provisions of the 
 Covenant ; xii. 27 — 43, the dedication of the city walls. Cf. i 
 Chron. xiii, xv. xvi., 2 Chron. v. — vii. 10, xxix.— xxxi. 
 
 (c) In Ezra and Nehemiah, as in the Books of Chronicles, 
 particular prominence is given to the mention of the Levites 
 and other attendants of the Temple. Thus the Levites, who are 
 only twice mentioned in the Books of Samuel (i Sam. vi. 15, 
 2 Sam. XV. 24) and but once in the Books of Kings (i Kings viii. 
 4) are referred to by name more than 60 times in Ezra and 
 Nehemiah, and about 100 times in the Books of Chronicles. 
 See Ezra ii. 41, 42, 70, iii. 8 — 12, vi. 16, 20, vii. 7, 13, 24, viii. 20, 
 29, 30, X. 5 ; Nehemiah vii. i, 44, T^^ viii. 7 — 13, x. 9 — 28, 34 — 
 38, xi. 15—18, xii, 8, 22—24, 3o> 44— 47» xiii. 5, 10, 13, 22, 30. 
 
 The Singers, in connexion with the Temple worship, so often 
 referred to in Ezra and Nehemiah (cf. Ezra ii, 41, 65, 70, vii. 7, 
 
 c 2 
 
xxviii INTRODUCTION, 
 
 X. 24; Neh. vii. i, 44, 73, x. 28, 39, xi. 22, 23, 28, 29, 42, 45—47, 
 xiii. 5, 10) are similarly mentioned in the Books of Chronicles ; 
 but elsewhere they are scarcely ever, if ever (cf. i Kings x, 12; 
 Ezek. xl. 44), certainly spoken of as Temple servants. 
 
 The Porters, again, are not referred to in other books of the 
 Old Testament as forming part of the Temple staff except in 
 Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra ii. 42, 70, vii. 7, x. 24; Neh. vii. i. 45, 
 73, x. 28, 39, xii. 25, 45, 47, xiii. 5) and (some 18 times) in the 
 Books of Chronicles. 
 
 The Nethinim, so often mentioned in Ezra and Nehemiah 
 (Ezra ii. 43, 58, 70, vii. 7, 24, viii. 17, 20; Neh. iii. 26, 31, vii. 46, 
 60, 72, X. 28, xi. 3, 21), are nowhere save in the Books of Chroni- 
 cles (i Chron. ix. 2) mentioned in the Old Testament. 
 
 3. The close similarity in style and diction will be more 
 apparent to the Hebrew student than to the English reader. 
 But the degree of resemblance may be understood from selected 
 examples ; and the force of the argument from resemblance in 
 diction is greatly increased when it is observed that the great 
 majority of the examples are found in those portions of Ezra 
 and Nehemiah which belong to the writing of the compiler 
 himself. 
 
 1. "fathers' houses," Ezra ii. 59, x. 16; Neh. vii. 61, x. 35, 
 and more than 20 times in the Books of Chronicles. 
 
 2. "heads of fathers' houses," Ezra i. 5, ii. 68, iii. 12, iv. 2, 3, 
 viii. I, X. 16; Neh. vii. 70, 71, viii. 13, xi. 13, xii. 12, 22, 23, and 
 more than 20 times in the Books of Chronicles. 
 
 3. "the house of God," frequently in Ezra and Nehemiah 
 (e.g. Ezra i. 4, ii. 68, iii. 8, vi. 22, x. 6; Neh. vi. 10, viii. 16, xi. 
 16, xii. 40, xiii. 7, 11), and more than 30 times in the Books of 
 Chronicles. 
 
 4. "people of the countries," "peoples of the lands," e.g. 
 Ezra iii. 3, ix. i, 2, 7, 11 ; Neh. ix. 30, x. 28, and more than 12 
 times in the Books of Chronicles. 
 
 5. the Hebrew words rendered "courses" (Ezra vi. 18; Neh. 
 xi. 36; cf. 2 Chr. XXXV. 5), "cymbals" (Ezra iii. 10; Neh. xii. 27), 
 "genealogy" (Ezra ii. 62, viii. i, 3; Neh. vii. 5, 64). 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 "joy" (Ezra vi. i6; Neh. viii. lo; cf. i Chron. xvi. 27). 
 
 "in their place" (Neh. viii. 7, ix. 3, xiii. 11 ; 2 Chron. xxx. 16). 
 
 The examples quoted above occur in the Hebrew Bible only 
 in the Books of Chronicles and in Ezra and Nehemiah. As 
 characteristic of the Chronicler's style, may also be noted the 
 Hebrew phrases rendered as follows : 
 
 "to have the oversight of the work &:c." Ezra iii. 8, 9; cf. 1 
 Chron. xv. 21 ( = 'to lead'). 
 
 "after the order of king David" Ezra iii. 10; cf. i Chron. xxv. 
 2, 6; 2 Chron. xxiii. 18. 
 
 "day by day" Ezra iii. 4; Neh. viii. 18; cf. i Chron. xii. 22. 
 
 "afar off" Ezra iii 13; Neh. xii. 43; cf. 2 Chron. xxvi. 15. 
 
 "morning and evening" Ezra iii. 3; cf. i Chron. xvi. 40, 2 
 Chron. ii. 3. 
 
 "make a proclamation" Ezra i. i, x. 7; Neh. viii. 15; cf. 2 
 Chron. xxx. 5, xxxvi. 22. 
 
 "wiUingly offer" Ezra i. 6, ii. 68, iii. 5 ; Neh. xi. 2; cf. i Chron. 
 xxix. 5, 6, 9, 14, 17, 2 Chron. xvii. 16. 
 
 "with joy," "great joy" Ezra iii. 12, vi. 22; Neh. viii. 17, xii. 
 43; cf. I Chron. xv. 25, 2 Chron. xxix. 30, 36, xxx. 21, 23, 26. 
 
 "as it is written" Ezra iii. 2, 4, vi. 18; Neh. viii. 14, 15, x. 34, 
 36; cf. 2 Chron. xxiii. 18, xxx. 5, 18, xxxv. 12, &c. 
 
 "praise and give thanks" Ezra iii. 11 ; Neh. xii. 24; cf i 
 Chron. xvi. 4, xxiii. 30, &c. 
 
 § 6. Outline of History. 
 
 i. The Decree of Cyrus. In the year 538 B.C. Babylon fell. 
 The great Babylonian Empire, whose western frontier was 
 washed by the waters of the Mediterranean, passed almost 
 without a blow from Nabonidus, the last of the Babylonian 
 dynasty, into the hands of Cyrus, king of Elam and Persia. 
 
 The conqueror's first act was to concihate an important ele- 
 ment in the population of his new possessions. With the view 
 of weakening resistance to their authority, the kings of Babylon 
 had followed the policy of forcibly removing from their homes 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 the inhabitants of whole towns and districts, and of transplant- 
 ing them either to regions recently desolated by this process 
 or to the vast area included within the walls of Babylon. The 
 temper of colonists forcibly torn from their own country was 
 little favourable to the central government, and they were ready to 
 welcome an invader as a deliverer and avenger. The successes 
 of Cyrus had doubtless been assisted by the secret intrigues of 
 this numerous class. The Jewish captives in Babylon had 
 eagerly looked for the coming of Cyrus. 
 
 The Decree of Cyrus granted permission to those who had 
 been carried away captive to return to their own land, and to 
 carry back with them the sacred images of their gods which 
 Babylonian armies had taken from their native shrines. It was 
 a measure of true wisdom and clemency ; for it removed from 
 the centre of the empire a dangerous source of disaffection, 
 and dispersed into every quarter subjects who were gratified by 
 the action of their new monarch, and who felt themselves 
 rewarded for their own share of peril in having supported his 
 invasion. The Jews were not the only people to benefit by the 
 Decree. But, in their case, especial consideration may have 
 been shown. The captives of other races carried home the 
 images of their gods. The worshipper of Jehovah had no 
 images. The Jews were commissioned to build again the Temple 
 of Jehovah at Jerusalem, and the sacred vessels were given back 
 to them that Nebuchadnezzar had carried away. 
 
 With natural patriotic vanity later Jewish tradition considered 
 that their nation alone had been singled out to receive the 
 favour of the great conqueror : and the story ran that Cyrus, 
 having learned from Daniel the prophecies of the book of Isaiah 
 (xhv. 28) concerning him, felt constrained, in recognition of their 
 fulfilment, to pronounce a Decree of restoration for the people 
 of Jehovah. 
 
 By a misapprehension of a totally different character, Cyrus' 
 action toward the Jewish community in Babylon has in modern 
 times been thought to have been dictated by purely strategic 
 motives. It has been supposed that he restored the Jews to 
 Jerusalem, in order to strengthen his frontier on the south-west 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 by a garrison of men devoted to his cause by the strongest ties 
 of gratitude. 
 
 That Cyrus may have been under special obligations to the 
 Jews, whose prophets had heralded his advance against Babylon, 
 is very probable. But the subsequent course of Jewish history 
 quite forbids us to suppose that the restoration of the Jews was 
 in any way connected with the military defences of the empire. 
 It is equally clear both from Ezra iv. and from Neh. i., ii., that 
 the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem was not at first contem- 
 plated by the Persian rulers as necessary, or even as desirable. 
 
 The Decree of Cyrus was universal in application to com- 
 munities that had suffered forcible 'deportation' under Baby- 
 lonian kings. It was religious in character. The restoration 
 of captives to their homes was incomplete without the restoration 
 of the images and the rebuilding of shrines. The propitiation 
 of the offended deities all over the kingdom was to be secured 
 by the conqueror's first edict. 
 
 The Jews received permission to return, but it was with the 
 express command to rebuild the famous sanctuary of Jehovah 
 at Jerusalem. The religious purpose of the Decree, if further 
 proof were needed, is shown both by the action of the Jews on 
 their return, and by the large proportion of the priests who 
 took part in it. 
 
 ii. The Rehirn ft'oin Babylo7i. The first great band of Jews 
 who availed themselves of the Decree of Cyrus, was led by 
 Sheshbazzar (Ezra i. 8, v. 14), who is probably the same as 
 Zerubbabel (Ezra ii. 2, iii. 8 ; Zech. iv. 6). The identification is 
 disputed by some who lay stress on the improbability of the 
 two names in Ezra i. 8, ii. 2 and Ezra v. 2, 14 being used in the 
 same context of the same person without any note of explana- 
 tion. The difticulty would be more serious, if the narrative 
 were given in the form of a homogeneous history. But the nar- 
 rative is taken from different sources : a second name assumed 
 under altered circumstances offers no insurmountable objection, 
 cf. 2 Kings xxiii. 34, xxiv. 17 ; Dan. i. 7 : one of the kinsmen of 
 Zerubbabel appears in i Chron. iii. 18 with the very similarly 
 formed name of Shenazzar. If therefore the Jewish Chronicler 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 be correct in calling Sheshbazzar a Jewish Prince (Ezra i. 8), 
 there is no reason to doubt that Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel 
 are two names for the same person. Sheshbazzar, which is 
 possibly a contracted form for Shamash-bil-usur ( = may Shamesh 
 protect the son), was then the name by which the Jewish Prince 
 was known in Babylon — the name perhaps denoting his royal 
 descent. The objection that Cyrus would not have entrusted a 
 Jew with the work of restoring the Jewish community is an 
 assumption which carries no weight : while the probability that 
 he would have selected for the work a Babylonian Jew of the 
 seed royal, born in the Exile, and bearing a Babylonian name 
 might be pleaded with much greater force. 
 
 If the two names represent different persons, we must sup- 
 pose that Sheshbazzar's position was of a temporary character, 
 and that Zerubbabel, arriving perhaps at the head of a second 
 contingent, received the position of resident governor which we 
 find him occupying in Ezra iii. and v. and in the writings of 
 Haggai and Zechariah. 
 
 The official list of those who returned speaks of them as 
 numbering 42,360, Some have supposed this figure to represent 
 only the heads of families ; in which case the total must have 
 amounted to a number considerably exceeding 100,000. They 
 settled themselves in Jerusalem and the neighbouring towns 
 and villages. 
 
 The first act of the Jews was to rebuild the altar of burnt 
 offering (Ezra iii. 1—6); the next was to lay the foundations of 
 the Temple (Ezra iii. 8 — 13). The account of the laying of the 
 foundations of the Temple '•' in the second year of their coming 
 unto the house of God " (Ezra iii. 8), that is, in all probability, 
 in the year 536, has been condemned as unhistorical by some 
 Biblical scholars, on the threefold ground (i) that the beginning 
 of the work on the Temple is apparently assigned in Ezra v. 2 
 (cf iv. 24) to the second year of the reign of king Darius, (2) that 
 the contemporary prophet Haggai assigns the laying of the 
 foundation of the Temple to the 24th day of the 9th month 
 in the second year of king Darius (Hagg. ii. 18), (3) that the 
 Governors in their letter (Ezra v. 16) speak of the work as 
 having been carried on without interruption. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 (i) But there is nothing intrinsically improbable in the ac- 
 count given in Ezra iii. 8 — 13; nor need there be any contra- 
 diction involved in Ezra v. 2. For the expression "began to 
 build " except on the supposition of a very precise use of words, 
 in no way excludes the interpretation that the work of building 
 the Temple, which had ceased for a number of years, was now 
 actively resumed; that hitherto only the foundations had been 
 laid, and that now the building itself was begun. A similar 
 distinction between the work of " laying the foundations " and 
 that of "building" is found in Ezra v. 16. Again, the testimony 
 of the Governors, in the same verse {v. 16), is explicit to the 
 effect that Sheshbazzar laid the foundation of the Temple. 
 
 (2) With regard to the language of Hagg. ii. 18, it seems to 
 be a mistake to suppose that it fixes the date of the laying of 
 the foundations for the 24th of the 9th month in the 2nd year 
 of Darius — {a) That date is the date of the prophet's utterance: 
 hitherto, he says, ever since the foundations of the Temple were 
 laid, the condition of the people had been one of dearth and 
 destitution {vv. 15, 17, 19, cf. i. 11): and why? the work on 
 God's house had been neglected; hence His wrath had fallen 
 on the people. Now, however, the work was again set forward, 
 and henceforth, from that 24th day, God's blessing is promised. 
 {b) From a previous passage in the same prophet (Hagg. i. 14, 
 15) we learn that Zerubbabel and Jeshua "came and did work" 
 (i.e. on the house of God), "in the four and twentieth day of 
 the month, in the sixth month, in the second year of Darius the 
 king." In Hagg. ii. i — 9, the prophet's comparison between 
 the old and the new building, a comparison made in the seventh 
 month of the same year, presupposes some previous work of 
 restoration, [c] The supposition that the ceremony of laying 
 the foundation would take place in the 9th, the most inclement 
 month in the year (cf. Ezra x. 9), is in itself most improbable. 
 
 (3) Ezra V. 16 "And since that time even until now hath it 
 been in building, and yet it is not completed" cannot fairly be 
 adduced to show that Ezra iii. 8—13 is unhistorical. For the 
 passage assumes that the foundations had been laid by Shesh- 
 bazzar, and that he undertook the work at the command of Cyrus 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 {v. 14). As to the Governors' assertion that the work had gone 
 on continuously, we must bear in mind that their information was 
 probably derived from sources hostile to the Jews; and that 
 they would not have taken pains to be minutely accurate. The 
 three points on which they insisted were, first, that the work 
 had been begun by Sheshbazzar in the reign of Cyrus, secondly, 
 that it was still unfinished, thirdly, that it was now being actively 
 pushed on. Whether there had been interruptions or not, was 
 a mere detail. 
 
 There is therefore no sufficient reason to call in question the 
 general accuracy of the Compiler's statements in Ezra iii. 8 — 13. 
 
 iii. The Sajnaritans. The work of rebuilding the Temple 
 received a sudden check through the opposition of the Samari- 
 tans. The Samaritan community was of very mixed origin, but 
 the two chief elements in it were (a) foreign colonists, and 
 {b) descendants of Israelites who had escaped the captivity of 
 the Northern Kingdom, {a) The foreign colonists are enume- 
 rated in detail in Ezra iv. 9, 10. They included three distinct 
 "j'/rrt'/rt" of deportation from other countries, (i.) Sargon, after 
 removing 27,280 inhabitants of Samaria (B.C. 722), is described 
 in 2 Kings xvii. 24 as introducing into the depopulated district 
 men of Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath, and Sepharvaim. 
 (ii.) From Ezra iv. 2 we gather that a second importation of 
 colonists was carried out by Esar-haddon (681—668). (iii.) From 
 Ezra iv. 10 it is probable that a third colonization of Samaritan 
 territory took place in the reign of Assurbanipal (Asnapper) 
 668 — 626 B.C.; and the mention of "Babylonians, Susanchites, 
 and Elamites'' (7/. 9) agrees with this supposition. For Assur- 
 banipal crushed a great rebellion in Babylon, and reduced the 
 kingdom of Elam to subjection after a sanguinary war. His 
 captives would be transported to other districts in the empire 
 in accordance with the custom adopted by kings of Babylon. 
 {b) At the time of the overthrow of the Northern Kingdom a 
 large number of Israelites remained behind. Their presence is 
 implied in the tradition that the reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah 
 extended far into the territory of the former Northern Kingdom 
 (cf. 2 Kings xxiii. 15 &c. ; 2 Chron. xxx. 10, 11, 18, xxxi. i, xxxiv. 6); 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 and in the mention of devout Israelites bringing offerings to the 
 site of the ruined Temple of Jerusalem from Shiloh, Sichem, 
 and Samaria (Jer. xli. 5), and maintaining themselves pure from 
 idolatrous corruptions (Ezr. vi. 21). 
 
 No doubt the mass of the Northern Tribes who had been 
 suffered to remain in their own homes had become inextricably 
 mixed up with the Assyrian colonists. The religion of Samaria 
 had always been largely tinged with the forms of Phoenician 
 idolatry; and contact with the practices of Assyrian worship 
 conduced to bring about the observance of a religion as different 
 as possible from that which the pious Babylonian Jews cherished. 
 
 The Samaritan community may have worshipped Jehovah, 
 but they also "served their graven images" (2 Kings xvii. 41). 
 According to their own account, they had worshipped Jehovah 
 since the days of Esar-haddon (Ezra iv. i &:c.). On the strength 
 of this bond of union they appeared before the Jews at Jerusalem, 
 and offered to assist them in the work of rebuilding the Temple. 
 
 The Jews rejected the offer. Probably they had good reasons 
 to doubt its sincerity. In any case, the sudden alliance with 
 semi-idolatrous neighbours would have quickly obliterated the 
 good impressions of the Captivity, with its strong reaction from 
 idolatry, its ardent Messianic hope, and its devotion to Jehovah 
 as the One God. Had the offer been one merely of political 
 friendship, there would have been no need to reject it. But the 
 Jewish community existed at Jerusalem by virtue of its dis- 
 tinctive religious faith: it was charged with the duty of re- 
 storing the worship of Jehovah. 
 
 The Decree of Cyrus granted to the Babylonian Jews privileges 
 which could not be extended to others. Something of the old 
 tribal hostility, which was so potent a factor in the disruption of 
 the kingdom after the death of Solomon, may possibly be recog- 
 nised under the emphatic rejection of the Samaritan offer. But 
 their policy was also one of self-preservation. The Jews would 
 have been rendered powerless by any formal act of amalgama- 
 tion with neighbours, probably far their superiors both in numbers 
 and strength. 
 
 The Samaritans, on finding their offers repelled, shewed them- 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 selves in their true colours : they became the implacable foes of 
 Jerusalem. The restoration of the Temple would doubtless 
 bring with it the revival of some of the ancient city's prosperity. 
 The attraction of the national shrine would bring Jews from 
 far and wide. The Samaritans perceived in this prospect a 
 menace to their own supremacy in Palestine. They resolved to 
 check, if possible, the progress of the Jews. They complained 
 to the local Persian officials that the Jews were plotting re- 
 bellion. Their representations were successful. Perhaps they 
 availed themselves of the confusion which followed the death 
 of Cyrus (529), to inspire the Satrap of Syria with the behef that 
 the activity of the Jewish community was seditious. Perhaps, they 
 found the suspicious temperament of Cambyses himself useful 
 for their purpose. Perhaps, the new king was less inclined 
 than his illustrious father to tolerate so great a variety of 
 worship and to encourage such freedom of religion. Perhaps, 
 the less settled condition of the empire enabled the leaders of the 
 neighbouring tribes forcibly to deprive the Jews of their coveted 
 privileges, and to harass them, with impunity. 
 
 Whatever the precise causes may have been, the work of the 
 restoration of the Temple ceased during the latter part of the 
 reign of Cyrus and during the reign of Cambyses and the Pseudo- 
 Smerdis. For nine years and more the Jews were compelled to 
 remain inactive. The first zeal of the returned exiles wore off. 
 Their expectations had been bitterly disappointed. The result 
 was seen in the dejection of some and the open indifference of 
 others. 
 
 iv. The Co7npletion of the Temple. The accession of Darius (522) 
 to the throne of Persia was the signal for a renewed effort on the 
 part of the Jews. The year 520 was signalised by the energetic 
 appeals of the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, who saw their 
 opportunity in the change of rule (Ezra v. i ; Hag. i. i &c.; Zech. 
 i. i). The people responded with enthusiasm. The work 
 was resumed. The Persian officials in the country west of the 
 Euphrates permitted the building to go on pending an appeal to 
 the king's decision. The royal archives were searched; the 
 Edict of Cyrus was found at Ecbatana (Ezra vi. 2). Darius at 
 
INTRODUCTION. xxxvii 
 
 once gave orders that the building should be permitted to go 
 on, and, according to the Jewish account of the royal rescript, 
 that State assistance should be granted both for the construction 
 of the Temple and for the maintenance of the sacrifices (Ezra vi. 
 8 — lo). The Temple was completed and dedicated in the 6th 
 year of king Darius (516 B.C.) amidst great rejoicings. 
 
 V. The Silence of Sixty Years. After the dedication of the 
 Temple there follows a period of nearly 60 years, during which 
 the history of the Jewish community at Jerusalem is almost 
 a complete blank. The generation to which Zerubbabel and 
 Jeshua, Haggai and Zechariah belonged passes completely from 
 our view. When the curtain lifts again, the chief power among 
 the Jews has passed from the family of David. Zerubbabel was 
 dead; and his sons (i Chron. iii. 19, 20) had not succeeded him. 
 The disappearance of the royal Dynasty and the marked pre- 
 ponderance of the priestly power in the days of Ezra and 
 Nehemiah have given occasion to the theory that Zerubbabel 
 or his sons fell before the intrigues of a jealous priesthood. 
 But there is no ground for supposing that Zerubbabel's governor- 
 ship was hereditary. On the contrary, it would be the policy of 
 the empire to check any tendency towards the rise of dynastic 
 power in the subject provinces. The governors of Jerusalem 
 who succeeded Zerubbabel were, if we may judge from Mai. i. 8; 
 Ezr. viii. 36; Neh. v. 15, foreigners; and, if foreigners, they 
 would not have sympathised with the policy of religious exclu- 
 siveness that had been expressed in the repulse of the 
 Samaritan overtures by Zerubbabel and Jeshua. 
 
 There can be no doubt that from some cause or another, 
 which may well have been the reversal of Zerubbabel's action 
 towards neighbouring races, the religious energy of the new 
 community became enfeebled. 
 
 The untiring antagonism of the Samaritans was exhibited in 
 the reign of Xerxes (Ezra iv. 6), and the overthrow of the great 
 Persian Armada was a disaster in which the Jewish community 
 must have suffered equally with other portions of the empire. 
 
 But there were internal causes at work which will amply 
 account for the general decrepitude of the people at this period. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The priests, into whose hands the chief authority had come, were 
 inclined to relax the stern policy of religious exclusiveness initi- 
 ated by Zerubbabel and Jeshua. They sought to concihate the 
 neighbouring peoples. Intermarriage with the heathen was 
 tolerated, the priests themselves were foremost offenders. Ad- 
 vantages, social, commercial, and poHtical, were doubtless thus 
 to be obtained. Faith began to wax cold. The upper classes 
 forgot the brotherhood of their own race. They oppressed the 
 poor, and exacted usurious interest. The distinctive badge of 
 Judaism, the observance of the Sabbath, was neglected. In the 
 matter of offerings for the maintenance of the worship at the 
 Temple, laxness and indifference prevailed. Tithes were with- 
 held from the priests. The supply of wood for the sacrifices 
 was suffered to run short. 
 
 vi. The Mission ofEzi'a. In the 7th year of Artaxerxes (458 B.C.) 
 Ezra, thePriestand Scribe, received the royal permission to return 
 from Babylon to Jerusalem, with absolute control in all things 
 religious. Ezra was of the house of Aaron, and was a descendant 
 of the High-priest Seraiah, who met his death at the hands of 
 Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings xxv. 18). But, what was of still 
 greater importance, Ezra was deeply versed in "the law." Both 
 by rank and by virtue of his preeminent acquaintance with the 
 sacred traditions, he was well fitted — and he may on that 
 account have been selected by his brethren in Babylon — for 
 the task of renovating the religious life of the community in 
 Jerusalem, and of rescuing it from the danger with which it 
 was menaced of being absorbed, through neglect of its dis- 
 tinctive precepts, among "the peoples of the land." 
 
 Ezra was the bearer of rich offerings to the Temple of Jeru- 
 salem from his fellowcountrymen and from the king himself 
 (viii. 25 — 27). The king Artaxerxes was also said to have 
 given him a commission in writing, expressed in terms of lavish 
 generosity and amongst other things granting exemption to 
 Jewish priests and Levites from the usual toll or tribute. 
 
 The king's object does not appear. He may have wished 
 to return some favour to Jews of Babylon who had rendered 
 him some special service. He may have wished to show his 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 interest in a province on his extreme western frontier, and to 
 propitiate the Divine Power whose temple was at Jerusalem. 
 If his object was to strengthen the fidelity of the Jews, he may 
 have availed himself of the opportunity which presented itself 
 in Ezra's application for safe conduct. 
 
 Ezra's mission was a religious one ; but Artaxerxes may have 
 endeavoured to make use of it for the purpose of conciliating 
 the Jews in Babylon or of strengthening his own hold over 
 their countrymen in Jerusalem. In the 7th year of his reign 
 his own throne was endangered by the revolt of Egypt; he 
 could not afford to pass unnoticed any sign of discord in a 
 district of Syria. 
 
 Ezra's caravan numbered 1596 men besides a certain number 
 of priests. On mustering them at Ahava, probably a canal 
 or tributary of the Euphrates, he found no Levites in his 
 company; the march was delayed, until he had succeeded in 
 obtaining the support of a considerable contingent of Levites 
 and Nethinim from a Jewish colony settled at Casiphia (viii. 
 16 — 20). 
 
 The arrival of Ezra and his company in Jerusalem must 
 have kindled the enthusiasm of the religious-minded Jews. It 
 was not long before he made known the true purpose which 
 he had in view. The first opportunity presented itself upon his 
 receiving intelligence of the prevalence among the Jews of 
 intermarriage with the people of the land. 
 
 Ezra's open expression of horror at this discovery excited 
 general alarm and excitement. A true forerunner of the 
 Scribes, Ezra put an interpretation upon the Law which was 
 more rigorous than its actual letter required. Any inter- 
 marriage with a foreigner was a pollution of "the holy seed," 
 it endangered the existence of the people. A commission of 
 elders was instituted; and a court of enquiry held in all the 
 country of Judea occupied by the Jews, The policy of re- 
 pudiation of all foreign marriages was approved by the people. 
 A party of opposition no doubt existed. But against the wave 
 of popular feeling only a very few, if any, dared to raise a pro- 
 test (Ezra X. 15). 
 
xl INTRODUCTION. 
 
 This first measure probably typified the uncompromising 
 severity with which Ezra applied himself to the promotion of 
 religious reform, and with which in particular he opposed any 
 policy of alliance with the people of the land. Unfortunately 
 his Memoirs break off abruptly at this point. The narrative is 
 resumed with an extract of the Memoirs of Nehemiah relating 
 to events that occurred at least 12 years later (445). 
 
 What had taken place during this interval, we have no means 
 of deciding with any certainty. We are indeed left more or 
 less to conjecture. But the nature of our conjecture will de- 
 pend upon the explanation of the Episode in Ezra iv. 7 — 23, 
 and of the description of Jerusalem and of Jewish affairs in 
 Nehemiah's Memoirs. From these sources we deduce the 
 following facts: (i) That not long before 445 B.C. the walls 
 of Jerusalem had been dismantled, and her gates burned (see 
 note on Neh. i. 3); (2) that the Samaritans and their allies 
 had bitterly opposed the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem, 
 and had exerted themselves with success to cause the project 
 to be stopped (Ezra iv. 7 — 23) ; (3) that the restoration and 
 dedication of the walls were carried out by the energy of Nehe- 
 miah, the new governor; (4) that Ezra, who then apparently 
 held no official position, is only mentioned in connexion with 
 the reading of the Law, the celebration of the Feast of Tables, 
 and the religious procession at the dedication of the walls; 
 (5) that not until this juncture, twelve years after his own 
 expedition, was Ezra able to give the people instruction upon 
 the requirements of the Law. 
 
 It has been customary to suppose that Ezra's comparative 
 obscurity in the period of Nehemiah's governorship was owing 
 to the failure which had attended the excessive severity of his 
 efforts for a religious reform. The policy of repudiating the 
 mixed marriages had raised up vehement hostility against 
 him. The dominant priestly aristocracy were supported by the 
 malcontents outside the walls. He was powerless to carry out 
 the work which he had wished to accomplish. For 12 years 
 his opponents in Jerusalem made common cause with the 
 Samaritans, who would join in alliance on condition of no 
 
INTRODUCTION. xli 
 
 attempt being made to fortify Jerusalem and restore her to 
 independence. 
 
 According to another view Ezra, having accompHshed the 
 abolition of mixed marriages and certain other reforms no re- 
 cord of which has been preserved, left the city ; whether of his 
 own accord, or under compulsion from his enemies, may pass 
 undetermined. During his absence the evils which he had 
 striven to check once more took root among the people. The 
 work had to be done over again during the governorship of 
 Nehemiah. Ezra returned in time to take part in the Dedication 
 of the Walls and in the religious reforms which commenced 
 with the reading of the Law. 
 
 A combination of .these two hypotheses presents a great 
 degree of likelihood. Ezra's success was at first complete. 
 He obtained the popular assent to the measures he first pro- 
 posed. But he needed to make sure of the independence of 
 his people, and undertook the fortification of the city and the 
 restoration of the walls. Then came a sudden calamity. 
 Ezra's foes within the walls made common cause with the 
 neighbouring races whom his policy had bitterly incensed. It 
 was the time of the rebellion of the Satrap of Megabyzus 
 (447 B.C.). On the ground of their recent fortifications the 
 Jews were accused by their foes, the Samaritans, of harbouring 
 mutinous designs. The king had granted Ezra no such powers. 
 Full of suspicion he stopped the work (Ezra iv. 17 — 23). 
 
 Jerusalem was handed over to the mercy of her enemies, who 
 made the Jews to cease by force and power (Ezra iv. 23) ; her 
 walls were razed to the ground ; and those who like Ezra had 
 been foremost champions of Jewish liberty were expelled from 
 their homes. This was the condition of things at the time of 
 Nehemiah's arrival. The recent destruction of the city de- 
 fences, and the state of dejection into which the loyal citizens 
 had been thrown, receive from this theory a complete explana- 
 tion. What must have added to the humiliation of the cata- 
 strophe, was the consciousness that it had been partly brought 
 about by disloyal Jews. 
 
 This hypothesis may in some measure account for the fact 
 
 EZRA d 
 
xlii INTRODUCTION. 
 
 that Ezra's name does not appear in the description of the 
 rebuilding of the walls, and only comes into prominence at their 
 Dedication and at the reading of the Law. 
 
 vii. The Governorship of Nehemiah. The arrival of Nehe- 
 miah entrusted with a special commission from the Persian 
 king put a new complexion upon affairs. The Memoirs of 
 Nehemiah show him to have been a man of strong feeling, 
 resolute perseverance and great energy. He was a man 
 whose character would easily have excited the respect and the 
 sympathy of the court at Susa. He had evidently won the 
 affection of Artaxerxes. 
 
 In reply to his favourite cupbearer's request the king granted 
 him permission to proceed to Jerusalem as Governor and to 
 rebuild the walls of the city. He further provided him with a 
 body-guard of Persian troops, and with letters cf introduction to 
 the Satraps and other officials on the W. of the Euphrates. 
 
 All the energy and resolution of Nehemiah were needed to 
 carry the proposed task to a satisfactory completion. He was 
 vehemently opposed by the Samaritans, who doubtless felt that 
 a last effort must be made to prevent a fortified Jerusalem from 
 overshadowing every rival town in Palestine. Threats of force, 
 hints of royal displeasure, and treacherous overtures, alike failed 
 to divert Nehemiah from his purpose. They only succeeded in 
 revealing to him how seriously disaffection prevailed within the 
 city, and how few shared to the full that stricter view of the 
 Jewish religion, which he, in common with Ezra, deemed to be 
 required of every sincere worshipper of Jehovah. 
 
 Appealing to the patriotism of his countrymen, he vehe- 
 mently pressed on the work. In the extraordinarily short 
 space of 52 days the wall was completed. The whole popula- 
 tion had been engaged upon it night and day. The work of 
 restoration was systematically distributed among the chief fami- 
 lies and guilds. The excellence of this organization, the ardour 
 of the people for the restoration of their defences, coupled with 
 the fact that in all probability the walls were in many places 
 only partially in need of repair, will account for the rapidity 
 with which the work was done. But it is an event in history, 
 
INTRODUCTION. xliii 
 
 which may be ranked with the building of the Long Walls of 
 Athens, as an instance of patriotic fervour and universal coope- 
 ration. Its importance was recognised by the solemn service 
 of Dedication (Neh. xii. 27). 
 
 The walls were no sooner restored, than Nehemiah turned his 
 attention to other matters, in which reform was urgently needed. 
 The work on the wall had indeed brought some evils promi- 
 nently into view (Neh. v.). 
 
 Nehemiah attempted to redress the distress, which arose from 
 the oppression of the poor by their more wealthy brethren. The 
 Persian tribute was felt as a great burden by the labouring class. 
 Many were compelled to borrow in order to pay it. They bor- 
 rowed from their own wealthier countrymen, who exacted an 
 extortionate interest, and, in default of payment, seized the little 
 holdings, or took as slaves the children of their debtors. 
 
 The seriousness of the crisis is reflected in the measures by 
 which Nehemiah attempted to restore the national equilibrium. 
 He (i) abolished usury between Jew and Jew (Neh. v. 10), and 
 (2) obtained from the wealthy money-lenders an engagement to 
 restore the mortgaged property which had changed hands {v. 1 1). 
 In order to obtain a greater degree of stability and confidence 
 within the city walls, he took measures to provide for an in- 
 creased number of residents (Neh. vii. 4, 5, xi. i, 2). 
 
 But even more important were the steps Nehemiah seems to 
 have taken — not probably without the advice and assistance of 
 Ezra — to establish the national life of the Jews upon the basis of 
 the written Law. Before that time, if we may judge from the 
 complete ignorance o( ihQ priestly Law among the people gene- 
 rally (Neh. viii. 9, 13 — 17), its enactments could only have been 
 known by a defective oral tradition. So far as it had existed in 
 writing, it must have been held in the possession of the priests^ 
 The importance then of the religious reform initiated by 
 Nehemiah and Ezra lay in the removal of "the law" from the 
 exclusive possession of the priest. Its pubhcation put an end 
 to what had been a priestly monopoly. The requirements of 
 "the law" were now placed within the reach of every pious 
 
 1 The people's acquaintance with the contents of the Deuteronomic legislation 
 is of course assumed in this paragraph, and need only here be referred to in order to 
 prevent possible misunderstanding. 
 
 d2 
 
xliv INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Jew. The open reading of "the book of the law" was a new 
 departure. It marked the beginning of a new dispensation. 
 
 It denoted not merely a reverence for the sacred traditions of 
 the past, but the erection of a new centre of national life. "The 
 book of the law" could be a protection against idolatry, a stan- 
 dard of social life and religious doctrine, as well to the Jew of 
 the Dispersion as to the Jew at Jerusalem. 
 
 The Covenant to which Nehemiah and the heads of the 
 people set their seal in recognition of the obligatory character 
 of the Law that Ezra had read to his countrymen, was decisive 
 for the future of the nation. 
 
 It determined finally the preeminence of "the Law." It set 
 on foot the system which has enabled the Jewish race to main- 
 tain themselves separate and distinct in the midst of other races, 
 and to outlive every imaginable disaster. The policy of Ezra 
 and Nehemiah was the triumph of "Judaism." 
 
 Besides the general observance of the Law, the obligations to 
 which the people now bound themselves to submit, included (a) 
 the prohibition of marriage with foreigners, {d) the strict observ- 
 ance of the Sabbath, (c) the observance of the Sabbatical year 
 and its remission of debt, (d) the payment of a tax of ^ shekel 
 to defray the expenses of the Temple worship, (e) the payment 
 of tithes and firstfruits to the Levites (Neh. x.). 
 
 A'iii. Nehemiah^ s Second Visit to Jerusalc7n 432 B.C. After 
 a period of rule which, according to some, lasted for 12 years 
 (Neh. V. 14), Nehemiah had returned to the Persian Court. In 
 his absence the old abuses and irregularities quickly revived. 
 He was forced to visit Jerusalem once again during the hfetime 
 of Artaxerxes (Neh. xiii. 6). Vigorous measures were once 
 again necessary. He found that the policy of foreign alliances 
 had been renewed. Ehashib, the High-priest, had allied himself 
 closely with the Ammonite, Tobiah, and had assigned to him a 
 chamber in the precincts of the Temple itself 
 
 The Jews had once more begun to contract mixed marriages. 
 Now, as at the time when Ezra returned to Jerusalem, the priests 
 were prominent offenders. The High-priest's own grandson had 
 married the daughter of Sanballat the Samaritan. 
 
INTRODUCTION. xlv 
 
 The effects of such laxity were only too apparent. Jewish 
 children had almost lost the use of their native dialect. The 
 sanctity of the Sabbath was forgotten in the interest of trade 
 with foreigners. Nehemiah made no attempt to conceal the 
 vehemence of his indignation. 
 
 The closing w^ords of his Memoirs describe the summary 
 measures he took to purify the holy city. 
 
 The strange sentence of self-congratulation with which he 
 sums up his autobiographical sketch indicates the triple line 
 of internal reform to which he had devoted himself, (i) the 
 separation of the Jews from idolatrous strangers, (2) the syste- 
 matisation of the religious service at the Temple, (3) the ade- 
 quate provision for the maintenance of the priests and Levites. 
 
 § 7. Antiquities. 
 
 i. The Persian Government. 
 
 {a) The King. The Persian king possessed absolute power. 
 Nothing is commoner in the inscriptions of Persian kings than 
 the assertion of their supreme dominion over all the world. 
 "King of countries" is one of their favourite appellations. The 
 language of the decree of Cyrus in Ezra i. 2, "all the kingdoms 
 of the earth &c.," though expressed in the Hebrew form, is 
 quite in keeping with the style of their proclamations. The 
 Persian monarch was 'The King,' 'The Great King;' he 
 assumed also other titles, such as 'King of Babylon, King of 
 Sumir and Accad.' The title therefore, ' King of Babylon,' which 
 we find in Ezra v. 13, Neh. xiii. 6, is strictly accurate. "Evi- 
 dently the title 'King of Babel' [= Babylon] had somewhat the 
 same meaning to the inhabitants of Western Asia after the 
 time of Nebuchadnezzar as the epithet 'Roman emperor' had 
 for the nations of the Middle Ages. It was not until the 
 Persian Empire broke up, and during the period of Greek 
 domination, that the title 'King of Persia' became current even 
 in Western Asia." (Schrader's Cuneiform Inscriptions and 
 the O.T. vol. ii. 67, Eng. Trans.) The expression therefore 
 "Darius the Persian" in Neh. xii. 22 was used by one who was 
 writing after the collapse of the Persian Empire. 
 
xlvi INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The title "King of Assyria" is possibly a Hebrew variation of 
 the " King of Babylon," having the same meaning with reference 
 to the Persian monarch. 
 
 The Persian Empire was enormous in extent. It included 
 Afghanistan on the E., and Asia Minor on the W.; to the N. it 
 reached as far as the Caucasus; on the S. it included Egypt 
 among its provinces, and was washed by the Indian Ocean. 
 
 The royal capitals of the Persian Empire were Persepolis, in 
 Persia (not mentioned in Scripture), Babylon, in the valley of 
 the Euphrates, Susa or Shushan in Susiana or Elam (Neh. ii. i), 
 and Ecbatana or Achmetha, in Media (Ezra vi. 2). 
 
 The whole time (530 — 334 B.C.) that Judea was a subject- 
 province to the Persian Empire the reigning dynasty was that 
 of the Achaemenidae. Five of its kings are alluded to in the 
 books of Ezra and Nehemiah. 
 
 ^i. Cyrus, 559 (Capture of Babylon, 538 — 529). Cf Ezra 
 i. I, &c. 
 
 2, Cambyses, 529 — 522. 
 
 3. Pseudo-Smerdis (Bardiya), 522 — 521, not mentioned in 
 Scripture. 
 
 *4, Darius I., the son of Hystaspes, 521 — 485. Cf Ezra iv. 
 5, 24, V. 6, 7, vi. I, &c. 
 
 *5. Xerxes I. = Ahasuerus, 485—465. Cf Ezra iv. 6. 
 
 *6. Artaxerxes I. Longimanus 465 — 424. Cf Ezra vii. i, &c.; 
 Neh. ii. i, &c. 
 
 7. Xerxes II., reigned two months. 
 
 8. Sogdianus, reigned seven months. 
 
 9. Darius II. Nothus, 423 — 405. 
 
 10. Artaxerxes II. Mnemon, 405—358. 
 
 11. Artaxerxes III.^ Ochus, 358—337. 
 
 12. Arses, 337— 335. 
 
 *I3. Darius III. Codomannus, 335 — 331. Cf Neh. xii. 22. 
 
 {b) The Council. The king was assisted in the task of 
 government by a Council of Seven, referred to in Ezra vii. 14. 
 Cf Esth. i. 14. 
 
 * Denotes mentioned in Scripture. 
 
INTRODUCTION. xlvii 
 
 (c) The Satraps. Under Darius Hystaspes the Persian 
 Empire was divided into great provinces, over which were 
 placed "Satraps." More than 20 of these satrapies were es- 
 tablished. The majority of the Satraps were members of the 
 reigning family, or its attached adherents. 
 
 Each Satrap was in the position of a vassal king. His pro- 
 vince paid a fixed sum as a tribute to "the great king;" and 
 out of the central treasury he himself, his staff of officials, and 
 his army received payment. The power of the Satraps was 
 checked in two ways, (i) To the staff of each Satrap was at- 
 tached an official scribe, whose duty it was to remit to "the 
 great king" a report of the administration in the satrapy. 
 (2) The command of a sufficient number of troops to maintain 
 order was vested in each Satrap. But the imperial armies were 
 commanded by generals appointed by the king. 
 
 The word "Satrap" appears in its Hebrew transliterated form 
 in Ezra viii. 36, and in Esth. iii. 12, viii. 9, ix. 3. 
 
 The Satrap of the province W. of the Euphrates in the reign 
 of Darius L, seems to have been Tattenai, "the governor be- 
 yond the river" (Ezra v. 6, vi. 6). Cf. Neh. ii. 7. 
 
 According to one conjecture, Rehum "the chancellor" (Ezra 
 iv. 8), was the royal official scribe attached to the satrapy in 
 which Judea was included. 
 
 {d) Governors. Beneath the Satraps were the governors of 
 districts, or smaller provinces. Each satrapy was probably 
 divided up into districts, or petty provinces, of which the 
 governors were called Pekhahs. The Satrap resembled the 
 modern Pasha, the Pekhah resembled the modern Mudir. 
 
 The Pekhah, whose Persian title seems to have been "the 
 Tirshatha" (Ezra ii. 63 ; Neh. vii. 65, 70, viii. 9), was appointed 
 by the king, as appears from the instances of Zerubbabel (Ezra 
 v. 14; Hag. i. I, 14) and Nehemiah (Neh. v. 14). The king 
 seems to have supplied the Pekhahs with troops to serve as a 
 body-guard (Neh. ii. 9). 
 
 The Pekhah administered justice in a rough patriarchal fashion. 
 He was probably held responsible to the Satrap for the amount 
 of the tribute at which his district was assessed. In the exaction 
 
xlviii INTRODUCTION. 
 
 of the tribute he was wont to be tyrannical and rapacious. 
 Nehemiah states that the governors of Jerusalem who preceded 
 him took of the people "bread and wine, besides forty shekels 
 of silver" (Neh. v. 15), probably the daily supply. In addition, 
 it seems to have been customary to make presents to the 
 governor (Mai. i. 8). 
 
 Other officers in the Persian Administration, of whom we 
 read in these books, are "the treasurer" (Ezra i. 8), who was 
 what we might call "the privy purse" of the great king; "the 
 keeper of the king's forest" (Neh. ii. 3), an officer, to whose 
 special charge was entrusted the management of the trees and 
 the disposal of the timber in any large forest, of which the wood 
 was a royal monopoly; "the treasurers" (Ezra vii. 21), the 
 financial officers in the staff of the Satrap; "cup-bearers" (Neh. 
 i. 11), or eunuchs in personal attendance upon the king. 
 
 {e) Tribute. The tribute exacted from each province was 
 collected and remitted to the king by the Satrap (cf. Ezra vi. 8). 
 The amount at which a satrapy was assessed varied consider- 
 ably. Syria sent 350 talents, or about ;^ 100,000 annually to the 
 king. The levying of "the king's tribute" pressed very heavily 
 upon a poor community like that of the Jews (Neh. v. 4). 
 
 Besides the tribute in money, there was also tribute in kind, 
 especially in grain (cf. Ezra vii. 22). "Custom" and "toll" 
 (Ezra vii. 25) were exacted upon merchandise, monopolies, 
 and the like. And to the burdens of the central authority 
 should also be probably added those imposed by the local 
 governor and the officials of his staff. 
 
 ii. The Jewish Coimnuiiity. The chief power rested un- 
 doubtedly in the hands of the Pekhah ; and the Pekhahs seem 
 generally to have been foreigners (Neh. v. 15), or natives who 
 had been in the king's service (cf. Neh. ii. 19 'Tobiah the 
 servant'). Zerubbabel and Nehemiah were exceptions. It does 
 not appear that Ezra was ever in the position of Pekhah. The 
 task which he was appointed to carry out was connected with 
 the religious, not the civil condition of the Jews (Ezra v 11 ff".). 
 The exceptional powers entrusted to him can only be explained 
 
INTRODUCTION. xlix 
 
 on the supposition that religious matters had notoriously given 
 rise to apprehensions of civil strife. 
 
 The Jews who had returned from Babylon were primarily a 
 religious community. The Temple was the centre of their 
 national life. Accordingly, in internal polic}^, the High-priest 
 stood at the head of the community, and exerted the chief 
 influence. 
 
 The High-priests mentioned in these books are 
 
 Jeshua, the son of Jozadak, Ezra i. — vi. 
 
 Joiakim, Neh. xii. lo, 26. 
 
 Eliashib, Neh. iii. i, xiii. 4. 
 
 Joiada, Neh. xii. 10, 22. 
 
 Jonathan or Johanan, Neh. xii. 11, 22. 
 
 Jaddua, Neh. xii. 11, 22. 
 Josephus mentions that Joiakim died just after the reforms of 
 Ezra narrated in Ezra x. ; but, as he also assigns Ezra's death to 
 the same date, although Ezra appears in the book of Nehemiah, 
 we cannot put much confidence in the accuracy of the tradition 
 {Ant. xi. 5, 6). Josephus {A7it. xi. 7. i) records that Eliashib 
 was succeeded by his son Judas; and that Judas was succeeded 
 by his son John, who slew his own brother, Jesus, in the Temple ; 
 and that John was succeeded by his son Jaddua. Of Jaddua 
 he relates the famous legend of the High-priest's meeting with 
 Alexander the Great outside the walls of Jerusalem. According 
 to the Jewish historian, Onias followed Jaddua, Ant. xi. 8, 5 — 7. 
 The High-priesthood was an hereditary office. There arose 
 therefore a kind of religious dynasty. In the course of time, 
 after the break-up of the Persian Empire, the High-priest be- 
 came practically a petty Jewish monarch. 
 
 He did not possess such supreme authority in the days of Ezra 
 and Nehemiah. Ezra does not even mention the High priest. 
 Nehemiah carried out his reforms relating to firstfruits, tithes, 
 &c. (x. 33) independently, so far as can be seen, of the High- 
 priest ; and, as some would suppose from the absence of Elia- 
 shib's name in Neh. xii., and the policy attributed to him in 
 Neh. xiii. 4, 28, even acted in direct opposition to the High- 
 priest's wishes. 
 
1 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Local officers, of whose functions we have no definite record, 
 seem to have been appointed, presumably by the Pekhah, to 
 whom they would be held responsible. Two such officers divided 
 between them the administration of Jerusalem (cf. Neh. iii. 9, 
 12), and we have mention of similar officials in connexion with 
 other districts, cf. Neh. iii. 14, 17. A 'Governor of the castle' 
 is mentioned in Neh. vii. 2. 
 
 A council of "Twelve," representing the typical unity of the 
 tribes of Israel, seems to be implied in Ezra ii. 2 and Neh. vii. 7. 
 They perhaps are "the elders of Judah," referred to in Ezra v. 
 5, vi. 7—14. 
 
 But besides these responsible officers, there remains to be 
 considered the important aristocratic body, consisting of "the 
 heads of fathers' houses." Whether they formed a recognised 
 "house of notables" cannot be determined. More probably 
 they assembled together informally, and were recognised as the 
 leaders of their households or clans, and as representatives of 
 special interests and guilds. In every step of internal policy, it 
 would be necessary to make sure of their support. Judging 
 from the lists of the Jews who returned from Babylon (Ezra 
 ii., Neh. vii., xii. i — 9), very many of "the heads of fathers' 
 houses " were of priestly lineage. The oligarchy which formed 
 itself under the presidency of the High-priest was mainly 
 priestly and aristocratic ; compare the mention of the priests, 
 Ezra ix. i; Neh. ii. 16, and the position assigned to them in 
 the pubhc lists. The same body is probably intended by "the 
 princes of the fathers' houses of Israel" (Ezr. viii. 29), and "the 
 princes," sarwt (Ezra ix. i, 2, x. 8, 14), must be identified with 
 "the nobles," horim^ of Neh. ii. 16, iv. 19, v. 7, vi. 17, vii. 5, 
 xiii. 17. With the latter are also commonly associated the 
 rulers or deputies, segdnim (Ezra ix. 2; Neh. ii. 16), who 
 probably occupied subordinate offices under the governor, or 
 held posts of dignity as magistrates and judges. The "rulers" 
 are thus to be distinguished from the "nobles," whose position 
 was hereditary. The two classes seem to be alluded to in 
 the phrase, "the elders of every city and the judges thereof" 
 (Ezra X. 14). 
 
INTRODUCTION. li 
 
 iii. Social condition of the Jews. 
 
 Under the Persian rule the Jews do not seem to have been 
 severely treated. But at no time during the period of their 
 history, which is related in these books, do they seem to have 
 enjoyed prosperity. 
 
 During the first few years after the return from captivity, they 
 suffered from bad harvests (see Haggai ii. 19). From a very 
 early time they were harassed by the hostility of the Samaritans 
 (Ezra iv. i). Like the rest of the provinces of the Empire, the 
 Jews supplied contingents to the great armies of the Persian 
 kings. Herodotus speaks of 'Syrians of Palestine,' who formed 
 part of the army of Xerxes, and were overwhelmed at Salamis 
 and Platcea. A further conscription both of men and animals 
 (Neh ix. yj) was probably required from the Jews after these 
 tremendous reverses. The rebellion which greeted Artaxerxes 
 on his succession to the throne, must have entailed fresh sacri- 
 fices of men and money upon the impoverished district. The 
 distress of the lower orders was increased by the avarice of the 
 Jewish money-lenders (Neh. v. i, 5). 
 
 The majority of the community seem to have been agricul- 
 turists, and to have dwelt in the country. The difficulty was 
 to induce any but the upper classes to take up their abode in 
 the city (cf. Neh. xi. i, xii. 28, 29). 
 
 In the city itself a considerable trade went on. Those of 
 the same industry occupied the same street or bazaar. We 
 have especial mention of "goldsmiths" (Neh. iii. 8, 32), and 
 "perfumers" (Neh. iii. 8), and "merchants" (Neh. iii. 31, 32). 
 And Phoenician merchants from Tyre evidently found a good 
 market at Jerusalem (Neh. xiii. 16). 
 
 We read of interest at the rate of 12 per cent, per atinum 
 being exacted by the Jewish usurers of their own countrymen 
 (Neh. V. 11). 
 
 Payments were made either in money or in kind, e.g. corn, 
 wine, oil (Neh. v. 11). 
 
 Coined money is first referred to after the Exile. The Persian 
 Daric came into general use in the reign of king Darius. It 
 was a gold coin weighing 130 grs. (See note on Ezra ii. 69.) 
 
lii INTRODUCTION. 
 
 See Ridgeway's Origin of Currency and Weight Standard 
 (Camb. 1892), chap. X. 
 
 iv. Religions orgajiization ajnong the Jews. 
 
 A. The High-priest. In the Memoirs of Nehemiah we find 
 the title of "the High (Hterally, "the great") Priest" Neh. iii. 
 I, 20, xiii. 28. In Ezra vii. 5, Ezra's genealogy is traced back 
 through the descendants of Aaron to Aaron himself, who is 
 called ''the chief (Hterally "the head") priest," an expression 
 that is not found in the Pentateuch. 
 
 He is simply called "the priest" in Neh. xiii. 4; and this 
 designation is perhaps implied in Ezra iii. 2, "Jeshua the son 
 of Jozadak and his brethren the priests." The term 'priest' 
 where we should expect 'high-priest' is found also in Ezra ii. 
 63; Neh. vii. 65 "until there stood up a priest with Urim and 
 Thummim." 
 
 The sentence just quoted expresses the inferiority of a 
 High-priest after the Exile as compared with an occupant of 
 the same position before the Exile. What precisely this in- 
 feriority consisted in, we cannot now say. 
 
 Some have supposed that the expression "ruler of the house 
 of God" is a title of the High-priest (Neh. xi. 11; l Chron. 
 ix. II, and 2 Chron. xxxi. 13), but in all probabiHty it was the 
 name given to a subordinate, cf. Jer. xx. i, like the "second 
 priest" in 2 Kings xxv. 18. 
 
 B. The Priests. Generally throughout these two books the 
 priests are clearly distinguished from the Levites ; they repre- 
 sent a superior class, and are named before the 'nobles' and 
 'rulers' by Nehemiah (Neh. ii. 16), and immediately after 'kings' 
 and 'princes' in Neh. ix. 32, 34. 
 
 The distinctive title of 'sons of Aaron' is applied to them 
 in Neh. x. 39, xii. 47. 
 
 On the other hand, the expression "the priests the Levites," 
 which occurs so frequently in Deuteronomy (cf. xvii. 9 — 18, 
 xviii. I, xxi. 5 &c.) is found in Ezra x. 5, as also in Mai. iii. 3, 
 and 2 Chron. v. 5, xxiii. 18, xxx. 27. And in one passage, Ezra 
 
INTRODUCTION. liii 
 
 viii. 20, it is even possible that the name 'Levites' is employed 
 as equivalent to that of 'priests.' 
 
 At the time of the return from the Captivity the priests repre- 
 sented a tenth of the whole company, being 4289 in number. 
 They comprised, however, only four families, Jedaiah, Immer, 
 Pashur and Harim (Ezra ii. 36—39). It is a proof of the 
 strictness of the time that, even at that crisis, the representa- 
 tives of three other families were refused admission to the ranks 
 of the priesthood, because their genealogical descent could not 
 be certified (Ezra ii. 61, 62). 
 
 The number of families was increased, partly by later ac- 
 cession, partly by subdivision. In the High-priesthood of 
 Jeshua, and afterwards in that of Joiakim, we find the number 
 has grown to twenty-two (Neh. xii. i — 7, 12 — 21). 
 
 When Ezra arrived at Jerusalem he brought with him two 
 priestly famihes, the one descended from the line of Eleazar, 
 the other from the line of Ithamar (Ezra viii. 2). 
 
 The mention of this latter house is of importance. For, 
 while it is true that the Chronicler speaks of sixteen families 
 belonging to the line of Eleazar and eight to that of Ithamar 
 (i Chron. xxiv. i — 7), Ezekiel, writing during the Exile, restricted 
 the priesthood to the "sons of Zadok," and apparently only 
 acknowledged the priestly claims of the houses that were 
 descended from one branch of the Eleazar line. 
 
 C. The Levites. 
 
 {a) By comparison with the large number of the priests who 
 returned from the Captivity the number of the Levites is 
 strikingly small. There returned with Zerubbabel 4289 priests, 
 but only seventy-four Levites (Ezra ii. 36, 40; Neh. vii. 43). 
 Ezra, by direct entreaty, with difficulty obtained thirty-eight 
 Levites to accompany him (Ezra viii. 15 — 19). In the list of 
 those who sojourned in Jerusalem, we find 1192 priests, but 
 only 284 Levites (including singers) (Neh. xi. 10 — 18). 
 
 {b) In the oldest portions of these books, e.g. in the lists 
 contained in Ezra ii. and Neh. vii., and in the memoirs of 
 Ezra and Nehemiah, the Levites are carefully distinguished 
 
liv INTRODUCTION. 
 
 from "the singers" and "the porters" and "the Nethinim." 
 See Ezra ii. 40—43, 55, x. 23, 24; Neh. vii. i, 43—46, x. 28, 
 xii. 47, xiii. 5, 10. 
 
 {c) In other portions, which the Compiler has probably 
 written, we find "the singers" identified with "the Levites" 
 (cf. Ezraiii. 10; Neh. xi. 17, 22, xii. 8, 24, 27). The "porters" 
 are not perhaps expressly identified in these books with " the 
 Levites" (Neh. xiii. 22 is no exception; see note); but in the 
 Books of Chronicles the identification is asserted (e.g. 2 Chron. 
 xxxiv. 9), and it can also be inferred from Neh. xii. 25, where 
 Mattaniah and Bakbukiah, who in xi. 17 figure as ''singers," 
 are mentioned among the "porters." 
 
 In Chronicles, however, it is clear from such a passage as 
 I Chron. xxiii. 3 — 5 that the writer contemplated other Levites 
 besides the "singers" and the "porters." Possibly in Neh. x. 
 39 we should understand by "the children of Levi" those Levites 
 who were settled in the rural districts who were neither porters 
 nor singers. Possibly from Neh. xi. 18, 19, compared with 
 Neh. xii. 27 — 29, we should infer that, though the singers were 
 included among Levites, there were also Levites who were 
 neither "singers" nor "porters;" for Neh. xi. 18, 19 mentions 
 289 Levites, exclusive of porters, residing in Jerusalem, and 
 Neh. xii. 27 — 29 suggests that the majority of the singers dwelt 
 outside the walls. 
 
 It appears then that at the time of the Return and in the life- 
 time of Ezra and Nehemiah, there were three inferior orders 
 subordinate to the priests, i.e. (i) Levites, (2) singers and 
 porters, (3) Nethinim; but that, at a later time, the distinction 
 no longer existed which separated Levites from singers and 
 porters. 
 
 The question arises how 'Levites' could ever be treated as a 
 separate order from singers and porters. And, in a certain 
 measure, it is answered by the evidence that there were other 
 duties discharged by the assistants of the priests besides those 
 of singers and porters. But this answer only partially meets 
 the objection. For we require to know why the generic name 
 should have been given to a special class of Temple assistants. 
 
INTRODUCTION. Iv 
 
 and what the reasons were that seem to have deterred this 
 particular class from joining in the Return to Jerusalem. 
 
 The difficulty has been recently met by the supposition that 
 the 'Levites' in the hsts of Ezra ii. and Neh. vii., and in the 
 Memoirs of Ezra and Nehemiah, were not only Temple assist- 
 ants (exclusive of singers and porters), but also included the 
 descendants of those numerous priests of the high-places 
 who, having been dispossessed of their dignified local position 
 temporarily by Hezekiah, and more completely by the reforms 
 of Josiah, had been allotted a subordinate position at the central 
 sanctuary. 
 
 It should be remembered how in Josiah's reign "the priests 
 of the high-places came not up to the altar of the Lord in Jeru- 
 salem, but they did eat unleavened bread among their brethren" 
 (2 Kings xxiii. 9). And with this passage we must connect in 
 our minds the testimony of the Prophet Ezekiel^ who recognised 
 as the only true members of the priesthood "the priests the 
 Levites, the sons of Zadok, that kept the charge of my sanctuary 
 when the children of Israel went astray from me" (Ezek. xliv. 15 ; 
 cf xl. 16, xHii. 19). Referring to those who were not Zadokites 
 and had served at the high-places the same prophet says, "But 
 the Levites that went far from me, when Israel went astray, 
 which went astray from me after their idols, they shall bear their 
 iniquity. Yet they shall be ministers in my sanctuary, having 
 oversight at the gates of the house, and ministering in the 
 house : they shall slay the burnt offering and the sacrifice for 
 the people, and they shall stand before them to minister unto 
 them .... Yet will I make them keepers of the charge of the 
 house, for all the service thereof, and for all that shall be done 
 therein" (Ezek. xliv. 10, 11, 13); see also Num. xviii. 23. 
 
 Have we not in the descendants of the priests of the high- 
 places a class precisely answering to the order of Levites which 
 we are seeking to identify.'' 
 
 (i) They are inferior to the priests of Jerusalem. They had 
 been prohibited from discharging the sacred office at the 
 Temple. It was not likely that they would be called by the 
 full honorific title of 'priests.' 
 
Ivi INTRODUCTION. 
 
 (2) Occupying an inferior position, in comparison with the 
 hereditary descendants of the priests of Jerusalem, not many of 
 them would volunteer to return to Judea, since their return 
 would only emphasize their humiliation. 
 
 (3) Those that did so would have shared the duties of assist- 
 ants in the Temple worship; but as descendants of those who 
 had locally been of the highest rank they were at first separated 
 from the guilds of "singers" and "porters," which probably 
 represented a lower caste. They were designated by the tribal 
 name "Levites," which in some portions of Scripture is always 
 joined with the name of "priest." 
 
 (4) The distinction which was thus drawn between "Levites" 
 and "singers" or "porters" would tend to lose its significance; 
 and, in the days of the Chronicler, it had become completely 
 lost. The term Levite had become the generic title, including 
 the various branches of subordinate Temple duties. 
 
 If this hypothesis be correct, it will further explain the promi- 
 nent position taken by the Levites in the reforms of Ezra and 
 Nehemiah. 
 
 Those of the " Levites," who, descended from the priests 
 of the high-places, returned from Babylon to Jerusalem, must 
 have been moved by a spirit of sincere devotion and religious 
 conviction. Loss of position they incurred, but this they disre- 
 garded, if only they might serve God, though in a humble way, 
 in His chosen sanctuary. Few in numbers, they were picked 
 men, devoted patriots, and keen zealots for the Law, The 
 Levites are conspicuous in their support of Ezra on the occasion 
 of the public reading of the Law (Ezra viii.). 
 
 With regard to the duties of the Levites, it should be noted 
 that, according to the Compiler, the Levites are associated 
 with the priests in the work of "kiUing the Passover" lamb 
 (Ezra vi. 20). In Exod. xii. 6 the lamb is to be slain not by 
 priest or Levite but by the head of each household. 
 
 In Neh. viii. 7 — 9 the Levites are found giving instruction in 
 the Law to the people, a task which in Lev. x. 10, 1 1 is assigned 
 to the priest. 
 
INTRODUCTION. Ivii 
 
 D. The Singers and Porters. To these subordinate classes of 
 Temple assistants no allusion is made in the Pentateuch. It is 
 clear however that the singers and porters, who returned with 
 Zerubbabel, were the descendants of those who had discharged 
 the same offices in the time of the first Temple. As compared 
 with the 'Levites/ they returned in considerable numbers; 128 
 singers (Ezra ii. 41; 148 in Neh. vii. 44), 139 porters (Ezra ii. 
 42; 138 in Neh. vii. 45). 
 
 In the writings of the Chronicler they occupy a position of 
 importance which it is difficult to reconcile with the absence of 
 allusion to them in the books of Samuel and Kings. If they had 
 been distinguished from the Levites in the days of Zerubbabel, 
 and of Ezra and Nehemiah, they were included among the 
 Levites by the Chronicler. 
 
 The prominence given to the order of singers has led to the 
 conjecture that the Chronicler himself belonged to that body, 
 and naturally singled it out for particular notice. 
 
 E. The Nethinim. We read of 392 Nethinim and 'servants 
 of Solomon' returning ta Jerusalem with Zerubbabel (Ezra ii. 58 ; 
 Neh. vii. 60): 220 Nethinim accompanied Ezra (Ezra viii. 20). 
 
 The Nethinim are described in Ezra viii. 20 as those "whom 
 David and the princes had given for the service of the Levites;" 
 and "the servants of Solomon" doubtless belonged to the same 
 class. They represented the lowest order of the ministers of 
 the Temple. They seem to have been slaves, 'given' {tiethinim^ 
 cf. nethiinim, Num. iii. 9; i Chron. vi. 48) for the service of the 
 priests. 
 
 We have no mention of such a class in the Pentateuch. The 
 Gibeonites, who were condemned to be "hewers of wood and 
 drawers of water" (Jos. ix. 21 — 27), have often been compared 
 with the Nethinim, in respect both of their origin and of the 
 duties assigned to them. 
 
 In the books of Chronicles, the Nethinim are only once 
 mentioned (i Chron. ix. 2), and are there carefully distinguished 
 from the Levites. 
 
 On the other hand, they ranked among the congregation (Neh. 
 X. 28), and shared the privileges of priests and Levites (Ezra 
 
 EZRA ^ 
 
Iviii INTRODUCTION. 
 
 vii. 24). Their special place of residence was on the Ophel 
 mount, in close proximity to the Temple, and over against "the 
 Water-gate" (Neh. iii. 26, 31, xi. 21). They were thus posted 
 near to the exit which communicated with the Virgin's Spring ; 
 and if their duties at the Temple at all resembled those of the 
 Gibeonites we can understand why their residence over against 
 the water-gate is thus carefully noted. Similarly their duties 
 may have included the "hewing" and preparation of the wood 
 for the wood-offering, to which Nehemiah alludes (Neh. xiii. 31, 
 cf. X. 34). 
 
 Some have seen in the employment of the Nethinim an 
 infraction of the rule laid down in Num. i. 51, iii. 38, forbidding 
 "a stranger," i.e. a non-Levite, to have anything to do with the 
 affairs of the Sanctuary. But our information as to the duties 
 which they discharged is not explicit enough to justify any veiy 
 decided opinion. However it certainly appears as if the Nethinim 
 had been included in the ministrations of the Temple; and, if 
 so, their employment would be an instance of the way in which 
 the actual conditions of Jewish worship fell short of the ideals 
 which the written codes of law set up. 
 
 F. The Scribe. Besides Ezra the scribe (Ezra vii. 6, &c.), 
 we have mention also of Zadok the scribe (Neh. xiii. 13). The 
 Scribe, or Sopher, was a well-known title for a state official 
 (cf. 2 Sam. viii. 17, xx. 25), at a royal court. That a similar 
 official was needed in the Jewish commonwealth may readily be 
 allowed. That Ezra, and after him Zadok, may have held such 
 a position is possible. 
 
 The extensive organization of the priests and Levites, the 
 succession of their courses of service, and the accounts which 
 recorded the payment of tithes and offerings for the maintenance 
 of the Temple service, must have entailed a considerable pro- 
 portion of secretarial and accountant work. In i Chron. xxiv. 6 
 there is mention of such a scribe who was also a Levite. 
 
 Tradition has generally connected with Ezra's work as 
 "scribe" the labours of the transcription of the Scriptures. 
 Ezra is treated as the typical scribe. Undoubtedly his work 
 
INTRODUCTION. lix 
 
 and influence gave the decisive impulse to the popularization of 
 the Law. But it may be doubted whether Ezra's life as a scribe 
 had any resemblance to that of "the scribes" of a later era. 
 
 He had however "set his heart to seek the law of the Lord" 
 (Ezra vii. lo); and this distinguishing characteristic which gave 
 him his influence and his authority for instructing the people 
 (Neh. viii. i) supplied the ideal for the patient, and too often 
 pedantic, order, whose whole object in hfe was to "be deliberate 
 in judgement, and raise up many disciples, and make a fence to 
 the Law" (Mishnah, Pirqe Aboth \). 
 
 § 8. Aramaic Dialect and Hebrew Characters. 
 
 The portions of these books, written by Ezra and Nehemiah 
 themselves, and the section Neh. vii.— x., have a purer, more 
 vigorous, and more independent literary style than those which 
 were added by the Compiler. And, in particular, the Memoirs 
 of Nehemiah, which have sufl"ered less from subsequent revision 
 than the Memoirs of Ezra, have a marked individuahty. 
 
 In style and idiom they may be compared with the writings 
 of Malachi, who was probably a contemporary of Nehemiah. 
 The decadence in style from the best classical Hebrew is far 
 more conspicuous in the writing of Chronicles a century later. 
 
 As might be expected in a period which witnessed the decline 
 of the language and the contact of the Jew with other nations, 
 foreign words began to find their way into the vocabulary : and 
 Aramaisms, i.e. the influence of Syrian dialects, began to infect 
 the idioms as well as the vocabulary. 
 
 We find also words of Assyro-Babylonian origin, e.g. Ezra iv. 8, 
 ''iggereth," a letter; v. \\pekhah, a governor; viii. 27 ''daric^'^ 
 Ass. dariku; Neh. ii. 8 ''birah,'' a fortress = Ass. biratu : and 
 others of Persian origin, e.g. Ezra i. Z, gizbar, a treasurer; ii. d^^ 
 Tirshatha^ governor ; viii. 36, akhashdarpan^ satrap. 
 
 A. The Aramaic Dialect. 
 
 Certain portions of the book Ezra are written, not in Hebrew, 
 but in the Aramaic dialect. These passages are Ezra iv. 8— vi. 
 18 and vii. 12—26. They have in all probabiHty been extracted 
 
Ix INTRODUCTION, 
 
 from an Aramaic chronicle, and have received certain additions 
 from the Compiler of the book. 
 
 The same dialect appears in two words of Gen. xxxi. 47, in 
 one verse of Jeremiah (ch. x. 11), and in a considerable section 
 of the Book of Daniel (ii. 4— vii. 28). It is the dialect moreover 
 in which are written the Targums, those Aramaic renderings of 
 the Hebrew Scriptures that were used for purposes of public 
 reading in the synagogues, when Hebrew ceased to be the 
 language of the people. 
 
 In order to understand what this Aramaic dialect was, it is 
 necessary to understand that what are called the Semitic 
 languages can be classified into clearly recognizable groups. 
 
 According to one very commonly accepted division, the 
 Semitic languages fall into two main branches, the Northern 
 and the Southern. 
 
 Omitting the less known dialects, we find the following prin- 
 cipal groups in the Nor'thei'u Semitic languages : 
 
 1. Assyrian and Babylonian in the East and North-east. 
 
 2. Aramaic on the North and North-west. 
 
 3. Canaanite or Phoenician, and Hebrew on the West. 
 
 The Southern groups of Semitic languages are Arabic, South 
 Arabian or Himyaritic, and Ethiopic. 
 
 From this analysis it will be seen that the Aramaic dialect 
 was spoken by the northernmost tribes of the Northern Semites, 
 and that it was a sister dialect of Hebrew and Assyrian. It 
 gradually spread southward and eastward, until it became the 
 prevalent dialect, both of Northern Mesopotamia and of the 
 whole country west of the Euphrates, embracing Syria and 
 Palestine. "The Aramaic dialects are divided into two princi- 
 pal groups, the Eastern (including the dialects of Mesopotamia 
 and Babylonia, i.e. Syriac, the Aramaic of the Babylonian 
 Talmud, and Mandaitic) and the Western (including Biblical 
 Aramaic, as also the dialects of the Jewish Targums, of the 
 Samaritan Targums, of the Christian Palestinian Lectionary, 
 of the Palestinian Talmud, and of the Palmyrene inscriptions)," 
 Be van's Daniel^ p. 33. 
 
INTRODUCTION. Ixi 
 
 We have next to enquire what is known of the history of the 
 process by which Hebrew was supplanted by Aramaic. We 
 gather from 2 Kings xviii. 26 that in the year 701 B.C. Aramaic 
 was unknown to the common people of Jerusalem, but that the 
 nobles and courtiers were acquainted with it as the language of 
 diplomacy. 
 
 Throughout the Exile, the knowledge of Hebrew was un- 
 doubtedly preserved : for the prophecies of Haggai and Zecha- 
 riah (circ. 516), are written in pure Hebrew, and the same may 
 be said of the prophecy of Malachi and the Memoirs of Ezra 
 and Nehemiah, in the century after the return from the Exile 
 (460 — 430). The fact that in the reign of Artaxerxes a letter to 
 the king was written in Aramaic is expressly recorded as a thing 
 which called for notice even in an Aramaic record (Ezra iv. 7). 
 But the encroachments of Aramaic almost surrounded the 
 Jewish community. Portions of the Samaritan colony had 
 been brought from the regions of Hamath, where Aramaic was 
 the native tongue. The neighbouring dialects were gradually 
 absorbed. One of the results of contracting alliances with 
 other peoples was the gradual extinction of the Hebrew language. 
 This was foreseen by Nehemiah in 432. In the fourth and third 
 centuries B.C. the Hebrews had many of them become bilingual. 
 The Compiler himself after making his extract from an Aramaic 
 record continues in Aramaic, resuming his own characteristic 
 style (see page § 4. c). Greek for a time threatened to dispute 
 the position. But the Aramaic dialect prevailed ; and although 
 Hebrew remained as the language of the learned, of the law, 
 of tradition, and of religious literature (cf. Ecclesiasticus, the 
 Book of Enoch, Mishnah, the Book of Jubilees, Psalms of 
 Solomon), the dialect spoken by the Jews in the ist cent. B.C. 
 was Aramaic. 
 
 It should be added that the familiar term Chaldee, popularly 
 apphed to Aramaic, is quite incorrect. It is said to have been 
 based upon a misunderstanding of Dan. ii. 4, and to have 
 derived support from the supposition, now universally abandoned 
 by scholars, that the Jews brought this dialect back from 
 Babylon. The Cuneiform Inscriptions have shown that the 
 
Ixii INTRODUCTION. 
 
 people of Babylon spoke in quite a different dialect from that 
 which is called Chaldee. 
 
 B. Archaic and Square Hebrew Characters. 
 
 The Jews have experienced not only a change of dialect but 
 also a change of alphabet. 
 
 The Hebrew characters which are so familiar to us do not 
 possess the forms which the ancient Hebrew letters had. 
 
 It is now known that the ancient Hebrew alphabet closely 
 resembled the alphabets of the Canaanites, the Phoenicians, 
 and the Moabites. 
 
 The earliest Israelite writing is that of the Inscription found 
 in the Pool of Siloam, which is generally assigned by scholars 
 to the reign of Hezekiah, about the year 700 B.C. The cha- 
 racters of this inscription are very similar to those which are 
 found on the so-called Moabite Stone, in an inscription written 
 by command of Mesa, king of Moab, about the year 890 B.C. : 
 they are also very similar to the characters found in Phoenician 
 inscriptions, on coins and gems. 
 
 The ancient Hebrew characters, therefore, were of the same 
 general type as the characters employed by the neighbouring 
 nations. They are found on the coins of the Maccabees in the 
 2nd cent. B.C. The latest forms of this ancient Hebrew cha- 
 racter are preserved to us in the Samaritan version of the Penta- 
 teuch, in which the archaic letters are retained, although by 
 comparison with the Hebrew inscriptions their shape is much 
 modified. 
 
 But some time before the Christian era a change of alphabet 
 gradually took place. A simpler and less intricate type of 
 letter began to find favour. The familiar squai'e characters, 
 which have more resemblance to the Palmyrene than to the 
 Phoenician characters, became universally adopted by the 
 Jews. The process was one of gradual change. The archaic 
 letters were first simplified, and more and more approached the 
 square character. 
 
 If we are asked when exactly the square Hebrew forms finally 
 supplanted the old Hebrew characters, we cannot from want 
 
INTRODUCTION. Ixiii 
 
 of sufficient evidence give any very decided answer. The 
 earliest known specimen of square Hebrew writing is the 
 inscription of Arak el emir^ of the date 176 B.C., which is a 
 strange combination of the old Hebrew and the square Hebrew 
 characters, and probably illustrates the transitionary stage. 
 From Matt. v. 18 it is evident that, in our Lord's time, the 
 square characters were in general use. The latest known use 
 of the ancient Hebrew characters is found on " the Maccabee 
 and other Jewish coins." It has sometimes been asserted that 
 the Maccabee Princes only employed these characters out of 
 reverence for bygone times. But it is surely not probable that 
 they would have used characters which could not be read by 
 all. Their use of the old letters is rather evidence that the new 
 type had not yet become generally adopted by conservative 
 Jews. The utmost that can be said with confidence is that the 
 ancient Hebrew began to be disused by the Jews before the 
 commencement of our era (see W. Wright's Comparative 
 Grammar of the Semitic Languages^ p. 39) ; but that, before 
 that time, all Hebrew writing had been in some form of the 
 Archaic Script. Not only the Israehtes, but the Moabites, 
 the Phoenicians, the Carthaginians seem to have used varieties 
 of the same ancient Semitic alphabet; and its usage continued 
 into post-Christian times. 
 
 For the Jewish tradition that the Jews brought the square 
 letters from Babylon there is no foundation whatever. The 
 legend that Ezra invented them is equally worthless, and only 
 illustrates the tendency of Jewish tradition to ascribe to the 
 influence of Ezra whatever took place among the Jews in the 
 interval between the Exile and the Maccabean age. 
 
 The mention in Ezra iv. 8 of Syriac or rather Aramaic 
 characters would be sufficient to show that the characters used 
 were not the native Jewish style of writing but that of the foreign 
 officials. The inference to be drawn from the passage is that 
 the old Hebrew alphabet was the one in general use among the 
 Jews at the time the Aramaic Chronicle was composed. What 
 the Aramaic character spoken of in Ezra iv. 8 was we can only 
 conjecture. It was very possibly the Aramaic type of alphabet 
 
Ixiv INTRODUCTION. 
 
 ''our knowledge of which commences with some Assyrian 
 weights, which go back as far as the seventh or eighth century 
 before our era. There are also extant some gems and seals 
 of nearly the same age. Among the inscriptions may be men- 
 tioned that recently discovered by Prof Euting at Taima. 
 clearly belonging to the Persian period, say from the sixth to 
 the fourth century B.C." (W. Wright, Comp. Gram.^ p. 39.) 
 
 Mention has already been made of the archaic Hebrew 
 characters of the Samaritan Pentateuch. When indeed the 
 Samaritans received the Pentateuch has been disputed. But 
 most scholars are disposed to think that at the time when the 
 Samaritans erected a temple on Mt. Gerizim and established 
 there a ritual to rival that of Jerusalem they also recognized the 
 Canonical character of the Torah. This probably occurred 
 when Nehemiah ejected the grandson of the High-priest ; for, 
 according to Josephus, this renegade of the name of Manasseh 
 was appointed High-priest of the Samaritans. 
 
 According to the Book of Nehemiah the date of this event 
 was 432 B.C. ; according to Josephus, it was a century later. 
 
 At so early a date as the 4th or 5th century B.C. there is 
 no reason to suppose that the Jews had begun to give up their 
 old method of writing. The Samaritan Pentateuch, according 
 to the best orientalists, represents the latest form of the old 
 Semitic characters, possibly that in use shortly before the 
 Christian era. In other words its transcription has preserved 
 one of the latest modifications of the old alphabet in use before 
 the square letters were adopted ^ The strange thing is that the 
 Samaritans were more conservative in their transcription of the 
 sacred text than the Jews. But the reason of this is to be found 
 in the spread of the Jewish synagogues, and in the difficulty in 
 finding those who could read the old characters. When the 
 Jews decided to alter the characters found in the synagogue 
 rolls is not known. Nor do we know whether the alteration 
 was due to an authoritative resolution, or to a gradual but 
 spontaneous change of usage. 
 
 ^ The Samaritan MSB. are hardly earlier than the 12th or 13th 
 cent. A.D. 
 
INTRODUCTION. Ixv 
 
 § 9. Place in the Canon. 
 
 In our English Bibles Ezra and Nehemiah follow the books 
 of Chronicles, whose historical narrative they continue (cf. Ezra 
 i. I — 3 with 2 Chron. xxxvi. 22, 23). In the Hebrew Bible 
 Ezra and Nehemiah stand immediately before Chronicles. 
 
 The Hebrew Canon of Scripture is divided into three main 
 groups: (i) the Law {Torah), (11) the Prophets {Nebiim)^ (iii) 
 the Writings {Kethiibi7n). 
 
 In the third group, that of the Writings, the books in an 
 ordinary Hebrew Bible are arranged in the following order. 
 Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Eccle- 
 siastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles. 
 
 The position assigned to Ezra and Nehemiah before 
 Chronicles is probably due to Ezra and Nehemiah having 
 been set apart by the Jewish scribes as authoritative Scripture 
 before Chronicles obtained that recognition. There is reason to 
 suppose that Chronicles, beginning with the genealogy of the 
 Patriarchs and concluding with the Captivity of Babylon, was 
 added as a kind of appendix to the whole Jewish Scriptures. 
 From the reference in Matt, xxiii. 35 it has been conjectured 
 that Chronicles, in our Lord's time, occupied the last place in 
 the Hebrew Canon of Scripture. 
 
 The Wisdom of Sirach, or Ecclesiasticus, which was written 
 about 180 B.C., contains, in its praise of the famous men, an 
 allusion to the deeds of Nehemiah, "whose renown is great, 
 who raised up for us the walls that were fallen, and set up the 
 gates and the bars, and raised up our ruins again" (xxix. 13). 
 
 In the same context there is a mention of Zerubbabel and 
 Jeshua (vers. 11, 12) which seems to be based on the prophecies 
 of Haggai and Zechariah ; and the complete omission of Ezra's 
 name is very noteworthy. 
 
 The books were probably well known at the beginning of 
 the 2nd cent. B.C. ; but it is not probable that they came to 
 be regarded as Scripture until after the Maccabean Revolt. The 
 recognition of the third group, the Kethubim, cannot be shown 
 to have become general until the secondhalf of the 2ndcent.B.C. 
 (cf. Ecclus. Prolog.). 
 
Ixvi INTRODUCTION. 
 
 No reference to either Ezra or Nehemiah is found in the 
 writings of the New Testament. Philo, however, quotes from 
 Ezra viii. 2 {De Confus. Ling. § 28) ; Josephus makes use of 
 Ezra and Nehemiah in his history {^Ant. XI. i — 5), and un- 
 doubtedly reckoned their contents among the Holy Writings 
 {Contr. Ap. c. 8). No objection was ever raised by the Jewish 
 Rabbis against the Canonicity of Ezra and Nehemiah. 
 
 § 10. Relattofi to other literature. 
 
 (a) I Esdras. The Third Book of Ezra, or as it is called 
 in the EngHsh Apocrypha, the ist Book of Esdras, consists 
 almost entirely of extracts from Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah. 
 Thus chapters i. and ii. are taken word for word from 2 Chron. 
 XXXV. I — xxxvi. 21 ; Ezra i. and iv. 7 — 21 ; chapters v. 7— ix, 55 
 are compiled from Ezra ii. — iv. 5, v. — x., and Neh. vii. 73 — 
 viii. 13. 
 
 There remains but one portion, chap. iii. i — v. 6, which is not 
 directly borrowed from Canonical Scripture ; and this contains 
 a legend describing how Zerubbabel as a page at the Court of 
 Darius obtained great honour and received permission to re- 
 turn to Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple. The book possesses 
 therefore no independent historical value. It merely assists 
 the scholar to arrive at a better knowledge of the text, wherever 
 it supplies a parallel Greek version of Canonical Scripture. 
 
 The so-called Second (or Fourth) Book of Esdras is an 
 Apocalypse written at the close of the 1st cent. a.d. 
 
 (d) Haggai, Zechariah (i. — viii.), Malachi. The writings of 
 these prophets should be carefully studied pari passu with the 
 books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Haggai and Zechariah stimu- 
 lated the people to the work of rebuilding the Temple (Ezra 
 v. I, 2), and it is to this epoch that their prophecies relate. 
 
 The prophecy of Malachi, in all probability, dates from the 
 age of Nehemiah, and is ascribed by some to the interval be- 
 tween his first and second visit. According to others he wrote 
 shortly before the mission of Nehemiah, since the writer seems 
 to suppose that "the governor" (Mai. i. 8) is not a Jew. The 
 
INTRODUCTION. Ixvii 
 
 social condition of the people is evidently the same as that de- 
 scribed in Ezra vii. — x. and in Nehemiah. 
 
 {c) ]ost'^'\\\is, Jewish Antiquities, Bk xi. i — 5. The narra- 
 tive of the Jewish historian, in dealing with the period covered 
 by these two books, is confused and unsatisfactory. It is 
 derived principally from the Greek (First) Book of Esdras, 
 which he partially supplements with information gleaned from 
 the Canonical Book and from legend. 
 
 Zerubbabel, according to Josephus, twice leads a band of his 
 countrymen to Jerusalem, once in obedience to the decree of 
 Cyrus (§ i), and a second time in the reign of Darius as a 
 reward for the triumph of his wisdom (as i Esdr. iii. i — v. 6). 
 In the one instance the Jews are 42,462 in number, in the other 
 4,628,000. In both instances the sacred vessels are intrusted to 
 the charge of Zerubbabel. 
 
 Josephus, identifying Artaxerxes with Cambyses, relates the 
 contents of Ezra iv. 7 — 23 as intervening between the reigns of 
 Cyrus and Darius. 
 
 Darius according to Josephus had, when still a private indivi- 
 dual, made a vow that he would restore the sacred vessels to the 
 Temple of Jerusalem : he was also a personal friend of Zerub- 
 babel's. 
 
 The building of the Temple is first stated to have been accom- 
 plished rapidly: but when, after mentioning the Samaritan 
 opposition, Josephus says it was finished in seven years, he has 
 clearly misunderstood the "second year" in Ezra iii. 8, referring 
 it to the reign of Darius instead of to the reign of Cyrus. 
 
 Darius is succeeded by his son Xerxes (the Artaxerxes of 
 Ezra and Nehemiah), who is a personal friend of Ezra's. Ezra's 
 mission to Jerusalem, his crusade against mixed marriages, 
 and his public reading of the Law are rapidly described; Jose- 
 phus then mentions his death at a good old age, occurring at 
 about the same time as the death of the High-priest Joiakim. 
 
 Nehemiah's mission is ascribed to the 25th year of Xerxes' 
 reign instead of the 20th, as in Neh. ii. i ; the building of the 
 wall occupies 2 years and 4 months instead of 52 days (Neh. vi. 
 15). Its completion is celebrated by an eight days' feast; but 
 
Ixviii INTRODUCTION. 
 
 there is no mention of the solemn dedication described in Neh. 
 xii.; and scarcely any allusion either to the reforms carried out 
 by Nehemiah (Neh. v. — x.) or to his second visit mentioned in 
 Neh. xiii. It is merely stated that Nehemiah urged the priests 
 and Levites to reside in Jerusalem, that he commanded the 
 people in the country to bring their tithes to Jerusalem, and 
 that he died an old man, 
 
 {d) Jewish tradition. Many legends arose round the name 
 of Ezra. According to the Apocryphal Second (or Fourth) Book 
 of Esdras, Ezra was miraculously inspired to restore the books 
 of Scripture which had perished when Jerusalem was pillaged 
 by the armies of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Esdr. xiv.). According to 
 late Hebrew tradition Ezra is said to have written the books of 
 Ezra, Nehemiah and Chronicles. He is moreover identified 
 with the prophet Malachi. He is credited with having formed 
 the Canon of Hebrew Scripture, with introducing the square 
 Hebrew characters, and with inventing the vowel-points and 
 the Massorah. He is said to have established an important 
 national council, called the Great Synagogue, over which he 
 presided. His grave was said to be by the banks of the Tigris ; 
 but Josephus says he died at Jerusalem. But for none of these 
 legends is there any trustworthy evidence. His name imperso- 
 nates the age of "Sopherism" or the influence of the scribes. 
 Whatsoever was ascribed to the interval between Nehemiah 
 and the Maccabees is associated in Jewish tradition with Ezra. 
 
 Legend has been less busy with Nehemiah. In the spurious 
 epistles prefixed to the 2nd Book of Maccabees two legends 
 respecting Nehemiah are preserved. In the one (2 Mace. ii. 13) 
 he is said to have "founded a library" and to have collected the 
 books that told about " the kings and the prophets, the words of 
 David, and the letters of kings concerning dedicatory gifts." In 
 the other (2 Mace. i. 18 — 36) he figures in a story which told 
 how, when Jerusalem was taken by the Chaldeans, the holy fire 
 from the altar had been hidden by Jeremiah in a well, and how, 
 by its means, Nehemiah could indicate the spot where the 
 Temple should be built. In both legends he is treated as a 
 
INTRODUCTION. Ixix 
 
 representative founder of the Judaism of which the letter of 
 Scripture and the Temple of Jerusalem were the symbols. 
 
 § 1 1, hnportance of Ezra and Nehemiah. 
 
 The importance of the books Ezra and Nehemiah among 
 the Scriptures of the Old Testament Canon has often been over- 
 looked. Their pages indeed record no mighty miracle, no 
 inspiring prophecy, no vision, no heroic feat of arms. Their 
 narrative contains many uninteresting detail?, and chronicles 
 many disappointments. And yet few books offer such a variety 
 of interest or embrace material of such deep significance. 
 
 So far as their composition is concerned, we find here, what 
 is scarcely to be found elsewhere in the narratives of the Old 
 Testament, large portions of undoubtedly contemporary writing 
 in the extracts from the autobiographical memoirs of Ezra and 
 Nehemiah, and from the official documents. 
 
 So far as the history of the Jewish people narrated in these 
 books is concerned, it belongs to the epoch that opens with 
 Cyrus and closes with Alexander the Great; and it describes 
 the foundation of the system of Judaism at a time when the 
 influence of the Aryan races first made itself felt upon the life 
 and culture of the Israelite people. 
 
 So far as their religious significance is concerned, the teaching 
 of these books is of especial value in reference to (i) The Faith- 
 fulness of the Divine Promise, (2) The Disciphne of Disappoint- 
 ment, (3) The Hallowing of Common Life, (4) The Preparation 
 for the Messianic Age. 
 
 i) The book of Ezra opens with an appeal to the words of 
 Jeremiah (Ezra i. i ; cf. Jer. xxv. 12, xxix. 10}. The words of 
 prophecy had been fulfilled in judgement (Neh. ix. 30). This 
 last narrative in the Hebrew Canon describes their fulfilment in 
 mercy. The promise of deliverance and restoration is slowly 
 realised in the Return, in the Building of the Temple, and in the 
 Restoration of the City Walls. The signal accomphshment of 
 the word of Promise is a pledge for the future consummation 
 of the nation's hope. 
 
Ixx INTRODUCTION. 
 
 (2) One expectation after another is frustrated. Tiirough 
 the favour of foreign princes alone, not through Israel's victories, 
 is the Return from the Captivity brought about. The enthu- 
 siasm of the Return is damped by disaster, by opposition, by 
 want, and by discontent. Even after the erection of the sanc- 
 tuary, the hostihty of the heathen is not averted, nor the sin- 
 cerity of the Jewish community absolutely maintained. Fifty- 
 eight years intervene before the arrival of Ezra ; and then the 
 necessity of internal purification is only tardily recognised. Yet 
 twelve more years passed before the city walls protected the 
 independence of the people and their Temple. But neither 
 reforms nor fortifications could hallow the people or insure the 
 fidelity even of their priests. 
 
 The recovery of the land, the building of the Temple, the 
 isolation of the people, by the prohibition of inter-marriage 
 with the heathen and by the erection of stout ramparts, failed 
 to bring about any general consciousness of their high calling. 
 There yet remained the ascendency of "the Law" to give the 
 crowning example of the failure of material hopes. 
 
 (3) Whatsoever there is of achievement in the central story 
 of these books is due to the devotion and cooperation of citizen 
 life. Unaided by special revelation or by miraculous agency, 
 Ezra and Nehemiah are conspicuous for their simple trust in 
 God and for their witness of life spent in constant prayerful 
 communion with the Unseen. The motto of such success as 
 these books record might be written in the words of the great 
 prophet who wrought in the first generation of the post-Exilic 
 era, "not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the 
 Lord of hosts" (Zech. iv. 6). 
 
 (4) These books contain no reference to the Messianic hope 
 of the Jewish nation. And yet the need of some higher Revela- 
 tion is found expressed in the language of a formal list of those 
 who returned from the Captivity (Ezra ii. 63), We see the chief 
 place in the People passing from the Son of David to the High- 
 priest : we see the influence of the Scribe dawning upon the 
 history of the race. Prophecy is disappearing and giving place 
 
INTRODUCTION. Ixxi 
 
 to the absolute reign of the written "Law." The Spirit of 
 Divine Revelation speaks to us in this last chapter of history in 
 the Canon of the Old Testament. The picture of the foundation 
 of Judaism shows the connexion of the new era with the past. 
 The strangely unfinished story (Neh. xiii.) symbolizes the period 
 of transition from which it emanates. The Hebrew Scriptures 
 would have been incomplete, their witness unintelligible, without 
 Ezra and Nehemiah. Legalism is, as it were, left enthroned 
 upon the ruins of the Monarchy. The Sovereignty of the Law 
 knows no frontiers : the Temple draws worshippers from every 
 land. A new Jewish ascendency with a universal claim begins. 
 Its abuse culminates in the trivialities, the exclusiveness, and 
 the superstition of "the scribes and Pharisees." Its spiritual 
 power inspires the Maccabees, it educates Apostles and Evan- 
 gelists. Its failure and its success were alike necessary to the 
 Divine Dispensation. 'O N6[xos Traidayooybs rjixoiv yiyovev els 
 Xpio-Tov. 
 
 § 12. Bibliography. 
 
 The following books are accessible to all students. 
 
 Commentaries: Canon Rawlinson in 'The Speaker's Com- 
 mentary' (vol. 3) and in 'The Pulpit Commentary': Schultz, 
 edited by Briggs for 'Ezra,' and by Crosby for 'Nehemiah,' 
 in vol. VII of Lange's Commentary; Keil in Clark's Foreign 
 Theolog. Library; Bertheau, edited by Ryssel (Leipzig 1887); 
 and Ottli (Nordlingen 1889) in Zockler's Series of Commentaries. 
 
 Introductions: Prof. Sayce's (Religious Tract Soc.) ; Prof 
 Driver's discussion of the books in Jjttrod. to the Literature of 
 the O. T. (T. T. Clark, 4th ed. 1892); Rawlinson's 'Ezra and 
 Nehemiah' in 'Men of the Bible Series V 
 
 Minute discussions on the Topography of Jerusalem and on 
 
 ^ Besides the books above mentioned, I have made use of the 
 Jewish Commentaries of Rashi and Saadia, Wordsworth's Commentary, 
 and the notes by Neteler (Miinster 1877). Of all modern Commentaries, 
 that of Bertheau-Ryssel is the most full and scholarly. I have also 
 consulted the Introductions by Kuenen, Cornill, Wellhausen-BIeek, 
 and Keil; and the recent treatises by Van Hoonacker (Louvain 
 1890—2). 
 
Ixxii INTRODUCTION. 
 
 the Genealogical Lists being out of place in the present Series, 
 the reader is referred on the former subject to the Palestine 
 Exploration Soc. Qtiaj'terly Statements^ the Transactions of the 
 Society of Biblical A rcha;ology, the EncyclopcBdia Britatmica^ 
 and the writings of Conder, Wilson, Warren, Guthe, Schick, 
 Socin : on the latter subject to Smend's famous Monograph 
 Die Listen der Biicher Esr. u. Neh. (Basel 1881). 
 
 CHRONOLOGY. 
 
 B,C. 
 
 538. Capture of Babylon and Decree of Cyrus. 
 
 536. Foundation of the Temple. 
 
 529. Cambyses. 
 
 522. Pseudo-Smerdis and Darius Hystaspes. 
 
 516. Completion of the Temple. 
 
 490. Battle of Marathon. 
 
 485. Xerxes. 
 
 480. Battles of Thermopylae and Salamis. 
 
 479. Battles of Plataea and Mycale. 
 
 468. Birth of Socrates. 
 
 466. Battle of Eurymedon. 
 
 465. Artaxerxes I. Longimanus. 
 
 460 — 455. Egyptian Revolt. 
 
 458. Ezra's Mission to Jerusalem. 
 
 445. Nehemiah appointed Governor. 
 
 432. Nehemiah's Second Visit to Jerusalem. 
 
 431. First year of Peloponnesian War. 
 
 425. Xerxes II. and Sogdianus. 
 
 4:4. Darius II. Nothus. 
 
 405. Artaxerxes II. Mnemon. 
 
 351 — 331. Jaddua, High-priest. 
 
 336. Darius Codomannus. 
 
 332. Conquest of Persian Empire by Alexander the Great. 
 
N 
 
 EZRA. 
 
 ow in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the 1 
 word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be 
 
 Part I. THE RETURN UNDER ZERUBBABEL. 
 
 The Decree of Cyrus. 
 
 The Return under Sheshbazzar. 
 
 The Register of the Return. 
 
 The Dedication of the Altar. 
 
 The Foundation of tlie Temple. 
 
 The Rejection of the Samaritans. 
 
 The Opposition, in the days of Cyrus, Xerxes, 
 
 and Artaxerxes. 
 The Voice of the Prophets. 
 The Governor's Enquiry. 
 The Reply of King Darius, 
 The Completion of the Temple. 
 The Celebration of the Passover. 
 
 Ch. I. 1—4. The Decree of Cyrus. 
 
 The history of the time throws light upon the action of Cyrus, 
 whose Decree gave life to the seemingly lifeless bones of Israel (Ezek. 
 xxxvii.) and restored the scattered flock to their pasture (xxxiv.). 
 Except by his personal attendants, the fall of Nabonidus, the last king 
 of Babylon, had been hailed by all with satisfaction. The priests had 
 been alienated from him by his neglect of the defences of the great 
 temples. The generals and nobles despised a king, who absented him- 
 self from his capital and his troops, and entrusted to his son the chief 
 command. The poorer classes had no respect for a weak monarch, 
 who failed to protect them from the invader and only imposed on them 
 heavy tasks of building. Cyrus was welcomed in Babylon as Deliverer 
 and saluted as 'the Great King.' The Jewish colony who, although 
 they had been taught by their prophets to expect Cyrus' ultimate 
 success, could hardly have foreseen so easy a victory, so bloodless a 
 capture of Babylon, as that which the Inscriptions describe, would have 
 been among the most demonstrative in their rejoicing over his success. 
 They saw before them the possibility of the near realization of their 
 hopes. 
 
 Cyrus was too shrewd a sovereign to throw away any opportunity of 
 
 Ch. i 
 
 I- 
 
 -4- 
 
 
 5- 
 
 -lO. 
 
 ii 
 
 
 
 iii 
 
 1—6. 
 
 
 7- 
 
 -lO. 
 
 iv. 
 
 I- 
 
 -3. 
 
 
 4- 
 
 -24. 
 
 v. 
 
 I- 
 
 -2. 
 
 
 3- 
 
 -17- 
 
 vi. 
 
 I- 
 
 -12. 
 
 
 [3- 
 
 -18. 
 
 
 9- 
 
 -22. 
 
2 EZRA, I. [v. I. 
 
 fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of 
 Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his 
 
 cementing together the various elements of his newly conquered empire. 
 He could cheaply earn the aftection of many a subject race by gratifying 
 its hopes and removing from Babylon the symbols of its servitude. He 
 gave permission therefore to those of this class resident in the Capital, 
 to take back their gods that had been forcibly removed to Babylon, 
 and to set them up in their former homes. To the Jews he granted 
 corresponding (and, perhaps, in recognition of their special services 
 in his cause, peculiar) privileges. He gave permission to the wor- 
 shippers of Jehovah to return to their own country, to resume the 
 worship and to rebuild the Temple at Jerusalem. They had no images 
 or gods to carry with them. But the sacred vessels, regarded with deep 
 veneration, which had been carried off from Jerusalem by Nebuchad- 
 nezzar, were given back once more into the keeping of the priests. 
 
 Verses 1—3 (as far as the words 'let him go up') are almost word for 
 word the same as ^ Chron. xxxvi. 22, 23. The very slight differences 
 clearly arise from errors of transcription. We have here {a) ver. i, the 
 short form ' Yirm'yah ' instead of the longer 'Yirmyahu' — (both of which 
 are found for Jeremiah): {h) ver. i 'by the mouth' instead of 'at the 
 mouth': {c) ver. 3, 'his (jod be with him' instead of 'the Lord his God 
 be with him'. 
 
 The fact, that the book of Ezra opens with the same passage as closes 
 the books of Chronicles, has been differently explained. 
 
 (i) On the hypothesis, that Ezra-Nehemiah are a separate com- 
 position from the books of Chronicles, it is supposed that the compilers 
 of both works made use of the same written documents. 
 
 (2) On the hypothesis, that Ezra-Nehemiah come from the hands 
 of the same compiler as the books of Chronicles, we must suppose 
 {a) that there was a time when Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah, in some 
 form or another, constituted a single work : {b) that Ezra-Nehemiah 
 were detached for the purpose of completing the history of the people, 
 narrated in 2 Kings, by an account of the lleturn from Captivity and 
 of the foundation of the new Jewish Constitution : {c) that afterwards, 
 when the books of Chronicles were added as a sort of historical 
 appendix to the Jewish Canon, they were made to conclude with the 
 opening words of Ezra-Nehemiah. The records of the People thus 
 ended, not with the reminiscence of captivity, but with the announce- 
 ment of release. Furthermore Chronicles, though placed in the Jewish 
 Canon after Ezra-Nehemiah, thus retained, by means of the concluding 
 verses, a witness to its identity of origin with the books which preceded. 
 
 The second hypothesis, for reasons given in the Introd., appears to 
 be the preferable. 
 
 1. NoTxi] or '■and\ At first sight a strange word with which to 
 open a book. It implies the resumption or continuance, not the com- 
 mencement, of a history. The use of it, however, receives explanation 
 from either hypothesis mentioned in the preceding note. Regarding 
 our book as having been compiled with the books of Chronicles, we see 
 the precise usage of the word here by a reference to the context in 
 
V. 2.] EZRA, I. 
 
 kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying. Thus saith 2 
 Cyrus king of Persia, The Lord God of heaven hath given 
 
 which it stood 1 Chron. xxxvi. 22. Reasons of a similar character 
 explain the same word beginning Joshua, Judges, i Sam., i Kings. 
 
 in the first year of Cyrus] i.e. in the same year that Cyrus captured 
 Babylon and became master of the Babylonian Empire. To the Jews 
 and other subject races it would be 'the first year of Cyrus'. This year 
 is generally computed to have been 538 B.C. Cyrus was born about 
 590 B.C. He ascended the throne of Elam 558, conquered Media 549, 
 Persia about 548, overthrew Croesus and became king of Lydia 540, 
 captured Babylon 538, died 529. The Jewish 'first year of Cyrus' was 
 therefore about the twentieth of his reign over the Elamites and the 
 tenth of his reign over Persia. 
 
 Cyrus king of Persia] The Hebrew pronunciation of the name of 
 the great Persian king is generally supposed to have been 'Koresh'. 
 There is, however, good reason for preferring 'Kuresh', which cor- • 
 responds more closely with the Greek 'Kuros' {Kdpos), Latin 'Cyrus'. 
 In Persian the name seems to have been 'Kurusch'. The Babylonian 
 Inscriptions speak of him as ' Kurasch'. The name is said to be derived 
 from that of a mythical Persian hero 'Kuru'. 
 
 Recent discoveries have shown that Cyrus, prince of Anzan, a province 
 of Elam, became first, probably by rightful succession, King of Elam, 
 and styled himself by this title in his inscriptions. This fact explains 
 how it happened that Susa, the old Capital of Elam, continued to be the 
 seat of the Medo-Persian Empire along with Ecbatana, the Capital of 
 the Median Kingdom. 
 
 Cyrus, then, the conqueror and King of Persia, was an Elamite by 
 birth, a Persian by descent. His greatgrandfather Teispes was a 
 Persian. But although he was thus descended from a Persian ancestor, 
 it seems to be a mistake to impute to him the Monotheistic views 
 which characterised Persian Zoroastrianism. 
 
 He is called 'the King of Persia', not because he was born a Persian 
 prince, but because the Persian Kingdom was the most important of 
 his conquests. 
 
 that the word of the Lord] The Divine purpose. This thought is 
 well illustrated by reference to Ps. ch. 13 — 22, beginning 'Thou shalt 
 arise and have mercy upon Zion; for it is time to have pity upon her, 
 yea, the set time is come '. 
 
 by the motith of Jeremiah] Literally, ^from the mouth of\ The 
 wo\d p}'oceeds from the mouth'. It is declared 'by the mouth', as in 
 the reading of 2 Chron. xxxvi. 22, the parallel passage. The reference 
 here is to Jeremiah's prophecy of the 70 years, Jer. xxix. 10, 'For thus 
 saith the Lord, After seventy years be accomplished for Babylon, I 
 will visit you and perform my good word toward you, in causing you 
 to return to this place', cf. xxv. 11. 
 
 It is clear that in the writer's opinion ' the 70 years for Babylon ' 
 were completed at the occupation of Babylon by Cyrus. This period 
 of 70 years has been computed in different ways, (i) By some the 
 attempt is made to discover an exact interval of 70 years between the 
 
4 EZRA, I. [v. 3. 
 
 me all the kingdoms of the earth ; and he hath charged me 
 3 to build him a house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who 
 
 third year of king Jehoiakim (cf. Dan. i. i) and the taking of Babylon 
 by Cyrus. {2) By others the term is understood to express an interval 
 of time in round numbers, commencing (a) either, in the year 605, with 
 the battle of Carchemish, and the supremacy of Babylon, and the reign 
 of Nebuchadnezzar; {b) or in the year 598, when the king Jehoiachin 
 and the mass of the population were carried away captive; {c) or in the 
 year 587, when the city and Temple of Jerusalem were destroyed. 
 Our verse certainly implies that the period terminated with 'the first 
 year of Cyrus' (538)1. 
 
 might be ftiljilled] R. V. accomplislied, i.e. brought to a conclusion. 
 Referring to the substance of the utterance, touching the 70 years. 
 
 The word in the original is different from that in 2 Chron. xxxvi. 21 
 (R. V. rightly ''ftdfiV), and Jer. xxix. 10, where the R. V. unfor- 
 tunately renders the same word by accomplished. The completion of 
 the thing predicted is here emphasised rather than the fulfilment of 
 the prediction. 
 
 the Lord stirred up the spirit of Gyms'] The act of Divine inter- 
 position, taking effect in the domain of spirit, of will and desire. Cf. 
 Ex. xxxv. 21. The phrase occurs in a hostile sense, e.g. i Chr. v. 26; 
 2 Chr. xxi. 16; Jer. li. 11; but, as here and ver. 5, with a favourable 
 meaning in Hag. i. 14. 
 
 that he made a proclamation'] A peculiar phrase in the original, 
 occurring again in X. 7; Neh. viii. 15; 2 Chron. xxx. 5; Ex. xxxvi. 6, 
 meaning literally, 'he caused a voice to pass'. Here used of procla- 
 mation by herald. 
 
 all his kingdoni] i.e. nearly the whole of Western Asia; the kingdoms 
 of Elam, Media, Persia, Lydia and Babylon. 
 
 and put it also in ivriting] This is added not so much to express 
 that written copies of the proclamation were forwarded to the various 
 officials of the Empire, as to record the fact, which to the Jew was of 
 so much importance, that the edict, so far from being a Jewish in- 
 vention, had been written at the command of Cyrus, and was accessible 
 among official papers. (Cf. vi. 2.) 
 
 saying] The decree itself would have been written in Persian or 
 Aramaic. The following verses (2 — 4) contain the substance of the 
 decree translated into Hebrew and adapted to Jewish readers. It is 
 a popular reproduction rather than a literal translation. 
 
 2. The Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdovis of the 
 earth] R. V. all the kingdoms of the earth hath the Lord, the God of 
 heaven, given mfe. More correctly, (r) bringing out the emphasis 
 implied by the position of the words in the original ; {2) showing more 
 accurately the usage of the Divine name. 
 
 The acknowledgment that all earthly sway is derived from Heavenly 
 authority forms the basis of the decree. 'All the kingdoms of the 
 
 1 The Jewish Commentators (e.g. Rashi) made the 70 years to terminate with the 
 second j-ear of Darius (521). 
 
V. 3-] EZRA, I. 
 
 is there among you of all his people ? his God be with him, 
 and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah^ and 
 
 earth', the universality of the mission, with which Cyrus is divinely 
 entrusted, justifies his action in dealing with the fortunes of a part. 
 
 The Lord God of heavett] literally 'Jahveh (i.e. Jehovah), the 
 God of heaven'. This use of the sacred name of the God of the 
 Jews in the decree of Cyrus gives occasion to the question, whether 
 Cyrus icnew, and, if he knew, believed in and worshipped the God of 
 the Jews. 
 
 Commentators generally used to hold this view. This was not un- 
 natural. For (i) they considered these verses to reproduce verbatim 
 the decree of Cyrus : (2) they very generally supposed that Cyrus, being 
 a Persian, was also a monotheist, who favoured the Jews on account 
 of their monotheism, and saw in Jahveh a local representation of the 
 One God that he adored: (3) they accepted and reproduced the state- 
 ment of Josephus that Cyrus, having seen in Isaiah the Jewish 
 prophecies relating to himself, recognised their fulfilment, and wor- 
 shipped and believed in Jahveh : (4) they derived support for their 
 view from analogous utterances of allegiance to the God of the Jews 
 recorded of Nebuchadnezzar and Darius in Dan. iii. 28, 29, iv. 2 — 37, 
 vi. 25 — 28. 
 
 But (i) it is evident that the edict in these verses is recorded in 
 the words of the Hebrew translator and presented in its Jewish form. 
 (2) Recent discoveries have shown that Cyrus was no monotheist. 
 His own inscriptions testify to his having been a polytheist to the last. 
 He acted as High Priest towards the great deities of Babylon. He 
 constantly styles himself and his son Cambyses the worshippers of 
 Nebo and Merodach. (3) The policy of the victorious monarch was 
 to include among the lesser divinities of his Pantheon the gods of the 
 subjugated countries, and to secure the favour of those who presided 
 over difterent territories. The deities of whom he avowed himself the 
 servant were [a) those of his own land, who had protected him in his 
 career of victory, [b) those of the conquered kingdoms who had trans- 
 ferred to him their favour, and had thus permitted him to be victorious. 
 
 Whether Josephus' story that Cyrus had seen the prophecies of 
 Isaiah is correct or not we cannot say. There is nothing in it in- 
 trinsically impossible. On the other hand, it was a very probable 
 hypothesis to suggest itself to the mind of a Jew by which to account 
 for Cyrus' benevolent action towards his race (see note on ver. 4). 
 
 When Cyrus here, in his edict, made use of a Divine name, he 
 {a) either referred to one of the great gods whom -he especially wor- 
 shipped, e.g. Merodach, Nebo, Bel, for which the Hebrew version has 
 -reverently substituted the name of Jahveh : {b) or actually referred by 
 name to Jahveh, as the god of the people, in whose favour the edict 
 was promulgated. 
 
 The author of the book presupposes the acquaintance of heathen 
 people with the popular use of the sacred Name which the Jew of later 
 days was forbidden to pronounce. 
 
EZRA, I. [v. 4. 
 
 build the house of the Lord God of Israel, (he is the God,) 
 4 which is in Jerusalem. And whosoever remaineth in any 
 
 God of heaven'] A title, found also in Darius' letter, chap, vi. 
 9, 10, and in Artaxerxes' letter, vii. 12, 21, 23. It is found in the 
 Jewish reply reported in Tattenai's letter v. 12. In Nehemiah it occurs 
 i. 4, 5, ii. 4, 20; cf Ps. cxxxvi. 26; Dan. ii. i8, 19, 44. Like 
 the similar phrase 'the God of heaven and earth' (v.- 11) the title 
 implies boundless sovereignty. For 'Heaven' combined the ideas of 
 infinite space, cf. 1 Kings viii. 27; Jer. xxxi. 37, the forces of nature, 
 cf. Ps. xix. I, and the dwelling-place of Spiritual beings (cf. Is. Ixvi. i ; 
 I Kings viii. 30; Ps. ii. 4, cxv. 3.) 
 
 given me] An expression of pious humility on the part of Cyrus in 
 acknowledgment of the fact that he had won by his sword, and not 
 inherited, the kingdoms of his empire. 
 
 /le] Very emphatic in the original (cf. LXX. avrbs. Vulgate ipse). 
 
 hath charged ?ue] The Divine mission which Cyrus probably un- 
 consciously discharged is described in Isa. xliv. 24 — 28, xlv. 1 — 13. 
 The view that he was shown these prophecies and was influenced by 
 reading them has been already referred to. Some have also supposed 
 that Cyrus was actuated by statements of Daniel as to his duty towards 
 the chosen people. For neither view is there any historical evidence. 
 
 a house] i.e. a Temple. 
 
 ai Jeriisaletn tvhich is in Jiidah] with geographical detail, Judah 
 being a small and obscure province, unknown probably in many 
 quarters of the great Persian Empire. 
 
 3. Who is there among you of all his people? his God, &c.] R.V. 
 Whosoever there is among you of all his people, his God, &c., rightly 
 translating by the indefinite relative instead of by the interrogative 
 pronoun. 
 
 among yoti] The decree is addressed to the inhabitants of the many 
 kingdoms which the Persian Empire included. 
 
 of all his people] From the context, in which Judah and Jerusalem 
 alone are mentioned, it is clear that the edict referred only to the Southern 
 kingdom whose inhabitants had been ' deported ' by Nebuchadnezzar. 
 It is not likely that Cyrus would have been acquainted with the circum- 
 stances of the 'deportation' of the Northern kingdom by Sargon the 
 Assyrian, so many years previously (721 B.C.), even if (which is most 
 unlikely) the identity of the Ten Tribes had been preserved. At the 
 same time there is good reason to suppose that some captives from the 
 Northern tribes, who had preserved their lineage and their national 
 religion, availed themselves of the opportunity which the decree of 
 Cyrus offered them. See on ii. 2. Cf. 1 Chr. ix. 3. 
 
 his God be with him'] The parallel passage in 2 Chron. xxxvi. 23 reads 
 'the Lord (Jahveh) his God be with him'. As it is more probable 
 that the sacred Name should have been inserted than omitted by 
 the Jewish copyists, the text as it stands in our verse is preferable; 
 it is also supported by the LXX. and by i Esdras ii. 5. The word 
 in the original for 'be' (y'hi), containing the first two consonants of 
 'Jahveh', may possibly have been mistaken for it and have given rise 
 
4.] EZRA, I. 
 
 place where he sojourneth, let the men of his place help 
 him with silver, and with gold, and with goods, and with 
 
 to the variation. The words are a common form of blessing. Cf. English 
 'Good-bye' (God be with you). After the blessing comes the substance 
 of the decree, (i) the Return, (2) the Building of the Temple. 
 
 and let hiin go up] Change of subject, " His God be with him and 
 let such an one 'go up'". The journey to the land of Judah is treated 
 as an ascent. Cf. "The Songs of Ascents", Pss. cxx. — cxxxiv. 
 
 ajtd build] i.e. rebuild. 
 
 the Lord God of Israel] R.V. the Lord, the God of Israel, in the 
 original 'Jahveh the God of Israel'; 'the God of Israel', the old 
 national title used freely without room for misconception after the 
 destruction of the Northern kingdom (cf. in Ezraiv. i, 3, v. i, vi, 14, 21, 
 22, vii. 6, 15, viii. 35, ix. 4, 15). The discipline of the Captivity had 
 revived the conception of the true Israel (see Isai. xli. 17; Jer. xxx. 2 j 
 Ezek. viii. 4). 
 
 {Ae is t/ie God,) which is in Jerusalem] So R.V. text, but R.V. margin 
 ^he is the God which is in Jerusalem ', gives an alternative rendering. 
 
 {a) If the words ' he is the God ' be taken parenthetically as in A.V. 
 and R.V. text, then 'which is in Jerusalem' refers to 'the house of 
 Jahveh'. It gives an additional piece of information necessary to those 
 who did not associate the temples of gods with any one place. Temples 
 of heathen gods, e.g. of Nebo, might be erected in any number of towns. 
 Why not therefore of Jahveh ? Cyrus' decree explicitly localizes the cult. 
 
 {b) Otherwise the words, ' which is in Jerusalem ', are taken closely 
 with * He is the God', as in the margin of the R.V. This is the ren- 
 dering of the LXX. (ai^Tos 6 ^eos 6 iv'lepovcraXrj/x) and the Vulgate {Ipse est 
 Dens qui est in lerusalem). It is also supported by the Jewish tradition 
 preserved by the Hebrew accents. Accepting this collocation of the 
 words, the student must be careful to attach the proper emphasis to 
 the words 'the God'. For the clause is not simply geographically 
 explanatory of the foregoing words, 'the Lord the God of Israel', 
 stating that ' he is the God who is in Jerusalem ' in order to distinguish 
 him from the gods of other localities. But the name, * the God ', is 
 used emphatically (ha-Elohim, not Elohim) and absolutely, as in verses 
 4 and 5. Compare ' The Lord He is the God ' in i Kings xviii, 39. 
 The sense then is ' He is The God, the Almighty, and He has made 
 choice of Jerusalem as His dwelling-place'. 
 
 Reasons for preferring the former translation (i.e. that of the A.V. 
 and R.V. Text) are the following 
 
 (i) The phrase 'which is in Jerusalem' is almost invariably in this 
 book applied to the Temple or Temple service (cf. i. 4, 5, ii. 68, v. 2, 
 14, If, 16, vi. 5, 12 (9, 18), vii. 15, 16, 17, 27). (2) It is not a natural 
 phrase — whether part of the original edict or added by Jewish translator 
 — by which to designate One who has already been termed ' the God of 
 Israel'. (3) The objection to the separation (in the A.V. and R.V.) of 
 the clause, " which is in J.", from the word to which it should be 
 attached, has occasioned the rendering of the LXX., Vulg., and R.V. 
 marg. (4) But a parenthetical ' He is the God ' bears the impress of a, 
 
8 EZRA, I. [v. 4. 
 
 beasts, besides the freewill offering for the house of God 
 that is in Jerusalem. 
 
 thoroughly Jewish insertion after the mention of the sacred Name. 
 (5) The supposed significance of the alternative rendering disappears 
 with the discovery that Cyrus was no monotheist. For Cyrus would 
 not have said ' He is the (i.e. the true) God who is at Jerusalem ' — 
 while a post- captivity Jewish editor would not have introduced so 
 unusual and restrictive a localization for his God. 
 
 We conclude therefore that the words ' He is the God ' are a Jewish 
 parenthesis inserted by the compiler reverently but awkwardly, in such 
 a way as to break up the sentence * the house of the Lord, the God 
 of Israel — which is at Jerusalem '. 
 
 4. And whosoever remaineth in any place where he sojourneth^ 
 R.V. And whosoever is left, in any place where lie sojoumetli. The 
 wording of this clause is a little ambiguous. The following para- 
 phrase will give the meaning. 'In any place where survivors of the 
 Jewish captivity are to be found sojourning, there let the natives of the 
 place, the non-Israelite neighbours, render him all assistance.' That 
 this is the right interpretation is shown by the passages Neh. i. 2, ' The 
 Jews that had escaped, which were left of the captivity' and Hag. ii. 3, 
 ' Who is left among you that saw this house in its former glory'. Cf. 
 1 Kings XXV. 22 and 'the residue' (R.V.) in Jer. viii. 3, xxiv. 8, 
 xxxix. 9, &c. 
 
 The A.V. gives no intelligible sense. The R.V. (i) by altering 
 ' remaineth 'to 'is left ' preserves the application of the word in the 
 original to the survivors of the Captivity, (2) by punctuation indicates 
 the construction of the verse, in which ' whosoever is left ' is placed 
 independently as a heading to the whole sentence ; while the words 
 ' in any place where he sojourneth ' do not belong to ' whosoever is left ' 
 but introduce the succeeding clause ' let the men &c.' 
 
 The passage is somewhat awkwardly worded, but v/ith the above 
 explanation is rendered quite clear in meaning. The decree made no 
 universal requisition for aid to the Jews. It only enjoined that local 
 assistance should be given by neighbours, wherever any resident Jew 
 availed himself of the king's edict for the Return. 
 
 sojourneth\ The word in the original regularly used in the sense of 
 • to dwell as a stranger '. Cf. Lev. xix. 34. 
 
 help\ The A.V. margin has ' Heb. lift him up '. The word in the 
 original is the intensive Mood of the verb ' to lift or carry ', and occurs 
 in I Kings ix. 11 = 'furnished'. The LXX. {avrLXa/x^aueffdwaav avroG) 
 renders the sense well by the Greek word so familiar to English 
 readers in the words ' He hath holpen Israel his servant ' (Luke i. 54). 
 
 with silver, and with gold, and with goods, and with beasts'] The 
 assistance should be given in money for the journey, in necessaries for 
 the new homes, and in means of transport. — "Goods" a vague word, 
 reproducing the indefiniteness of the original. It occurs again viii. 21, 
 x. 8, = ' substance' in A.V. and R.V. (LXX. KTrjais and virap^cs, Vulgate 
 'substantia'). Here the LXX. has dTroo-Keu?? and the Vulgate 'substantia'. 
 From its use in these passages and in Genesis xii. 5, xiii. 6, we gather 
 
V. 5] EZRA, I. 9 
 
 Then rose up the chief of the fathers of Judah and 5 
 Benjamin, and the priests, and the Levites, with all them 
 whose spirit God had raised, to go up to build the house of 
 
 that the word means the moveables of a household. ' Beasts ' i.e. beasts 
 of burden — horses, camels and asses. Cf. ii. 66, 67. 
 
 besides the freewill offering] 'beside', i.e. along with (Vulg. wrongly 
 'excepto quod') certain voluntary gifts of a more private nature 
 especially intended for the Temple, as in chap. viii. 25. Compare the 
 freewill-offerings mentioned in Ex. xxxv. 29; Lev. xxii. 23. This free- 
 will offering is not to be restricted, as by some commentators, to the 
 gifts either of Cyrus or of the Jews w^ho remained behind. Any one, 
 Jew or Gentile, could make such offerings, iii. 5. 
 
 for the house of God] These words denote the object of the free-will 
 offering : and are not, as the Hebrew accents interpret, to be taken 
 as following after 'help him', the mtervening words being taken 
 parenthetically. 
 
 that is m yerusale?fi] R.V. which is, consistently with verses 2 and 
 3. The clause refers to 'the house'. Some understand 'God' as 
 the antecedent to ' which ' ; but see note on a similar interpretation 
 in ver. 3. The expression is in its explicitness similar to 'Jerusalem 
 which is in Judah ' (ver. 2). 
 
 6—11. The Return of the Jews under Sheshbazzar : a 
 
 BRIEF SUMMARY OF EVENTS. 
 
 5. the chief of the fathers] R. V. the heads of fathers' houses. 
 
 Literally rendered, the term would be 'the heads of the fathers'. Cf. 
 the Latin 'principes patrum'. See Ex. vi. 14. For the subdivision into 
 (i) tribe, (2) family, (3) household, compare especially Josh. vii. 16 — 18. 
 
 with all them] R. V. even all. The construction in the original is 
 peculiar. The preposition 'to' or 'for' stands before 'all', and the 
 relative is omitted. The A. V. takes the clause to briefly summarize 
 'the rest' (i.e. the supplementary list of them) who, not being classed 
 under (a) the heads of fathers' houses of Judah and Benjamin, {b) priests, 
 (c) Levites, formed a fourth division of the people. By comparison 
 with other passages such as i Chr. xiii. i, 2, 2 Chr. v. 12, where the 
 same or a similar construction in the original is found, we see that the 
 R. V. is correct. The preposition does not supplement, it defines. 
 All included under the three groups mentioned in the verse, 'rose up'. 
 The whole community is summed up under these three heads, cf. vi. 
 16, 20. 
 
 whose spirit God had raised] R. V. had stirred up. The same phrase 
 as in verse i. Verse 5 follows as the direct result of verse r. It is 
 important therefore that the same words should be used to translate the 
 same phrase. 
 
 'God' here is 'ha-Elohim', the GoD=Jahveh of verse i who also 
 stirred up the spirit of Cyrus. The wonder of the Return is shown to 
 be wholly due to Divine overruling. The will of the sovereign to 
 
lo EZRA, I. [vv. 6, 7. 
 
 6 the Lord which is in Jerusalem. And all they that were 
 about them strengthened their hands with vessels of silver, 
 with gold, with goods, and with beasts, and with precious 
 
 7 things, beside all that was willingly offered. Also Cyrus the 
 king brought forth the vessels of the house of the Lord, 
 
 proclaim the decree and the will of the subject to avail himself of it 
 are alike controlled by Him. 
 
 to go up to build} Observe the punctuation. In the A.V. these 
 words are by the punciuation connected with the main verb 'rose 
 up'. The R. V. connects the words with the last clause alone, and 
 thus {a) avoids collocation of 'rose up' with to 'go up'; [b) divides the 
 verse into two balanced sentences, the general statement and its closer 
 definition. 
 
 6. And alt they that were aboitt them'] R. V. round about them. 
 A general expression which would include both the heathen neighbours, 
 alluded to (in ver. 3) by the edict, and the Jewish neighbours, not 
 contemplated in the edict, who preferred to remain in the land of the 
 Captivity. 
 
 strengthened their hands] The use of this expression differs slightly 
 in the grammar of the original from such passages as Neh. ii. 18, 'So 
 they strengthened their hands for the good work'; Jer. xxiii. 14, 'they 
 strengthen the hands of evil doers'. In those passages the idea is 
 simply that of 'invigorating' and 'adding strength'. Here the em- 
 ployment of a preposition introduces a shade of variety into the 
 metaphor. The idea is that of 'grasping', 'laying firm hold on the 
 hand with the view of strengthening or supporting'. The Jews who 
 sought to return were like a convalescent essaying to walk and needing 
 assistance. Cf. Is. li. 18, 'There is none that taketh her by the hand of 
 all the sons that she hath brought up'. 
 
 vessels of silver, zuith gold] we should expect 'with vessels of gold', 
 cf. ver. 9. 
 
 with goods] see ver. 4. 
 
 and with precious things] A rare word in the original, 'migdanoth'. 
 It occurs in 2 Chron. xxi. 3 = A.V. and R. V. precious things, xxxii. 
 23 = A.V. presents, R. V. precious things. And in a well-known pas- 
 sage, Gen. xxiv. 53 — A.V. and R.V, precious things. The Latin here 
 'in supellectili' is a mere guess. The LXX. rendering "-kv ^eviots' — 
 with gifts agrees with their rendering 5wpa in Gen., and do/xara in 
 2 Chr. xxxii. In 2 Chr. xxi. 3 they render by owXa. 
 
 beside all that zaas ivillingly offered] i.e. these gifts were over and 
 above the free-will offerings. The clause in the original is peculiar, 
 'beside over and above all one willingly offered'. The relative is 
 omitted as in ver. 4, but is implied in 'all'. The verb is active in 
 meaning (cf. ii. 68, iii. 5) and is here used impersonally. 
 
 7. Also Cyrus the king] i.e. the Jews were assisted not only by 
 private individuals their neighbours, but by the example of the king 
 himself. 
 
V. S.l EZRA, I. 
 
 which Nebuchadnezzar had brought forth out of Jerusalem, 
 and had put them in the house of his gods ; even those did 8 
 
 ^^e vessels of the house of the Lord, which Nebuchadnezzar had 
 brought forth &c.] This refers especially to the capture of Jerusalem 
 in 598, when Jehoiachin, his household and 10,000 of the better classes 
 were carried off to Babylon. % Kings xxiv. 13 'And he (i.e. Nebu- 
 chadnezzar) carried out thence (i.e. from Jerusalem) all the treasures 
 of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king's house, and 
 cut in pieces all the vessels of gold which Solomon king of Israel had 
 made in the temple of the Lord'. It may be noticed that in the 
 original the expression 'carried out' in the passage just cited and so 
 translated in A. V. and R. V. is identical with the ' brought forth ' 
 in this verse. 
 
 At the final destruction of Jerusalem (586) eleven or twelve years 
 later, by Nebuzaradan, Nebuchadnezzar's general, the remainder of 
 the valuables contained in the house of the Lord were 'taken away' 
 to Babylon, 2 Kings xxv. 14, 15. 
 
 The passage in Dan. i, i, 2, which attributes to the third year (606) 
 of Jehoiakim's reign a siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, the 
 capture of Jehoiakim, and 'the removal to Babylon of some of the 
 sacred vessels, is chronologically incorrect, (i) The victory of Car- 
 chemish on the Euphrates was not won by Nebuchadnezzar till the 
 fourth year of Jehoiakim (605). (2) According to 2 Kings xxiv. i 
 Jehoiakim, who had been tributary to the king of Egypt, did not 
 become tributary to Nebuchadnezzar until after that battle, and, having 
 remained so for three years only, then rebelled. This rebellion led to 
 Nebuchadnezzar's siege and capture of Jerusalem in Jehoiachin's brief 
 reign of three months. All that can be said is that we have in Dan. 
 i. I, 2, a certain chronological error, but that it is conceivable that when 
 Nebuchadnezzar 'came up' (2 Kings xxiv. i) and Jehoiakim submitted, 
 a siege may have preceded capitulation, and a carrying off to Babylon 
 both of prisoners and of some vessels of the Lord may have taken place 
 in 602 or 601. Of this we have no certain confirmation, and it is more 
 probable that the passage in Daniel i. i may be a heading containhig 
 inaccurate historical statements or late tradition prefixed by a scribe 
 to the narrative of Daniel. 
 
 in the house of his godsl So A. V. and R.V. The original is 'in 
 the house of his Elohim'. 'Elohim' may be rendered either as 'God' 
 or 'gods' according as the context requires. The student will observe 
 that in Daniel i. 2 the same phrase 'the house of his Elohim' is 
 rendered both by A. V. and R.V. 'the house of his god'. Nebu- 
 chadnezzar was a polytheist. But had the stress here rested upon the 
 plurality of his gods, we should have expected 'in the houses of his 
 gods'. The rendering 'in the house of his god' appears preferable, 
 both on account of the singular 'house' and, especially, on account of 
 Nebuchadnezzar's devotion to one god, Merodach, to whom he paid 
 greater honour than to any of the other deities of the Babylonian 
 pantheon. The Temple of E-sagila in honour of Merodach was re- 
 stored by Nebuchadnezzar with unrivalled splendour. The passage in 
 
EZRA, !. [v. 8. 
 
 Cyrus king of Persia bring forth by the hand of Mithredath 
 the treasurer, and numbered them unto Sheshbazzar, the 
 
 2 Chron. xxxvi. 7 'Nebuchadnezzar also carried of the vessels of the 
 house of the Lord to Babylon and put them in his temple at Babylon', 
 helps to confirm the rendering 'in the house of his god'. The other 
 passages relating to the sacred vessels are Jer. xxvii. 16, xxviii. 6, lii. 18; 
 Dan. V. 23; Baruch i. 8. 
 
 8. by the haftd of] So A. V. and R. V. This phrase in the 
 original is a little difficult. It occurs Ezr. viii. 26, 'I even weighed 
 into their ha7id &c.', 33, 'was the silver and the gold and the vessels 
 weighed into the hand of, &c. (marg. 'by'), Esth. vi. 9, 'let the 
 apparel and the horse be delivered to the hand of one of the king's 
 most noble princes'. It seems better here to render '■ittto the hand 
 of. The vessels were brought out and given into the charge of 
 Mithredath, who was to superintend their numbering. 
 
 Mithredath the treasurer] This is the Hebrew form of the old 
 Persian name 'Mithradata', familiar to us as Mithridates. On coins 
 we find the more correct transliteration 'Mithradates'. It was a very 
 common name among the Medo-Persians, cf. iv. 7. It is derived from 
 'Mithras', the name of the Persian sun-god, and the root 'da' = to 
 give, and has been differently understood to mean either 'given by 
 Mithras', or 'given, i.e. dedicated, to Mithras'. Of these the former 
 is the preferable Cf. Hormisdas= 'given by Ormuzd', Theodotus = 
 'given by God'. 
 
 the treasurer] The word in the original is a Persian, not a Hebrew 
 word, and occurs again vii. 21; Dan. iii. 2, 3. The 'gizbar', Old 
 Persian 'gazabara', mentioned here seems to have been the king's 
 Privy Purse, the bearer or dispenser of the royal treasure. The Persian 
 word will remind the student of the Hellenistic ' gaza' (70^0) = ' treasure' 
 adopted from the Persian. The Ethiopian Eunuch, chamberlain to 
 queen Candace, was 'over all her treasure', eTrt ■kojj'(]% ttjs ya^rjs avTrjs 
 (Acts viii. 27). The word for 'the treasury', used in the gospels, means 
 " the place for keeping the 'gaza'," ya^ocpvKdnov (cf. Mark xii. 41 ; Luke 
 xxi. I ; John viii. 20). 
 
 ajid numbered them] so A. V. R.V. Better, and he numbered them. 
 The king made the gift; his officer had the charge of its disposition 
 and valuation. 
 
 unto Sheshbazzar, the prince of Jjidah] There seems to be no good 
 reason to doubt that the Sheshbazzar mentioned here and in v. 14, 16 
 is the same as Zerubbabel. For although Zerubbabel (iii. 2, 8, iv. 3, 
 V. 2) is not designated by any official title in our book, still (i) the 
 manner in which he is regarded as the representative of the Jewish 
 returned exiles in iv. 2, (2) the fact that his name, as that of the chief 
 layman and of the head of the Davidic line, is associated with that 
 of the High-priest Jeshua in the general administration, iii. 2, 8, 
 iv. 3, v. 2; Hag. i. i ; Zech. iii. iv, (3) the title of 'governor (pekhah) 
 of Judah' given him by the prophet Haggai (i. i, ii. 2, 21), and 
 given also to Sheshbazzar (Ezra v. 14) make it reasonable to suppose 
 that Sheshbazzar was another name of Zerubbabel, just as Belteshazzar, 
 
vv. 9, lo.] EZRA, I. 13 
 
 prince of Judah. And this is the number of them : thirty 9 
 chargers of gold, a thousand chargers of silver, nine and 
 twenty knives, thirty basons of gold, silver basons of a 10 
 second sort four hundred and ten, and other vessels a 
 
 Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, were the names given in the 
 Captivity to Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah (Uan. i. 6, 7). 
 To this view the objection has fairly been raised that in Daniel we 
 find a Babylonish by the side of a Hebrew name, but that in this case 
 both Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel are considered to be Babylonish 
 names, and that it is very strange to find the same man called in a 
 Jewish book by two foreign names. This objection may possibly be 
 met by regarding Zerubbabel as the name, though of foreign origin, 
 which he took as prince among his own people, Sheshbazzar as the 
 name by which he was known at the court of the Persian king. At 
 any rate Sheshbazzar is here called 'the prince of Judah' and in 
 V. 14 he is mentioned as conveying the sacred vessels and laying the 
 foundation of the Temple. See also the Introduction, § 6. 
 
 the prince of ytidah'] The 'nasi' of Judah. In two passages 
 he is given the title of 'Tirshatha', the Persian equivalent of the 
 Assyrian 'pekhah' (Ezr. ii. 63, Neh. vii. 65, 70). He is called 
 'pekhah' or 'Tirshatha" in relation to the Persian government. In 
 relation to his own people, he is called 'nasi' or prince either as head 
 of the great tribe of Judah (cf. the title 'nasi' of the 'princes' of the 
 tribes in Num. vii., xxxiv. 22 — 28), or as the representative of the 
 royal house of David (cf. especially the frequent use of this term in 
 Ezekiel, chaps, xlv. xlvi. xlviii.). In later days this title was taken 
 by Simon, the brother of Judas the Maccabee, whose coins contain the 
 legend 'Simon the prince (nasi) of Israel'. Sheshbazzar is mentioned 
 here alone. The prominence of the High-priest seems to date from 
 the arrival at Jerusalem. 
 
 9. chargers'] The word in the original does not occur elsewhere in 
 the Bible. Its meaning is very uncertain : (i) the old Jewish interpre- 
 tation quoted by Aben Ezra derived it from two words meaning ' to 
 collect ' and * a lamb ', and understood it to be applied to ' vessels in- 
 tended to receive the blood of victims'; (2) the LXX. translates by 
 'wine-coolers' {\pvKTripes) ', (3) Esdras by 'libation-vessels' {airovbeia) ', 
 {4) another rendering, based upon a similar root in Arabic, Syriac and 
 Ethiopic, is ' baskets '. 
 
 knives] The word in the original occurs here only in the Bible. Vulg. 
 'cultri'. This rendering is very uncertain. Other interpretations are 
 (i) 'censers', {OvtaKai) in i Esdras. (2) (?) * changes of raiment' — so ap- 
 parently the LXX. irapriKKayfxiva — possibly cf. Judg. xiv. 19. (3) 'vessels 
 adorned with network' — so Ewald comparing a similar word in Judg. 
 xvi. 13, 19. 
 
 10. basons] R.V. bowls — i.e. vessels provided with covers or lids, 
 almost our 'tankards'. Lat. 'scyphi'. The word occurs in i Chr. 
 xxviii. 17 and Ezr. viii. 27. 
 
 0/ a second sort] The fact that they were silver distinguishes them 
 
14 EZRA, I. [v. II. 
 
 thousand. All the vessels of gold and of silver were five 
 thousand and four hundred. All these did Sheshbazzar 
 
 from the golden bowls just mentioned and makes this expression seem 
 superfluous. The versions were puzzled by it: LXX, renders' double' 
 StTrXor: Vulg. 'second' ('secundi'). The words, as they stand, imply, 
 that the silver bowls were secondary in quality or intended for inferior 
 purposes. In all probability we have here some corruption in the text: 
 see note on ver. ii. 
 
 11. All the vessels, &.c.,Jive thousand and four htuidred] It is natural 
 to expect that the words 'all the vessels' would give us the sum total 
 of the different figures mentioned in vv. 9 and lo. The sum total how- 
 ever mentioned here is 5400. The vessels enumerated under the six 
 classes (in vv. 9, 10), when added together, make only 2499. Unless 
 we concede that the text is incorrect, the only solution of the variation 
 is to suppose that verses 9 and 10 omit a large number of less important 
 vessels. This is unsatisfactory, since the words 'and other vessels a 
 thousand' are obviously intended to cover the remainder. 
 
 It is probable therefore that the discrepancy arises from some ancient 
 corruption in the text, which has been caused by copyists' errors in 
 transcribing numbers. This is a frequent source of mistake. 
 
 The LX'X. has the same text as the Hebrew, so that the error is of 
 very ancient origin. The ist Book of Esdras has two variations in the 
 list of items, reading (i) '1000' for '30' 'chargers of gold', (2) '2410' 
 for '410' 'silver bowls' (reading '2000' instead of 'a second sort'), and 
 gives a total corresponding to its figures, i.e. 5469. 
 
 Some scholars, seeing in the variations of i Esdras a clue to the true 
 solution, maintain that the corruption of the text is to be found in the 
 figures both of the items and of the total, [a) They reject the variation 
 of 'looo' for '30' chargers as a round number inserted by i Esdras; 
 {b) they read *iooo' for '30' 'bowls of gold', on the ground that 30 is 
 too small a figure, since Ezra himself brought 20 of this description 
 (Ezr. viii. 28); {c) they read '2410' for '410 of a second sort,' on the 
 authority of i Esdras. These alterations bring the total to 5469, agreeing 
 with I Esdras. 
 
 Ewald {a) combining the reading of Ezra and i Esdras reads ' 1030' 
 for '30' 'chargers', {b) keeping the '30' 'bowls of gold', accepts the 
 I Esdras reading of 2410, and thus obtains the total of 5499. 
 
 Keil suspecting that the corruption is to be found in the sum total 
 rather than in the items, suggests that by an accidental transposition of 
 figures the true number of 2500 has become altered to 5400. 
 
 In favour of this view, it must be admitted that (i) the figure of 5400 
 is surprisingly large, (2) copyists had a greater tendency to increase 
 than to reduce numbers. But as the items are given in detail, so we 
 should expect the sum total to be given exactly and not merely in a 
 round number. As we have the two best texts agreeing in this total 
 figure 5400, it is better to look for the error among the items. The 
 reading of i Esdras ' 2410' may possibly be correct. 
 
 But in the absence of further evidence we are left to conjecture either 
 
V. II.] EZRA, I. 15 
 
 bring up with them of the captivity that were brought up 
 from Babylon unto Jerusalem. 
 
 that some items have accidentally fallen out or that some of the present 
 figures have been wrongly transcribed. 
 
 with them of the captivity that were brought tip] R.V. when they of 
 the captivity were brought up. The original here is rather condensed. 
 The versions failed to translate the passage. LXX. to. Tvavra ra, dva- 
 ^aivovTa [/x.erd 'Zaaa^aaaaplairb r-qs diroLKias €K Ba^vXicuos. Vulg. 'zmi- 
 versa tidit Sassabasar aim his, qui ascendebant de irans7nigratione 
 Babylo7iis\ 
 
 The meaning of the clause is practically the same. But the more 
 precise sense conveyed by the R.V. is the only right translation, i.e. 
 that Sheshbazzar brought up the vessels at the time when 'the captivity' 
 was brought up. The emphasis is on the tiiiie of the removal — not on 
 the caravan which accompanied it. 
 
 were h'otight tip] the same word used of the 'breaking up' of a camp 
 in Jer. xxxvii. 11. 
 
 the captivity] the reader will notice that the journey of Sheshbazzar 
 and his companions from Babylon to Jerusalem is disposed of in a single 
 verse. We hear nothing of the details or of the difficulties of the 
 journey, which must have lasted three or four months, cf. vii. 8, 9. 
 
 It has been suggested that here should be introduced the passage 
 I Esdr. v. I — 6 'After this were the principal men of the families 
 chosen according to their tribes, to go up with their wives and sons and 
 daughters, with their menservants and maidservants and cattle. (2) And 
 Darius sent with them a thousand horsemen, till they had brought them 
 back to Jerusalem safely, and with musical [instruments] tabrets and 
 flutes. (3) And all their brethren played, and he made them go up 
 together with them. (4) And these are the names of the men which 
 went up, according to their families among their tribes, after their 
 several heads. (5) The priests, the sons of Phinees, the son of Aaron: 
 Jesus, the son of Josedec, the son of Saraias, and Joacim, the son of 
 Zero babel, the son of Salathiel, of the house of David, out of the kindred 
 of Phares, of the tribe of Judah; (6) who spake wise sentences before 
 Darius the king of Persia in the second year of his reign in the month 
 Nisan which is the first month.' The name Darius being taken as an 
 error for Cyrus, and verses 5 and 6 being considered to be an inter- 
 polation, the passage would give us information as to {ci) the orderly 
 preparations, {b) the armed escort, for the expedition, (c) the festal 
 character of the start, {d) the date of the departure, and would throw 
 light upon 'the seventh month' mentioned in iii. i, and 'the second 
 year' mentioned in iii. 8. 
 
 The general style fairly corresponds with that of the books Ezra and 
 Chronicles. But {a) it cannot be conceded that these verses join naturally 
 on to chap. ii. i. {b) In the original context (i Esd. v.) they have all 
 the appearance of a gloss inserted to connect the legend of Darius and 
 the Three young men (iii., iv.) with the resumption of the narrative (v. 
 7). {c) There is nothing impossible, supposing the passage to be a 
 genuine extract from existing records, in such an expedition having 
 
1 6 EZRA, II. [v. I. 
 
 2 Now these are the children of the province that went up 
 out of the captivity, of those which had been carried away, 
 
 been made in the second year of king Darius, and in supposing that 
 the arrival of this priestly contingent would have encouraged the pro- 
 phets Haggai and Zechariah in their task of arousing the people to 
 complete tlie Temple (cf. the second year of Darius Hag. i. i ; Zech. 
 i. I). 
 
 The journey, which would have probably been N. and N.W. along 
 the Euphrates by Haran as far as the fords of Carchemish, and then 
 S.W. and S. through the territory of the old kingdoms of Hamath, 
 Syria and Samaria, must have occupied a considerable interval of 
 time. Ezra and his band took four months (ch. vii. 8, 9) in accom- 
 plishing the same distance. Perhaps no record was preserved of the 
 incidents of the journey, and the compiler passes on to subjects for 
 which he had written materials to draw from. 
 
 Chap. II. The Register of the Return. 
 
 Chap. ii. contains the register or list of those who returned to Je- 
 rusalem, with Zerubbabel, Jeshua, and their companions. The register 
 gives the names in the following order, (i) 'the men of the people 
 of Israel' (3 — 35), (2) the Priests (36 — 39), (3) the Levites, Singers, 
 Porters, Nethinim, 'children of the servants of Solomon' (40 — 58), 
 (4) miscellaneous (59 — 63), (5) the sum total, &c. (64 — 67). 
 
 The same list is to be found in Neh. vii. 6 — 73, and i Esdras v. 
 7 — 45. Certain variations occur both in the names and in the figures, 
 the most important of which will come under notice in the following 
 notes. 
 
 1. Now these are the children of the province'] *Now', as in chap. 
 i. i: the beginning of a new document. 'The province' hei^e and in 
 Neh. i. 3, xi. 3, is the same as 'the province of Judah ' (Ezr. v. 8), 
 i.e. the particular district of which Jerusalem was the centre and of 
 which Zerubbabel was governor or 'pekhah'. 'The children of the 
 province' are the Jews inhabiting Jerusalem and its vicinity as distinct 
 from the Jews that were left in Babylon. The phrase is perhaps an 
 indication of the register having been transcribed at Babylon. 
 
 out of the captivity, of those which had been carried away] The comma 
 in the A.V. tends to confuse the meaning. The R. V. better, out 
 of the captivity of those wMcli had been carried away. The English 
 fails to give the sense of the passage. The words 'those which had 
 been carried away ' translate the one Hebrew word rendered in chap. 
 i. II and elsewhere 'the captivity' (hag-golah). This was the tech- 
 nical abstract noun used to designate the Jews that had been carried 
 away into foreign lands. The words here used are more nearly repro- 
 duced in the Greek version airb t^s alxtJ-aXojaias tijs dwoiKias. ' From 
 the captivity of the Golah' means therefore 'out of the condition and 
 scene of captivity which was the lot of 'the deportation', i.e. of those 
 who had been forcibly removed from their homes'. Cf. i. 11, vi. 20. 
 
 ^ 
 
V. 2.] EZRA, II. 17 
 
 whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried 
 away unto Babylon, and came again unto Jerusalem and 
 Judah, every one unto his city ; which came with Zerub- 2 
 babel : Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai, 
 Bilshan, Mizpar, Bigvai, Rehum, Baanah. 
 
 Nebuchadnezzar'] 'K.N. Ts\2iXgm, '}:leh. Nebicckadnezzor\ This spell- 
 ing represents the preferable reading of the original in this verse. It 
 again indicates the different origin of this section from chap. i. 7, where 
 the Hebrew has ' Nebuchadnezzar ' without any variant spelling. ' Ne- 
 buchadnezzor' attempts more nearly to reproduce the final syllable of 
 the Assyrian 'Nabu-kudur-usur' i.e. 'Nebo, defend the crown'. He 
 is called 'Nebuchadrezzar' in several places. Once in Jer. xlix. 28 
 (C'thib) 'Nebuchadrezzor'. 
 
 The great king of Babylon reigned 43 years (605 — 562). The two 
 chief 'deportations' took place (i) in 598, when Nebuchadnezzar carried 
 away king Jehoiachin and all the principal inhabitants of Jerusalem ; 
 (2) in 587 — 6, when the city was destroyed. 
 
 eve)y one unto his city] It is impossible to take these words as 
 literally applicable to the year of the Return. The Jews on their 
 return to their own land at first only occupied Jerusalem and the 
 country immediately adjacent. The work of settling into their own 
 cities was the work of years. But the process was complete at the 
 time when this heading was attached to the register of names. The 
 writer summarizes the movement, which in his own time was long past, 
 of. ver. 70, iii. I. 
 
 2. which came with Zerubbabel :] Better punctuate as R. V. ^with 
 Zerubbabel,\ Those referred to are the main subject of ver. i, 'the 
 children of the province, &c.', and are here described as coming with 
 Zerubbabel and his companions. 
 
 Zertibbabel] (i.e. 'begotten in Babylon', or 'the seed of Babylon') is 
 said to be an Assyrian name. The grandson of Jehoiachin, Zerubbabel 
 was the representative of David's dynasty (see i Chron. iii. 16 &c.). 
 He is generally called 'the son of Shealtiel' (see note on iii. 2), but 
 the genealogy in i Chron. (iii. 19) represents him as the son of Pe- 
 daiah. He is called 'the son of Shealtiel' either as Shealtiel's nephew 
 and heir, or as Shealtiel's legal son, Pedaiah having contracted a 
 Levirate marriage with Shealtiel's widow. 
 
 On the identity of Zerubbabel and Sheshbazzar see note on i. 8. 
 
 yesh7id] is a shortened form of Jehoshua or Joshua, used in Neh. 
 viii. 17 for the name of 'the son of Nun'. The Jeshua here spoken of 
 (and Ezra iii. 2, 8, iv. 3) is the Joshua mentioned in Hag. i. i, 12, 14, 
 ii. 2, 4; Zech. iii. i, 3, 6, vi. 11. He is the High-priest of the Return 
 from the Captivity, being the son of Jehozadak, and grandson of the 
 Seraiah whom Nebuchadnezzar put to death at Riblah after the de- 
 struction of Jerusalem, cf. 2 Kings XXV. 18—21; Jer. Hi. 24—27 (b.c. 
 586). See the genealogy of 'the sons of Levi' in i Chron. vi. i — 15. 
 
 Neheyniah] not to be confounded with the better known Nehemiah, 
 who rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem 90 years later, 445 B.C. 
 
i8 
 
 EZRA, II. 
 
 [v. 3. 
 
 The number of the men of the people of Israel : the 
 children of Parosh, two thousand an hundred seventy and 
 
 Seratah] = Aza.viah, Neh. vii. 7. 
 
 Reelaiah^ = Raamiah, Neh. vii. 7. 
 
 Mordecai] not to be identified with the Mordecai of the book 
 Esther. 
 
 Mizpak'] A. V. transliterates incorrectly, making the form of the 
 word to resemble the common Hebrew name of a place. R. V. 
 Mispar correctly; for which compare 'Mispereth', Neh. vii. 7. 
 
 .^M«;«] = Nehum, Neh. vii. 7. 
 
 The names (including Zerubbabel) here recorded are ri in number. 
 The parallel passage in Nehemiah gives 12 names, that of Nahamani 
 occurring between Reelaiah and Mordecai, and this is supported by the 
 mention of 12 names in i Esdras v. 8, where Euenius corresponds to 
 Nahamani. 
 
 Nehemiah 
 vii. 7(A.V.) 
 
 Zerubbabel 
 
 Jeshua 
 
 Nehemiah 
 
 Azariah 
 
 Raamiah 
 
 Nahamani 
 
 Mordecai 
 
 Bilshan 
 
 Mispereth 
 
 Bigvai 
 
 Nehum 
 
 Baanah 
 
 It is most probable that the name of Nahamani has dropped out 
 of our text by an early error of transcription. The mention then of 
 II names along with that of Zerubbabel suggests the idea that the 
 attempt was made to revive the old subdivision of the people and to 
 group the members of two tribes under twelve representative princes 
 in the same way as four classes of priests were afterwards re-divided 
 into twenty-four. The idea of the twelve tribes conveyed the thought 
 of Israel's totality and unity (a) in the days of the divided monarchy, 
 cf. Elijah, I Kings xviii. 31 ; {b) at the dedication of the second 
 Temple, Ezr. vi. 17; {c) at the return of Ezra and his company, cf. Ezr. 
 viii. 35; {d) in the later days of Judaism, e.g. Acts xxvi. 7; Jas. i. i; 
 Rev. vii. 4 — 8. 
 
 The number of the mm of the people of Israel] These words form a 
 heading for the register of names to the close of ver. 35 . They point 
 forward and not back. It was an awkward mistake of arrangement to 
 include the sentence in verse 2. It should commence verse 3; com- 
 pare the headings in vv. 36, 40, 41, 42, 43, 55. Observe the name 
 •the people of Israel' applied here to the laity as a class distinct from 
 'priests' and *Levites', cf vi. 16. 
 
 Ezra (A. V.) 
 
 Zerubbabel 
 
 Jeshua 
 
 Nehemiah 
 
 Seraiah 
 
 Reelaiah 
 
 Mordecai 
 
 Bilshan 
 
 Mizpah (Mispar, R.V. 
 
 Bigvai 
 
 Rehum 
 
 Baanah 
 
 I ESDR. 
 
 v. 8 (A.V.) 
 
 Zorobabel 
 
 Jesus 
 
 Nehemias 
 
 Zacharias 
 
 Reesaias 
 
 Euenius 
 
 Mardochseus 
 
 Beelsarus 
 
 Aspharasus 
 
 Reelius 
 
 Roimus 
 
 Baana 
 
vv. 4, 5.] 
 
 EZRA, II. 
 
 19 
 
 two. The children of Shephatiah, three hundred seventy 4 
 and two. The children of Arah, seven hundred seventy 5 
 
 3. Comparing this list with the lists in Neh. vii. and i Esdr. v. we 
 obtain the following results, in which, where a)iy variation occurs, 
 'Esd.' marks the agreement of i Esdras with either Ezra or Nehemiah, 
 where their lists differ. 
 
 Ezra Nehem. 
 
 The children of Parosh 2172 2172 
 
 ,, ,, Shephatiah 372 372 
 
 Arah 775 (Esd. 756) 652 
 
 ,, „ Pahath-moab, \ 
 
 of the children ( q ,^ , » ^ q 
 
 ofjeshuaand >28i2 (Esd.) 2818 
 
 Joab ) 
 
 „ „ Elam 1254 1254 
 
 Zattu 945 (Esd.) 845 
 
 „ ,, Zaccai 760 760 
 
 „ ,, Bani 642 648 (Esd.) 
 
 „ „ Bebai 623 (Esd.) 628 
 
 ,, ,, Azgad 1222 (Esd. 3222) 2322 
 
 ,, ,, Adonikam 6(i6 667 (Esd.) 
 
 ,, „ Bigvai 2056 (Esd. 2066) 2067 
 
 Adin 454 (Esd.) 655 
 
 .. M Bezai 323 (Esd.) 324 
 
 „ M Jora 112 =Harif 112 (vii. 24) 
 
 ,, ,, Hashum 223 328 
 
 ,, ,, Gibbar 95 =Gibeon 95 
 
 Bethlehem 123 (Esd.) ) ^^^ 
 
 The men of Netophah 56 (Esd. 55) \ ^^^ 
 
 ,, ,, Anathoth 128 
 
 The children of Azmaveth ... 42 = the men of Beth-azmaveth 42 
 ,, ,, Kirjath-arim, j 
 
 Chephirah, > 743 743 
 
 and Beerothj 
 „ „ Rama and Gelm 621 621 
 
 The men of Michmas 122 122 
 
 ,, ,, Bethel and Ai 223 123 
 
 The children of Nebo 52 52 
 
 „ „ Magbish 156 (Esd.). wanting 
 
 „ „ 'the other Elam'1254 1254 
 
 ,, ,, Harim 320 320 
 
 »i >> Lod, Hadid / .. /tt j v 
 
 aAdOno ...( 7^5(Esd.) 7^1 
 
 Jericho 345 345 
 
 », ,, Senaah 3630 (Esd. 3330) 3930 
 
 2 — 2 
 
20 EZRA, II. [v. 6. 
 
 6 and five. The children of Pahath-moab, of the children of 
 Jeshua and Joab, two thousand eight hundred and twelve. 
 
 Pi'iests. 
 The children of Jedaiah, of the) 
 
 house of Jeshua \ ^^^ 973 
 
 „ „ Immer 1052 1052 
 
 „ „ Pashur 1247 1247 
 
 „ „ Harim 1017 1017 
 
 Levites. 
 The children of Jeshua and Kad- ) 
 
 miel, of the chil- > 74 74 
 
 drenofHodaviah) 
 
 „ „ Asaph 128 (Esd.) 148 
 
 „ ,, Shallum, Ater, j 
 
 Talmon, Akkub, > 139 (Esd.) 138 
 
 Hatita, Shobai ) 
 The Nethinim and the children) 
 
 of Solomon's servants! ^^^ ^9' 
 
 The children of Delaiah, &c. 652 642 
 
 The children of the priests (number not given). 
 
 (a) It will be seen that the most important variations in the figures 
 occur with the children of Arah (ver. 5), Zattu (ver. 8), Azgad (ver. 12), 
 Adin (ver. 15), Hashum (ver. 19), Bethel and Ai (ver. 28), Senaah (ver. 
 35); while 'the children of Magbish' (ver, 30) are not mentioned in 
 Nehemiah. The variations in the figures are probably due to errors of 
 transcription from the original copy of the register. 
 
 {b) The text of Ezra seems to be purer than that of Nehemiah, while 
 that of Esdras is inferior to both. 
 
 Upon the text of vv. 31 and 32 see below. 
 
 3 — 19. Names of households or families. Many of these names occur 
 again in other lists, e.g. Ezr. viii. i — 14, x. i8 — 44; Neh. x. i — 27, and 
 in connexion with much later events in the lifetime of Ezra and Nehe- 
 miah. These names therefore are not to be regarded as the names of 
 the leading men of the various families who accompanied Zembbabel, 
 but as the titles of the families or clans into which the people were 
 divided. These titles were probably taken from the founders of the 
 families and were many of them of great antiquity. The mention of the 
 same names of the 'famihes' at the return of Ezra (viii. i — 14) merely 
 shows that, though a certain number of a household had accompanied 
 Zerubbabel, many members of it remained in Babylon, of whom some 
 returned with Ezra, e.g. Parosh, Pahath-moab, Adin, Shephatiah, 
 Elam, Bebai, Azgad, Adonikam, Bigvai, &c., cf. Neh. x. 14 ff. 
 
 3. The children of Fajvsh'] A strange proper name, meaning a 
 'flea'. A special branch of this family, called after Shechaniah, re- 
 turned with Ezra (viii, 3), Members of the family are mentioned as 
 having married 'strange wives' (x. 25) and as assisting in the rebuilding 
 of the walls (Neh. iii. 25). 
 
 6. The children of Pahath-moab, of the children of Jeshua and 
 
vv. 7— 20.] EZRA, 11. 
 
 ±1 
 
 The children of Elam, a thousand two hundred fifty and 7 
 four. The children of Zattu, nine hundred forty and five. 8 
 The children of Zaccai, seven hundred and threescore. The 9, 10 
 children of Bani, six hundred forty and two. The children ii 
 of Bebai, six hundred twenty and three. The children of 12 
 Azgad, a thousand two hundred twenty and two. The 13 
 children of Adonikam, six hundred sixty and six. The m 
 children of Bigvai, two thousand fifty and six. The children 15 
 of Adin, four hundred fifty and four. The children of Ater 16 
 of Hezekiah, ninety and eight. The children of Bezai, 17 
 three hundred twenty and three. The children of Jorah, an 18 
 hundred and twelve. The children of Hashum, two 19 
 hundred twenty and three. The children of Gibbar, ninety 20 
 
 ^oad] Pahath = ruler of. We must suppose that the founder of this 
 family had exercised rule over some portion of the Moabite territory. 
 We learn from i Chron. iv. 22 that certain members of the tribe of 
 Judah 'had the dominion in Moab'. Probably this family belonged to 
 the tribe of Judah. The word Pahath was commonly in use in Assyria, 
 arid is similar to the term for 'governor'. Part of this family returned 
 with Ezra (viii. 4): certain members of it are mentioned in x. 30; Neh. 
 iii. II. 
 
 yes/nm and ^oad] In the original 'Jeshua Joab'. These were special 
 branches of the main family. 
 
 7. £/am] Some would identify with the Elam mentioned i Chr. 
 viii. 24 — a Benjamite. 
 
 12. TAe children of Azgad, a thousand two hundred twenty and two'] 
 The most serious discrepancy in the list (Neh. gives 2322, Esdras 3222), 
 arising from error in the transcription of numbers. The smallest figure 
 is intrinsically the most probable. The highest figure, given in i Esdr., 
 attempts to combine the two other readings. 
 
 13. Adonikam] This name appears in Neh. x. 16 as Adonijah. 
 
 16. The children of Ater of Hezekiah] i.e., the family of Ater was 
 represented by one branch called by the name of Hezekiah, cf. ver. 6. 
 
 18. Jorah] called in Nehemiah (vii. 24, x. 19) Hariph, with which 
 maybe compared Hareph (i Chr. ii. 51) of the sons of Caleb. The 
 interchange of names is the more strange when we remember that the 
 Hebrew word 'Joreh' means 'autumn-rain' while the Hebrew *Ho- 
 reph' means 'the autumn-season'. 
 
 20—35. Names of towns and places. It is possible that the register 
 dealt first with the dwellers in Jerusalem. The inhabitants of the 
 towns and places nearest to Jerusalem and best known are mentioned 
 next : last of all, the inhabitants of the less known or more remote 
 places. The numbers are much smaller than those of the households 
 (3—^9)- . 
 
 20. Gibbar] Neh. vii. 25 'Gibeon' (for which our text is probably 
 an early error), the famous scene of Joshua's victory (Josh, x.), of the 
 
22 EZRA, il. [vv. 21—25. 
 
 21 and five. The children of Beth-lehem, an hundred twenty 
 22, 23 and three. The men of Netophah, fifty and six. The men 
 
 24 of Anathoth, an hundred twenty and eight. The children 
 
 25 of Azmaveth, forty and two. The children of Kirjath-arim, 
 Chephirah, and Beeroth, seven hundred and forty and 
 
 battle between David's and Ishbosheth's men (2 Sam. ii.), of Joab's 
 murder of Amasa (2 Sam. xx. 8), the abode of the tabernacle (i Kings 
 iii. 4; I Chron. xvi. 39, xxi. 29; 2 Chron. i. 3), the high-place at which 
 the Lord appeared unto Solomon in a dream (i Kings iii. 4). 
 
 The false prophet Hananiah (Jer. xxviii. i) came from Gibeon. The 
 modern 'El-Jib,' distant about 5 miles N.W. from Jerusalem, in the 
 territory of Benjamin. 
 
 21. Beth-lehem] or 'the house of bread' : sometimes called Bethle- 
 hem of Judah to distinguish it from the Bethlehem in Zebulon (Jos. xix. 
 15). Its name implies the fruitfulness of the soil. The name of Eph- 
 rath or Ephratah by which it was known in earlier times has also the 
 meaning of plenty (cf. Gen. xxxv. 19; Mic. v. i; Ruth i. 2). The 
 story of Ruth lies in Bethlehem. Ibzan the Judge was a native of 
 Bethlehem (Judg. xii. 8). Its greatest fame in the O. T. is derived 
 from its having been the birthplace of David (i Sam. xvii. 12) and of 
 the sons of Zeruiah (2 Sam. ii. 32). It was only a village, but the 
 prophet predicted its glory in the Messianic future (Micah v. 1), in 
 words, of which the literal fulfilment is recorded in Matt. ii. i &c.; 
 Luke ii. i &c.; cf. Joh. vii. 42. 
 
 It is situated about 5 miles S. of Jerusalem on high ground, some 
 2500 ft. above the level of the sea. 
 
 22. Netophah] According to i Chron. ix. 16 a town inhabited by 
 priests, the birthplace of two of David's heroes, Mahari and Haled, 
 2 Sam. xxiii. 28, 29, and of Seraiah, one of Gedaliah's supporters, 
 2 Kings XXV. 23 ; Jer. xl. 8 (Ephai). It has been identified by some 
 with Beit Nettif, 20 miles W. of Bethlehem. But its place in the list 
 between Bethlehem and Anathoth does not favour this theory. In the 
 map of Palestine issued by the Pal. Explor. Fund it is placed due S. 
 of Jerusalem, on the road to Bethlehem, between Mar Elias and 
 Rachel's Tomb. 
 
 23. Anathoth] One of the towns assigned to the priests (Jos. xxi. 
 18; I Chron. vi. 60), the dwelling-place of Abiathar the high-priest 
 (i Kings ii. 26) and of the prophet Jeremiah (Jer. i. i, xxix. 27). See 
 Is. X. 28, 30. 
 
 It is situated about 4 miles N.E. of Jerusalem, the modern Anata. 
 The name shows that the place in prehistoric times was a centre for 
 the worship of the goddess Anath or Anta. 
 
 24. Azmaveth] Cf. Neh. xii. 29: called Beth- Azmaveth Neh. vii. 
 28; has been conjecturally identified with El-Hizmeh, a height N. of 
 Anathoth. The name of Azmaveth occurs in the register of the tribe 
 of Benjamin (i Chron. viii. 36). 
 
 25. Kirjath-arim^ Chephirah, and Beeroth] Gibeonite cities, see Josh, 
 ix. 17 'Now their cities were Gibeon, and Chephirah, and Beeroth, and 
 
vv. 26—28.] EZRA, II. 23 
 
 three. The children of Ramah and Gaba, six hundred 26 
 twenty and one. The men of Michmas, an hundred twenty 27 
 and two. The men of Beth-el and Ai, two hundred twenty 28 
 
 Kiriath-jearim' (R.V.) 'Kirjath-arim' (Kiriath-arim R.V.) called in 
 Neh. vii. 29 Kiriath-jearim, or 'the city of the woods'. The spelling in 
 our verse is probably due to an early error in the text. Its former name 
 was Baalah (Jos. xv. 9). It was assigned to Judah and lay on the border 
 of Judah and Benjamin, The ark rested here after it had been restored 
 by the Philistines (i Sam. vi. 21, vii. i), and David brought it from 
 here to Jerusalem (i Chron. xiii. 5, 6; 2 Chron. i. 4; 2 Sam. vi. 2, 
 ' Baale Judah,' cf. Jos. xviii. 14). From the description given in Jos. 
 XV. 8 — II it must have been situate about 9 miles N.W. of Jerusalem. 
 Chephirah, modern Kefireh, a little N. of Kiriath. 
 
 Becroth'\='\M^\\'s,\ the native place of the two Benjamite assassins 
 of Ishbosheth, Baanah and Rechab (2 Sam. iv. 2), now known as Bireh 
 12 miles N. of Jerusalem on the road to Nablus. It is here that ac- 
 cording to tradition the child Jesus was first missed by Joseph and Mary 
 (Luke ii. 44). 
 
 26. Ra7nah'\ the dwelling-place of Samuel (i Sam. vii. 17) and after- 
 wards a frontier-fortress on the borders of the Northern and Southern 
 Kingdoms (i Kings xv. 17, 22); the modern Er-ram about 6 miles N. 
 of Jerusalem. 
 
 Gaha\ R.V. Geba. One of the priestly towns in the tribe of Benjamin 
 (cf, Jos, xviii. 24 with xxi. 17:1 Chron. viii. 6 with vi. 60), on the fron- 
 tiers of the Northern and Southern Kingdoms, 2 Kings xxiii. 8 ; fortified 
 by Asa out of material obtained from Ramah, i Kings xv. 22: distant 
 some 8 miles N. of Jerusalem, modern Jeba. 
 
 27. Michmas] in the tribe of Benjamin, on a hill overlooking the 
 gorge of the same name, which was the scene of Jonathan's victory over 
 the Philistines (i Sam. xiii, 23, xiv.). It was evidently a strong situa- 
 tion (cf. I Sam. xiii. 2, 5, 16), Geba was on the S., Michmash on the 
 N, side of the gorge. This agrees with the passage in Isai. x, 28, 29 
 where the march of an invading Assyrian army from the N, is described, 
 *At Michmash he layeth up his baggage : they are gone over the pass; 
 they have taken up their lodging at Geba: Ramah trembleth'. 
 
 28. Beth-el] one of the most ancient towns in the country (cf. Jos. xii. 
 9), called Luz 'at the first' and famous in the history of the Patriarch 
 Jacob (Gen. xxviii. 19, xxxv. 15), captured from the Canaanites by 
 Ephraim (Judg. i. 22—26), situated on the borders of Ephraim and 
 Benjamin (Jos. xvi. i, xviii. 13, 22). It was reputed of special sanctity. 
 We find the ark at Beth-el (Judg. xx, 18, 26, 27). It was included in 
 Samuel's circuit (i Sam. vii. 16), It was the home of one of 'the 
 schools of the prophets' (2 Kings ii, 3), It was selected by Jeroboam 
 as the southern sanctuary for the calf- worship which he instituted (i 
 Kings xii. 28 &c.). Thenceforth its name chiefly occurs in connexion 
 with the sins of idolatry (Amos iii, 14; 2 Kings xxiii, 15). 
 
 It is about 2^ miles N.E. of Beeroth. Its site is generally identified 
 with the extensive ruins of Beitin. 
 
24 EZRA, II. [vv. 29—33. 
 
 29, 30 and three. The children of Nebo, fifty and two. The 
 
 3^ children of Magbish, an hundred fifty and six. The children 
 
 of the other Elam, a thousand two hundred fifty and four. 
 
 32, 33 The children of Harim, three hundred and twenty. The 
 
 Ai] E. of Beth-el (Gen. xii. 8 ; Jos. vii. a), an ancient royal town 
 (Jos. xii. 9) destroyed by Joshua (Jos. vii., viii.), but afterwards rebuilt. 
 It is called Aiath in Isai. x. 28, in which passage its position shows 
 that it lay to the N. of Michmash. In Neh. xi. 31 it appears as Aija. 
 The name denotes 'ruinous heaps' and thus corresponds with Tell-el- 
 Hajar ('mound of stones'), a place about 2i miles S. E. of Bethel, 
 on the S. side of the Wadi-el-Mat-ya, from which the path leads 
 through the hills to Jericho. In the Pal. Expl. map it is identified 
 with Khan Haiyan, 2570 ft. high, E. of Beeroth, and S. of Der Dhvdn. 
 
 29. Neh6\ not to be confused with the Moabite town (Num. xxxii, 3, 
 38), to distinguish it from which it is perhaps called in Neh. vii. 33 'the 
 other Nebo'. Its situation has not been accurately determined. Some 
 identify it with Nob, the well-known priestly town (see i vSam. xxi. i, 
 xxii. 9 &c.), and in favour of this view it may be noticed that while Nob 
 is mentioned along with Geba, Michmash, Ai, Bethel and Anathoth in 
 Neh. xi. 31 and 32, and after Ai, Michmash, Geba, Ramah and Ana- 
 thoth in Isai. x. 28 — 32, Nebo is not mentioned in either passage. The 
 position of Nob is still uncertain. 
 
 Nebo and Nob have been recognised in Beit Nuba, a village on a hill 
 about 16 miles N. W. N. of Jerusalem, but certainly erroneously. 
 The site must be looked for on, or near Mt. Scopus, on the N. of Jeru- 
 salem ; by some identified with the modern village Isdwiyeh. 
 
 Nebo is the name of a well-known Assyrian deity. The name of the 
 place perhaps indicates that in a prehistoric time the worship of this 
 god was maintained here (see note on 'Anathoth' ver. 23). 
 
 30. Magbish'\ The name of this place is omitted in the parallel 
 passages and does not occur elsewhere. Presumably another town in the 
 territory of Benjamin. 
 
 31. the other Elaf?i] This title apparently refers back to the Elam 
 mentioned in ver. 7. The fact that the 'Elam' of ver. 7 is probably the 
 name of a person and that the Elam here mentioned is found in con- 
 nexion with the names of towns renders the expression 'the other' very 
 strange. Another strange circumstance is the exact correspondence of 
 the numbers in each case, i.e. 1254. The text is not free from suspicion. 
 
 32. HariDil not to be confounded with the Harim of ver. 39. The 
 family name mentioned in this verse occurs again in chap. x. 3 1 . 
 
 The three verses 30, 31, 32 call for special remark, {a) Magbish does 
 not occur in the parallel lists: {b) 'Elam' and 'Harim' are names of 
 people not of towns: {c) the hst in i Esdras v. 21, 22 passes at once 
 from Nephis ( = Nebo) to Calamolus ( = Lod, Hadid and Ono) : {d) the 
 name of 'Harim' apparently is inserted as 'Arom' in i Esdr. v. 16, 
 with 32 instead of 320 persons. 
 
 We have here the traces of an early confusion in the text. It is not 
 improbable that ver. 31 is an accidental repetition of ver. 7 and that 
 
vv. 34—36.] EZRA, II. 2$ 
 
 children of Lod, Hadid, and Ono, seven hundred twenty 
 and five. The children of Jericho, three hundred forty and 34 
 five. The children of Senaah, three thousand and six 35 
 hundred and thirty. 
 
 The priests : the children of Jedaiah, of the house of 36 
 
 ver. 32 has been detached from its place in the first portion of the 
 register (3—19)- 
 
 33. Lod, Hadid, and Ono] These names occur also in Neh, xi. 34, 
 35. Lod and Ono built by Shemed a Benjamite (i Chr. viii. 12). The 
 name of 'Lod' does not elsewhere occur in the history before the 
 Captivity. It is the same as Lydda, familiar to us in the Acts of the 
 Apostles (ix. 32 &c.). It stands on the great road leading down to 
 Egypt, about 7 miles S. E. of Joppa. 
 
 Hadid, probably the same as Adida (i Mace. xii. 38, xiii. 13), a for- 
 tress on the E. of the Shephelah, the modern 'el Chaditheh', com- 
 manding one of the valleys leading up from the plain to Jerusalem. 
 
 Ono] has been identified with the modern Kefr Ana, about 6 miles N. 
 of Lydda. Ono and Lod are mentioned as included in Benjamite terri- 
 tory I Chron. viii. 12. 
 
 34. Jericho] or the city of palms (Deut. xxxiv. 3; Judg. i. 16; 
 2 Chron. xxviii. 15), destroyed by Joshua {Jos. vi.), rebuilt by Hiel the 
 Bethelite in the days of Ahab (i Kings xvi. 34) and apparently included 
 in the Northern Kingdom. It was the home of one of the schools of 
 the prophets (2 Kings ii. 5). 
 
 It is now called Richa or Ericha. It is distant about 18 miles E. 
 from Jerusalem, and i^ W. from the Jordan. 
 
 35. Senaah] The name of this place occurs elsewhere only in the 
 lists of Nehemiah (iii. 3, vii. 38). It was identified by Eusebius and 
 Jerome with 'Megdalsenna' or 'Magdalsenna' about 5 miles N. of 
 Jericho. 
 
 three thousand and six hundred and thirty] Neh. gives a larger 
 num!)er by 300. The numbers here mentioned are surprisingly great 
 considering that the town is quite unknown to us. 
 
 The difficulty has been met by a variety of explanations, {a) It has 
 been said that we need not attach much importance to the figures, which 
 may easily have suffered from corruptions in the text, (j)) It is sug- 
 gested that the numbers comprise the population of a considerable 
 adjoining district. (<:) It was even conjectured by one commentator 
 (INiichaelis) that Senaah was a title ( = "the hated one") given to Jeru- 
 salem with reference to its idolatry before the Captivity, {d) Perhaps 
 the number here given includes the population of other places, e.g. 
 Hebron, whose names have been accidentally omitted. 
 
 36 — 39. The names and numbers of the houses of the priests cor- 
 respond exactly in the three registers. 
 
 36. the children of Jedaiah, of the hotise of Jeshua] In the 24 
 Priestly houses enumerated in i Chron. xxiv. 7 — 18, the house of 
 Jedaiah stands second. 
 
 The words 'of the house of Jeshua' have been differently explained. 
 
26 EZRA, II. [vv. 37—40. 
 
 37 Jeshiia, nine hundred seventy and three. The children of 
 
 38 Immer, a thousand fifty and two. The children of Pashur, 
 
 39 a thousand two hundred forty and seven. The children of 
 Harim, a thousand and seventeen. 
 
 40 The Levites : the children of Jeshua and Kadmiel, of 
 
 {a) It has been considered to refer to a very ancient house from which 
 sprang two branches, the family of Jedaiah mentioned here and i 
 Chron. xxiv. 7, and the family of Jeshua mentioned as the ninth priestly 
 house in i Chron. xxiv. ir. (5) The Jeshua here spoken of is con- 
 sidered to be the High-priest; 'the sons of Jedaiah were a portion of the 
 house to which J. the high-priest belonged... Jedaiah is not the name of 
 the second order of priests, but of the head of a family of the high- 
 priestly race (Keil). 
 
 (c) But as the name of Jedaiah is followed by that of Immer, the six- 
 teenth priestly house (i Chron. xxiv. 14), it is more natural to suppose 
 that 'the children of Jedaiah' were members of the second priestly 
 house. The explanation of the passage is supplied by the similar twofold 
 genealogical reference given in verses 6 and 16. The house is men- 
 tioned first and then follows its limitation to a special branch or family. 
 
 Here the /lotcse is the priestly house of Jedaiah; the branch or family 
 is that of Jeshua. This Jeshua belonged probably to some former gene- 
 ration, but gave his name to a particular branch of the house of Jedaiah. 
 
 The difficulty occasioned by this verse has arisen from the desire to 
 identify this Jeshua with the High-priest and from the mistake of sup- 
 posing that the names of the heads of families were necessarily the com- 
 panions of Zerubbabel instead of being rather the distinctive names of 
 clans. 
 
 37. Immer'] The sixteenth priestly house (i Chron. xxiv. 14). 
 Pashur, the enemy of Jeremiah, is mentioned as a member of this house 
 (Jer. XX. i). See also Neh. iii. 29. 
 
 38. Pashur'] This name does not occur among the 24 priestly 
 houses. But a Pashur is mentioned i Chron. ix. 12 ; Neh. xi. 12 as the 
 son of Malchiah, and the name of 'Malchiah' is given to the fifth 
 priestly house (i Chron. xxiv. 9). Either Pashur the son of Malchiah, 
 a prominent man in the court of king Zedekiah (Jer. xxi. i and xxxviii. 
 i), gave his name to the branch of the house of Malchiah which 
 returned with Zerubbabel: or the whole priestly house of Malchiah 
 became known by the name of its distinguished member, Pashur. 
 
 39. Harim] The name of Harim appears in i Chron. xxiv. 8 as that 
 of the third priestly house. 
 
 40 — 42. The Levites are here arranged in the same way as in 
 the I St Book of Chronicles, i.e. into (i) Levites proper (cf. i Chron. 
 xxiv. 20 — 31). (2) Singers (cf, i Chron. xxv.). (3) Doorkeepers (cf. 
 I Chron. xxvi. i — 19. See Introduction, § 7. 
 
 The small number (i.e. 431 in all) of the Levites is veiy striking by 
 the side of the 4289 priests. Upon the backwardness of the Levites to 
 return to Jerusalem compare note on chap. viii. 15, and see Intro- 
 duction. 
 
vv. 41, 42.] EZRA, II. 27 
 
 the children of Hodaviah, seventy and four. The singers : 41 
 the children of Asaph, an hundred twenty and eight. The 42 
 children of the porters : the children of Shallum, the 
 children of Ater, the children of Talmon, the children of 
 Akkub, the children of Hatita, the children of Shobai, in all 
 an hundred thirty and nine. 
 
 40. the children of Jeshiia and Kadniiel, of the children of Hodavia/i] 
 The occurrence of these names in Neh. x. 9 shows that, as throughout 
 this list, we have here the titles of families, not necessarily the names of 
 Zerubbabel's contemporaries. In chap. iii. 9 Jeshua and Kadmiel are 
 mentioned as leading Levites. 
 
 of the children of Hodaviah'] 'Hodaviah' appears as 'Judah' in iii. 9 
 and as 'Hodevah' in Neh. vii. 43. 
 
 Some apply these words, 'of the children of Hodaviah', to both Jeshua 
 and Kadmiel, making them both branches of the more ancient but 
 otherwise unknown family of Hodaviah : others to 'Kadmiel' alone, in 
 order to distinguish this Kadmiel from others of the same name. The 
 decision must turn upon our explanation of iii. 9 (see note), — and on 
 the whole it seems best to regard the clause as belonging to Kadmiel 
 especially, and as signifying a closer limitation of that family. Thus 
 the Levites comprised the family of Jeshua and those members of the 
 Kadmiel family who belonged to the Hodaviah branch. 
 
 41. The singers'] The Levitical order of singers was instituted in 
 David's time (i Chron. xv. 17 — 24). There seem to have been 24 
 classes of singers (i Chron. xxv. 9 — 31). But the three great guilds of 
 singers were called after the names of Heman the Kohathite, Asaph the 
 Gershomite, and Jeduthun the Merarite (i Chron. vi. 33 — 47, xxv. i 
 
 -7). 
 
 Asaph] No members of the Heman and Jeduthun guilds seem to 
 have returned. Four of the 24 classes of singers were called after the 
 sons of Asaph, i.e. the first, Joseph: the third, Zaccur: the fifth, Netha- 
 niah: the seventh, Jesharelah (i Chron. xxv. 2, 9, 10, 12, 14). Asaph 
 himself enjoyed a great reputation as a Psalmist (cf. 2 Chron. xxix. 30, 
 Neh. xii. 46). The inscriptions of certain Psalms attribute their com- 
 position to Asaph (Ps. 1., Ixxiii. — Ixxxiii.). 
 
 42. the porters] so also R.V. ; although it is noteworthy that 
 having substituted 'door-keepers' for 'porters' (A.V.) in i Chron. 
 xxvi. I, the R.V. has not for the sake of consistency made a similar 
 alteration here, the word in Hebrew being the same in both instances. 
 The door-keepers mentioned here and in i Chron. xxvi. i — 19 are 
 Levites: possibly the name 'porters' was preserved to distinguish the 
 Levitical attendants from the priestly door-keepers (or more literally 
 'keepers of the threshold') mentioned in 2 Kings xxv. 18, Jer. xxxv. 4. 
 Compare Ps. Ixxxiv. 10 'I had rather be a doorkeeper in (marg. : 
 *stand at the threshold of) the house of my God'. 
 
 The names are clearly the names of households or courses, since 
 Shallum, Akkub and Talmon are mentioned in i Chron. ix. 17, and 
 Akkub and Talmon are reierred to in Neh. xi. 19. 
 
28 EZRA, II. [vv. 43—46. 
 
 43 The Nethinims : the children of Ziha, the children of 
 
 44 Hasupha, the children of Tabbaoth, the children of Keros, 
 
 45 the children of Siaha, the children of Padon, the children of 
 Lebanah, the children of Hagabah, the children of Akkub, 
 
 46 the children of Hagab, the children of Shalmai, the children 
 
 43 — 64. Nethinim. This class is mentioned in the books Ezra 
 and Nehemiah (Ezr. ii. 43, 58, 70, vii. 7, 24, viii. 17, 20; Neh. iii. 
 26, 31, vii. 46, 60, 73, X. 28, xi. 3, 21) and only once elsewhere 
 (r Chron. ix. 2). From these passages it is evident that the Nethinim 
 were a class subordinate to the Levites but ranking before ' the servants 
 of Solomon' (ver. 55) in the services of the Temple. Their origin is 
 hid in great obscurity. The name denotes ' given '. Jewish tradition 
 identified them mainly with the Gibeonites, who had been assigned by 
 Joshua to the Levites to assist them in the discharge of the more menial 
 tasks (Jos. ix. 3 — 27). Their numbers were also, according to this sup- 
 position, increased by the captives taken in war, of whom a certain 
 proportion were given over to the priests and Levites as their share in 
 the booty of a campaign (Num. xxxi. 28 &c.). Thus in Ezr. viii. 20 
 we find a mention of certain of this class ' whom David and the princes 
 had appointed (lit. 'given') for the service of the Levites'. 
 
 The later Jewish tradition of the Talmud spoke of the Nethinim with 
 great contempt and forbade intermarriage between them and the Jews. 
 It is not improbable that these expressions were employed long after 
 this distinctive class had been lost to view, and merely reflected the 
 tradition which ascribed their origin to the Gibeonites and the Canaan- 
 ites who fell under the special ban of the Law (Ex. xxxiv. 12 — 16 j 
 Deut. vii. i &c.). 
 
 A recent theory, coupling the strong terms of Jewish hatred with the 
 numerous feminine terminations in -a and -ah to be found in the 
 genealogy of the Nethinim, supposes them to be the descendants of 
 those who during the monarchy had led infamous lives in the precincts 
 and vicinity of the Temple as devotees of Astarte and of Ashera (see 
 Babyl. and Orient. Record, Feb., March 1888). But even if it were 
 granted that the very odium of their origin would thus account for the 
 mystery in which it is veiled, it does not seem probable that the strict 
 notions which prevailed at the time of the Return would have admitted 
 such a class to participate in the ministrations, however lowly, of the 
 Temple. 
 
 The peculiar termination of the names derives a natural explanation 
 from their foreign extraction. 
 
 43. Nethinims\ R.V. Nethinim. The termination * -im ' is the 
 sign of the plural. In the same way the R.V. corrects the inaccurate 
 form 'Cherubims' to 'Cherubim' (Gen. iii. 24), 'Anakims' to 'Ana- 
 kim', 'Horims' to 'Horites', 'Emims' to 'Emim', 'Zanzummims' to 
 'Zanzummim', 'Avims' and 'Caphtorims' to 'Avvim' and 'Caphtorim' 
 (Deut. ii. 10 — 12, 20 — 23). 
 
 44. Siaha^ called 'Sia' in Neh. vii. 47. 
 
 46. Shalmai] R.V. Shamlai. Called ' Salmai' in Neh. vii. 48. 
 
vv. 47—55.] EZRA, II. 29 
 
 of Han an, the children of Giddel, the children of Gahar, 47 
 the children of Reaiah, the children of Rezin, the children 43 
 of Nekoda, the children of Gazzam, the children of Uzza, 49 
 the children of Paseah, the children of Besai, the children 50 
 of Asnah, the children of Mehunim, the children of Ne- 
 phusim, the children of Bakbuk, the children of Hakupha, 51 
 the children of Harhur, the children of Bazluth, the children 52 
 of Mehida, the children of Harsha, the children of Barkos, 53 
 the children of Sisera, the children of Thamah, the children 54 
 of Neziah, the children of Hatipha. 
 
 The children of Solomon's servants: the children of 55 
 
 48. Nekoda] see the same name ver. 60. 
 
 50. the children of Mehtmwi] R.V. Meunim. These have been 
 identified with the Maonites who oppressed the children of Israel in the 
 days of the Judges (Judg. x. 12). It is very possible that the Meunim 
 were leagued with the Moabites and Ammonites against Jehoshaphat 
 (2 Chr. XX. i). Uzziah obtained the mastery over the Meunim (2 Chron. 
 xxvi. 7). Very possibly it is the descendants of the Meunim whom 
 Uzziah made prisoners, to whom the verse refers. 
 
 If this be so, the Meunim were the people of Maon, Bedouins like 
 the Midianites, having their headquarters south of the Dead Sea, not far 
 from Petra. 
 
 the children of Nephusini\ R.V. NepMsim. Both readings are found. 
 The LXX. has Ne^owi/x. 'Nephisim' seems the most probable, 
 since we naturally incline to identify the name with the clan of 
 Naphish, the Israelite or Arab mentioned in Gen. xxv. 15; i Chron, 
 i. 31. From another passage, i Chron. v. 18 — 22, we learn that they 
 with others belonged to the tribe of Hagrites (A.V. Hagarites) and 
 experienced defeat, followed by wholesale massacre and captivity, at the 
 hands of the Transjordanic tribes Reuben, Gad, and the half tribe of 
 Manasseh. 
 
 In Neh. vii. 52 they are called 'Nephushesim'. 
 
 52. Bazluth\ called 'Bazlith' in Neh. vii. 54. 
 
 53. Siserd\ possibly from the inhabitants of Northern Canaan (cf. 
 Judg. iv. 2). 
 
 Thamah] R.V. Temah, possibly referring to an Arabian clan (cf. 
 Gen. xxv. 15; i Chron. i. 30). Whether we should look for this Tema 
 in the N. of Arabia or identify it with Taima in the Hauran is still 
 uncertain. See Job vi. 19; Isai. xxi. 14. 
 
 55 — 58. Solomon's servants, a class similar to the Nethinim, with 
 whom they are also found in conjunction Neh. vii. 60, xi. 3. They are 
 apparently included under the more general term Nethinim in such 
 passages as Neh. x. 28. They have been traditionally understood 
 to be the descendants of those inhabitants of the land 'that were 
 left of the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites and the 
 Jebusites' of whom Solomon had hired 'bondservants' for the work of 
 building his temple (i Kings v. 13). 
 
so EZRA, II. [vv. 56—61. 
 
 56 Sotaij the children of Sophereth, the children of Peruda, the 
 children of Jaalah, the children of Darkon, the children of 
 
 57 Giddel, the children of Shephatiah, the children of Hattil, 
 the children of Pochereth of Zebaim, the children of Ami. 
 
 58 All the Nethinims, and the children of Solomon's servants, 
 were three hundred ninety and two. 
 
 59 And these were they which went up from Tel-melah, 
 Tel-harsa, Cherub, Addan, and Immer : but they could not 
 shew their fathers' house, and their seed, whether they were 
 
 60 of Israel : the children of Delaiah, the children of Tobiah, 
 
 61 the children of Nekoda, six hundred fifty and two. And of 
 the children of the priests : the children of Habaiah, the 
 
 55. Sophereth^ R.V. Hassophereth. The A.V. gives the name as 
 it appears in Neh. vii. 57. 
 
 Peruda] appears in Neh. vii. 57 as 'Perida'. 
 
 57. Pochereth of Zebawi\ R.V. Pocheretli-lia2zebaim. The name 
 denotes 'the gazelle hunter'. The LXX., quite misunderstanding the 
 title, gives two names, ' the children of Pacherad, the children of Ase- 
 boim' (ylol ^ax^pdd, vioVAcre^uifx). 
 
 Ami\ appears in Neh. vii. 59 as 'Arnon'. 
 
 59—63. Israelites and Priests of uncertain genealogy. 
 
 59. Tel-melah, Tel-harsa] R.V., Tel-melali, Tel-harsha i.e. Salt- 
 hill and Forest-hill, probably names of localities in Babylonia. 
 
 Cherub, Addan, and Im7ner'\ These are names not of people, but, in 
 all probability, of three villages in one district of Babylonia. Rawlin- 
 son suggests that Cherub is the Cheripha of Ptolemy, and that Tel- 
 melah is Telme. 
 
 There are then three districts, Tel-melah, Tel-harsa, and Cherub- 
 Addan-Immer, from which came the three families Delaiah, Tobiah 
 and Nekoda. 
 
 Addan] appears in Neh. vii. 59 'Addon'. 
 
 their jathers' house] their fathers' houses R.V. They were able to 
 show their recent ancestry, but not their descent from the great clans 
 or households into which the tribes were divided. They could not 
 prove either of the two greatest essentials in a Jewish genealogy, their 
 place in the household or their membership in a tribe. 
 
 This technical failure to produce their genealogy probably deprived 
 them of the full rights of citizenship. They were not refused participa- 
 tion in the Return. But the names do not appear in later lists, Ezr. x. 
 25 — 43; Neh. X. I — 27. 
 
 60. Nekoda] See verse 48. The occurrence of the same name in 
 two places may be accidental. But it is possible that the family of 
 Nekoda which ranked among the Nethinim sought to establish a claim 
 to a place among the free-born Israelites. 
 
 61. Habaiah] This name appears in Neh. vii. 63 as 'Hobaiah'. R.V. 
 
vv. 62, 63.] EZRA, II. 31 
 
 children of Koz, the children of Barzillai; which took a 
 wife of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was 
 called after their name : these sought their register among 62 
 those that were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not 
 found : therefore were they, as polluted, put from the priest- 
 hood. And the Tirshatha said unto them, that they should 63 
 
 Koz\ R.V. 'Hakkoz'. This name appears as that of the seventh 
 priestly course in i Chron. xxiv. 10. 
 
 of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite\ Barzillai, the rich and 
 noble Gileadite who assisted David during his flight from his son 
 Absalom. Barzillai's son Chimham accompanied David to Jerusalem 
 on his return (2 Sam. xvii. 27, xix. 32 ff.; i Kings ii. 7). Chimham 
 probably founded a family called after his own name, which resided at 
 Bethlehem (Jer. xli. 17). Barzillai's position and estates in Gilead 
 were inherited by his daughters, through whom their father's name was 
 preserved. One of them was married to a priest, who thereupon 
 received the family name. His descendants however were unable to 
 make out their claim to belong to the priesthood; possibly on account 
 of the confusion resulting from the altered name. 
 
 The R.V. places a full stop at the close of this verse. 
 
 62. these sought their register &c.] Literally 'These sought their 
 writing (LXX. ypacprjv avruv), the enrolled', i.e. they searched for their 
 genealogy in the priestly book, which went by the name of 'The 
 Enrolled', or as we should now call it 'The Register'. Compare 'the 
 writing (mrg. 'register') of the house of Israel' in Ezek. xiii. 9, where the 
 same word is used in the original. 
 
 therefore were they, as polluted, ptit from the priesthood^ R.V. there- 
 fore were they deemed polluted and put from the priesthood. The 
 margin Heb. Uhey were polluted from the priesthood' gives the literal 
 rendering. To be declared polluted was equivalent to being excluded 
 from any active part in the office and administration of the priesthood. 
 They were to be accounted 'polluted', until their claim could be 
 established. 
 
 The importance attached to the genealogical accuracy of the claims 
 preferred to the priesthood is not only a symptom of the legal spirit 
 which animated the Jews of the Return. It goes back to the abolition 
 of the High Places firstly by Hezekiah and afterwards by Josiah, in 
 consequence of which a sharp distinction was drawn between those who 
 had ministered at the High Places and those who were engaged in the 
 Temple worship at Jerusalem. This point is illustrated by the writings 
 of Ezekiel, himself a priest, who writing during the Captivity distin- 
 guishes between 'the priests the Levites that be of the seed of Zadok' 
 (xliii. 19; cf. xl. 46, xliv. 14, xlviii. 11) and the 'Levites that went 
 astray' (xliv. 10, 13, 15, xlviii. 11). 
 
 63, the Tirshatha] This title is here and in Neh. vii. 65, 70 
 apparently applied to Zerubbabel : Haggai his contemporary calls him 
 'Pekhah' (^Governor), see Hag. i. i, 14, ii. 2, 21. In the same way 
 Nehemiah, who is called the Tirshatha, Neh. viii. 9, x. i, is also spoken 
 
32 EZRA, II. [v. 63. 
 
 not eat of the most holy things till there stood tip a priest 
 with Urim and with Thummim. 
 
 of as 'Pekhah' in Neh. xii. 26. 'Pekhah' was the Babylonian, 
 ' Tirshatha' the Persian title for a local or provincial governor. The 
 governors were subject to the satraps, the satraps were responsible to 
 the king. 
 
 The word 'Tirshatha' is said to be the same as the Persian 'tarsata', 
 from 'tars' to fear, and to denote complimentarily the awe which the 
 office inspired. 
 
 That the 'Tirshatha' here mentioned was Zerubbabel is rendered 
 probable by the nature of the prohibition contained in this verse, which 
 none but a native Governor or the High-priest himself would have 
 issued. 
 
 thai they should not eat of the most holy things] The priests were 
 especially required to eat of the 'meal-offering' (Lev. ii. 3, 10, vi. 18), 
 the sin offering (Lev. vi. 26), the guilt offering (Lev. vii. 6), and of 
 the peace offering (Lev. vii. 31 — 34). Certain portions were set aside for 
 the sons of Aaron. The prohibition therefore refers to the ceremonial 
 rules already in force. 'The most holy things' is a phrase which can 
 best be illustrated from Num. xviii. 9 — 11. 
 
 The consecration of a priest was accompanied by the sacrifice of a 
 ram which Aaron and his sons should eat. Ex. xxix. 33 — 37. 
 
 A priest excluded from eating of ' the most holy things ' was there- 
 fore only a priest by title and lineage. He could not be consecrated 
 (see Ex. xxix.), he could not offer sacrifices, he could not enter the 
 holy place. 
 
 He was excluded apparently more rigidly than the priest 'that hath 
 a blemish', who was forbidden to ' come nigh to offer the bread of his 
 God. He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of 
 the holy. Only he shall not go in unto the veil, nor come nigh unto 
 the altar' (Lev. xxi. 21 — 23). 
 
 The distinction here made between the 'most holy' and the 'holy' is 
 important. 'The most holy' included the shewbread, the incense, the 
 sin and guilt offering, the drink offering. 'The holy' comprised the 
 thank-offering, the firstlings of herd and flock, the first-fruits, the tithe. 
 Of 'the holy' things members of the priests' families might partake. 
 But ceremonial cleanness was in all cases needed. 
 
 The declaration of 'defilement' excluded those who were defiled 
 from a source of priestly income as well as from the dignity of prits-ly 
 occupation. 
 
 till there stood up a priest with Urim and with Thummim\ In former 
 times the High-priest had enquired of the Lord by Urim and Thum- 
 mim. After the Captivity, the High-priest had no Urim and Thum- 
 mim. The Urim and Thummim, along with the Ark, the Shechinah, 
 the Holy Fire, the Spirit of Prophecy, the Oil of Anointing constkuted 
 the chief points, for the absence of which the Jews of later times 
 deplored the deficiency of Zerubbabel's Temple as compared with that 
 of Solomon. 
 
 The passages in which enquiry by Urim and Thummim is mentioned 
 
33 
 
 vv. 64, 65. J EZRA, II. 
 
 The whole congregation together was forty and two 64 
 thousand three hundred a7id threescore, beside their ser- 6s 
 
 are Ex. xxyiii. 30; Lev. viii. 8; Num. xxvii. 21; Deut. xxxiii. 8; 
 I Sam. xxviii. 6. In none of these do we find any explanation of what 
 the Urim and Thummim were. They have been identified with {a) stones 
 in the High-priest's breastplate, [b) sacred dice, {c) little images of 
 'truth' and 'justice' such as are found hung round the neck of an 
 Eg>'ptian priest's mummy. 
 
 The writers of the Scriptures have abstained from explanation either 
 because they shrank from making generally known what was regarded 
 with mystery and awe, or because they presupposed their readers' fami- 
 liarity with the thing referred to. 
 
 The want of Urim and Thummim is not, as Ewald supposed, due to 
 any technical defect in Jeshua's claim to High-priestly dignity (such as 
 that he was not his father's eldest son). And this passage tacitly con- 
 tradicts the assertion of Josephus, that the Urim and Thummim only 
 first failed in the Maccabean era. 
 
 The Tirshatha indefinitely postponed the decision. Where docu- 
 mentary proofs were wanting, none but one favoured with Divine per- 
 ception could pronounce sentence. The words are of importance 
 because they testify to the feeling that the people felt the need of 
 revelation from God, and that they looked forward to the coming of 
 some great High-priest to whom God should make Himself known. 
 They point forward to the coming of the High- Priest 'full of grace and 
 truth'. 
 
 Compare i Mace. iv. 46 ' Until there should come a prophet to show 
 what should be done with them', xiv. 41 'Until there should arise a 
 faithful prophet.' 
 
 The words ' Urim' and 'Thummim' mean 'Light' and 'Perfection.' 
 The LXX renders them in this passage by roh (pwri^ovaiv kol roh 
 TeKeiois ; more generally by drjXuxxLs or 8t]\oi. and dXrideia. 
 
 64. The same total i.e. 42,360 is given in Ezra, Nehemiah and 
 I Esdras. The items however fail in all three lists to produce this 
 figure. 
 
 Men of the people of Israel 
 
 Priests 
 
 Levites 
 
 Singers 
 
 Porters 
 Nethinim and Solomon's servants 
 Unregistered 
 
 Total 29,818 31,089 30,143 
 
 other MSS. 30,678 
 These remarkable discrepancies from the sum total in which there is 
 so much agreement have been variously accounted for. (a) Jewish 
 interpreters have supposed that the sum total comprised members of 
 the ten tribes who have not been enumerated: {i>) 1 Esdr. v. 41 adds 
 
 Ezra 
 
 Neh. 
 
 I Esdr. 
 
 24,144 
 
 25,406 
 
 26,390 
 
 4289 
 
 4289 
 
 238S 
 
 74 
 
 74 
 
 74 
 
 128 
 
 148 
 
 128 
 
 139 
 
 138 
 
 139 
 
 ts 392 
 
 392 
 
 37^ 
 
 652 
 
 642 
 
 652 
 
34 EZRA, II. [v. 66 
 
 vants and their maids, of whom there were seven thousand 
 
 three hundred thirty and seven : and there were among 
 
 66 them two hundred singing men and singing women. Their 
 
 the words 'of twelve years old and upward', and the unlikely sugges- 
 tion has been made that the numbers of the totals include all over 
 1 2 years of age, although the numbers of the items included all over 
 20 years of age. {c) The disagreement is considered to be due to the 
 corruptions in the text arising from copyists' errors in transcription of 
 numbers and signs for numbers. 
 
 Of these explanations the last seems the most probable. But it is 
 undoubtedly strange that the three disagreeing sum totals should come 
 within 200 of one another and yet should fall so far short of the total 
 figure which each text has preserved. 
 
 65. their servants and their maidsl R.V. their menservants and 
 their maidservants, which is more accurate. 
 
 and there were among thein'\ R.V. and they had. The R.V. is cer- 
 tainly right. The meaning is not that singing men and women were 
 included among the servants, but that ' the whole congregation ' 
 (ver. 64) had in attendance, besides their servants, their troop of 
 singers. 
 
 singing men and sijtging women] The mention of these has caused 
 some difficulty, (i) Singers have already been mentioned (ver. 41). 
 (■2) It has been thought that mention of cattle would be expected by 
 the side of the other beasts. The suggestion has been made that we 
 ought to read 'oxen' (sh'varim) for 'singing men' (shor'rim), that the 
 latter word having been introduced by a copyist's error, the words 'and 
 singing women' were added to give completeness to the verse. The 
 conjecture is ingenious but is based on a misapprehension, (i) The 
 singers mentioned in ver. 41 are a Levitical guild, set apart for the 
 Temple services. The singers mentioned here are professionals em- 
 ployed at banquets, feasts &c., or funerals (2 Chron. xxxv. 25). Such 
 ' singing men and singing women ' often belonged to the most degraded 
 class. There is nothing strange then in their being mentioned after 
 the menservants and maidservants. A passage in Ecclesiastes ii. 7, 8 
 exemplifies their position 'I bought menservants and maidens...; also 
 I had great possessions of herds and flocks...: I gathered me also silver 
 and gold . . . : I gat me f?ien singers and women singers and the delights 
 of the sons of men, concubines very many.' The possession of pro- 
 fessional singers was clearly a sign of luxury (cf. 2 Sam. xix. 35). 
 The mention of them shows that there were several very wealthy men 
 among the 'congregation'. But it is only natural that their place in 
 the list should follow after the mention of the ordinary servants. 
 (2) There is no need here to introduce 'cattle'. The animals men- 
 tioned in the context are beasts of burden (see chap. i. 4, 6). 'Oxen' 
 would be out of place in the list. We are told nothing of the flocks 
 and herds, which the people brought with them. And if it be objected 
 that oxen were used as beasts of burden, it may fairly be answered 
 {a) that they would scarcely be mentioned first in the list, {b) that 
 
V. 6;.] EZRA, II. . 35 
 
 horses were seven hundred thirty and six ; their mules, two 
 hundred forty and five ; their camels, four hundred thirty 67 
 and five; their asses, six thousand seven hundred and 
 twenty. 
 
 where they are found in a list (i Chron. xii. 40) they are mentioned 
 last and by a different name. The number of singers here mentioned 
 is 200. In Neh. vii. 67 and i Esdr. v. 42 it is 245, in all probability a 
 copyist's error whose eye had caught the number ' 245 ' in the verse 
 following. 
 
 66. ho7'ses\ The number mentioned here (736) appears in i Esdras 
 V. 43 as 7036, a fair sample of the way in which figures could easily 
 undergo alteration by accident or intention. 
 
 Before this time we do not find mention of the use of the horse 
 among the Israelites for peaceful purposes. Hitherto the horse had 
 been used for war and for pomp. The considerable number here men- 
 tioned is another proof of the presence of considerable wealth. The 
 horse was the possession of the rich and well armed. 
 
 7nnles\ About one-third the number of the horses. During the mon- 
 archy the mule is the royal animal (i Kings i. 33, 38, 44). The mule 
 was scarce and precious like the horse (i Kings xviii. 5). To be car- 
 ried by a mule is classed with being carried by a horse or on a litter or 
 in a chariot (Isai. Ixvi. 20). They were not bred in Palestine. Solo- 
 mon imported them (i Kings x. 25; 2 Chr. ix. 24). The mules here 
 mentioned were probably ridden by the richest class. In the O.T. 
 we do not read of the mule carrying loads. 
 
 67. camels'] The camel is mentioned in the O.T. chiefly as the 
 beast of burden of nomad families and races, e.g. Ishmaelites (Gen. 
 xxxvii. 25), Midianites and Amalekites (Judg. vi. 5 ; i Sam. xxx. 17). 
 It would be the most serviceable of all beasts for the long journey from 
 Babylon, on account of its great endurance and its capacity for carrying 
 heavy weights. 
 
 The camel here spoken of is probably of Arabian breed. It is what 
 we should call the 'dromedary' or one-humped camel. 
 
 Camels would be in frequent use in Babylon. Several Assyrian 
 sculptures have been preserved in which we may see that the camel 
 then as now was the favourite beast both of merchants and of robbers 
 (Jobi. 17). 
 
 asses] Here and in Nehemiah the number is 6720, in i Esdr. v. 43 it 
 is 5525. The ass was the commonest beast of burden. Unlike the 
 horse, mule and camel, it seems from the earliest times to have been 
 bred in Palestine. Its endurance for a long journey is greater than 
 that of the horse. But it is not so serviceable for work in waterless 
 regions as the mule or the camel. Asses are mentioned along with 
 camels and horsemen in Isaiah's prophecy of the fall of Babylon (Isai. 
 xxi. 7). 
 
 These four beasts of burden are mentioned in the same order in Zech. 
 xiv. 15. The horses and mules would be ridden by the wealthier, asses 
 by the poorer classes. The camels and asses would carry the baggage. 
 
36 EZRA, II. [vv. 68, 69. 
 
 68 And some of the chief of the fathers, when they came to 
 the house of the Lord which is at Jerusalem, offered 
 
 69 freely for the house of God to set it up in his place : they 
 gave after their ability unto the treasure of the work three- 
 
 68, 69. This passage is given in greater accuracy of detail in Neh. 
 vii. 70 — 72. 
 
 68. some of the chief of the fathers'] R. V. some of the heads of 
 fathers' houses, see note on i. 5. 
 
 •when they came to the house of the LoRD which is at Jerusalem'] i.e. 
 on their arrival at Jerusalem, where they were to rebuild the Temple. 
 'The house of the Lord', the site and the building are identified by the 
 writer; if still in ruins, the house was about to be rebuilt, cf. i. 4, 5. 
 iii. 8, 9. In the writer's mind 'the house of the Lord' is always 
 standing at Jerusalem. 
 
 offered freely] R.V, offered willingly. There was no reason for the 
 A.V. to alter the rendering given in i, 6. The freewill offering was 
 offered willingly (see iii. 5); the adverb 'freely' introduces an am- 
 biguity. 
 
 to set it up] lit. 'to cause it to stand ' = to restore; the expression 
 recurs chap. ix. 9. 
 
 69. they gave &c.] There is a slight discrepancy between the sums 
 mentioned in this verse and the sums recorded in greater detail in 
 Nehemiah. The figures stand thus — 
 
 Ezra 
 Heads of fathers' houses 61,000 darics of gold 
 
 5,000 pounds of silver 
 100 priests' garments. 
 
 Nehemiah 
 
 darics of gold basons pounds silver priests' garments 
 
 Tirshatha 1,000 50 500? 30 
 
 Heads of fathers' houses 20,000 2,200 
 
 Rest of people 20,000 2,000 67 
 
 Total 41,000 4,700 97 
 
 The contributions as described in Ezra are all placed to the credit 
 of the heads of fathers' houses ; in Nehemiah we find a considerable 
 portion contributed by the Tirshatha and by the rest of the people. 
 
 {a) The 61,000 darics of gold appear to consist of the Tirshatha's 
 1000 + other contributions of which we are able to identify 40,000 
 (i.e. 20,000 given by heads of fathers' houses + 20,000 given by the 
 rest of the people). Perhaps the value of 50 basons and of the other 
 gifts amounted to a figure which could be described in round numbers 
 as 2o,ooo. 
 
 {[>) The 5,000 pounds of silver express in round numbers the 2,200 
 contributed by the heads of fathers' houses + the 2,000 by the rest of 
 the people + 500 pounds silver given by the Tirshatha (the probable 
 reading of Neh. vii, 70). 
 
V. 70.] EZRA, 11. 37 
 
 score and one thousand drams of gold, and five thousand 
 pound <?/" silver, and one hundred priests' garments. So the 70 
 
 {c) The 100 priests' garments represent the 30 given by the Tirshatha 
 (probable reading of Neh. vii. 70), and the 67 given by the rest of the 
 people. 
 
 after their ability] literally ' strength ' or ' power ' as in Dan, i. 4 : 
 not elsewhere of 'wealth'. The word rendered 'ability' in Neh. v. 8 
 is different and denotes 'sufficiency'. 
 
 tmto the treasure] R. V. into the treasury. 
 
 drams] R.V. darics. The A.V. translation *dram' seems to sup- 
 pose that the coin spoken of was the Greek 'drachma'. It is in reality 
 the well-known Persian gold coin 'daric'. The name has commonly 
 been derived from the Darius who was said to have first had the piece 
 coined. But this is far from certain. The word 'daric' more probably 
 refers to the emblem on the coin, and is to be derived either from a 
 Persian word meaning 'a bow', or from 'dara'= ' a king ', cf. our 'sove- 
 reign '. The obverse side of the coin has the figure of a crowned king, 
 kneeling, holding in his right hand a sceptre or spear and in his left a 
 bow ; for the sake possibly of securing a good impression, the reverse of 
 the coin was left rough. 
 
 The 'daric' is transliterated into Hebrew as 'Adarcon' in chap. viii. 
 27; I Chron. xxix. 7: but in this verse and in Neh. vii. 70 — 72 it 
 appears as ' Darcemon' with a various reading ' Adarcemon'. 
 
 Its value was as nearly as possible equivalent to our sovereign. The 
 coin is by some identified with the gold stater of Croesus, the last king 
 of Lydia. This is the first mention of coined money in the Old 
 Testament, as the reference to 'darics' in David's reign (i Chron. xxix. 
 7) is strictly an anachronism. 
 
 pound] Hebr. 'maneh'. We do not find in the Old Testament 
 any mention of Persian silver coinage. Before the Persian period, 
 Hebrew money had for the most part been calculated by weight upon 
 something akin to the Babylonian system, by 'talent', 'maneh', 'shekel'. 
 
 A ' talent' of Hebrew money consisted of ' 50 manim', one maneh of 
 60 shekels. 
 
 priests' garments] The priests dififered from the Levites in having 
 special garments 'in which they ministered' and which they put off as 
 being holy, as soon as they had ceased from their ministrations (Levit. 
 vi. 10; Ezek. xlii. 14, xliv. 19). The priestly garments are detailed 
 briefly, most fully in Ex. xxviii. 40, xxxix. 27. They consisted of 
 (i) a long coat or tunic, (2) a mitre or turban, (3) breeches or nether 
 garments, (4) a girdle. The material was fine linen, and the colour 
 white. These garments the priest appears to have laid aside and depo- 
 sited in one of the chambers at the entrance of the inner court of the 
 Temple, before passing into the people's court. 
 
 70. This verse runs more smoothly as it appears in Neh. vii. 73 
 • So the priests and the Levites, and the porters, and the singers, and 
 some of the people, and the Nethinim, and all Israel dwelt in their 
 cities'. 
 
38 EZRA, III. [vv. I, 2. 
 
 priests, and the Levites, and some of the people, and the 
 
 singers, and the porters, and the Nethinims, dwelt in their 
 
 cities, and all Israel in their cities. 
 3 And when the seventh month was come, and the 
 
 children of Israel were in the cities, the people gathered 
 2 themselves together as one man to Jerusalem. Then stood 
 
 The verse sums up the whole list. 
 
 The words 'and some of the people' seem to be in the wrong place 
 between 'the Levites' and 'the singers'; but the mention of 'the 
 singers' before 'the porters' agrees more closely with the order of 
 the list given in the present chapter than the order given in Neh. vii. 73. 
 
 An awkwardness is presented by the words *in their cities' occurring 
 twice, especially as the distinction drawn between 'some of the 
 people with the priests and Levites' and 'all Israel' is not obvious. 
 Some have seen in the words *all Israel' an expression intended to 
 combine those who had returned from captivity in Babylon with those 
 who had remained behind in Palestine and had never been carried 
 away captive. Others have seen in it an allusion to representatives of 
 the 10 Tribes who were to be found among the new community, and 
 compare it with the mention of the 1 2 leaders of the people in ver. 2 
 (cf. I Chr. ix. 3). 
 
 Perhaps the most probable explanation is that the text has suffered 
 corruption and that the verse originally ran 'So the priests, and the 
 Levites, and the singers, and the porters, and the Nethinims, and some 
 of the people, even all Israel, dwelt in their cities', or as i Esdr. viii_. 45. 
 
 dwelt in their cities. Cf. 'returned... every one unto his city' ii. i. 
 The document from which this list was extracted contemplates the 
 work of settling into their cities, which must have been a slow and 
 gradual process, as one that had been for some time accomplished. At 
 first only Jerusalem and the towns in the immediate neighbourhood 
 could thus have been occupied. 
 
 Ch. III. 1—3. The Building of the Altar. 
 
 1. The first clause of this verse concludes the Register of the pre- 
 ceding section in Nehemiah (vii. 73). 
 
 the seventh inonth'\ Probably the 7th month in the first year of the 
 ' Return, since the next recorded date (ver. 8) is the 2nd month ' in the 
 second year of their coming unto the house of God', 
 
 The 7th month — the month Tisri — was in some respects the most 
 sacred in the Jewish Calendar. The ist day was the Feast of Trumpets 
 (Num. xxix. i): the loth was the Great Day of Atonement (Num. xxix. 
 7; Lev. xvi. 29): the 15th was the Feast of Tabernacles (Lev. xxiii. 
 24—36, 39 — 44; Num. xxix. 12 — 38). It was therefore an appropriate 
 season for the first religious act of the new community. ' The holy 
 convocation' on the ist day was to herald the new order of things. 
 
 Ps. Ixxxi. very possibly commemoratt-s tlie festival of 'the new moon'. 
 
 as one vian'\ cf. Judges xx. i ; Neh. viii. i. 
 
V. 3] EZRA, III. 39 
 
 up Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and his brethren the priests, 
 and Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and his brethren, and 
 builded the altar of the God of Israel, to offer burnt 
 offerings thereon, as it is written in the law of Moses the 
 man of God. And they set the altar upon his bases ; 3 
 for fear was upon them because of the people of those 
 
 2. Then stood lip .. Jo offer'\ 
 
 Jeshua the High-priest (cf. ii. 2) mentioned here in connexion with 
 sacrifice, before Zerubbabel; in ver. 8 after Zerubbabel in connexion 
 with the work of rebuilding the Temple. 
 
 Jeshua's brethren are the priests : Zerubbabel's brethren ' the heads 
 of fathers' houses' (cf. ii. 2, 68). 
 
 Zerubbabel called here for the first time ' son of Shealtiel '. See note 
 on ii. 2. 
 
 and btcilded] a ceremonious act performed by the heads of the people. 
 
 ihe altar of the God of Israel] cf. i. 3. We are reminded by this term 
 of the unity of the divided and scattered people. The altar, the place 
 of sacrifice, symbolized the approach of the whole people. 
 
 as it is tm-itten in the laiv of Moses] cf. vi. 18; 1 Chron. xxiii. 18, 
 XXXV. T2, 26. The offerings for the ist day of Tisri, the Feast of 
 Trumpets, are described in Numbers xxix. i — 6. 
 
 the man of God] For the phrase used of Moses, cf. i Chron. xxiii. 14 ; 
 2 Chron. xxx. 16. 
 
 3. tipon his bases] R.V. upon its base. Marg. 'in its place'. 
 {a) There is a difference of reading. The C'thib gives the singular, the 
 K'ri the plural. The word occurs frequently in the plur. (e.g. 2 Kings 
 xvi. 17, XXV. 13; Jer. xxvii. 19, lii. 17, 20), it is probable that the 
 singular has been altered into the more familiar plural usage, {b) .The 
 meaning of the word is much controverted. On the one hand it is 
 supposed that having cleared away the rubbish and debris the leaders 
 of the people came upon the old foundations or 'base' of the former 
 altar and erected the new altar upon the spot. But the translation 
 'upon its base' scarcely admits of such latitude of interpretation; 
 although the sentiment is most suitable. 
 
 On the other hand, if to ' set upon its base' merely means to erect, 
 the term is unnecessarily ponderous. 
 
 The translation of the R.V. margin 'in its place' seems to be the 
 best. It is very probable that the word in the verse is identical with 
 that in ii. 68. The altar was set up in the place which it was perma- 
 nently to occupy. 
 
 for fear was upon them because of the people <7/ those countries] R-V. 
 the countries. The condensed language of this clause in the original 
 has occasioned much perplexity. Literally it runs ' for in fear upon 
 them because of &c.'. (i) Another rendering has been proposed 'for 
 they (set up the altar) in fear, which came upon them because of the 
 people of the countries', but this leaves the word 'for' unexplained 
 and supposes a very awkward construction. 
 
 (ii) The translation of the A.V. and R.V. cuts the grammatical 
 
40 EZRA, III. [v. 4. 
 
 countries : and they offered burnt offerings thereon unto the 
 
 4 Lord, even burnt offerings morning and evening. They 
 
 kept also the feast of tabernacles, as it is written, and 
 
 knot contained in the words * in fear' by translating them as the subject. 
 Accepting this translation ' for fear was upon them &c.', a further 
 question is raised by the motive of their action. The following answers 
 have been given : {a) they set up the altar hoping to obtain thereby 
 assistance from God, for they were in a state of fear: {b) they set 
 up the altar in haste, for they feared the neighbouring peoples lest 
 their interference at the court of Cyrus should check the work at its 
 outset. 
 
 (iii) Quite a different turn to the verse is given by another rendering 
 (?that of Ewald). 'They set up the altar (and they were able to do 
 so), for there was a fear felt toward them (the Jews) on the part of the 
 people of the country'. This would be a fear such as we read of in 
 Gen. XXXV. 5; Ex. xv. 16; Jos. ii. 11. It is to be noticed that in the 
 last two passages the same rather unusual word for terror is used as we 
 find in this verse. 
 
 (iv) Supposing that there has been a corruption of the text, it has 
 been suggested that some important words have fallen out and that we 
 should read ' And the people of the countries gathered themselves toge- 
 ther against them, and they (the Jews) set up the altar in its place, for 
 in a moment of terror at them did they set it up '. (Ryssel.) 
 
 (v) The suggestion is here made that a very slight alteration — the 
 omission of one letter (the preposition = ' because of) — will supply a 
 good sense and remove the grammatical difficulty, i.e. '■for the people 
 of the countries were a terror to theju '. The accidental repetition of this 
 one letter has probably given rise to the whole difficulty. The meaning 
 of the verse then will be 'they set up the altar, for their neighbours were 
 a source of terror to them,' and the erection of the altar gave them 
 religious confidence, it constituted a national rallying point; it was a 
 beginning, and the success of the first movement might be decisive. 
 
 the people t?/" those countries] R.V. the people of the countries. It is 
 to be regretted that the R.V. has not here rendered this phrase ('amme 
 ha-*ra90th) by 'the peoples of the lands' as in ix. i, 2, 11. It here 
 apparently means the inhabitants of the border countries. See note 
 on vi. 21. 
 
 burnt offerings morning and evening"] The daily sacrifice momirg 
 and evening as described in Ex. xxix. 38; Num. xxviii. 3 — 8. Cf. 
 Neh. X. 38. 
 
 4—7. The Feast of Tabernacles. 
 
 4. They kept also the feast of tabernacles, as it is written] The man- 
 ner of keeping the feast of tabernacles is described in Lev. xxiii. 34 — 42 ; 
 Deut. xvi. 13 — 15. 
 
 It was the autumn or vintage feast, the most joyous of all the great 
 annual festivals. It commemorated the wanderings in the Desert. It 
 would henceforth commemorate also the return from the Exile. 
 
V. 5] EZRA, III. 
 
 41 
 
 offered the daily burnt offerings by number, according to 
 the custom, as the duty of every day required ; and after- s 
 ward offered the continual burnt offering, both of the new- 
 moons, and of all the set feasts of the Lord that were 
 
 At this festival Solomon dedicated his Temple, i Kings viii. 65 ; 
 and with this festival vi^as connected the reading of the Law by Ezra 
 under Nehemiah (Neh. viii. 14 — 16). 
 
 'As it is written', a shorter phrase for that which occurs in ver. 2. 
 Cf. 2 Chron. xxx. 5, 18. 
 
 by ?mmber, according to the custom, R.V. ordinance] The words in 
 the original are clearly a reference to the passage in Numb. xxix. where 
 the sacrifices for the feast of tabernacles are detailed, i.e. 13 young 
 bullocks &c. on the first day, 12 &c. on the second, 11 &c. on the third, 
 and so on. It is to be regretted that the same English words ' according 
 to their number, after the ordinance', which occur as a kind of refrain 
 in that chapter (verses 18, 21, 24, 27, 30, 33, 37), were not either exactly 
 reproduced here by the R.V., or altered there to 'by their number, 
 according to ordinance '. The attention of the reader would then have 
 been drawn to the echo given by this phrase to the phraseology of the 
 Pentateuch. 
 
 (Yet another rendering of the same phrase appears i Chron. xxiii. 31 
 ' in number according to ordinance'.) 
 
 as the duty of every day required\ because the number of the sacri- 
 fices altered every day during the Feast of Tabernacles. Literally, 'the 
 thing of the day in its day': the same phrase is rendered 'every day a 
 portion', 2 Kings xxv. 30; Jer. lii. 34: 'as every day's work required', 
 I Chron. xvi. 37. 
 
 5. and afterward Q)^QX^6^^ R.V. 'and afterward', the verb being 
 supplied from the previous verse. 
 
 The clause implies that after the celebration of this Feast of Taber- 
 nacles the Jews resumed for the first time since the destruction of 
 Jerusalem the regular sacrificial system. 
 
 the cotitinual burnt offering] i.e. the daily morning and evening sacri- 
 fice, prescribed in Ex. xxix. 38 — 42. 
 
 both of the new moons, ajtd of all the set feasts &c.] R.V. 'and the 
 offerings of the new moons, and of all the set feasts' &c. The A.V. 
 gives the wrong impression that 'the continual burnt offering' be- 
 longed to ' the new moons, set feasts,' &c. The R.V. gives the right 
 meaning. 
 
 The verse states that the Jews, now that the altar had been set up 
 and the new order of things initiated by the solemn celebration of the 
 Feast of Tabernacles, resumed the customary burnt offerings, (i) daily, 
 morning and evening, (2) at the new moon, (3) on all 'set feasts', (4) on 
 the occasion of freewill offerings. 
 
 'the new moons'. A popular day of religious observance among 
 the Israelites (cf. 2 Kings iv. 23; Hos. ii. '11; Amos viii. 5): not 
 included among 'the set feasts' described in Lev. xxiii., where the first 
 day of the seventh month is the only new-moon day spoken of as a 
 
42 EZRA, III. [vv. 6, 7. 
 
 consecrated, and of every one that willingly offered a free- 
 
 6 will offering unto the Lord. From the first day of the 
 seventh month began they to offer burnt offerings unto the 
 Lord. But the foundation of the temple of the Lord was 
 
 7 not yet laid. They gave money also unto the masons, and 
 to the carpenters; and meat, and drink, and oil, unto them 
 
 'holy convocation' (ver. 24). Perhaps because the observance of 'the 
 new moons' had been adopted from the general religious customs of 
 the Semitic races, it received no special prominence in the Levitical 
 code. The sacrifices for the 'new moons' are described in Num. 
 xxviii. II — 15. 
 
 the set feasts]— se.Q Levit. xxiii. 2—37, 'The set feasts of the Lord, 
 which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations' (R.V.), — i.e. (i) 
 the Sabbath (ver. 3), (2) the Passover (ver. 5), (3) the Feast of Weeks 
 (15 — 21), (4) the Feast of Trumpets (ver.^24), (5) the Day of Atone- 
 ment (27 — 32), (6) the Feast of Tabernacles (34 — 36). In 2 Chron. 
 viii. 13, 'the set feasts' are the three great annual festivals, 'unleavened 
 bread', 'weeks', 'tabernacles', and these are probably intended here. 
 
 The 'new moons' and the 'set feasts' are found along with 'the 
 Sabbaths' in i Chron. xxiii. 31; 2 Chron. ii. 4, viii. 13, xxxi. 3; Neh. 
 
 X- 33- 
 
 a freewill offering] Freewill offerings were made (i) on the 
 great feast-days, see Deut. xvi. 10, 16, 17; and (2) whensoever any 
 individual Israelite or Gentile desired (Num. xxix. 39). They are 
 called 'oblations' (Corbans) in Lev. i. ii. iii., where they are defined 
 in detail. 
 
 6. From the first day of the seventh month &c.] This statement taken 
 in conjunction witli verse 5 ('and afterward' &c.) can only mean, that 
 the Jews began to offer burnt offerings on their altar on ''\\\& first day of 
 the month', when the altar was set up, but that the regular offering of 
 the daily sacrifice was not begun till after the Feast of Tabernacles 
 (15th to 22nd). 
 
 Bitt the foundation &c.] R.V. '<{•«/' &c.: no full-stop. The explan- 
 atory clause is added. The burnt offerings were regularly made on 
 the altar, although there was no Temple building, nor Temple worship. 
 Such a thing would have been almost incredible to the Jew of later 
 centuries. 
 
 7. First steps taken towards the Rebuilding of the 
 Temple. 
 
 the masons] The stone for the Temple was excavated from the 
 hill on which Jerusalem stood. 
 
 It is possible that the word rendered 'masons' may include the 
 rougher workmen for both stone and wood, i.e. quarrymen and wood- 
 cutters, while the word rendered 'carpenters' may mean the skilled 
 artificers for working up the wood and stone. 
 
 meat] The old English expression for ' something to eat '. Cf. Luke 
 xxiv. 41, 'Have ye here any meat?' (R.V. 'anything to eat?'). 
 
V. 7-] EZRA, III. 43 
 
 of Zidon, and to them of Tyre, to bring cedar trees from 
 Lebanon to the sea of Joppa, according to the grant that 
 they had of Cyrus king of Persia. 
 
 oil] One of the necessities of life for the inhabitants of a hot country, 
 applied externally: classed here with meat and drink, and apparently 
 also in Ps. xxiii. 5, civ. 15; Mic. vi. 15. 
 
 Solomon hired workmen from Tyre and Sidon and paid them in the 
 same way, when the first Temple was erected. It is noteworthy that 
 whereas i Kings v. 11 states that Solomon gave Hiram's household 
 wheat and oil, we are told in 2 Chron. ii. 10 that he promised to give 
 Hiram's servants ' wheat and barley and wine and oil '. On this occasion 
 similar payment in kind was given — a heavy tax upon the resources of 
 the young community — to the Zidonians and Tyrians, engaged in felling 
 trees on Lebanon and floating them to Joppa. 
 
 from Lebanon to the sea of Joppa] R.V. from Lebanon to the sea, 
 unto Joppa. The mountain of Lebanon from which cedars were 
 obtained and sent into every country far and near (e.g. 2 Sam. v. 11, 
 vii. 2; I Kings v. 6 ; i Chron. xiv. i, &c.). Cf. Jer. xxii. 23, 'O in- 
 habitant of Lebanon that makest thy nest in the cedars'. 
 
 The Tyrian workmen conveyed the trunks of cedar- trees from the 
 hills to the nearest coast and then floated them in enormous rafts as far 
 as Joppa, the nearest seaport to Jerusalem. Compare 2 Chron. ii. 16, 
 'And we will cut wood out of Lebanon, as much as thou shalt need: 
 and we will bring it to thee in floats by sea to Joppa (marg. Heb. 
 Japho) ; and thou shalt carry it to Jerusalem.' 
 
 ' To the sea of Joppa', the A.V. rendering, preferred by some, is 
 most unnatural. 
 
 Joppa — the modern Jaffa — was included in the tribe of Dan (Josh, 
 xix. 46), but was never taken from the Philistines. Famous from the 
 story of Jonah. In the Graeco-Syrian period largely occupied by Jews, 
 and included within Jewish territory by Jonathan and Simon, the 
 brothers of Judas the Maccabee (see i Mace. x. 75). Peter at Joppa 
 restored Tabitha (Acts ix. 36 — 43), and was summoned thence by 
 Cornelius (Acts x. 5). Now a small seaport, but of considerable 
 importance. With certain improvements to the harbour it would 
 become an important place. Distance 30 miles from Jerusalem. 
 
 according to the grant that they had &c.] The 'grant' or permit 
 seems to be the probable rendering of the Hebrew word, which does 
 not occur elsewhere in the Old Testament. 
 
 of Cyrtis king of Persia] What is the grant referred to ? It appears 
 from Herodotus (iii. 34) that Cyrus was not master of Phoenicia, and 
 was not therefore in a position to give a grant to the Jews to obtain 
 cedar from Lebanon. Nor is it probable that the 'grant' means royal 
 permission to enter into treaty with the Tyrians and Zidonians. 
 
 We must understand the word quite generally. The action of the 
 Jews in procuring wood and stone and hiring workmen was in accord- 
 ance with the wish of Cyrus, under whose favour they had undertaken 
 the task of rebuilding the Temple. 
 
44 EZRA, III. [v. 8. 
 
 Now in the second year of their coming unto the house 
 of God at Jerusalem, in the second month, began Zerub- 
 babel the son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua the son of Jozadak, 
 and the remnant of their brethren the priests and the 
 Levites, and all they that were come out of the captivity 
 unto Jerusalem; and appointed the Levites from twenty 
 years old and upward, to set forward the work of the house 
 
 8—13. The Foundation of the Temple. 
 
 8. The Second Year of the Return. 
 
 of their coming unto the house of God at Jcnisalem'\ of. ii. 68. Where 
 the old Temple had been and the new was to be. 
 
 beganl The meaning of this verb standing by itself, without an 
 object and without a verb depending upon it, is not at first sight 
 obvious. There are two ways of explaining it. (i)='they made a 
 beginning and appointed' — referring to the work generally; the verb 
 'began' being used without an object expressed. (2) = 'began to 
 appoint' — the two words ' began' and 'appointed' being, by a common 
 Hebrew usage, placed coordinately. Of these two the former is the 
 preferable. 'Began to appoint' gives a feeble sense. 'Began and 
 ajDpointed', i.e. 'began by appointing' expresses the full meaning. 
 
 Zerubbabel &c., and the remnant &c.] R.V. ...and the rest &c. 
 We find mentioned here (a) the two leaders, Zerubliabel the head of 
 the royal, Jeshua the head of the priestly house, {h) the priests and 
 Levites, (<:) the rest of the returned community. 
 
 Zerubbabel here has the place of honour (see ver. cz) in connexion 
 with the building of the Temple, the commission which he had i-eceived 
 from Cyrus. The prominence of the Levites in comparison with the 
 smallness of their numbers (cf. ii. 40 — 42) deserves attention. ' Their 
 brethren the priests and Levites'. (Cf. ver. 2, Jeshua— his brethren the 
 priests. ) 
 
 appointed the Levites] The word ' appointed', lit. ' to cause to stand', 
 is one very common in our author. Used of a building 'to set up', ii. 68, 
 iii. 3, ix. 9; Neh. iii. i, 3, 6, 13, vi. i, vii. i ; of persons 'to appoint', 
 *set over', ver. 9, Neh. iv. 13, vi. 7 ; i Chron. vi. 31, xv. 17. 
 
 fo-om twenty years old and upzvard] The limits of age for the Levite 
 laid down in Num. viii. 24, 25 excluded from service those younger 
 than 25 and older than 50. The religious reorganization under David 
 required the services of the Levite 'from twenty years old and upward ' ; 
 so I Chron. xxiii. 24 and 27. The small number of Levites available 
 made it all the more important to lower the standard of age. (For 
 modification of original legislation see also on vi. 20.) 
 
 to set forward the work] R.V. 'to have the oversight of, (Marg.) 
 ' set forzuard\ A rare word used in Ezra and i Chron. xxiii. 4. Else- 
 where it occurs only as a participle in titles to Psalms and in Habak. 
 iii. 19 ' lor the Chief Musician.' 
 
 The Latin version 'ut urgerent opus' has suggested the rendering of 
 the A. V. But the sense, suggested by the participial title ' the Chief 
 
V. 9-] EZRA, III. 45 
 
 of the Lord. Then stood Jeshua with his sons and his 9 
 brethren, Kadmiel and his sons, the sons of Judah, to- 
 
 Musician, Conductor or Director', is that of superintendence and direc- 
 tion. The R.V. construes ' to have the oversight of here, and ' to 
 oversee' in i Chron. xxiii. 4, the word being in both places used of the 
 Levites appointed to superintend the work to be done in the ' House of 
 the Lord'. 
 
 9. This verse presents considerable difficulty : (a) The English reader 
 cannot fail to be struck with the awkwardness of the final clause, ' the 
 sons of Henadad...the Levites'. (b) The names here mentioned have 
 been understood by different commentators to represent four, two and 
 three families. 
 
 (a) The manifest dislocation of the verse has caused some to conjec- 
 ture that it is a gloss, which has found its way into the text, having 
 been originally introduced to supplement the previous verse by the 
 names of those who had been appointed to the work and by em- 
 phasizing the fact that they undertook the duty. This conjecture, 
 which is not without probability, would assign a very early date to the 
 gloss, since the verse appears in the LXX. and, though in a corrupt 
 form, in i Esdr. v. 58, 'Then stood up Jesus, and his sons and brethren, 
 and Cadmiel his brother and the sons of Madiabun, with the sons of 
 Joda the son of Eliadun, with their sons and brethren, all Levites, with 
 one accord, setters forward of the business, labouring to advance the 
 works in the house of God' (A.V.). 
 
 If we dismiss this conjecture on the ground of its lack of external 
 evidence, we must be prepared to treat the verse as having come down 
 to us in some way corrupted or mutilated. 
 
 The key to the verse lies in the last words, 'the Levites'. The verse 
 describes who the Levites were that received the commission (described 
 in verse 8), and how they discharged it. The student therefore will 
 take care not to confound the Jeshua here mentioned with the Jeshua 
 (the high-priest) mentioned in the previous verse. This Jeshua is the 
 Levite whose name occurs' in chap. ii. 40. 
 
 The natural arrangement of the words (illustrated by i Esdr. v. 58 
 quoted above) would be, 'Then stood Jeshua with his sons and his 
 brethren, Kadmiel and his sons, the sons of Judah, {and) the sons of 
 Henadad with their sons and their brethren (i.e. all) the Levites to- 
 gether, to have the oversight of the workmen in the house of God.' 
 The verse thus specifies the Levites who undertook the oversight of the 
 workmen. 
 
 (b) The names of the Levitical families who returned appear in chap, 
 ii. 40, where thei'e is some uncertainty whether the expression ' of the 
 children of Hodaviah' refers to Kadmiel alone or to 'the children 
 of Jeshua and Kadmiel' taken together. 
 
 The 'Judah' of our verse is probably a misreading for Hodaviah, 
 not, as some prefer, an alternative name of the same person. 
 
 (i) Some see in the verse a mention oi four Levitical families, i.e. 
 those of Jeshua, Kadmiel, Judah, and Henadad. 
 
 (2) Others think that only two are intended, i.e. those of Jeshua and 
 
46 EZRA, III. [v. lo. 
 
 gether, to set forward the workmen in the house of God : 
 the sons of Henadad, with their sons and their brethren the 
 Levites. And when the builders laid the foundation of the 
 temple of the Lord, they set the priests in their apparel 
 
 Kadmiel, who are further defined as sons of Hodaviah {=Judah), and 
 as sons of Henadad. 
 
 (3) It seems better to suppose that there are three families referred to: 
 (i) 'Jeshua with his sons and his brethren', apparently a complete 
 family, (ii) ' Kadmiel and his sons, the sons of Hodaviah ', apparently a 
 special branch of the family of Kadmiel, (iii) ' And the sons of He- 
 nadad, with their sons and their brethren', who, though not mentioned 
 in ii, 40, are represented in Nehemiah's time (Neh. iii. 18, 24, x. 9). 
 
 The absence of Henadad's name from the list in chap. ii. 40 is 
 strange. But we must account for it by supposing either that the 
 Henadad family never left Palestine, or that they came to Jerusalem 
 between the arrival of Zerubbabel and the beginning of the second year, 
 or that they belonged to the class more numerous than scholars have 
 hitherto taken account of, i.e. those who returned to Jerusalem from 
 exile in other countries. Perhaps the family of Henadad ('the grace or 
 favour of Hadad', cf. Hadad, Benhadad, Hadadrimmon) had Syrian 
 connexions or had found refuge in Syria during the disasters of Israel 
 and Judah. Compare vi. 21, 'all such as had separated themselves 
 from the filthiness of the heathen of the land'. 
 
 10. And when the builders &c.] By 'the builders' is clearly meant 
 the workmen, not, as some commentators, Zerubbabel and Jeshua. 
 
 they set the priests &c.] So also R.V. text, (i) According to this 
 reading, {a) the subject of the verb must be the leaders of the people 
 (as described in verse 2) ; (/») the word ' set ' in the Hebrew is the 
 same as 'appointed' in ver. 8 (see note); {c) and a parallelism may 
 be noted between verses 8, 9 and 10, 11. Verses 8 and 10 describe the 
 appointment (8) of the Levites, (10) of the priests; verses 9 and 11 the 
 work (9) of the Levites, (11) of the priests. 
 
 But the parallelism in other respects breaks down. In verse 8, the 
 subject of the first clause ('Zerubbabel &c. began') is also the subject 
 of the second ('and they appointed'). In verse 10 the subject of the 
 first clause cannot (except by the very unlikely interpretation which 
 identifies 'the builders' with Zerubbabel and Jeshua) be taken as the 
 subject of the second. Again in verse 8, after the word ' appointed' we 
 find the sign of the accusative before 'the Levites' (so also in i Chron. 
 XV. 17, 18). In ver. 10 its absence is very noteworthy, when taken 
 in conjunction with the evidence for the other reading. 
 
 (2) According to some MSB. and ancient versions the priests stood, 
 R.V. margin. This reading is supported by thirteen Hebrew MSS. 
 (according to Kennicott and de Rossi), by the LXX. (iaTrjaav) , by the 
 Vulgate (steterunt), and by the parallel version in i Esdr. v. 59 (' and the 
 priests stood' &c.). It is more likely to have been the original reading, 
 and to have been altered by the insertion of a single small letter (yodh) 
 so as to correspond with the form which appears in ver. 8, 'appointed'. 
 
V. II.] EZRA, III. 47 
 
 with trumpets, and the Levites the sons of Asaph with 
 cymbals, to praise the Lord, after the ordinance of David 
 king of Israel. And they sung together by course in 
 
 Supposing the received text to be the original, we have to account for 
 (a) the omission of this letter in the authorities quoted above, (j8) the 
 absence of the sign of the accusative, (7) the statement that Zerubbabel, 
 Jeshua, and the priests appointed the priests. 
 
 Adopting the intransitive 'stood', (a) wq are able to account for the 
 common text by the supposition that it is a reproduction of the form 
 used a few lines above ; (iS) the construction is perfectly simple, cf. 
 2 Chron. xxix. 26, xxxv. 10 ; (7) though the parallelism of verses is 
 lost, the order of the sentences is less artificial ; with the introduction 
 of the foundation of the Temple a fresh subject is started ; (5) in the 
 ceremonies of the Temple the priests would be independent, ' they 
 stood': the expression 'they caused to stand or set', though suitable as 
 applied to ' the Levites', the subordinate order (ver. 8), is less suitable 
 as applied to 'the priests'. 
 
 in their apparel\ literally ' arrayed' or * vestured', i.e. in their priestly 
 garments, cf ii. 69. In the similar description given in 1 Chron. v. 12 
 the same word receives closer definition 'arrayed in white linen' or 
 'byssus'. 
 
 with truvipets] as in i Chron. xv. 24, xvi. 6 ; 2 Chron. v. 12. The 
 priests were specially commissioned to blow the sacred trumpets. Num. 
 X. 8. 
 
 with cymbals] David assigned the instrumental music to the Levites, 
 the cymbals especially to the sons of Asaph. Compare i Chron. xxv. i 
 with I Chron. xvi. 4, 5, xxv. 6. 
 
 after the ordinance of David king of IsraeT\ R. V. after the order of 
 &c. The same phrase occurs in i Chron. xxv. 2, ' after the order of the 
 king', (R.V. marg. Heb. ' by the hands of the king'). 
 
 11. And they snng together by course] R.V. And they sang one to 
 another, literally 'and they answered', the same word as is rendered 
 'answered' in x. 12; Neh. viii. 6. The traditional interpretation of 
 this expression has seen in it an allusion to antiphonal singing, whereby 
 a Psalm such as Ps. cxxxvi. would be rendered by two choirs, one 
 choir singing the clause 'O give thanks unto the Lord for He is good', 
 the other replying ' for His mercy endureth for ever ' &c. There can be 
 no doubt that certain Psalms, such as xxiv. 7 — 10, cvi. cvii. cxviii. 
 cxxxvi., lent themselves very readily to such musical rendering; and it 
 is possible that Nehemiah's division of the people into two companies 
 on a great festal occasion may favour the view that antistrophic chant- 
 ing was then in vogue (Neh. xii. 31 &c.). But, in our ignorance of 
 early Jewish music, it is impossible to speak with certainty upon the 
 subject, while it is very easy to import modern and Western notions 
 into our conceptions of Oriental music. The present verb very pro- 
 bably means that the chant of praise was responded to with a great 
 burst of chorus, vocal and instrumental, the substance of which was 
 some well-known sacred refrain. Cf Ex. xv. 20, 21. 
 
48 EZRA, III. [v. 12. 
 
 praising and giving thanks unto the Lord; because he is 
 good, for his mercy endureth for ever towards Israel. And 
 all the people shouted with a great shout, when they 
 praised the Lord, because the foundadon of the house of 
 12 the Lord was laid. But many of the priests and Levites 
 and chief of the fathers, who were ancient men that had 
 seen the first house, when the foundation of this house was 
 laid before their eyes, wept with a loud voice ; and many 
 
 because he is good, for his mercy endureth for ever'] R.V. ' saying, 
 For lie is good, for his mercy &c.' The clause quotes the refrain. It 
 has been natural perhaps to suppose that the allusion is made to Ps. 
 cxxxvi. But reference to other passages, where the same refrain is 
 quoted (i Chron. xvi. 41 ; 2 Chron. v. 13, vii. 3, xx. 21; Jer. xxxiii. 11) 
 shows that the words are not a quotation from a Psalm, but rather a 
 liturgical response in frequent use at sacred festivals, upon which the 
 well-known Psalm was founded. The present verse constitutes an 
 interesting fulfilment to the prediction of Jeremiah (xxxiii. 10, 11). 
 
 because the foundatio7i...was laid] The word here used occurs in 
 2 Chron. iii. 3, where the student will find the rendering of the R.V. 
 (not of the A.V.) illustrated by this verse. 
 
 12. But many Sec. and chief of the fathers, who were ancient men, 
 that] R.V. But many &c. and heads of fathers' houses, the old men 
 who, i.e. the heads of the people who would be most conspicuous, 
 priests, Levites, and heads of families. The Vulgate 'et seniores' has 
 apparently introduced a fourth official class, 'the Elders'. The elders 
 are not mentioned here; but see chap. v. 5. 
 
 had seen the first house] Solomon's Temple was destroyed in 587. 
 The foundation of the new Temple was laid in 536. There were even 
 some alive sixteen years later (520) to whose recollection of the former 
 building the prophet Haggai could appeal (Hag, ii. 3). 
 
 when the foundation of this house was laid before their eyes] The 
 traditional interpretation preserved in the Hebrew accents connects 
 this clause with the one preceding, ' the first house standing on its 
 foundation, when this hojise was before their eyes ' (so marg. R.V.) The 
 objection to this rendering is the concrete use of the word rendered 
 ' foundation ' not found elsewhere. But the construction is more vigorous 
 and more vivid than that of the A.V. preferred by most commentators, 
 which connects the whole clause with the words following. 
 
 7vept tvith a loud voice] Clearly not tears of joy; expressions of joy 
 are noticed in the next clause: nor tears of grief, because they could 
 never live to see the completion of the building, or because the cha- 
 racter of the work was by comparison with the former Temple poor and 
 insignificant. Only the foundations were being laid, and the general 
 plan was on a larger scale than that of Solomon's Temple (see on vi. 3). 
 Disappointment at the small scale of the beginning may have taken 
 possession of some (cf. Hag. ii. 3 — 9; Zech. iv. 10). But the thoughts 
 of the disasters of their youth, the sorrows of their manhood in exile, 
 
49 
 
 vv. 13; I, 2.] EZRA, HI. IV. 
 
 shouted aloud for joy : so that the people could not discern 13 
 the noise of the shout of joy from the noise of the weeping 
 of the people : for the people shouted with a loud shout, 
 and the noise was heard afar off. 
 
 Now ivhe?i the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin 4 
 heard that the children of the captivity builded the temple 
 unto the Lord God of Israel ; then they came to Zerub- 2 
 babel, and to the chief of the fathers, and said unto them. 
 Let us build with you : for we seek your God, as ye do ; 
 
 the gaps in their numbers, the insignificance of the new community by 
 comparison with the splendour of Messianic hopes (Is. Ix.), were 
 enough to cause sadness and weeping. 
 
 shouted aloud for joy\ the younger and middle-aged men. If memory 
 was sad, hope was joyful. 
 
 13. So that the people could not discern^ literally, 'And the people 
 &c.' The people generally, not merely the leaders, were of two minds. 
 The sounds were mingled together ; the weeping near at hand was as 
 loud as the shouting. And the confused sound was audible a long way 
 off. 
 
 Ch. IV. The Record of Opposition, (i.) vv. 1—5, from the 
 REIGN OF Cyrus to the reign of Darius, (ii.) ver. 6, during 
 
 THE REIGN OF XERXES. (ill.) VV. 7—23, DURING THE REIGN 
 
 OF Artaxerxes. 
 
 1. Now when the adversaries ofjudah and Benjamiii\ Here called 
 'adversaries' by anticipation. From the Compiler's point of view, the 
 Samaritans were never anything but foes of the Jews. 
 
 The word 'adversaries' is applied to them again Neh. iv. ii. 
 
 yudah and Benjamin^ as in chap. i. 5. The great majority of those 
 who returned, exclusive of priests and Levites, belonged to these two 
 tribes. In view of the use of the expression chap. 1.5, there is no 
 necessity to see here (as some commentators have done,) an allusion to 
 the old hostility between the Northern and Southern Tribes. 
 
 the children of the captivity] i.e. the 'b'ne hag-golah'. The phrase 
 occurs also in vi. 16, 19, 20; viii. 35 ; x. 7, 16. On ' the Captivity' see 
 note on i. 11. The meaning is the same as 'the children of the 
 province' ii. i. 'The children of the captivity' recalls their past 
 calamities; 'the children of the province', their new position of 
 subjection in the old homes. 
 
 unto the Lord God of Israel] R.V. unto the LORD, the God of 
 Israel cf. i. 3. 
 
 2. then they came &c.] R.V. then they drew near to Zerubhahel, 
 and to the heads of fathers' houses. 
 
 for %ve seek your God, as ye do] The claim to cooperate in the work of 
 building the Temple is based upon the assertion of common worship. 
 The phrase ' to seek ' in the sense of ' to worship ' is not uncommon 
 
 EZRA A 
 
50 EZRA, IV. [v. 3. 
 
 and we do sacrifice unto him since the days of Esar-haddon 
 3 king of Assur, which brought us up hither. But Zerub- 
 
 in these books and in Chronicles. Cf. vi. 21; i Chron. xxii. 19; 
 2 Chron. xv. 13, xvii. 4, xxxi. 21, xxxiv. 3. 
 
 and we do sacrifice unto hwi] so R.V. text. R.V. margin. 'Another 
 reading \s, yet we do no sacrifice since &^c.' The Hebrew words for 
 "unto him" and "not" though written with a different second letter 
 are pronounced in the same way, '16'. The context as a rule makes it 
 easy to distinguish the meaning. But there are some fifteen instances, 
 in which the Hebrew Bibles preserve the tradition of confusion between 
 the two words. It is even possible that the word '16' ('unto him') may 
 have sometimes been written with the same second letter as the negative 
 (e.g. Ex. xxi. 8; i Sam. ii. 3; 2 Sam. xvi. 18; 2 Kings viii. 10). 
 
 In this verse the Hebrew text has the letters of the negative; the 
 margin has the letters of the pronoun. 
 
 The external evidence is in favour of the pronoun ' unto him ', being 
 supported by the K'ri, by the LXX. (aur^j), the Vulgate ('nos 
 immolabimus victimas' without a negative), the Syriac, Versions and 
 by the parallel text in i Esdr. v. 69 (' and do sacrifice unto him '). 
 
 Internal evidence may thus be summarized. In favour of the negative 
 (' yet we do no sacrifice '), it may be alleged 
 
 (i) that the statement contained in the alternative reading 'we 
 do sacrifice unto him ' Avould have no weight, since the Jews would at 
 once reject as idolatrous sacrifices not offered at Jerusalem : 
 
 (2) that the Samaritan argument requires the negative. Having 
 pleaded sameness of worship, they regret the omission of sacrifice 
 and proceed to entreat that they may obtain this privilege by becoming 
 sharers in the work. 
 
 In favour o{ the pronoun ('unto him') it may be replied 
 
 (i) that had the disputed word been the negative, it would stand 
 in the Hebrew in the wrong place, i.e. before the pronoun 'we' instead 
 of before the verb 'sacrifice': 
 
 (2) that the affirmative clause ('and we do sacrifice unto him') 
 expands the force of the plea for common worship. That they had 
 not sacrificed at Jerusalem hitherto, was, they could plead, either due to 
 ignorance or a fault which they now wished to rectify: 
 
 (3) that the argument is strengthened by the assertion of long- 
 established custom of sacrifice : 
 
 (4) that the pronoun 'unto him' was very liable to be altered to 
 the negative by patriotic scribes who could not tolerate or credit the 
 statement that their hated enemies had at such an early time done 
 sacrifice to the God of Israel. 
 
 We conclude that the balance of probability preponderates for the 
 reading 'and we do sacrifice unto him'. 
 
 since the days of Esar-haddon king of Assur'\ R.V. Assjrria. Esar- 
 haddon succeeded Sennacherib (cf. 2 Kings xix. 37 ; Is. xxxvii. 38) and 
 reigned over Assyria 12 years, 680 — 668. 
 
 His name in the Assyrian Inscriptions appears as ' Assur-ak-iddin ' 
 or 'Assur sent a brother'. The Greek attempts to transliterate the 
 
V. 4-] EZRA, IV. 51 
 
 babel, and Jeshua, and the rest of the chief of the fathers of 
 Israel, said unto them. You have nothing to do with us 
 to build a house unto our God ; but we ourselves together 
 will build unto the Lord God of Israel, as king Cyrus the 
 king of Persia hath commanded us. Then the people of 4 
 
 name are very strange: the LXX. gives ' Asbakappas', i Esdr. v. 69 
 'Azbazareth'. 
 
 In the A.V. ^Asstir^ occurs also in Ps. Ixxxiii. 8, Asslmr'm Num. 
 xxiv. 22, 24; Ezek. xxvii. 23, xxxii. 22; Hos. xiv. 3. The difference 
 in the spelhng is purely arbitrary. The R.V. has altered 'Assur' to 
 'Assyria', but has left ' Asshur' in the above passages. This is to be 
 regretted, since there is no difference in the original to justify the 
 preservation of 'Asshur' by the side of 'Assyria' (see Gen. ii. 14; 
 Ezek. xxiii. 7; Hos. vii. 11; viii. 9; ix. 3 ; x. 6; xi. 11). 
 
 3. But Zerubbabel &c. . . .the chief of the fathers] R.V heads Of 
 
 fathers' houses. Zerubbabel's name stands first, as in iii. 8, in con- 
 nexion with the work, with which he had been commissioned by Cyrus. 
 
 Y021 have nothing to do zvith tis] literally ' It is not for you and for us'. 
 A common Hebrew idiom, cf. Judg. xi. 12, 'What hast thou to do with 
 me?' literally 'What is there for thee and for me &c.?' 2 Kings 
 iii. 13; for its occurrence in the N. T., cf. Mark i. 24; John ii. 4. 
 The A.V. of I Esdr. v. 70 gives 'It is not for us and you to build 
 together'. 
 
 imto our God] Almost as if they had said ' our God and not yours'. 
 
 ourselves together] The union of the new community and the exclusion 
 of all strangers. The word rendered ' together ' is not to be understood 
 as if the phrase were an exclusive one, ' ourselves alone '. It empha- 
 sizes the co77ibined action of the true Israelites. Cf. Ps. ii. 2 ' take 
 counsel together'. 
 
 tmto the Lord God of Israel] R.V. ' unto the LORD, the God of 
 Israel', cf. ver. 4, i. 3. This implies, though it does not assert in so 
 many words, that the applicants were not members of Israel. 
 
 as king Cyrus &c.] referring to the words in i. 3 'Who is there 
 among you of all his people? his God be with him &c.' 
 
 The refusal of the appHcation is thus technically based upon the 
 wording of Cyrus' decree; the applicants failed to come under the 
 permission which Cyrus had granted, and could not therefore take 
 part in the work. Zerubbabel and his companions evaded the dilemma 
 of having to meet the religious plea either by counter-argument or by 
 direct contradiction. At the same time they made it quite evident that 
 they declined to recognize the identity of worship which was pleaded, or 
 the claim to relationship and political union which underlay the plea. 
 
 On the two points {a) who made the overtures? {b) how we are to 
 regard their rejection by the Jewish leaders, see Introduction, § 6, 
 Outline of History. 
 
 4. Then the people of the land] i.e. the Samaritans, as opposed 
 to 'the people of Judah'. It is noteworthy that this expression 'the 
 people of the land ' {'am haareg) became a synonym for 'the ignorant' or 
 
 4—2 
 
52 EZRA, IV. [v. 5. 
 
 the land weakened the hands of the people of Judah, and 
 
 5 troubled them in building, and hired counsellers against 
 
 them, to frustrate their purpose, all the days of Cyrus king 
 
 of Persia, even until the reign of Darius king of Persia. 
 
 ' the vulgar ' in contrast to * the wise ', with special reference to a know- 
 ledge of 'the law'. Cf. John vii. 49 *This people who knoweth not 
 the law are cursed '. Buxtorf gives illustrations by the Jewish proverbs 
 * Better is the bastard who is the disciple of the wise than the high- 
 priest of the people of the land' (i.e. who is 'vulgar'). 'The people 
 of the land (i.e. the 'vulgar') have degrees of morals but none of intelli- 
 gence '. 
 
 zveakened the hands'^ The Hebrew construction gives the idea of a 
 continuous policy of weakening, terrifying, and bribing. For the phrase 
 itself compare Jer. xxxviii. 4. 
 
 the people of yudah] ' The children of the captivity ' are here given 
 the name of the old southern kingdom. Cf. ver. 12. 
 
 troubled^ so R.V. : marg. Or '■terrified^. There are two readings. 
 The reading of the Hebrew text or K'thib gives a word that does not 
 occur elsewhere in the O.T. but is connected with a substantive rendered 
 'terror' (R.V. Isai. xvii. 14). The reading of the Hebrew tradition or 
 K'ri, preserved with the text, gives an otherwise unused form of a 
 common word meaning ' to trouble '. In all probability the letters of the 
 unused root were transposed by a scribe so as to give the familiar root ; 
 preference should be given to the harder rendering, ' terrified them from 
 building '. 
 
 5. This verse describes one effectual method of opposition, 'hired 
 counsellors against them '. This will not necessarily imply that bribes 
 were given to the king's ministers referred to elsewhere (vii. 28, viii. 25) 
 as ' his counsellors '. We should in that case have had the word more 
 definitely expressed as ' the counsellors ' or ' the king's counsellors '. 
 
 It rather means that ' the people of the land ' paid officials (probably 
 connected with the satrapy of Syria) to make unfavourable reports at 
 the king's Court respecting 'the people of Judah'. 
 
 hiredl Cf. the application of Samaritan money within the Jewish 
 community, Neh. vi. 12, 13. The word used with special reference to 
 Balaam in Deut. xxiii. 4; Neh. xiii. 2. 
 
 to frustrate their purpose'] i.e. to render fruitless their cherished 
 scheme of rebuilding the Temple. * Frustrate ' = 'break ', ix. 14. ' Pur- 
 pose '=' counsel' x. 3, 8; Neh. iv. 15. The two words occur together 
 Ps. xxxiii. 10 ' The Lord bringeth the counsel of the nations to nought '. 
 
 all the days of Cyrus, &c.] Cyrus died in 529. 
 
 even until the reign of Darius king of Persia] Cyrus was succeeded 
 by Cambyses, who died in 522. Pseudo-Smerdis then reigned for 7 
 months, and was succeeded by Darius Hystaspes 522. (Upon the 
 disputed question of chronology raised in this verse, see the note on 
 verse 7.) Darius, Darayavus, 'the Preserver' (Herod, vi. 98 translates 
 ep^elr)s) gave order and system to the Persian Empire, of which he was 
 the second founder. Darius consolidated the successes of Cyrus. Like 
 
vv. 6, 7-] EZRA, IV. 53 
 
 And in the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his 6 
 reign, wrote they unto hi?n an accusation against the in- 
 habitants of Judah and Jerusalem. And in the days of? 
 Artaxerxes wrote Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest 
 
 Augustus following upon Julius Caesar, he gave, as a statesman, system 
 and cohesion to the Empire, which he had inherited from his predeces- 
 sor's military genius. 
 
 6. Ahasuerus] K.Y. m2irgm' Ox Xerxes. Heb. Ahashverosh '. The 
 well-known Xerxes, the son of Darius, who reigned 20 years (485 — 465). 
 He is generally identified with the Ahasuerus of the book 'Esther'. 
 
 in the beginning of his reigii] i.e. on the death of Darius, who had 
 favoured the Jews. 
 
 tmto him] R.V. omits these words, which are not found in the 
 Hebrew. 
 
 an accusation] Heb. ' sitnah ', which occurs elsewhere only in Gen. 
 xxvi. 21 as the name of a well called 'sitnah' or 'enmity' by Isaac on 
 account of the opposition of the Philistines. Akin to the name 'Satan', 
 opposer. The LXX. misunderstanding the original renders by eTna-ToXrj. 
 
 the iyihabitants of Judah and Jerusalem] Another designation, cf. 
 ver. I 'Judah and Benjamin', ver. 4 'the people of Judah'. 
 
 7. And in the days of Artaxerxes] Artaxerxes Longimanus suc- 
 ceeded his father Xerxes and reigned forty years (465—425). He is 
 mentioned in Ezra vii. i ; Neh. ii. i. 
 
 The name in the inscriptions appears as Artakshathra, compounded 
 of * Arta ' meaning ' great ' (cf. Arta-phernes, Arta-bazus) and ' Khsa- 
 thra ' 'kingdom'. 
 
 The view which identifies this Artaxerxes with Pseudo-Smerdis or 
 Gomates, the usurper of the Persian crown on the death of Cambyses, 
 is discussed in the Note on the whole section appended to verse 23. 
 
 wrote Bishlavi, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of their compajiions] 
 It has been very commonly supposed that this verse introduces the 
 letter which is so fully described in verses 8—10, and is therefore to be 
 explained in close connexion with verse 8. According to this view 
 * Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel and the rest of their companions' are 
 the Samaritans who originate the accusation of the Jews before Arta- 
 xerxes, while Rehum, Shimshai &c. (vv. 8, 9) are assumed to be the 
 Persian officials of the Province, induced by the bribes or misrepresen- 
 tations of the Samaritan community to forward to the king in writing 
 their formal complaint against the Jews. Furthermore, as the letter is 
 said to have been written in Aramaic, and we pass immediately from 
 Hebrew into Aramaic, this in itself would be a reason for supposing 
 that verses 8 &c. described more fully in detail the writing mentioned in 
 verse 7. But {a) this theory fails to account for the abruptness of style and 
 the want of connexion between verses 7 and 8, which is evident even in 
 the English version ; {b) the bare statement of ver. 7 that Bishlam and his 
 companions 'wrote to Artaxerxes', and of ver. 8 that Rehum and Shim- 
 shai also wrote to Artaxerxes, can only by a process of imagination be 
 
54 EZRA, IV. [v. 7. 
 
 of their companions, unto Artaxerxes king of Persia ; and 
 the writing of the letter was written in the Syrian tongue, 
 and interpreted in the Syrian tongue. 
 
 transformed into private Samaritan information imparted to the Persian 
 officials and then lodged by them before the king in the shape of a 
 departmental complaint ; {c) the theory does not explain why the 
 Hebrew is not resumed after the conclusion of the letters (verses 17 and 
 21). The version preserved in i Esd. ii. 16 cuts the knot by freely 
 fusing the two verses together ' But in the time of Artaxerxes king of 
 the Persians, Belemus, and Mithridates, and Tabellius, and Rathumus, 
 and Beeltethumus, and Semellius the secretary, with others that were 
 in commission with them, dwelling in Samaria and other places, wrote 
 unto him against them that dwelt in Judea and Jerusalem these letters 
 following'. 
 
 It seems preferable to ascribe the disjointed character of these verses 
 6, 7, 8 to the roughness of the Compiler's work, and to suppose that 
 each of these three verses presents us with a separate instance of Samari- 
 tan opposition in which the Samaritans ' wrote ' an indictment against 
 the Jews. Having mentioned what took place in the reign of Xerxes 
 (ver. 6), the Compiler goes on to state that there were two such writ- 
 ten accusations in the days of Artaxerxes. The first he says was written 
 by Bishlam &c., the second by Rehum &c. In his mention of the first 
 letter, he either condenses the full document into a brief notice or was 
 only able to discover a short statement in the public chronicles. In his 
 mention of the second, he is able to lay the document before his readers, 
 obtaining it from an Aramaic chronicle, from which he makes a long 
 extract and introduces it without further preface. 
 
 This explanation accounts for (a) the abrupt transition from ver. 7 to 
 ver. 8, {b) the mention in both verses of a letter written to Artaxerxes, 
 {c) the continuance of the Aramaic language in the narrative, e.g. v. 17, 
 •23, vi. 18. 
 
 Bishlam, Mithredath, TabeeT\ Names of foreign colonists, ' Bish- 
 lam ' the LXX. renders * in peace ' {h elprjpr]) as if not a proper name. 
 On 'Mithredath ' see note chap. i. 8. ' Tabeel ' perhaps a Syrian name; 
 of. the name Tabeal (Isai. vii. 6), or a Persian (cf. Tabalus, Herod, i. 
 
 153)- 
 
 ihe letter] The Hebrew has here (cf. ver. 18, 23) made use of a 
 Persian word, which completely mystified the Versions. The LXX. 
 renders it ' the tax-collector ' (d (popoXoyos), the Vulgate ' accusationis '. 
 It is pronounced ' nisht'ewan ' and is compared with a modern Persian 
 ' nuwischten ' to write. Perhaps the word occurred in the records from 
 which the Compiler obtained his information as to the letter. 
 
 was written in the Syrian tongue, arid interpreted in the Syrian 
 tongue] R.V. 'was written in the Sjrrian character, and set forth in the 
 Syrian tongue ', margin ' Or Arafnaic' for ' Syrian'. This is all we hear 
 about the letter. What occasioned its composition and how it was 
 received we do not know. 
 
 We gather from this verse that in the days of Artaxerxes the official 
 
vv. 8, 9.] EZRA, IV. 55 
 
 Rehum the chancellor and Shimshai the scribe wrote s 
 a letter against Jerusalem to Artaxerxes the king in this 
 sort : then wrote Rehum the chancellor, and Shimshai the 9 
 
 correspondence of the Syrian province or satrapy was conducted in 
 Aramaic. This indeed, had been the language of diplomatic commu- 
 nication in the days of the Assyrian monarchy (2 Kings xviii. 26 ; Is. 
 xxxvi. 11). As the language of diplomacy and commerce among the 
 races of Western Asia, it held its own with Greek and was only finally 
 displaced in a much later time by the diffusion of Arabic, which followed 
 upon the successes of the Mahommedans (see Introduction on 'the 
 Aramaic language '). The strange thing is that its use should have been 
 made the subject of special remark in this verse. But probably the 
 point to which attention is drawn, is the fact of the letter being written 
 in Aramaic characters as well as expressed in the Aramaic tongue. 
 The early Aramaic Alphabet probably differed considerably from the 
 early Hebrew. The mention of the Aramaic characters is perhaps 
 adduced as a proof that the Compiler had either seen the actual letter 
 or obtained the account from a source which mentioned this point par- 
 ticularly. The verse shows conclusively that Aramaic was not yet the 
 language of the Jewish people. 
 
 8. At this verse begins the first long section (iv. 3 — vi. 18) written in 
 the Aramaic language (see Introd.), which the Compiler has probably 
 extracted bodily from Aramaic records. 
 
 Verse 8 introduces briefly the description of the letter of accusation 
 against the Jews sent by Rehum and Shimshai. 
 
 Rehum the chajicellor and Shimshai the scrihe'\ Rehum was probably 
 the chief official of the Samaritan community. The name is considered 
 by some to be of Persian origin, and a contraction of some longer Persian 
 name, e.g. Rheomithres, which is found in Arrian. It appears also in 
 Jewish lists (see Ezr. ii. 2; Neh. iii. 17, x. 25), but that need not ex- 
 clude its foreign origin. 
 
 the chancellor] Literally ' the lord of judgement '. Sayce suggests 
 'lord of official intelligence', the Aramaic word for 'judgement' being 
 practically identical with the Assyrian word 'dhem', used of the official 
 reports sent to the king by provincial rulers. Here the title apparently 
 belongs to the chief officer of the district. 
 
 In the LXX., Syr. and Vulg. the title not being understood appears 
 as a proper name; i Esdr. ii. 16 makes the same error 'Rathumus and 
 Beeltethmus'. 
 
 Shimshai'] Perhaps the same name as the Persian ' Sisamnes '. 
 
 the scj'ide] i.e. the governor's secretary. Each governor of a Persian 
 province was attended by this official (Herod, iii. 128), who acted as a 
 check upon the governor as well as for administrative purposes. 
 
 9. then wrote &c.] Although ver. 8 ends with 'in this sort', the 
 actual copy of the letter is not given until ver. 11. Verses 9 — 10 de- 
 scribe more minutely the senders, whose names were perhaps attached 
 to the letter. 
 
 Nine of the nationalities from which the Samaritan colonists had 
 
56 EZRA, IV. [v. lo. 
 
 scribe, and the rest of their companions; the Dinaites, 
 the Apharsathchites, the Tarpehtes, the Apharsites, the 
 Archevites, the Babylonians, the Susanchites, the Dehavites, 
 lo a7id the Elamites, and the rest of the nations whom the 
 great and noble Asnappar brought over, and set in the 
 
 been drawn are here mentioned by name ; and the existence of many 
 other varieties is implied in verse lo. 
 
 Scholars have been able approximately to identify the names. 
 
 i/ie Dinaites\ are probably the 'Dayani', a tribe mentioned in the 
 inscriptions of Tiglath-pilesar and other Assyrian kings as inhabiting 
 Western Armenia. If this identification be correct, it illustrates the 
 very different sources from which Samaria had been colonised. 
 
 the Apharsathchites] These have not yet been recognized with any 
 certainty in the inscriptions. Rawlinson identifies with the Apharsa- 
 chites (v. 6, vi. 6) and considers the 'Apharsites', the second name 
 below, to be an accidental repetition of the same word. He under- 
 stands 'the Persians' to be meant in each case. Other scholars deny 
 that any Assyrian king was ever in a position to have obtained colonists 
 from Persia. Frid. Delitzsch suggests the inhabitants of one of the two 
 great Median towns 'Partakka' and 'Partukka' mentioned in Esar- 
 haddon's inscriptions. 
 
 the Tarpelites] Rawlinson identifies with 'Tuplai', which name 
 appears in the Inscriptions as equivalent to the Greek Ti^aprjvoi, a tribe 
 on the coast of Pontus. 
 
 Tripolis in Northern Phoenicia is suggested by another scholar 
 (Hitzig). 
 
 the Apharsites] See above. Identified probably with a Median 
 tribe mentioned in the inscriptions of Sennacherib as dwellers in the 
 district of Parsua. 
 
 the Archevites] The dwellers in Warka, a town S.E. of Babylon, the 
 same as Erech (Gen. x. lo). 
 
 the Babylonians] i.e. dwellers in Babylon, — in Esarhaddon's days 
 the capital of the subject province of Babylonia, Nineveh being the 
 capital of the Empire. Possibly inhabitants expelled for insurrection. 
 
 the Susanchites] The dwellers in Susa, one of the capitals of the 
 Persian Empire, mentioned in Neh. i. i, Dan. viii. 2, and Esther, the 
 chief town of Elam. 
 
 the Dehavites] Rawlinson identifies with the Dai (? Daghestan), a 
 Persian tribe mentioned by Herodotus (i. 125); Frid. Delitzsch, with 
 the dwellers in the town called 'Du-ua' mentioned in an Assyrian 
 inscription (747 B.C.). 
 
 the Elamites] dwellers in Elam, 'the Highlands' or Elymais, the 
 country lying E. of Babylonia, having Persia on its eastern, Media on 
 its northern frontier. 
 
 10. and the rest of the nations] Implying that the number was not 
 nearly exhausted by these nine names. 
 
 whom the great and noble Asnappar] R.V. Osnappar. This name is 
 nowhere else mentioned in the O.T. Who this Osnappar was, has 
 
V. II.] EZRA, IV. 57 
 
 cities of Samaria, and the rest that are on this side the 
 river, and at such a time. This is the copy of the letter n 
 that they sent unto him, even unto Artaxerxes the king : 
 
 been much disputed. Some have identified him with Esarhaddon, 
 conjecturing that this was either another name or an honorific title. 
 Others have supposed him to be a general commanding Esarhaddon's 
 armies. But the name nowhere occurs in the Inscriptions as a second 
 name or as a title of Esarhaddon, even if it were probable that having 
 been called Esarhaddon in ver. 2 he should here be called by a different 
 name or title without any explanatory word. No general appears 
 of this name. And the manner of the allusion presupposes his royal 
 dignity. Moreover, neither Esarhaddon nor any general of his invaded 
 Elam. 
 
 Scholars now begin to accept the ingenious and most probable 
 suggestion that 'Osnappar' is the Aramaic attempt to reproduce the 
 name of Assur-bani-pal, the great Assyrian king. He was the only 
 Assyrian king who captured Susa and could carry off 'Susanchites'; 
 no king so fully deserved the titles of 'great and noble'; this name 
 ('Assur the father of the son') by a strong contraction of the middle 
 word, is not so far removed from the sound of 'Osnappar', especially if 
 the final '1' of 'pal' is changed to 'r' (cf. 'Porus' for 'Pul', or ' Babiru' 
 for ' Babilu '), and the *r ' of 'Assur' is weakened to ' n' (cf.Nebuchadrezzar 
 and Nebuchadnezzar) = Assun... par. 
 
 Assur-bani-pal reigned 42 years (668—626). The records of his 
 brilliant and successful reign have recently been deciphered (G. Smith's 
 Assurbanipal, p. 187). His arms were everywhere victorious. The 
 severest contest in which he was engaged was with his own brother 
 Sassumukem, governor of Babylon, who rebelled against him. The 
 rebel's death and the capture of Babylon (646) ended the struggle. 
 But this fact in conjunction with his great conquest of Elam explains 
 the joint mention of Babylonians, Susanchites and Elamites among the 
 colonists, whom he transplanted into Samaritan territory. 
 
 It appears then that Assur-bani-pal by introducing his colonists into 
 Samaria was the author of the fourth colonization. It would be wasted 
 labour to try to identify the nationalities of ver. 9 with the names 
 recorded in 2 Kings xvii. 24 in connexion with a different colonization. 
 
 ht the cities of Samaria] R.V. ' in the city of Samaria\ — The word 
 in the Aramaic is singular, cf. ver. 17. The other cities are covered by 
 the next phrase. 
 
 and the rest that are on this side the river} R.V. and in the rest 
 of the country beyond the river. In these words two things deserve 
 to be noted, (i) The words 'beyond the river' clearly indicate the 
 country \V. of the Euphrates. The names of the nationalities who send 
 the letter are presented in the light in which they would appear to the 
 receiver, i.e. the king, at Susa to the E, of the Euphrates. The phrase 
 'The country beyond the river' (the Abhar-Nahara) was a recognised 
 geographical name for the Syrian satrapy. (2) The wideness of the 
 expression 'in the rest of the country' may be compared with the 
 
58 EZRA, IV. [vv. 12, 13. 
 
 Thy servants the men on this side the river, and at 
 
 12 such a time. Be it known unto the king, that the Jews 
 which came up from thee to us are come unto Jerusalem, 
 building the rebellious and the bad city, and have set up 
 
 13 the walls thereof^ and joined the foundations. Be it known 
 
 version given in i Esdr. ii. 17 where 'the Dinaites, &c.' are com- 
 pressed into 'the judges that are in Coelesyria and Phoenice'. The 
 word 'judges' is a mistranslation. But the mention of Coelesyria and 
 Phoenicia corresponds with the indefinite language used in this verse. 
 It is not impossible that the letter of accusation against the Jews may 
 have been the joint production of many communities throughout the 
 satrapy of Syria, who felt themselves aggrieved at privileges accorded 
 to the Jews, or imperilled by the revival of their strength. 
 
 and at such a tijne\ R.V. and so forth. The A.V. regarded this 
 word as a brief way of expressing the date of the letter. The LXX. 
 omitted it. The Vulgate rendered it as a salutation 'in pace'. — It 
 signifies the suppression of matter that is unimportant = 'et castera'. 
 
 11. unto hi?n, even unto Artaxerxes] R.V. unto Artaxerxes the 
 king. 
 
 the men on this side the river\ R.V. beyond the river. The A.V. 
 does not recognize that the senders of the letter place themselves in the 
 position of the recipient; the expression "beyond the river" applied to 
 a country would to a Persian subject convey as distinct an idea of a 
 particular district as 'Cisalpine and Transalpine Gaul' would to a 
 Roman subject whether living in Italy or Gaul. 
 
 and at such a titne'] R.V. ' and so forth ', i.e. ' et coetera '. See note on 
 ver.io. Probably a long and wearisome salutation is thus briefly dispatched. 
 
 12. the Jeivs'\ We have here practically the first application of this 
 ■ name to the new community at Jerusalem. It had been used of the 
 
 Southern Kingdom (2 Kings xvi. 6, xxv. 25 ; 2 Chron. xxxii. iS) and of 
 its exiles (Jer. xxxii. 12, xxxiv. 9, xxxviii. 19, xL 11, 12, 15, xli. 3, 
 xliv. I, lii. 28, 30; Dan. iii. 8, 12). As the return from the Captivity 
 almost exclusively affected the exiles of the Southern Kingdom, the 
 name was naturally applied to the new dwellers in Jerusalem and the 
 neighbourhood, and was quickly adopted as the designation of all 
 members of the race; cf. Zech. viii. 23; Ezra iv. 23, v. i, 5, vi. 7, 8, 
 14; ten times in Nehemiah, fifty-one times in Esther. The History of 
 Isx-ael had become the History of the Jews. 
 
 ■which came np from thee to us are come'\ R. V. which came up from 
 thee are come to us, generally expressed; i.e. from exile on the 
 banks of the Euphrates to dwell in Judaea and Jerusalem. The intro- 
 ductory statement of the subject. 
 
 building\ R.V. they are building. A separate clause, .containing an 
 epitome of the charge against the Jews. 'The rebellious and the bad 
 city', cf. ver. 15. An appeal to its antecedents was calculated to 
 prejudice the king against Jerusalem. 
 
 and have set up the walls\ R. V. finished : the verb in the original has 
 the idea of completion. 
 
V. 14.] EZRA, IV. 59 
 
 now unto the king, that, if this city be builded, and the 
 walls set up again^ the?i will they not pay toll, tribute, 
 and custom, and so thou shalt endamage the revenue of 
 the kings. Now because we have maintenance from the 14 
 
 and Joined the foundations\ R.V. repaired, which gives the sense of 
 the word better, and is more intelligible than the A. V. 
 
 The accusation that the Jews were engaged in rebuilding the city, 
 strengthening and repairing the walls, seems to refer to the days of 
 Artaxerxes and to the work either of Nehemiah or, as is more probable, 
 of Ezra before Nehemiah's arrival. Those who see Pseudo-Smerdis in 
 Artaxerxes (vv. 7, 11) maintain that the accusation is designedly false, 
 and intended to incense the Government against the Jews for exceeding 
 the instructions of Cyrus's decree, which limited them to the restoration 
 of the Temple. 
 
 13. set up again] R.V. finished. 
 
 then will they not pay toll, tribute, and custom'] R. V. they will not 
 pay tribute, custom, or toll. Cf. ver. 20, vii. 24. The R.V. gives the 
 right order according to the Aramaic. The first word denotes the con- 
 tribution of provinces, and the imperial taxation levied on districts; 
 the second word probably the duties on merchandise or on the produce 
 of the land for maintenance of provincial rule; the third, tolls levied 
 upon travellers, for maintenance of roads and communicatien. 
 
 afzd so tho7i shalt endamage the revenue of the kings] R.V. and in the 
 end it will endamage the kings. The A. V. is certainly wrong in trans- 
 lating by the second person singular. The verb refers to the city of 
 'Jerusalem', which would become the author of mischief. 
 
 The word rendered by the A.V. 'the revenue of and by the R.V. 
 'in the end ', has caused much perplexity. Neither i Esd. ii. 18 nor 
 the versions LXX., Vulg. and Syr. have attempted to translate it. 
 
 In most Hebrew Bibles it is read ' Aphtom '. It has been conjectured 
 to be a word of Persian origin (cf. old Persian ' Apatama ', * most 
 remote': the Pehlevi 'af-dom ' = *end'), and to be used here as an 
 adverb 'in the end', 'eventually'. 
 
 Some of the best Hebrew texts however now read 'Aphtos' (? = ' re- 
 venue'). 
 
 The rendering ' revenue was a mere conjecture of the mediaeval 
 Hebrew commentators based upon the context, and by some scholars 
 is still preferred. 
 
 This expression of loyal interest in the welfare of the king's treasure 
 was a somewhat transparent method of conciliating the royal favour to 
 their side. 
 
 14. have tnaintetiance from the king's palace] R.V. eat the salt 
 of the palace; which preserves the metaphor of the original. The 
 LXX. omitted the clause; Vulg. 'memores saUs, quod in palatio 
 comedimus': i Esdr. ii. 20, 'forasmuch as the things pertaining to 
 the Temple are now on hand', which substitutes a different sentence 
 for one that was not intelligible. The old Jewish translation ' because 
 we aforetime destroyed the Temple ', adopted by many former com- 
 
6o EZRA, IV. [v. 15. 
 
 kin^s palace, and // was not meet for us to see the king's 
 dishonour, therefore have we sent and certified the king; 
 15 that search may be made in the book of the records of thy 
 fathers : so shalt thou find in the book of the records, and 
 know that this city is a rebelHous city, and hurtful unto 
 
 mentators (cf. Luther, 'Nun wir alle dabei sind, die wir den Tempel 
 zerstoret haben '), seems to have been based upon the old symbolical 
 custom of ' sowing with salt ' the site of a town or place that had been 
 destroyed, e.g. Judg. ix. 45, and upon the idea of unfruitfulness 
 associated with salt (cf. 'a salt land and not inhabited', Jer. xvii. 6; 
 Deut. xxix. 23; Zeph. ii. 9; cf. Heb. Job xxxix. 6; Ps. cvii. 34). 
 Others, with the same conception, 'we have salted (Jerusalem) with the 
 salt of the palace ', i.e. assisted the Imperial armies in its destruction. 
 'The palace' in the original is the same word ('heycal ') as that used 
 for 'the temple' in iii. 6, v. 14. The ambiguity of this word and the 
 use of a rare metaphor has given rise to the difficulty of translation. 
 Literally, the words mean ' because we have salted the palace's salt '. 
 The explanation then will be not, as has been suggested, ' because we 
 have been entertained (guest friends, i.e. are the Icing's friends), at the 
 palace ', but * because we are in the king's service '. The writers as 
 representatives of colonies and dependent districts were very probably 
 officials, and therefore members of the great network of Persian govern- 
 ment. 
 
 The English word 'salary' from salarium or salt-money is generally 
 compared with this phrase. 
 
 and it was not meet] R.V. and it is not meet. 
 
 dishonour] literally ' nakedness '. A strong metaphor, which the 
 LXX. aaxni^oavvrf reproduces. Cf. Lev. xviii. 7, &c. The order is 
 emphatic, ' and the shame of the king it is not meet for us to see '. 
 The Vulg. ' laesiones ' gives the technical Latin word for ' damage ' in 
 a general sense. 
 
 15. that search may be made in the book of the records of thy fathers] 
 Literally, that one may search, i.e. the officials in whose keeping the 
 records were. Perhaps the plural should be read, as in ver. 19. 
 
 For this appeal to ' the book of records', compare chap. vi. i, 2, and 
 the allusions in the book of Esther to the existence of such an official 
 register recording facts and events of State importance, Esth. ii. 23, vi. 
 I, X. 2. Rawlinson i-efers to Diodorus Siculus (ii. 32) who speaks of 
 ' the royal parchments in which the Persians in accordance with some 
 law preserved the record of the deeds of former time' (e/c twv ^aai\iKU}i> 
 bicfidepwv, ev ah ol Hepaai rds TraXaids Trpo^eis Kara riva vofxav etxoi' 
 awTerayfi^vas). 
 
 thy fathers] This expression might be adduced to prove that the 
 Artaxerxes addressed could not be Pseudo-Smerdis. But it would be 
 unfair to lay stress upon it. The context shows that the king's pre- 
 decessors in the rule of Western Asia are intended, Assyrian and 
 Babylonian no less than Median and Persian. 
 
 hurtful] i.e. as a nucleus of revolt. 
 
i6, 17.] EZRA, IV. 61 
 
 kings and provinces, and that they have moved sedition 
 within the same of old time : for which cause was this city 
 destroyed. We certify the king that, if this city be builded 16 
 again^ and the walls thereof set up, by this means thou shalt 
 have no portion on this side the river. 
 
 Then sent the king an answer unto Rehum the chan- 17 
 cellor, and to Shimshai the scribe, and to the rest of their 
 companions that dwell in Samaria, and unto the rest beyond 
 the river : 
 
 kings and provinces] i.e. to subject kings as well as to the great 
 king. 
 
 •Provinces' (of. the use of the word, ii. i) applied to the large 
 districts into which the Empire was divided. See Dan. ii. 48, iii. 
 2; Esth. i. 22, iii. 8, &c.. They are described as 127 in number in 
 Esther i. i, viii. 9. 
 
 they have moved sedition within the same] i.e. the Jews within the 
 city of Jerusalem; cf. 19. 
 
 ...of old time: for zvhich cause, &c.] An expression better suited to 
 writers in the days of Artaxerxes than in the reign of Pseudo-Smerdis, 
 only 65 years from the date of the destruction of Jerusalem (586 B.C.). 
 
 destroyed] R.V. laid waste. 
 
 16. be builded again, and the walls thereof set up] R.V. be builded 
 and the walls finished. 
 
 by this means] i.e. in consequence of Jerusalem becoming once more 
 a fortified city and so recovering her capacity for rebellion. 
 
 thott shalt have no portion on this side the river] R.V. beyond the 
 river. For this expression see note on ver. 12. 
 
 no portion] For the use of this phrase cf. Josh. xxii. 25, 27, 2 Sam. 
 XX. I, John xiii. 8 {ovk ^x^ts /Ji.epos), 2 Cor. vi. 15 (rt's fiepis irtcrTi^ fxeTo. 
 airiaTov). The letter concludes with an exaggerated appeal to the 
 king's alarms. 
 
 (i) The Jews would be a centre of rebellion among the Western 
 nations : 
 
 (2) A Jewish empire might spring from the fortifications of 
 Jerusalem as an Israelite empire once before had done. In either 
 case the Persian king would find himself deprived of his hold upon the 
 country W. of the Euphrates. 
 
 The LXX. read oi)K i<xTiv crot elp-qv-r)'. i.e. thou shalt have no peace. 
 I Esdr. ii. 24, ' thou shalt from henceforth have no passage into Coele- 
 Syria and Phoenice'. Both paraphrases of our text. 
 
 17. an answer] Another Persian word in the original, 'pithgama', 
 used also in Esth. i. 20, a 'decree', and Eccles. viii. 11, 'sentence'. The 
 LXX. omits. Vulg. 'verbum'. Here = a royal rescript. 
 
 Rehum &c.] see ver. 9. 
 
 that dwell in Samaria] A detail not mentioned with such directness 
 in verse 10. A comparison with that verse shows that the city, not the 
 district, is intended. 
 
62 EZRA, IV. [vv. 18—21. 
 
 18 Peace, and at such a time. The letter which ye sent 
 
 19 unto us hath beoi plainly read before me. And I com- 
 manded, and search hath been made, and it is found that 
 this city of old time hath made insurrection against kings, 
 and that rebellion and sedition have been made therein. 
 
 20 There have been mighty kings also over Jerusalem, which 
 have ruled over all countries beyond the river; and toll, 
 
 21 tribute, and custom, ivas paid unto them. Give ye now 
 
 unto the rest beyond the river] So margin of R.V. — R.V. text in the 
 rest of the country beyond the river. See verse 10, where the applica- 
 tion of the word 'rest' is clearly the same. There it follows after the 
 verb 'set in' (lit. 'cause to dwell'), here after the verb 'dwell'. The 
 district or territory, not the population, is referred to. 
 
 and at such a twie'\ R.V. and so forth. Cf. ver. i r. 
 
 18. The letter] On the word used here see note on ver. 8. 
 
 hath been plainly read before me] So the R.V. The margin of the 
 R.V. gives 'translated' as the alternative rendering for 'plainly', and 
 this agrees with the general later usage of the word. The same word 
 in Hebrew occurs in Neh. viii. 8, where the R.V. renders 'distinctly', 
 and its margin, ' with an interpretation'. 
 
 'Plainly' (Vulg. manifeste) would imply that the allusions &c. of the 
 Samaritan letter had been faithfully explained, not merely that the 
 oral reading of the letter had been distinct. 
 
 There is not much to be said for the rendering 'translated'. A 
 Persian king would be acquainted with the official dialect of his 
 satrapies ; a translation of an Aramaic letter would not be required. 
 
 before me] Very possibly the king himself could not read. But see 
 ver. 23. The reading was performed by servants; cf Esth. vi. i. 
 
 This expression favours the view that the king is claiming to himself 
 credit for having heard the letter and had it carefully explained to him. 
 
 19. And / co^nmanded] R.V. decreed. A more authoritative word. 
 Literally, 'and from me was a decree made'; and they searched, 'and 
 found '. 
 
 of old ti vie] Cf ver. 15. 
 
 hath made insurrection against kings] By the insurrections against 
 kings and the sedition and rebellion of Jerusalem here mentioned as 
 being recorded in the chronicles of the state is probably meant the 
 treacherous and unstable policy of Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah 
 (see 1 Kings xxiv. i, 10, 20). Of this the Babylonian records would 
 preserve the testimony. It is less likely that the more ancient records of 
 the Assyrian Empire containing the account of Hezekiah's revolt from 
 Sennacherib would have been consulted. 
 
 20. over all countries] R.V. the country. Literally, 'over all be- 
 yond the river '. The words refer to the warning of the Samaritan 
 letter (ver. 16) that the king might lose the W. banl^ of the Euphrates. 
 
 toll, tribute, and custom] R.V. custom, tribute, and toll. See note 
 on ver. 13. 
 
vv. 22, 23.] EZRA, IV. 63 
 
 commandment to cause these men to cease, and that this 
 city be not builded, until another commandment shall be 
 given from me. Take heed now that ye fail not to do this : 22 
 why should damage grow to the hurt of the kings ? 
 
 Now when the copy of king Artaxerxes' letter ivas 23 
 read before Rehum, and Shimshai the scribe, and their 
 
 *The mighty kings', here referred to, have been identified with 
 Menahem (2 Kings xv. 16) and Josiah (2 Chron. xxxiv. 6, 7, xxxv. 18). 
 It is, however, needless to restrict the allusion of the present verse to 
 those whose names appear in the Inscriptions or are involved in the 
 ascertained history of Assyria and Babylon. Israelite traditions, oral or 
 written, would probably have been accessible to those whom the king ap- 
 pointed to search into the past history of the race. The tradition of the 
 golden age of David's rule and Solomon's empire would be rehearsed 
 with pride by the captive Jew. The remoteness of the period mattered 
 little. It was the boast of this people that their kings had once ruled over 
 all the country W. of the Euphrates. This information coupled with 
 the names of, perhaps, one or two of the other great kings, such as Omri, 
 Jeroboam II., Menahem, Uzziah, Jotham and Josiah would be pretext 
 enough for speaking of 'the mighty kings'. 
 
 21. Give ye now co})wiandment'\ R.V. Make ye now a decree. Cf. 
 19. The Samaritan officials clearly held some authority over the whole 
 adjoining territory. 
 
 and that this city he not builded'] See notes on vv. 12, 13. The 
 king's alarm lest a strong city should be made of Jerusalem agrees 
 rather with the time of Nehemiah than with that of Zerubbabel. The 
 naval victories of the Greeks had rendered the Persian coast frontier 
 peculiarly vulnerable. 
 
 tmtil another coiiwiandnient shall be given from vie] R.V. until a 
 decree shall toe made toy me. The A.V. by introducing the word 
 ' another ' produced a needless ambiguity. The original has ' the 
 decree ', i.e. the permission to build. 
 
 22. Take heed noiv that ye fail not to do this] R.V. And take heed 
 that ye toe not slack herein. The king does not anticipate their 
 disobedience, but warns against remissness or dilatoriness on the part 
 of officials. The decrees of the Government were apparently not always 
 executed with promptness in Syria even in the days of Artaxerxes. 
 This fault is said to be not wholly eradicated yet. 
 
 why shotdd damage &c.] The king's fears had been excited by the 
 possibility of political complications and the weakening of his Western 
 frontier. These apprehensions are intelligible in the light of the events 
 of the great Persian War during the reign of Artaxerxes. Otherwise 
 they seem exaggerated and insincere, as if the Samaritan letter had 
 been accompanied by some substantial arguments which had won the 
 king's appreciation, 
 
 23. Now] R.V. Then, i.e. Thereupon. 
 read before] cf. 18. 
 
64 EZRA, IV. [v. 24. 
 
 companions, they went up in haste to Jerusalem unto the 
 24 Jews, and made them to cease by force and power. Then 
 
 they went tip in haste'] R.V. they ■went in haste. — Far from being 
 slack in executing the king's decree: gratified malice made them 
 prompt as well as desirous to stay the work. 
 
 juade thef?i to cease by force and poiver] Literally *with an arm and 
 with troops'. Vulg. 'in brachio et robore', cf. Ezek. xvii. 9, 'without 
 great power' (lit. arm); Dan. xi. 15, 31 (' arms ' = strength). The 
 LXX. render 'with horses and force' {h 'iinroLs /cat dwdfiei). The 
 Samaritans stopped the Jews from building "by main force". If the 
 Jews resisted, resistance was useless in the face of the royal decree. 
 
 Perhaps"M^e may see in the reference to the ruinous condition of the 
 walls and defences of Jerusalem, Neh. i. 3, the results of the forcible 
 means taken by the Samaritans to cause the work to cease. 
 
 Note on vv. 7—23. 
 
 The names of the Persian kings which occur in this chapter occasion 
 special difficulty. Upon their right identification necessarily depends 
 our understanding of the whole passage. 
 
 (a) The Persian kings succeed one another in the following order: 
 (i) Cyrus (died, 529); (2) Cambyses, 529 — 522; (3) Gomates or Pseudo- 
 Smerdis, 522; (4) Darius Hystaspes, 522 — 485; (5) Xerxes, 485 — 465; 
 (6) Artaxerxes I. Longimanus, 465 — 425 ; (7, 8) Xerxes II. and 
 Sogdianus; (9) Darius II. Nothus, 424—395, &c. 
 
 (d) In chap. iv. 5 we learn that the work of building the Temple 
 was frustrated by the Samaritans "all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, 
 even until the reign of Darius king of Persia.' Again in ver. 24 (the 
 work) ' ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius king of 
 Persia'. The work therefore was frustrated more or less (v. 16) be- 
 tween the years 536 — 520. 
 
 (c) In ver. 6 is mentioned a letter of opposition to the Jews written 
 'in the reign of Ahasuerus'; in ver. 7 a letter to the same purport 'in the 
 days of Artaxerxes'; in verses 7 and 9 another letter to Artaxerxes 
 with Artaxerxes' reply. 
 
 (d) The name Ahasuerus (Heb. Akhashverosh) is admitted to be 
 the same as Xerxes (Khshyarsha). It appears throughout the book 
 Esther as well as in this verse (iv. 6). The name in Hebrew Arta- 
 khshasta (iv. 7, 8, vi. 14, vii. i, ii, 21; Neh. ii. i, v. 14, xiii. 6) 
 is clearly the name Artaxerxes. 
 
 (e) The question then arises how the names Xerxes and Artaxerxes 
 occur in this passage, on either side of which stands the mention of 
 the work of the Temple being stopped until the reign of Darius king 
 of Persia; for that this Darius is Darius Hystaspes (521 — 485) and 
 not Darius Nothus (424) is shown by the whole context and by chap. v. 
 
 »— 5- 
 
 Only two answers to this question need come under discussion here, 
 (i) According to one view, the chronological sequence of the 
 chapter is maintained. Verse 5 is considered to be a brief compendium 
 
EZRA, IV. 65 
 
 of the Samaritan opposition, which is then described in greater detail 
 (6 — 23). The names Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes are assigned to the 
 two kings Cambyses and Pseudo-Smerdis, who reigned between Cyrus 
 and Darius. The advantage of this theory is obvious. The narrative 
 flows smoothly on. The events of verses 6 — 23 ampHTy the statement 
 of verse 5, and belong to the short period 529 — 521. 
 
 The objections that are presented (a) by the interchange of the names, 
 {3) by the mention, in the letter, of the building of the city walls (vv. 
 12, 16), rather than of the Temple, on which the Jews were at work 
 (vv. I, 4, 24), have been met in the following way. (a) It is said that 
 the names Xerxes and Artaxerxes are appellatives, like Pharaoh and 
 Caesar, which could be applied to any Persian monarch, e.g. Cam- 
 byses is called Artaxerxes by Josephus {Ant. xi. 2. i). Furthermore 
 it is argued that the Pseudo-Smerdis appears in history under several 
 different names, {d) It is supposed that the Samaritans would re- 
 present the Jewish undertaking in the most hostile light, as aggressive 
 fortification rather than Temple building; and it must be remembered 
 that the outer wails and outworks of the Temple were always the 
 strongest fortifications in the city. 
 
 On the other hand it seems fatal to this view that even if Xerxes and 
 Artaxerxes are dynastic titles and not strictly names, no well-attested 
 evidence is forthcoming of their promiscuous application. Josephus' 
 history of this period is notoriously imperfect and inaccurate, and he, 
 it is to be noted, calls Cambyses, Artaxerxes, although the defenders of 
 this view hold that Cambyses is called Xerxes and Pseudo-Smerdis 
 Artaxerxes. — It is surely rather unfortunate, to say the least, that 
 supposing the names to be interchangeable, the interchange is not 
 found elsewhere, and cannot even be proved from Josephus, whose 
 evidence is chiefly relied upon. But the fact is that neither the testi- 
 mony of Josephus nor, we may add, of Jewish tradition can be relied 
 on for this period of history. The Jewish tradition appended to Nehe- 
 miah in the Masoretic note gives 'the years from the ist year of Cyrus 
 king of the Persians to the 32nd year of Artaxerxes the king,' (i.e. from 
 538 — 433) as fifty-one: while Hebrew commentary gives the Persian 
 kings as Darius the Mede (i year), Cyrus his son (2 years), Ahasuerus 
 (14 years), Cyrus his son called Artaxerxes (32 years). Nor is it 
 more satisfactory to see how the Pseudo-Smerdis is identified with 
 Artaxerxes. Gomates or the Pseudo-Smerdis, it is said, appears under 
 very difterent names, e.g. Mardus in Aeschylus {Pers. 771), Smerdis in 
 Herodotus, Speudadates in Ctesias, and hence, why not as Artaxerxes 
 here ? But the very fact that he is called by so many different names, 
 and never once Artaxerxes, is not favourable to the identification. 
 Again, the argument that Pseudo-Smerdis being a Magian would 
 heartily oppose the building of the Temple is strangely at variance 
 with the omission in the letters of any reference to the Temple. It 
 is equally at variance with the other contention, that the Temple 
 building is not referred to because the mention of fortified walls would 
 be more likely to arouse the king's indignation than that of sacred 
 buildings. If further proof were needed of the improbability that 
 'Artaxerxes' is Pseudo-Smerdis, it would seem to be supplied by a 
 
66 EZRA, IV. 
 
 recollection of the troubled time that followed upon the death of 
 Cambyses. Pseudo-Smerdis' 7 months' reign was spent in the midst of 
 suspicion, disquiet, and confusion. The hearing of petty complaints 
 and the investigation of ancient chronicles is not what we should 
 expect from a reign which had hardly ceased to be the work of usurpa- 
 tion when it had begun to close in ignominy. The Samaritans were 
 not likely to imperil their cause by approaching, in a time of confu- 
 sion, a sovereign of doubtful claims whose acts would inevitably be 
 reversed by any successful rival. 
 
 But apart from the consideration of its details, the crowning con- 
 demnation of this view is to be found in its main hypothesis, that Xerxes 
 and Artaxerxes do not here mean the kings generally known as Xerxes 
 and Artaxerxes but two other kings, the mention of whose names 
 would remove a difficulty from the passage. 
 
 (ii) The other view requires us to admit the presence of an inter- 
 ruption in the chronological sequence of the book. Ahasuerus and 
 Artaxerxes are the Xerxes and Artaxerxes (Longimanus) familiar to 
 us under those names. Verses 6 — 23 do not expand the substance 
 of verse 5, but they continue the historical treatment of its subject. 
 That subject is the opposition of the Samaritans ; and it is shown how 
 their opposition displayed itself in the reigns of Xerxes and Artaxerxes. 
 
 The introduction of the times of Xerxes and Artaxerxes into this 
 chapter interrupts, we must admit, the thread of the narrative. The 
 passage, vv. 8 — 23, is inserted by the Compiler at this point because he 
 imagined it related to the building of the Temple. The names of the 
 kings did not suggest to him his error. Whether this should be 
 charged to mere inadvertency, or to ignorance of the Persian history, 
 we cannot say. 
 
 The tone of the letters fully bears out this supposition. There is no 
 allusion to the Temple. The Temple had been erected many years ago. 
 The complaint is made that the people are fortifying the city. Such a 
 complaint, made to the Persian king after the war with Greece, with 
 reference to a city only a day's march from the coast, had more sig- 
 nificance than it could have had in the preceding century. It de- 
 manded serious consideration. The description in Neh. i. 3 of the 
 condition of the city walls and gates seems to imply devastation more 
 recent than that of the Babylonians 140 years previously. The violent 
 measures of the Samaritans which 'by force and power' compelled 
 the Jews to desist from their work may well account for this description. 
 The intercession of Nehemiah procured the favour of 'the decree', 
 which the king had declared to be necessary before any building was re- 
 sumed (iv. 21). 
 
 Such an explanation fairly accounts for the presence of the names 
 Xerxes and Artaxerxes. The internal evidence of the passage cor- 
 responds with it happily. The insertion of these ' anticipatory ' frag- 
 ments seems to us undoubtedly harsh. But it is very questionable 
 whether in a work of such composite character it is not more natural 
 to find occasionally an instance of harshness or inartistic arrangement 
 due to compilation, than everywhere the smooth orderliness of the 
 skiltul modern historian. 
 
vv. 24 ; I.] EZRA, IV. V. 67 
 
 ceased the work of the house of the God which is at 
 Jerusalem. So it ceased unto the second year of the reign 
 of Darius king of Persia. Then the prophets, Haggai the 5 
 prophet, and Zechariah the son of Iddo, prophesied unto 
 
 24. This verse resumes the thread of the narrative, which was 
 dropped at the close of verse 5. It must be admitted that the words 
 'then ceased' refer most naturally to ver. 23. The Compiler, who 
 failed to observe that the preceding passage belonged to the generation 
 of Ezra, and not to that of Zerubbabel, carries on the narrative in his 
 own words. 
 
 so it ceased, &c.] R. V. and it ceased. The first clause expresses the 
 fact of the cessation, the second its duration and continuance. 
 
 second year of the reign of Daritis king of Persid\ B.C. 521. 
 
 The Samaritans had succeeded only too well in checking the progress 
 of the work. Cyrus occupied in schemes of conquest had little leisure 
 to attend to such matters. The suspicious temperament of Cambyses 
 inclined him to listen to sinister reports. The disturbed condition of 
 the Empire during his reign and that of Gomates, his successor, gave 
 abundant opportunity for petty tyranny and for the withdrawal of stale 
 privileges. 
 
 Chap. V. 1, 2. The Voice of the Prophets and the National 
 Revival. 
 
 1. Then the prophets'] R.V. Now the prophets. The beginning of a 
 new paragraph, cf. i. i, ii. i, iii. 8, iv. i. 
 
 Haggai the prophet] After ' the prophets ', immediately preceding, 
 this designation seems superfluous. But a comparison with chap. vi. 
 14, Haggai i. i, shows that the phrase was commonly attached to 
 Haggai's name. The short extant book of Haggai's prophecy combines 
 reproof for the neglect with encouragement for the renewal of the work 
 on the Temple. The book preserves prophecies uttered in the second 
 year of Darius, (i) on the first day of the sixth month (i. i), (2) on the 
 twenty-first day of the seventh month (ii. i), (3) on the twenty-fourth 
 day of the ninth month (ii. 10). 
 
 Zechariah the son of Iddo] cf. vi. 14. In Zechariah i. i, 7 he is 
 called ' Zechariah the son of Berechiah the son of Iddo the prophet '. 
 An 'Iddo ' is mentioned in Neh. xii. 4 among the heads of priestly 
 families that returned with Zerubbabel and Jeshua: again in Neh. xii. 16 
 we find a Zechariah mentioned as the son of Iddo and the head of a 
 priestly house, in the days of Nehemiah. Zechariah was probably the 
 grandson of Iddo, and in the genealogies called in preference ' the son 
 of Iddo ' rather than * the son of Berechiah ', either on account of his 
 father's early death, or because the name of ' Zechariah the son of 
 Berechiah ' would have been liable to confusion with ' Zechariah the 
 son of Jeberechiah ' (Isai. viii. 2). In the same way Laban is called 
 the son of Nahor, not of Bethuel (cf. Gen. xxiv. 47, xxix. 5), Jehu the 
 son of Nimshi, not of Jehoshaphat(i Kings xix. 16; 2 Kings ix. 14, 20), 
 
 S~2 
 
68 EZRA, V. [vv. 2, 
 
 the Jews that were in Judah and Jerusalem in the name 
 
 2 of the God of Israel, eve7i unto them. Then rose up 
 Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua the son of 
 Jozadak, and began to build the house of God which is 
 at Jerusalem : and with them tvere the prophets of God 
 helping them, 
 
 3 And at the same time came to them Tatnai, governor 
 
 because the grandfather was the better known and the reputed founder 
 of the house. 
 
 Zechariah must have been a very young man (cf. Zech. ii. 4) when 
 he began to prophesy, if (which is hardly likely) he was still alive in 
 the time of Nehemiah (445 B.C.). The date given to the first prophecy 
 in his book is the eighth month of the second year of king Darius 
 (Zech. i. i). 
 
 Jews that were in Judah and Jerusalem'] i.e. as distinguished from 
 the Jews that were in the Captivity in Babylon. 
 
 ill the name of the God of Israel, even tinto them] R.V. in the name 
 Of the God of Israel prophesied they u7ito them. R.V. marg. in 
 the name of the God of Israel which was upon the?n. The words 
 'unto' or 'upon them' close the verse strangely. The R.V. text ex- 
 presses with greater distinctness the rendering of the A.V. 'unto 
 them '. The rendering of the R. V. margin * which was upon them ' 
 (i.e. the name of the God of Israel) although a harsh condensed ex- 
 pression, seems preferable. It is not at first sight evident who are 
 intended by ' upon them '. Most commentators accepting this render- 
 ing explain the words as having reference to the two prophets, and 
 illustrate them by Jer. xv. 16, 'Thy word was unto me a joy and 
 the rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by Thy name, O Lord 
 God of hosts.' This indeed is very possible. But the other explanation, 
 which refers * which was upon them' to 'the Jews that were in Judah 
 and Jerusalem', seems most suited to the context. Not the ground 
 of the personal courage of the two prophets, but the basis of their pro- 
 phetic appeal, i.e. the spiritual calling of the nation, is the purport 
 of the phrase. The prophets prophesied to the Jews in the name of 
 the God Who had chosen them, Whose Name was called upon them. 
 Cf. Isai. xliii. 5 — 7, Ixiii. 19, Ixv. i ; Jer. vii. 10, 14, 30; Dan. ix. 18, 
 19. The message of the prophets was to arouse the peov^le from their 
 neglect of the spiritual work which they were to perform — a work 
 of which the Temple was a pledge, — the testimony to the nations that 
 God had made Himself known unto Israel. 
 
 2. Zerubbabel — Jeshua] see notes on iii. 2, 8, iv. 3. 
 
 began to build] The building had been begun in the second year of 
 Cyrus, 537 — 6 (chap. iii. 8, 10, v. 16). The work was now recommenced. 
 The voke of the prophets supplied the needed encouragement. The 
 effect of Haggai's witness is described in Hag. i. 12 — 14. 
 
 3—17. The Complaint against the Jews. 
 
 3. And] Omit R.V. Not in the original. 
 
V. 4- J EZRA, V. 69 
 
 on this side the river, and Shethar-boznai, and their 
 companions, and said thus unto them, Who hath com- 
 manded you to build this house, and to make up this wall? 
 Then said we unto them after this manner, What are the 4 
 
 Tatnai, governor 07i this side the river'\ R.V. Tattenai, the governor 
 beyond the river. Tattenai appears as Sisinnes in 1 Esdr. vi. .^, as 
 QavOeval in the LXX. The name is not found except in this connexion. 
 He was governor (probably satrap) of the whole district of Syria and 
 Cilicia on the west of the Euphrates. There were twenty satrapies in 
 the Persian kingdom (Herod, in. 89). Tattenai was therefore a man 
 of the greatest eminence in Syria, next to the king himself. The ex- 
 pression ' governor beyond the river ' is not due to the writer living on 
 the eastern or Babylonian side of the river. It was the technical title 
 of the governor of that satrapy. It appears on the coins of the Persian 
 empire. Thus upon one coin appears the inscription "Maydi who is 
 over the 'Abhar Nahara' (country beyond the River) and Cilicia". 
 
 Tattenai was the superior official, to whom Zerubbabel, the pekhah 
 or governor of the small district of Jerusalem and its neighbourhood, 
 would have to give account upon any report being made of treacherous 
 action. 
 
 Shethar-boznai\ R.V. Shethar-bozenai. i Esdr. vi. 3, 'Sathrabuzanes', 
 LXX. XaOap^ov^avai, has been conjectured to be the Persian 'Chitra- 
 barschana' (cf a Persian name, 'Satibarzanes', in Arrian). His position 
 is not described. Perhaps a 'secretary' to Tattenai, as Shimshai to 
 Rehum (iv. 8). 
 
 Who hath commanded yoiil R.V. gave you a decree. The original 
 requires the more weighty and official 'decree'. Cf iv. 21, v. 13. 
 
 to build this house'] referring to the Temple : the first subject of 
 complaint : very different from the passage in iv. 8 — 23. 
 
 and to makeup this wall\ R.V. 'and to finish this wall', i Esdr. 
 vi. 4, 'By whose appointment do ye build this house and this roof, 
 and per/or jn all the other things?^ 
 
 We may assume that complaints from the Samaritans induced the 
 satrap to inquire what authority the Jews had received to undertake 
 the work. Seventeen or eighteen years had elapsed since Cyrus issued 
 his decree. Two other kings had succeeded him. The third, Darius, 
 was only just assuring his position upon the throne after two years 
 of incessant warring. During this interval the affairs of a com- 
 I)aratively unimportant city in Syria may well have been almost for- 
 gotten. 
 
 4. Then said we unto them, &c.] R.V. Then spake we unto them after 
 this manner. What, &c. Margin, 'Or, Then spake we unto them after 
 this 7nanner. What, said they, are the names', &c. ' Or, according to 
 some ancient versions, Then spake they unto them, &c. See ver. 10.' 
 
 (a) The reading followed in the A. V. and R. V. is practically un- 
 intelligible. ' Then spake we ' would naturally introduce the Jews' 
 reply (the first person being remarkable, but quite intelligible) : but the 
 question, ' What are the names of the men that make this building?' is 
 
EZRA, V. [v. 5. 
 
 5 names of the men that make this building ? But the eye 
 of their God was upon the elders of the Jews, that they 
 could not cause them to cease, till the matter came to 
 
 as obviously the question of the governor. It is equally impossible to 
 apply 'we' to the governor and his companions, and to see in 'Then 
 spake we unto them', &c. a continuance of 'came Tattenai', &c. The 
 only possible rendering is, ' Then spake we unto them after this manner 
 (with reference to the question), What are', &c. But the ellipse is so 
 harsh as to make this, even if it were grammatically possible, inad- 
 missible. 
 
 {d) On the other hand, the alternative reading, given as the second 
 alternative in the Margin of the R. V., supplies the sense needed by the 
 context, i.e. 'They said '. This is supported by the LXX. {rdre ravra 
 etiroa-av avToTs) and the Peshitto Syriac. It is also supported by internal 
 evidence. In ver. 3, Tattenai and his friends ask the first question re- 
 lating to official permission ; in ver. 4 (according to the emended reading) 
 they ask a further question, as to the names of the Jewish leaders. To 
 neither question is the answer of the Jews directly recorded, since the 
 substance of their answers is reported in the letter to Darius (11 — 16). 
 That letter mentions also the interrogatories. The first interrogation 
 is repeated verbatim (ver. 9). The second is described (ver. 10), 'IVe 
 asked them their names also', in a manner exactly corresponding to the 
 present verse, Then spake ^Aejy unto t/iem after this manner, What are 
 the names? 
 
 The emendation, it must be admitted, is the easier reading, and is 
 therefore perhaps to be suspected as a correction. But it is impossible 
 to accept the A.V. text as representing the original. It is best to 
 receive the reading of the LXX. ' They said', and to regard the reading 
 ' we said ', as a very early error of a scribe who by a natural mistake 
 began to write the 4th verse as the answer in a dialogue. 
 
 IVAai are the names, &c.] Cf. ver. 10, ' the names of the men that 
 were at the head of them'. 
 
 This enquiry would hardly have been made if the correspondence 
 recorded in iv. 7 — 23 had taken place in the seven months' reign of 
 Pseudo-Smerdis, and had brought official investigation so recently to 
 bear upon the aff"airs of Jerusalem. 
 
 5. But the eye of their God] Cf. Deut. xi. 12, 'a land which God 
 careth for ; the eyes of the Lord thy God are always upon it ' ; 
 Ps. xxxiii. 18, 'The eye of the Lord is upon them that fear him'; Ps. 
 xxxiv. 15, 'The eyes of the Lord are toward the righteous'. 
 
 upon the elders of the Jews] Cf. x. 8, * the princes and elders '. The 
 LXX. by a strange mistake render ' the captivity ' {rT]v aixP-aXioaiav). 
 
 God's favour was shewn in that Tattenai did not immediately stop 
 the work, but let it go on until he learned his master's wishes. 
 
 that they could not cause them to cease] R. V. and they did not make 
 them cease. This gives the original accurately, and corrects the im- 
 pression produced by the A.V. 
 
 till the matter came to Daritcs: and then they returned ansxver] R.V. 
 
6— 8.J EZRA, V. 71 
 
 Darius : and then they returned answer by letter con- 
 cerning this matter. The copy of the letter that Tatnai, 6 
 governor on this side the river, and Shethar-boznai, and his 
 companions the Apharsachites, which were on this side the 
 river, sent unto Darius the king : they sent a letter unto 7 
 him, wherein was written thus : 
 
 Unto Darius the king, all peace. Be it known unto the 8 
 king, that we went into the province of Judea, to the house 
 of the great God, which is builded with great stones, and 
 
 till the matter should come to Darius, and then answer should he re- 
 turned. Marg. Or, they returjied answer. The R.V. corrects the gram- 
 matical mistake of the A.V. Both clauses are dependent upon the 
 previous sentence. The governor and his party forebore to stay the 
 work, until (i) the matter had been reported to Darius, (2) Darius's reply 
 had been received by the governor. Then only would they, if it were 
 necessary, interfere. 
 
 'And then answer should be r. 'turned'' or, 'And then they returned 
 answer by letter'. In the former case the reference is to the answer of 
 the king or of his officials to Tattenai : in the latter case, it is to the 
 final reply of Tattenai, after hearing from the king, to the Jews. 
 Perhaps the former is to be preferred on account of the formal 'by 
 letter (nishtewan, cf. iv. 7) concerning it'. 
 
 concer7iing this matter] R.V. concerning it. The A.V. unnecessarily 
 here repeats the word 'matter'. See ver. 17. 
 
 6. Tatnai., the governor on this side the river"] R.V. Tattenai, the 
 governor beyond the river, and Shethar-hozenai. See note on verse 3. 
 
 the Apharsachites, which were on this side the river] R.V. the 
 Apharsachites which were heyond the river. Who the Apharsachites 
 of the 'Abhar Nahara' were is not known. Possibly the same as_ the 
 ' Apharsathcites ' of chap. iv. 9 (where see note), represented officially 
 by Shethar-bozenai, whose companions they are called. 
 
 7. a letter] In ver. 6 called in the Aramaic ' iggarta' (cf. a77a/)ei;w), 
 here ' pithgama' (cf. iv. 17), the more official designation. 
 
 all peace] Literally ' peace, the completeness or entirety '. The two 
 words in apposition. ' Peace in every respect.' 
 
 8. the province of Jiidea] R.V. the province of Judah. On 'the 
 province' see ii. i. The A. V. gives the title 'Judea ', which belongs to 
 a later time, as the name of a country inhabited by the Jews. It occurs 
 first in the Apocrypha (Tob. i. 18; i Mace iii. 34; 2 Mace, i, 10, &c.). 
 'Judah' occurs frequently in Ezra, e.g. iv. 6, v. i. The LXX. gives 
 eh TT]v 'lovdaiav xwpai/ : the Vulgate 'ad Judseam provinciam '. 
 
 to the house of the great God] The governor uses terms of great 
 reverence towards the God of the Jews. In consequence some have 
 called in question the genuineness of this letter. But there is in reahty 
 nothing unusual in the use of such expressions by Eastern potentates 
 with reference to the gods of a conquered or subject country. 
 
 with great stones] Literally ' stones of rolling '. Stone, that is to say. 
 
72 EZRA, V. [vv. 9— i: 
 
 timber is laid in the walls, and this work goeth fast on, and 
 
 9 prospereth in their hands. Then asked we those elders, a?id 
 
 said unto them thus, Who commanded you to build this 
 
 10 house, and to make up these walls ? We asked their names 
 also, to certify thee, that we might write the names of the 
 
 11 men that were the chief of them. And thus they returned us 
 answer, saying, We are the servants of the God of heaven 
 and earth, and build the house that was builded these many 
 years ago, which a great king of Israel builded and set up. 
 
 too large for ordinary transport and requiring to be moved on rollers. 
 The immense size of the stones used in the construction of the temples 
 in early days is an unending source of amazement, e.g. Baalbec. 
 
 The LXX. renders by 'chosen stones' i Esdr. vi. 9, by 'polished 
 stones very precious ' : misunderstanding the original. Such adjectives 
 applied to the foundations of the Temple were perhaps before the mind 
 of the Apostle when he employs the metaphor of the building, cf. i Pet. 
 ii. 4 — 7 (Isa. xxviii. 16). Vulg. 'lapide impolito'. 
 
 timber is laid in the wai/s] i.e. beams or joists for supporting floor or 
 roof. Some suggest party-walls, for the division of chambers. 
 
 godh fast on'\ R.V. goeth on with diligence. 'With diligence', a 
 Persian word 'osparna' (used also vi. 8, 12, 13, vii. 17, 21, 26) which 
 denotes care and attention as well as energy. 
 
 in their hands'] referring to the Jews, implied in the words 'the 
 province of Judah'. 
 
 9. Who commanded..., and to make up] R.V. Who gave... a decree, 
 ...and to finish. Cf. on ver. 3. 
 
 these walls] R.V. ' this -wall ' as in ver. 3. 
 
 10. We asked their names] R.V. we asked them their names. So 
 the Aramaic. For the names of the Elders, cf. ii. 2. 
 
 the chief of them] R.V. at the head of them. Literally ' at or 
 in the heads of them'. The R.V. renders as if the word was in the 
 singular; cf. 2 Chron. xx. 27, 'Then they returned, every man of Judah 
 and Jerusalem, and Jehoshaphat in the forefront of them ', (lit. at their 
 head). But the rendering 'that were their heads' would be equally 
 correct, and would account for the use of the plural. 
 
 11. We are the servants of the God of heaven and earth] The words 
 of this profession are very emphatic in the original. 
 
 the God of heaven and earth] i.e. the God not of one kingdom only, but 
 of the whole world, not of terrestrial supremacy alone, but of heavenly 
 as well: see on chap. i. 2. 
 
 biiild the house that was builded &c.] i.e. we restore the house which 
 having been built in remote times stood as the temple of our God for 
 centuries. 
 
 a great king of Israel] i.e. Solomon. The expression here used shows 
 that Tattenai like Artaxerxes (iv. 20), had heard the rumour either from 
 the Jews themselves or from those acquainted with them, that there had 
 
vv. 12— t6.J EZRA, V. y^, 
 
 But after that our fathers had provoked the God of lieaven 12 
 unto wrath, he gave them into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar 
 the king of Babylon, the Chaldean, who destroyed this house, 
 and carried the people away into Babylon. But in the first 13 
 year of Cyrus the king of Babylon the sa??ie king Cyrus made 
 a decree to build this house of God. And the vessels also 14 
 of gold and silver of the house of God, which Nebuchadnez- 
 zar took out of the temple that was in Jerusalem, and brought 
 them into the temple of Babylon, those did Cyrus the kmg 
 take out of the temple of Babylon, and they were delivered 
 unto one, whose name was Sheshbazzar, whom he had made 
 governor; and said unto him, Take these vessels, go, carry 15 
 them into the temple that is in Jerusalem, and let the house 
 of God be builded in his place. Then came the same ^6 
 Sheshbazzar, a7id laid the foundation of the house of God 
 
 been 'mighty kings over Jerusalem'. Solomon's temple was built 1014— 
 1007, nearly 500 years before the reign of Darius. 
 and set up] R. V. finished. 
 
 12. after that] So R.V., R.V. marg. * because that \ The purpose of 
 the passage is to account for the destruction of the Temple and the 
 captivity of God's people. The conjunction is not temporal, but 
 causal : 'for this reason, namely, that &c.' The rendering of the R.V. 
 margin is preferable. 
 
 provoked .. Muto wrath] The word used here for 'provoke 'is found 
 in the Hebrew books with this meaning only in Job xii. 6. Elsewhere 
 to 'shake', 'disquiet', i Sam. xxviii. 15; Isai. xiii. 13, xxiii. 11 ; 
 Jer. I. 34. 
 
 the God of heaven] See on i. 2. A general description of Israel's 
 provocation of their God is given in 2 Chron. xxxvi. 14 — 21. 
 
 Nebuchadnezzar] Cf. on i. 7 : the Chaldean, i.e. the Babylonian. 
 
 13. Cyrus the king of Babylofi] Cyrus so called frequently in the 
 Inscriptions: cf. Artaxerxes king of Babylon, Neh. xiii. 6, and Darius 
 king of Assyria, Ezra vi. 22. 
 
 the same king Cyrus] R.V. Cyrus the king : see on i. i, 2. 
 
 14. A fid the vessels also of gold and silvei-] R.V. And the gold 
 and silver vessels. See note on i. 7 — 11. 
 
 into the tetnple of Babylon] See note on i. 7, ' the house of his gods ', 
 i.e. the great temple at Babylon, which Nebuchadnezzar had restored. 
 
 Sheshbazzar, whom he had made governor] Literally ' pekhah '. In 
 i. 8, Sheshbazzar is called ' prince of Judah '. In Haggai i. i &c. 
 Zerubbabel is called ' pekhah '. For the identification see note on i. 8. 
 
 16. Then came the same Sheshbazzar] The work here ascribed to 
 Sheshbazzar is evidently that over which Zerubbabel presided in 
 chap. iii. 
 
 the foundation'] R.V. 'the foundations'; so the Aramaic and iv. 12. 
 
74 EZRA, V. VI. [vv. 17; i. 
 
 which is in Jerusalem : and since that time even until now 
 17 hath it been in building, and yet it is not finished. Now 
 therefore, if // seem good to the king, let there be search 
 made in the king's treasure house, which is there at Babylon, 
 whether it be so, that a decree was made of Cyrus the king 
 to build this house of God at Jerusalem, and let the king 
 send his pleasure to us concerning this matter. 
 6 Then Darius the king made a decree, and search was 
 made in the house of the rolls, where the treasures were laid 
 
 sijue thai time &c.] A sentence showing that the cessation of the 
 work mentioned in iv. 5, 24 must not be taken perfectly literally. 
 Building was carried on from time to time, but no longer on any effective 
 scale. The interval of time was from 536 to 520. 
 
 finished^ R.V. completed. A different word in the original from that 
 rendered ' finish ' in verses 3, 9, 11, vi. 14. 
 
 17. if\\. seem good to the king] A similar phrase in vii. 18 ; Esth. i. 
 
 in the king's treasure house] which apparently was the repository 
 of important documents as well as of treasure. The expression occurs 
 again in Esther iii. 9, iv. 7. The word rendered ' treasure ' (ginzayya) 
 is rendered by 'gaza' (yd^a) in the LXX. Compare Ezra i. 8; 
 (gizbar) 'treasurer'; i Chron. xxviii. 11 (ganzak) 'treasure'; chap. 
 vi. I gives the full explanation of the present phrase. The Vulgate 
 too narrowly renders ' bibliotheca '. 
 
 at Babylon] i.e. where would be kept the records of the Babylonian 
 Empire. 
 
 his pleasure] Same word as that in vii. 18, 'the a//// of God'. The 
 LXX. by a mistake of similar letters renders ' ha\'ing learnt ' {yvovi). 
 
 cojicerning this matter] Same phrase as in verse 5 (where see note). 
 The word ' matter ' added here in the English for the sake of explicit- 
 ness. Tattenai asks for instructions as to how he should proceed 
 generally in dealing with the Jews and their Temple-building. 
 
 Chap. VI. 1—12. Darius's Decree. 
 
 1. made a decree] cf. iv. 19. 
 
 search vjas made] literally 'they made a search'. Plural used im- 
 personally. 
 
 in the house of the rolls] R.V. in the house of the archives : marg. 
 Aram, books. 
 
 rolls] The word usually rendered ' roll ' is Megillah, see ver. 2 ; 
 Jer. xxx\-i. 2 — 6, &:c.; Ezek. iii. i, 2; Zech. v. i. The word used here 
 is ' Sepher ' = ' book'. Sometimes the two occur together ' the roll of a' 
 book' in Jer. xxxvi. 2, 4; Ezek. ii. 9. 'Sepher' is the ordinary word 
 for a book or a \\Titing. The town Kirjath-Sepher (' town of a book'), 
 called also Debir, Jos. xv. 15, may have been famous for its treasured 
 documents. 
 
V. 2.] EZRA, VI. 75 
 
 up in Babylon. And there was found at Achmetha, in the 2 
 palace that is in the province of the Tvledes, a roll, and 
 therein was a record thus written : 
 
 *The house of the Archives' at Babylon must have contained a 
 state Hbrary in which such a document as Cyrus's decree virould 
 probably be found. 
 
 Such libraries containing documents consisting of burnt clay tablets 
 have been found in Nineveh and in the vicinity of Babylon. The 
 rolls and parchments and more perishable materials have not survived. 
 
 the treasures] of. v. 17. It was evidently a place of great security. 
 
 2. And there was fozind at Achmetha'] R.V. margin, That is, 
 Ecbatana. The precious document was not found at Babylon. It 
 has been suggested that valuable records were hastily transferred 
 from Babylon to Ecbatana during the short and disturbed reign of 
 Pseudo-Smerdis, who would wish to destroy the edicts of his pre- 
 decessors. But whatever the cause may have been, notice of its 
 removal had been duly recorded, and the enquiry at Babylon led 
 to search and identification at Ecbatana. 
 
 Achmetha] This is the Aramaic transliteration of the Median 
 capital known to us as ' Ecbatana ' (Gr. eK^drava and dy^drava) 
 of which the Persian pronunciation was something like ' Hang- 
 matana'. It was the summer residence of the Persian kings. Ac- 
 cording to Herodotus it was built by king Deioces (708—655 B.C.) 
 and surrounded with seven walls. Alexander the Great resided 
 there in the autumn of 324. After his death, the city fell into in- 
 significance until under the Parthian monarchy it once more became a 
 royal residence. Under the Muhammedans the name became altered 
 to Hamadan. An unhistorical description of the place is given in 
 Judith i. I ff. 
 
 in the palace] The royal palace, which was probably also the 
 citadel (birah, Greek /Sdpt's) and the treasury. The Aramaic word 
 is the same as the Hebrew rendered 'palace' (marg. or 'castle') 
 in Neh. i. i; Esther i. 2 &c.; Dan. viii. 2 in reference to ' Shushan ', 
 and in i Chron. xxix. i, 19 in reference to 'the Temple of Solomon'; 
 'castle', Neh. ii. 8, vii. 2 in reference to fortifications of Temple. 
 
 in the province of the Mcdes] R.V. of Media. Literally *in the 
 province of Madai ' (see Gen. x. 2). Media stretched north and 
 south between the Caspian sea and the country of Elam, being 
 bounded by Mt Zagros on the W. and by Parthia on the E. During 
 the earlier period, of which we have an historical account in the 
 Inscriptions, Media seems to have been a tributary province of the 
 Assyrian Empire. She shook off the yoke probably in the reign of 
 Assurbanipal (666—624) ; and the Median king Cyaxares joined with 
 the Babylonian king Nabopolassar in the overthrow of Nineveh. 
 Cyrus by his defeat of Astyages (550 B.C.) gained possession of Media, 
 which he united with the Persian kingdom. 
 
 was a record thus %critte?i] R.V.^was thus written for a record. 
 More literally accurate: the roll was to serve as the official memo- 
 randum. 
 
76 EZRA, VI. [vv. 3, 4. 
 
 3 In the first year of Cyrus the king the same Cyrus the king 
 made a decree concerfwig the house of God at Jerusalem, 
 Let the house be builded, the place where they offered 
 sacrifices, and let the foundations thereof be strongly laid; 
 the height thereof threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof 
 
 4 threescore cubits ; with three rows of great stones, and a 
 row of new timber : and let the expences be given out of the 
 
 3. the same Cyrus the king\ R.V. Cyrus the king. See v. 13. 
 
 made a decree concerning the house of God at Jerusalem, Let dr^r.] 
 R.V. made a decree; concerning &c., let&c. The words 'concerning 
 the house of God at Jerusalem ' form a kind of heading to the 
 memorandum, of which what follows is a transcript. 
 
 where they offered sacrifices'] R.V. where they offer sacrifices. 
 
 atid let the foimdations thereof be strongly laid'\ The meaning of 
 these words in the original is very uncertain They have been 
 variously rendered, (i)* and let them set up its foundations' (active), 
 (2) 'And let its foundations be set up' (passive) : but neither rendering 
 gives any fresh idea to the preceding clause. (3) The rendering of the 
 A.V. and R.V. 'let the foundations thereof be strongly laid ' (whether 
 passive, i.e. heavily weighted, or active, i.e. capable of bearing heavy 
 weights), gives a fair sense, the emphasis resting upon the substantial 
 character of the building. It may be doubted whether the text is 
 correct. The transition from this clause to the description of the 
 height and breadth of the building (the length being omitted) is abrupt 
 and awkward. 
 
 The rendering of the versions shows the difficulty which the words 
 occasioned and possibly the uncertainty of the text at a very early 
 period. LXX. /cat ^drjKav iirapfxa. Vulg. 'ponant fundamenta sup- 
 portantia'. i Esd. vi. 24 'With continual fire' 5id ttu/jos efSeXexoOs. 
 
 the height thereof, &c.] In view of the uncertainty of the text, it 
 is doubtful whether we can rely upon these statements of dimensions, 
 especially as the length is not specified. Solomon's temple is described 
 in I Kings vi. 2 as 60 cubits long, 20 broad, and 30 high. Here the 
 temple is to be 60 cubits high and 60 broad. Josephus who, speak- 
 ing of Zerubbabel's temple, describes it as 60 cubits less in height 
 than that of Solomon's temple, is clearly comparing it with the passage 
 in 2 Chron. iii. 4, where the porch of Solomon's temple is said to 
 be 120 cubits in height with the statement of one verse. If the 
 dimensions here given are correct, the second temple in breadth and 
 height was much larger than the first. The comparison in respect 
 of size could hardly account for the disparaging criticism of certain Jews 
 alluded to in Zech. iv. 10 ; Hagg. ii. 3. The view that the present 
 verse does not give the actual dimensions but only the extreme limits to 
 M hich the plan might be followed is too obviously an attempt to escape 
 the difficulty to be at all a probable explanation. 
 
 4. a row of new iiffiber'] R.V. marg. ' According to the Sept. one 
 roiv of timber. ' It has been much disputed what ' the three rows of 
 
5,6.] EZRA, VI. 77 
 
 king's house : and also let the golden and silver vessels of 5 
 the house of God, which Nebuchadnezzar took forth out of 
 the temple which is at Jerusalem, and brought unto Babylon, 
 be restored, and brought again unto the temple which is at 
 Jerusalem, every one to his place, and place the77i in the 
 house of God. Now therefore^ Tatnai, governor beyond the 6 
 river, Shethar-boznai, and your companions the Apharsach- 
 
 great stones and the row of timber' can mean, (i) Some explain by 
 three storeys of stones surmounted by one of wood, the elevation of the 
 Temple. (2) Others by 'three layers of stone followed by one of 
 wood ', the material of the walls. (3) Others by 'three courses of stone 
 backed by a wainscote of wood', the thickness of the walls. {4) But in 
 all probability the verse should be explained by reference to i Kings 
 vi. 36, where 'three rows of hewn stone and a row of cedar beams' are 
 the construction of the walls of the inner court. 
 
 expences^ R.V. expenses. 
 
 out of the king's house} i.e. from the royal revenue. To be defrayed 
 probably from the purse of the ' AbharNahara' satrapy. This payment 
 had obviously ceased, or its existence would have been known to 
 Tattenai and the other officials. During the disturbances which took 
 place at the close of Cyrus's reign, the officers of the provincial treasury 
 probably found it convenient to stop this annual contribution. The 
 voluntary subscriptions mentioned in ii. 68, 69 would therefore have 
 been rendered necessary. Some have suspected that this part of the 
 decree was never really carried out. 
 
 5. and place them in the house of God] R.V. And thou Shalt put them 
 in the house of God. The A.V. does not mark the abrupt transition to 
 the 2nd pers. sing. The use of the 2nd pers. sing, and the occurrence of 
 the same word 'put ' as in the parallel context of v. 15 show that Shesh- 
 bazzar is here addressed. This name has not occurred before in this 
 copy of Cyrus's decree. We must suppose that the copyist gives a 
 free paraphrase of its contents. 
 
 the house of God] The Divine name is here used absolutely for the 
 God of Israel. 
 
 6. The decree of Darius; the prohibition, no interference. 
 Tatnai... Shethar-boztiai, &c.] R.V. Tattenai... Shethar-bozenai. 
 
 See V. 3. Observe the sudden change into the direct address to the 
 governor. Darius's decree is attached to the copy of Cyrus's decree, 
 without any prefatory words to mark the transition or to call attention 
 to Darius's action. The composition of the Compiler or of the document, 
 which he cites, is rough and inartistic; but the meaning of the passage 
 and its connexion with the context cannot be mistaken. 
 
 your companions] R.V. margin. Aram, their. This occurrence of 
 the 3rd pers. pronoun in the original indicates perhaps that the writer 
 transcribed the 3rd pers. pronoun, and omitted to alter it so as to suit 
 his own version. 
 
y2> EZRA, \'I. [vv. 7—9. 
 
 7 ites, which are beyond the river, be ye far from thence : let 
 the work of this house of God alone ; let the governor of the 
 Jews and the elders of the Jews build this house of God in 
 
 8 his place. Moreover I make a decree what ye shall do to 
 the elders of these Jews for the building of this house of 
 God : that of the king's goods, even of the tribute beyond the 
 river, forthwith expences be given unto these men, that they 
 
 9 be not hindered. And that which they have need of, both 
 young bullocks, and rams, and lambs, for the burnt offerings 
 of the God of heaven, wheat, salt, wine, and oil, according 
 
 be ye far from ihence'] i.e. keep aloof from Jerusalem, and do not 
 interfere with the work. 
 
 8. The injunction ; official support, {a) money for the building. 
 I make a decree'] cf. ver. 11, iv. 19, vii. 13. 
 
 of the king's goods, even of the tribute beyond the river] The king 
 addressing the governor of the whole country W. of the Euphrates 
 refers to that portion of the territorial tribute which the governor 
 would remit to the king's treasury, the greater portion being reserved 
 for his own use and for satrapial administration. 
 
 goods] So the LXX. ' possessions ' (dTro virapx^vTOJv) : Vulgate 
 'treasury' (area). The Aramaic word occurs again in vii. 26. 
 
 The royal contribution lays no burden upon the rest of the satrapy. 
 It literally fulfilled the edict of Cyrus: it was 'given out of the king's 
 house' (ver. 4) when it was paid out of the royal share in the 
 tribute. 
 
 forthwith expences be given] R.V. expenses be given with all dili- 
 gence, 'with all diligence' (A.V. 'forthwith'), see note on chap. v. 8. 
 LXX. ^TTiyueXcos. 
 
 that they be not hindered] According to this translation, the words 
 depend upon the previous clause. So also Vulg. 'ne impediatur opus '. 
 The verb occurs in iv. 21, 23. Here the hindrance apprehended seems 
 rather to be to the execution of the royal command than to the activity 
 of the Jews. It is probable that we should rather render ' which is 
 not to be neglected', a short abrupt clause denoting the urgency of the 
 royal rescript, an instance of the idiom found also in Dan. vi. 15 'no 
 decree. ..may be changed' (lit, a decree. ..not to change). The 
 first part of the injunction relating to the payment will then conclude 
 with a peremptory command for the order to be carried out, just as the 
 second part relating to material for the sacrifices concludes with a 
 demand for unremitting regularity in their supply (ver. 12). 
 
 9. {b) Material for the maintenance of the worship. 
 yonng bullocks, 8lc.] Cf. vii. 17. 
 
 for the burnt off'erings of] R.V. for burnt offerings to. The king is 
 speaking generally of burnt offerings as one chief class of offering, and 
 not particularly of the Levitical system. 
 
 zvheat, salt, wine, and oil] Cf. Ex. xxix. 40 (flour, oil, wine); Lev. 
 
vv. lo, I I.J EZRA, VI. 79 
 
 to the appointment of the priests which are at Jerusalem, 
 let it be given them day by day without fail : that they may lo 
 offer sacrifices of sweet savours unto the God of heaven, 
 and pray for the life of the king, and of his sons. Also I n 
 have made a decree, that whosoever shall alter this word, let 
 
 ii. I— 1 6 (flour, oil, salt, &c., the meal offering). The king alludes to 
 the other chief class of offering. 
 
 according to the appointment^ R.V. according to tlie word, i.e. the 
 priests at Jerusalem were to specify what their system most re- 
 quired. 
 
 day by day] See on chap. iii. 4. 
 
 without faH\ i.e. without intermission. Literally 'which is to be no 
 intermission '. The LXX. must have had another reading in which 
 the negative was dropped, and a similarly sounding word ' to ask ' 
 substituted for that rendered 'fail'. LXX. 'whatsoever they shall 
 ask' (6' kav dTrrjauatp). The Vulg. 'lest there be room for complaint in 
 aught' (ne sit in aliquo querimonia) and i Esdr. vi. 30 'without 
 further question ' seem also to have translated the more familiar root. 
 
 10. The king's special desire, propitiatory sacrifice and intercessory 
 prayer to be offered on behalf of his dynasty. 
 
 sacrifices of sweet savours] R.V. sacrifices of sweet savour. One 
 word in the original; it occurs also in Dan. ii. 46 'Then the king 
 Nebuchadnezzar... worshipped Daniel, and commanded that they 
 should offer an oblation and sweet odours unto him '. The expression 
 recalls the 'burnt offering... of a sweet savour unto the Lord' (Ex. 
 xxix. 18, 25; Lev. i. 9, 13, 17, ii. 2, 3, 9, 12) which should be com- 
 pared with Gen. viii. 21. This interpretation lays stress upon the 
 acceptableness of the propitiatory offering. Others giving the word a 
 more material sense consider it to mean especially the incense used in 
 offerings (LXX. eywSi'as; Vulg. oblationes). 
 
 pray for the life, &c.] Compare especially Jer. xxix. 7 ' and seek 
 the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away 
 captive, and pray unto the Lord for it ; for in the peace thereof shall ye 
 have peace.' 
 
 Allusions to sacrifice and prayer for Gentile rulers will be found 
 also in Baruch i. 10 — 12, where ver. 11 especially should be compared 
 with this passage ' And pray for the life of Nebuchodonosor king of 
 Babylon, and for the life of Balthasar his son, that their days may 
 be upon earth as the days of heaven'. See also i Mace. vii. 33, xii. 11; 
 2 Mace. iii. 35, xiii. 23. 
 
 and of his sons] i.e. for the prosperity of Darius's dynasty.^ We 
 hear of two wives of Darius, Atossa, daughter of Cyrus, and Tarsys, 
 daughter of Smerdis. 
 
 11. The penalty. 
 
 Also I have made a decree] The same words as in ver. 8, iv. 19. 
 
 whosoever shall alter] See especially Dan. vi. 15. The word 'alter' 
 here probably includes infringement of the decree as well as alteration 
 of its terms. 
 
8o EZRA, VI. [vv. 12, 13. 
 
 timber be pulled down from his house, and being set up, let 
 him be hanged thereon ; and let his house be made a dung- 
 
 12 hill for this. And the God that hath caused his name to 
 dwell there destroy all kings and people, that shall put to 
 their hand to alter and to destroy this house of God which is 
 2X Jerusalem. I Darius have made a decree ; let it be done 
 with speed. 
 
 13 Then Tatnai, governor on this side the river, Shethar- 
 boznai, and their companions, according to that which 
 
 let timber be pulled down] R.V. let a beam be pulled out, more 
 correctly. The beams of the man's own house should be the instru- 
 ments of execution. 
 
 and being set up, let him be hanged thereon] R. V, let him be lifted up 
 and fastened thereon. The subject of both words is the malefactor. 
 The punishment here referred to is probably that of impalement, to 
 which allusion is frequently made in Assyrian and Persian inscriptions. 
 It may indeed be a form of crucifixion, such as is also implied in Gen. 
 xl. 19 and Esth. ii. 23. The passages in Num. xxv. 4; Deut. xxi. 
 22, 23; Jos. viii. 29, where this frightful form of punishment is spoken 
 of, seem to show that among the Israelites the victims were often first 
 executed, and that the corpses were then hung upon a tree till nightfall. 
 1 he Hebrew and Aramaic word for ' lift up ' which is used in a perfectly 
 general sense for elevation of any sort, e.g. Ps. cxlv. 14, cxlvi. 8, and 
 Targum of Ps. xciii. 3, Jer. iii. 2, was applied technically to execu- 
 tion by impalement or crucifixion, as in the Targum of Esth. vii. 10. 
 This double meaning of the word may illustrate the Saviour's word 'I, 
 if I be lifted up from the earth' (Jo. xii. 32). 
 
 ajid let his house be made a dwtghill for this] See 2 Kings x. 27 ; 
 Dan. ii. 5, iii. 29. A repulsive metaphor for shameful overthrow, of. 
 I Kings xiv. 10; Job xx. 7; Zeph. i. 17. 
 
 12. A7id the God that hath caused his name, &c.] A Hebrew phrase 
 (see Deut. xii. 11; i Kings viii. 29; Neh. i. 9; Jer. vii. 12) introduced 
 by the Jewish Compiler into his paraphrase of Darius's decree. 
 
 destroy all kings and people] R.V. overthrow all kings and peoples. 
 The word rendered 'destroy' here by the A.V. differs in the Aramaic 
 trom that rendered 'destroy' at the close of the verse. It is used in the 
 Targum of 2 Kings ix. 33 for the words 'throw her down', of Ps. cxix. 
 139 'my zeal hath consumed me'. 
 
 that shall put to their hand] R.V. put forth their hand. 
 
 to alter and to destroy this house] R.V. to alter the same, to destroy 
 this house; i.e. alter the decree and to destroy the Temple. These 
 words illustrate the latitude that should be given to the expression ' alter '. 
 
 with speed] R.V. with all diligence, cf. ver. 8, and v. 8. 
 
 13—18. Darius's DECREE EXECUTED : (^) The Temple completed, 
 
 (14, 15), {b) DULY consecrated AND DEDICATED (l6— 18). 
 
 13. according to that which Darius the king had sent] R.V. because 
 
vv. 14, 15.] EZRA, VI. St 
 
 Darius the king had sent, so they did speedily. And the 14 
 elders of the Jews builded, and they prospered through the 
 prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of 
 Iddo. And they builded, and finished it, according to the 
 commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the 
 commandment of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of 
 Persia. And this house was finished on the third day of the 15 
 
 that. R.V. marg. ^because of that ivhich\ The A.V. fails to give 
 the meaning of the original. The rendering of the R.V. margin seems 
 preferable. The prompt action of the governor was the result not so 
 much of the king's sending (for in any case an answer to the governor's 
 question was expected) as of the emphatic command contained in the 
 royal letter. In the face of this explicit order, steps were at once taken. 
 so they did speedily'] R.V. did accordingly with all diligence. See 
 vv. 8, I?, V. 8. We have no reason to suppose that Tattcnai himself 
 was ill-disposed against the Jews. His letter to the king (v. 6, &c.) 
 may have been due to Samaritan representations. But once acquainted 
 with the facts and informed of the king's wishes, he had no ill-will 
 against an insignificant Jewish settlement at Jerusalem. 
 
 14. the ciders of the yetvs\ cf. v. 5. 
 
 aitd they prospered] R.V. and prospered. Cf. v. 8. 
 
 through the prophesying] i.e. the success of the work was due in great 
 measure to the encouragement and support rendered by the two prophets. 
 The LXX. and i Esd. render as if the meaning were 'in the time of the 
 prophesying of Haggai and Zechariah.' The Vulgate gives 'in accord- 
 ance with the prophesying' (juxta prophetiam). 
 
 Haggai... Zechariah] see on v. i. 
 
 and according to the cotmnandment of Cyrus, &c.] R.V. the decree 
 Of Cyrus, &c. The word in the original differs slightly from that in the 
 previous clause. The R.V. preserves the distinction drawn between 
 the Divine 'commandment' and the human 'decree'. 
 
 Cyrus... Daritcs... Artaxerxes] The decrees of Cyrus and Darius 
 have been given by the author (chap. i. 2—4, vi. 3 — 12). The mention 
 of a decree of Artaxerxes occasions a difficulty, (i) The decree of 
 Artaxerxes quoted in iv. 18 — 22 is hostile to the Jews and could not be 
 intended in this verse. (2) How does Artaxerxes' name occur in this 
 passage, which is concerned with the reign of Darius? Certainly the 
 context would lead us to expect the mention of only Cyrus and Darius. 
 Some in consequence have supposed that the name of Artaxerxes has 
 been inserted as a gloss, either in ignorance of the true chronology or for 
 the sake of bringing together the names of the three great Persians, 
 who were benefactors of the Jewish race. But the reading is attested 
 by the LXX. version, and by i Esd. vii. 4. We must therefore suppose 
 that the Compiler has in this passage as well as in iv. 6 — 23 disregarded 
 the chronology of the context and anticipated later history. 
 
 15. The date here given is the 3rd of Adar (the 12th month) in the 
 6th year of Darius (516 — 515). The month Adar is about equivalent to 
 
 EZRA 6 
 
82 EZRA, YI. [vv. 1 6, 17. 
 
 month Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of 
 
 16 Darius the king. And the children of Israel, the priests, 
 and the Levites, and the rest of the children of the captivity, 
 
 17 kept the dedication of this house of God with joy, and 
 offered at the dedication of this house of God an hundred 
 
 our March. The name seems to be derived from an Assyrian god 
 'Adar', which appears in such names as Adrammelech. Haggai (i. 15) 
 mentions that the work had been recommenced on the 24th day of the 
 6th month (Elul = September) in the 2nd year of Darius. It had there- 
 fore been going on for nearly 4^ years. But the foundations had been 
 laid twenty years previously, B.C. 536 (see Ezr. iii. 8). 
 
 Another date, the 23rd of Adar, is given in i Esd. vii. 5. To account 
 for this variation, it has been suggested that the last 8 days of the year 
 would to a scribe seem best suited for the celebration of such a festival 
 as that of the dedication (compare the 8 days in 2 Chron. xxix. 
 17). In order that the regular services of the Temple might seem 
 to have been resumed with the new year, he represented this festival 
 as commencing on the 23rd of the 12th month. This is almost too 
 ingenious. Either the figure ' twenty' has accidentally been omitted in 
 the text of our verse, or, as seems equally probable (since the LXX. 
 supports the Hebrew text here), the composer of i Esdras has mistaken 
 some letter for the symbol or contraction which represented the 
 number. 
 
 16. the children of Israel'] Cf. the application of the term 'Israel' 
 in ii. 70, iii. i. In its special religious significance, its use here is 
 appropriate to the sacredness of the event, in which the people were 
 engaged, while it tends to clear the Jewish community from the charge 
 of exclusiveness towards their own brethren. ' The priests and Levites 
 and the rest of the children of the Captivity'. Under these heads, the 
 Israelites would be grouped at such a festival, cf. ver. 20. ' Children 
 of the Captivity'. See on i. 11, ii. i. Cf. ver. 19. 
 
 dedication'] Called in the Greek Encaenia [kyKalvia, LXX.), and in 
 Hebrew 'Khanukah ', the same word which gives its name to the Feast 
 of the Dedication, founded to commemorate the purification of the 
 Temple after the pollution of Antiochus Epiphanes (164), cf. John 
 X. 22. That festival was kept for eight days (cf. r Mace. iv. 60) and 
 began on 25th of Chislev (the 9th month). 
 
 with Joy] Some have suggested in connexion with this joyous 
 occasion that the Pss. cxlvi. — cxlviii., called in the LXX. Psalms 
 of Haggai and Zechariah, may have been composed at this period. 
 But proof is wanting. 
 
 17. and offered] R.V. And they offered. A fresh sentence: ver. 16 
 treated of the general festivities: this verse describes the special 
 sacrificial offerings. 
 
 at the dedication of this house] These words evidently imply a com- 
 parison between the modest sacrifices offered at this dedication and the 
 enormous number offered by Solomon at the dedication of the first 
 Temple { I Kings viii. 5, 63). Solomon offered then for 'the sacrifice 
 
V. i8.] EZRA, VI. 83 
 
 bullocks, two hundied rams, four hundred lambs ; and for a 
 sin offering for all Israel, twelve he goats, according to the 
 number of the tribes of Israel. And they set the priests in 
 their divisions, and the Levites in their courses, for the ser- 
 vice of God, which is at Jerusalem; as it is written in the 
 book of Moses. 
 
 of peace-offerings... two and twenty thousand oxen, and an hundred and 
 twenty thousand sheep'. The numbers also mentioned in connexion 
 with the dedication-festivals of Hezekiah (2 Chron. xxx. 24) and Josiah 
 (2 Chron. xxxv. 7) very largely exceed the offerings of Zerubbabel and 
 his companions. 
 
 The decay of material wealth and splendour must have vividly 
 impressed itself upon the mind of many a patriot Jew, who looked 
 only for a renewal of worldly empire. To them it must have seemed 
 ' a day of small things ' (Zech. iv. 10) by the side of the recollections of 
 the kingdom. 
 
 a sin offering for all Israel, twelve he goats &c.] Compare Num. vii. 87, 
 'and the males of the goats for a sin-offering twelve', at the dedication 
 of the altar. It is noticeable that in the reign of Hezekiah, at the 
 purification of the Temple, we are told ' they brought seven bullocks, 
 and seven rams, and seven lambs, and seven he-goats, for a sin offering 
 for the kingdom and for the sanctuary and for Judah ' (2 Chron. xxix. 
 21). The number ' seven' there denotes the consecration, the number 
 ' twelve ' here denotes the ideal unity, of the community. The sin 
 offering 'of twelve he-goats according to the number of the tribes of 
 Israel', was an incident full of deep religious pathos. The remnant 
 who had returned make solemn confession of sin in the name of the 
 whole scattered and dispersed race. They acknowledge the essential 
 unity of Israel's tribes alike in the consequences of sin, in the possi- 
 bilities of restoration, and in the renewed consecration to God's service. 
 
 The symbolical representation of a restored and ideal Israel is thus 
 indicated by the verse (cf. ii. 2, 70, viii. 35). We need not necessarily 
 assume (as some commentators) that each tribe was literally represented 
 upon the occasion. Compare the prophet's picture of a reunited Israel 
 (Ezek. xxxvii. 15 — 28) and Elijah's offering on Mt. Carmel, i Kings 
 xviii. 31. 
 
 18. the priests in their divisions, &c.] The verse refers to the 
 organization of the priests and Levites described in i Chron. xxiii. — 
 xxvi. According to this arrangement, the service of the Temple was 
 distributed by periods, of a week each, among the courses and divisions 
 of priests and Levites (see 2 Kings xi. 9; 2 Chron. xxiii. 4). 
 
 On the "divisions" of the priests, see Luke i. 5, 8, 9. 
 
 for the service of God] 'Service', the same word as that rendered 
 'work' in iv. 24. But there 'the work of the house of God' refers to 
 the building; here 'the work or service of God' refers to the worship. 
 Compare the word 'liturgy' {XeLTovpyla) and the growth of its special 
 application. 
 
 as it is writtefi in the book of Hoses'] The reference seems to be to 
 
84 EZRA, VI. [vv. 19—21. 
 
 19 And the children of the captivity kept the passover upon 
 
 20 the fourteenth day of the first month. For the priests and 
 the Levites were purified together, all of them were pure, 
 and killed the passover for all the children of the captivity, 
 
 21 and for their brethren the priests, and for themselves. And 
 
 the Levitical arrangements generally upon which the Davidic and 
 Solomonic organization was founded, as described in the books of 
 Chronicles. Special mention of the ordering of the priests and Levites 
 occurs in Num. iii. and viii. 
 
 This verse concludes the Aramaic section (iv. 8 — vi. 18). 
 
 19. The Hebrew is here resumed. 
 
 the children of the captivity'] cf. ver. 16, viii, 35. 
 
 kept the passover] on the 14th of the ist month (Nisan) as was com- 
 manded in Ex. xii. 6. Very few celebrations of the Passover are 
 recorded. Besides the original occasion of the Passover, we only read 
 in the O.T. of its being kept (i) under Moses on the second year after 
 the Exodus (Num. ix. 5), (2) under Joshua at Gilgal after the reconse- 
 cration of the people by the rite of circumcision (Jos. v. 10), (3) in the 
 reign of Hezekiah, after the purification of the Temple (2 Chron. xxx. 
 I, 2, ff.), (4) in the reign of Josiah, after the religious reformation 
 (2 Kings xxiii. 21 ; 2 Chron. xxxv.), (5) under Zerubbabel and Jeshua. 
 
 On each of these occasions the celebration of the Passover marks a 
 new or a restored order of worship, and the solemn reded ication by the 
 people of their Covenant relation with God. 
 
 20. The explanatory 'for' means that this celebration of the Pass- 
 over could take place, because the priests and Levites had duly pre- 
 pared themselves for it by ceremonial purification. 
 
 the priests and the Levites were purified together^ all of them -were pure] 
 R.V. tlie priests and tlie Levites had purified themselves together 
 (Heb. as one) ; all of them were pure. ' Had purified themselves': the 
 reflexive is the accurate rendering of the original. 
 
 together] Lit. 'as one': see ii. 64, iii. 9. 
 
 The rendering of the R.V. represents the ceremonial purification to 
 have been jointly performed by priests and Levites, who were therefore 
 all 'pure' and capable of sacrificial acts. The only difficulty arises 
 from the following clause. How can it be said that ' the priests and 
 Levites killed the passover... for their brethren the priests, and for 
 themselves?' The words 'for their brethren the priests' shew that 
 the subject of the last clause must be the Levites alone; and that 
 the mention of the priests belongs to the two first clauses. Compare 
 
 1 Chron. xxix. 34, 'their brethren the Levites did help them, till the work 
 was ended, and until the priests had sanctified themselves : for the Levites 
 were more upright in heart to sanctify themselves than the priests ' (cf. 
 
 2 Chron. xxx. 3). The small number of Levites who had returned 
 were, we must suppose, more rigid followers of the ceremonial law 
 than their brethren the priests, numerically a far larger body. 
 
 for all the children of the captivity, and for their brethren the 
 
V. 21.] EZRA, VI. 85 
 
 the children of Israel, which were come again out of cap- 
 tivity, and all such as had separated themselves unto them 
 from the filthiness of the heathen of the land, to seek the 
 
 priests, and for ihemselvesl The triple division of the community: see 
 ver. 16. 
 
 The Levites are here represented as slaying the Paschal lamb. 
 Three stages of custom as to the slaughter of the lamb are recorded 
 in Scripture, {a) Originally, the lamb was slain by the head of each 
 household (see Ex. xii. 6): {b) in the days of Hezekiah {2 Chron. xxx. 
 17) the Levites 'killed the passovers for every one that was not clean' : 
 [c) in the days of Josiah [2 Chron. xxxv. 10 — 14) the Levites seem 
 to have slain all the passover lambs, and roasted them both for the 
 people, and for the priests, and for themselves. 
 
 The object of the alteration in the custom was twofold; (i) to secure 
 the ceremonial purity of those entrusted with the duty of slaying the 
 passover, (2) to relieve the priests, who at the season of the feast were 
 busied in other offerings; see 2 Chron. xxxv. 14, "therefore the Le- 
 vites prepared for themselves, and for the priests the sons of Aaron". 
 
 The above is a useful illustration of the manner in which the abso- 
 lute rule of the early law was modified in later times out of regard for 
 considerations of a purely practical character (cf. iii. 8, note on "twenty 
 years old and upward "). 
 
 21. Those who partook of the Passover are described as belonging 
 to two classes; (i) those who had returned from captivity, (2) those 
 who had 'separated themselves unto them from the filthiness of the 
 heathen of the land'. 
 
 " The heathen of the land" (goyye ha-arec) is to be compared with 
 "the peoples of the land" ('amme ha-arec) 'in chap. x. 2, 11. "The 
 land" is the land of Palestine: "the heathen" and "the peoples" are 
 apparently the colonists and mixed population that had settled in the 
 territory of the Northern and Southern Kingdoms. 'The filthiness' 
 (cf. ix. 11) is the ceremonial pollution of idolatry practised by these 
 heathen races. 
 
 Who then are those described here as having 'separated themselves'? 
 
 {a) By very many they are considered to be proselytes from the hea- 
 then who had attached themselves to the Jewish religion since the 
 return from the Captivity. 
 
 {b) But it appears most probable that they are Israelites. 
 
 (i) Israelites are described in ix. i as not having "separated them- 
 selves from the peoples of the lands". (2) Ezra exhorts the Jews to 
 "separate themselves from the peoplesof the lands" (x. 11). If those who 
 had not ' separated' themselves were Israelites, it is probable that these 
 who had separated themselves were also Israelites ; and if so, they 
 would be those Israelites who had not been carried into captivity, but 
 had continued to dwell in Palestine or among the adjoining races. 
 
 The two classes mentioned therefore are both Israelite; the one, 
 those who had returned from Babylon ; the other, those who having 
 remained behind and having mixed with "the heathen of the land" 
 
86 EZRA, VI. VII. [vv. 22; i. 
 
 22 Lord God of Israel, did eat, and kept the feast of unleavened 
 bread seven days with joy : for the Lord had made them 
 joyful, and turned the heart of the king of Assyria unto 
 them, to strengthen their hands in the work of the house of 
 God, the God of Israel. 
 
 7 Now after these things, in the reign of Artaxerxes king of 
 
 now separated themselves and attached themselves once more to their 
 countrymen. 
 
 to seek the LORD God of Israel] R.V. to seek tlie LORD, the God of 
 Israel. See on chap. i. 3. To seek, i.e. with a view to worship : cf. on 
 iv. 2. 
 
 22. seven days'] see Ex. xii. 15. 
 
 had made them joyful] the same phrase in the original as that ren- 
 dered in 2 Chron. xx. 27, "for the Lord had made them to rejoice" 
 R.V. Neh. xii. 43, " For God had made them rejoice''. 
 
 and turned the heart] R.V. had turned the heart. Vulg. " convertit 
 cor", cf. same expression as in i Kings xviii. 37. The verb is different 
 from that used in the similar phrase in Mai. iv. 6 (cf. Luke i. 17). 
 
 of the king of Assyria] This is a strange expression to be used of a 
 Persian king. For by the context it naturally refers to Darius. 
 
 (i) It has been said that Darius is so called because the Persian 
 kings were the successors to the great Assyrian empire. 
 
 (2) It has been suggested that all Western Asia might be termed 
 Assyria. 
 
 (3) It has been supposed that Darius is not personally referred to, 
 but that the power of Western Asia is symbolized by the name of 
 Assyria, Israel's traditional foe. (But to the Jew, after the Captivity, 
 the symbolical hostile power is Babylon.) 
 
 Of these views the first is the most probable. See note on iv, 13 
 (Cyrus king of Babylon). Perhaps however the phrase is a copyist's 
 error. 
 
 strengthen their hands] Cf. Neh. ii. 18, vi. 9; Judg. vii. ii; Isai. 
 xxxv. 3. 
 
 in the work of the house &c.] Cf. iii. 8, 9. 
 
 Part II. The Return under Ezra. 
 
 vii. 1 — 10. A brief summary : Ezra's genealogy (i — 5), arrival at 
 Jerusalem (6 — 10). 
 
 11 — 26. Ezra's commission from the king Artaxerxes. 
 
 27 — 28. Ezra's Thanksgiving. 
 
 viii. 1—20. The list of those that went up with Ezra to Jerusalem. 
 
 21 — 36. The events of the journey: 2t — 30 preparations for the 
 journey, [a) 21 — 23 rendezvous and fast at Ahava, [b) 24 — 30 the care 
 of the treasure: {c) 31 — 36 the arrival at Jerusalem, transfer of the 
 treasure, declaration of the mission. 
 
 ix. 1 — 4. The people's sin. 
 
 5 — 15. Ezra's confession. 
 
V. 2.] EZRA, VII. 87 
 
 Persia, Ezra the son of Seraiah, the son of Azariah, the son 
 of Hilkiah, the son of Shallum, the son of Zadok, the son of 2 
 
 X. 1 — 5. The acknowledgment of guilt and the people's covenant. 
 
 6 — 15. The assembly and the reform. 
 
 16—17. The inquiry. 
 
 18—44. The list of offenders. 
 
 Ch. VII. 1—10. A BRIEF Summary of Events. 
 1—5. Ezra's Genealogy. 
 
 Now after these things] An interval of 58 years is passed over in 
 silence (516 — 458). One allusion has already been made to the reign 
 of Xerxes (ch. iv. 7). But with this exception the Compiler apparently 
 found nothing to record of historic importance in the formation of the 
 new religious community at Jerusalem during the period which elapsed 
 between the completion of the Temple and the accession of Artaxerxes. 
 The story of Esther belongs to Xerxes' reign, which belongs to the 
 chronicles of ' the Dispersion '. It has no part in the development of 
 the Jewish constitution. 'Now after these things'. A not infrequent 
 phrase combining connexion ('now' or 'and') with the previous narra- 
 tive and statement of indefinite interval. Cf. Gen. xv. i, xxii. i ; 
 Luke X. I. 
 
 in the reign of Artaxerxes] Artaxerxes the son of Xerxes began to 
 reign in 465 B.C. 
 
 £zra, the son of Seraiah &c.] Ezra's genealogy is here traced back 
 to Aaron. 
 
 {a) His immediate connexion with the high-priestly line is through 
 Seraiah. He is therefore here called ' the son of Seraiah ', although 
 Seraiah was High-priest in the days of king Zedekiah and was slain at 
 Riblah by Nebuchadnezzar (-2 Kings xxv. 18 — 21) in 588 B.C. (i.e. 130 
 years before). Inasmuch as (i) the High-priest Jeshua (538) is described 
 as the son of Jehozadak, (2) neither of these names occurs in Ezra's 
 genealogy, (3) Jehozadak was the eldest son of Seraiah (1 Chron. vi. 
 14) succeeding to the High- priesthood, we conclude that Ezra was 
 descended from a younger son of Seraiah. 
 
 {b) In this genealogy 15 names occur between Ezra and Aaron. 
 This is manifestly too small a number for a period of about 1000 years 
 (reckoning 30 years to a generation), especially when we find 26 names 
 recorded between Zerubbabel (who was of the previous generation to 
 that of Ezra) and Nashon, prince of Judah, the contemporary of Aaron, 
 in I Chron. ii. 10 — 15, iii. i — 19. 
 
 Ezra's genealogy therefore appears here in an abbreviated form. 
 We are enabled in a great measure, if not completely, to fill up its 
 lacunas by means of {a) Ezra's genealogy in the parallel passage, i Esd. 
 viii. r, 2, [b) in 2 Esd. i. 1 — 3, (c) the genealogy of the High-priests 
 Jehozadak and Seraiah in i Chron. vi. 3 — 15, Q) in 1 Chron. ix. 10, 
 II ; Neh. xi. 11. 
 
 The full genealogy then appears as follows : 
 
 I Aaron, 2 Eleazar, 3 Phinehas, 4 Abishua, 5 Bukki, 6 Uzzi, 
 
EZRA, VII. [vv. 3,4. 
 
 3 Ahitub, the son of Amariah, the son of Azariah, the son of 
 
 4 Meraioth, the son of Zerahiah, the son of Uzzi, the son of 
 
 7 Zerahiah, 8 Meraioth, 9 Amariah, 10 Ahitub, 11 Zadok, 12 Ahimaaz, 
 i'^ Azariah, \\Johanan, 15 Azariah, 16 Amariah, I'j Heli[?), \^ Phine- 
 has{?), 19 Ahiah, 10 Ahitub, 21 Meraioth (see i Chron. ix. 11), 22 
 Zadok, 23 Shallum, Meshullam (i Chron. ix. u), 24 Hilkiah, 25 Aza- 
 riah, 26 Seraiah, 27 son of Seraiah, 28 (?), contemporary with Zerub- 
 babel, 29 father of Ezra, 30 Ezra. 
 
 Of these names 9 — 14 occur in i Chron. vi. 7 — 10: 21 in i Chron. 
 ix. IX : 17, 18, 19 in 2 Esdras i. 2 are doubtful. At least three and 
 possibly four generations must be inserted between Seraiah (died 588) 
 and Ezra (? died circ. 430), the names being here omitted because they 
 were not High-priests. 
 
 {c) Why does Ezra's genealogy appear in this abbreviated form, if 
 the materials of a fuller one were accessible to the compiler of our book 
 in the materials of the book 'Chronicles'? 
 
 (i) Jewish genealogies were often abbreviated by the omission of un- 
 important or dishonourable names, for the sake of securing a shorter 
 list or an arrangement of names more easily remembered (see Gen. xi. 
 13; cf. Luke iii. 36 and Matt. i. 8). 
 
 It is possible that the present genealogy was artificially arranged. By 
 reference to i Chron. vi. 10, we find that Azariah (ver. 3) is there 
 specially described as 'having executed the priest's office in the house 
 that Solomon built in Jerusalem'. Azariah's name therefore represents 
 the age of the foundation of the Temple, just as Aaron's name repre- 
 sents the foundation of the Levitical system, Ezra's its reconstitution. 
 It is noteworthy that between Ezra and Azariah there are seven names, 
 between Azariah and Aaron seven names : the first group contains the 
 names of High-priests before the setting up of the Monarchy and before 
 the Temple was built, the second group contains the list of the High- 
 priests during the Monarchy down to tlae destruction of Jerusalem. It 
 is possible that this twofold arrangement of seven names placed between 
 the two names representative of the foundation and the revival of the 
 - Mosaic system, and linked by the name representative of the Temple, 
 may be the explanation of the abbreviation (cf. the threefold grouping 
 by 'fourteen' in Matt. i. i— 16). 
 
 (ii) On the other hand it must be granted that a list containing two 
 trios of Amariah, Ahitub, Zadok, three Azariahs, two Amariahs, and a 
 Meraioth could easily give rise to errors in transcription; a copyist's 
 eye passing from one similar name or termination to another. It is thus 
 quite possible that after Azariah (No. 15) the copyist accidentally 
 passed on to Meraioth (No. 8) which followed the similarly sounding 
 Amariah. 
 
 It is clear from the fewness of the names and from the omission of all 
 names after Seraiah that the genealogy cannot pretend to be complete. 
 The view that the six names (9 — 14) have accidentally dropped from 
 the text, rests on the omission of the renowned Zadok and Ahimaaz, 
 whose names we should naturally expect to find inserted in a list of 
 Ezra's forefathers ( i Chron. vi. 8). 
 
vv, 5, 6.] EZRA, VII. 89 
 
 Bukki, the son of Abishua, the son of Phinehas, the son of 5 
 Eleazar, the son of Aaron the chief priest : this Ezra went up 6 
 from Babylon; and he was a ready scribe in the law of 
 
 HilkiaK\ the celebrated High-priest of the reign of Josiah: see 
 1 Kings xxii. 4, &c.; 2 Chron. xxxiv. 14, &c. 
 
 5. Phinehas, the son of Eleazar] his religious zeal (Num. xxv. 7 — 
 11) was celebrated in the records and songs of Israel (Ps. cvi. 30). 
 As High-priest he appears probably on two occasions Jos. xxii. 13, 30, 
 32; Judg. XX. 28. 
 
 Aaron the chief priest] Literally the ' head-priest ' (hak-kohen 
 harosh). By this title the High-priest was sometimes designated in 
 writings of the Captivity and post- Captivity periods, e.g. 2 Chron. xix. 
 II, xxiv. (6), II, xxvi. 20, xxxi. 10. The earliest instances are 2 Kings 
 xxv. 18; Jer. Hi. 24. Before the period of the Captivity he is generally 
 called "the priest". The name High-priest (literally 'the great 
 priest') only rarely occurs in the Pentateuch, Levit. xxi. 10; Num. 
 xxxv. 25, 28, though more frequently in books of late date, e.g. 2 Kings 
 xii. 10. 
 
 LXX. 'the first priest' (jov lepeus toO tt/jcotou). Vulg. 'sacerdotis ab 
 initio '. 
 
 6 — 10. Arrival at Jerusalem. 
 
 6. wejzt upfront Babylon] i.e. to Jerusalem, cf. i. 11, ii. i. It will 
 be observed that this description of Ezra is given in the 3rd person. 
 At ver. 27 there is a change to the ist person. 
 
 and he was a ready scribe in the law of Moses] Cf. vv. 10, 12. 
 
 'the scribe' (Hebr. Sopher) in the days of the Monarchy was the 
 king's State Secretary or Chancellor. Cf. Seraiah, the scribe (2 Sam. 
 viii. 17), Sheva, the scribe (2 Sam. xx. 25) = Shavsha (i Chron. xviii. 
 16): Elihoreph and Ahijah, scribes (i Kings iv. 3): Shebna, the 
 scribe (2 Kings xviii. 18, &c.): Shaphan, the scribe (2 Kings xxii. 3). 
 Cf. Gemariah (Jer. xxxvi. lo), Elishama (Jer. xxxvi. 12), Jonathan 
 (Jer. xxxvii. 15). 
 
 During the latter days of the Monarchy, the name began to re- 
 ceive a special meaning as applied to those who were occupied in 
 studying and copying the documents containing the sacred laws of the 
 nation, e.g. Jer. viii. 8 'How do ye say. We are wise, and the law of 
 the Lord is with us? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes hath 
 wrought falsely'. 
 
 After the Captivity, the increased importance of the written law 
 and the necessity of explaining its obligation upon the people brought 
 'the scribes' into great prominence. 'The scribe' took the place of 
 the prophet and, in his influence upon his countrymen, eclipsed the 
 priest. The name of Ezra is associated with the development of 'the 
 scribe' and he is designated 'the scribe' as by an honourable title in vii. 
 II, and Neh. viii. 1. He was the typical representative and in a 
 measure the founder of the later type of scribes. Devoted to the 
 minute study of the written law, he sought to expound it to his people 
 
90 EZRA, VII. [v. 7. 
 
 Moses, which the Lord God of Israel had given : and the 
 king granted him all his request, according to the hand of 
 7 the Lord his God upon him. And there went up some of 
 the children of Israel, and of the priests, and the Levites, 
 and the singers, and the porters, and the Nethinims, unto 
 
 and to impress upon them the duty of its rigid observance. (See Intro- 
 duction.) To the same class perhaps belonged 'the teachers' men- 
 tioned in viii. 16, and 'Zadok the scribe' (Neh'. xiii. 13). 
 
 The word 'ready' is the same as appears elsewhere in the O.T. 
 only in Ps. xlv. i 'a ready writer'. Prov. xxii. 29 '■diligent in his 
 business'. Isai. xvi. 5 ^szvift to do righteousness'. A 'ready scribe' 
 would be one prompt and skilful in interpreting the difficulties of the 
 law. His quickness is the dexterity of his erudition, not of his pen. 
 
 the law of Moses, which the Lord God of Israel had give )i] R.V. the 
 Lord the God of Israel, cf. i. 3. 'The law of Moses', see iii. 2, vi. 18, 
 and cf. I Kings ii. 3, 2 Kings xiv. 6, xxi. 8. 
 
 The Divine origin of the law is here asserted with reverent emphasis. 
 The expression is well illustrated by Mai. iv. 4 'the law of Moses my 
 servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, even 
 statutes and judgements' and Neh. viii. 14 'The law which the Lord 
 had commanded by Moses'. 
 
 all his request] What the request was, which Ezra preferred to 
 Artaxerxes, we are not told, but are left to gather it from the letter 
 of Artaxerxes (12 — 26). The word 'request' in the Hebrew denotes 
 an eager quest, and occurs elsewhere in the O.T. only in the book 
 of Esther (v. 3, 7, 8, vii. 3, ix. 12). 
 
 according to the hand of the Lord his God upon hi?n'] This expression 
 is characteristic of the writer. It occurs again ver. 28, with the ad- 
 jective 'good', ver. 9, viii. 18; Neh. ii. 8, 18, and in a slightly different 
 form viii. 22, 31. 'The hand of the Lord' denotes the merciful favour, 
 as may be seen from the context here and in ver. 28, even without the 
 addition of the adjective good: cf. 'the eye of the Lord', chap. v. 5. 
 Similar is the phrase in 2 Chron. xxx. 12. From that 'hand' comes 
 discipline as well as bounty, Job ii. 10 'Shall we receive good at the 
 hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?' xix. 21 ' the hand of God 
 hath touched me'. In adversity 'the hand of the Lord' is described 
 as *against\ not 'upon' a person. See Deut. ii. 15 ; Ruth i. 13. 
 
 7. And there zvent up some of the children of Israel] For "some 
 of" compare ii. 70. 
 
 some of the children of Israel] i.e. a portion of the lay element of 
 the Jewish community at Babylon, mainly of the tribes of Judah and 
 Benjamin, cf. ii. 2 'the men of the people of Israel'. 
 
 The division into Priests, Levites, Singers, Porters, Nethinim, as in 
 chap. ii. 36, 40, 41, 42, 43. 
 
 the Levites] The difficulty of obtaining Levites to accompany the 
 caravan is described in viii. 15 — 21. 
 
 Nethinivis] R.V. Nethinim, see note on ii. 43. 
 
vv. 8, 9.] EZRA, VIl. 91 
 
 Jerusalem, in the seventh year of Artaxerxes the king. And 8 
 he came to Jerusalem in the fifth month, which was in the 
 seventh year of the king. For upon the first day of the first 9 
 month began he to go up from Babylon, and on the first day 
 of the fifth month came he to Jerusalem, according to the 
 
 the seventh year of Artaxerxes the king] i.e. 458 B.C. 
 
 8. And he came] This verse resumes ver. 6. *He came' at the 
 same time with those enumerated in ver. 7. The importance of this 
 journey to Jerusalem centres in Ezra. 
 
 the fifth rnonth] This was the month Ab, the Assyrian Abu, cor- 
 responding roughly with our 'August'. 
 
 9. began he to go up\ R.V. marg. Heb. that was the foundation of 
 the going tcp. The R.V. and A.V. paraphrase the words. 
 
 The Hebrew text is intelligible; but (i) the word as here vocalized 
 is very unusual, (2) the metaphor is ponderous and awkward, (3) the 
 construction, shown in a literal translation " for upon the first day of 
 the first month — that (i.e. that month) was the foundation of the going 
 up from Babylon — and on the first day of the fifth month came he to 
 Jerusalem", is almost intolerably involved and harsh, especially as the 
 verb 'came' in the latter half of the verse has no subject expressed in 
 the original, and presupposes the mention of a subject in an earlier 
 clause. 
 
 The LXX. render "for upon the first day of the first month he 
 (i.e. Ezra) laid the foundation of his going up" {avTO's idefxeXluae ttjv 
 ava^acLv), treating the word rendered "foundation" as a simple verb 
 (i.e. 'yasad' for 'y'sud'), cf. Vulg. 'coepit adscendere'. 
 
 Another method of explaining the verse makes Ezra the subject and 
 reads the disputed word as if it were an intensive form (i.e. *yissed') 
 of the verb "to lay the foundation of", with the meaning ' appoint ', as 
 in Esther i. 8 " the king had appoiiitcd''\ This gives a good sense, as 
 follows ; 
 
 ' On the first day &c. he (i.e. Ezra) had appointed or determined to 
 go up (the going up) '. 
 
 The rendezvous apparently took place on the 9th day of the ist 
 month (Nisan), and the journey did not commence until the 12th day 
 (see chap. viii. 15 and 31). 
 
 upo7i the first day of the first month] i.e. ist of Nisan ( = Assyrian 
 Nisanu), part of March and April. 
 
 on the first day of the fifth month] The journey lasted throughout 
 18 days of Nisan, and the three months lyyar, Sivan, and Tammuz ; in 
 all about 108 days. As the crow flies, the distance from Babylon to 
 Jerusalem is over 500 miles. But the road followed by Ezra's caravan 
 made a long detour by Carchemish so as to avoid the desert, and could 
 hardly have been less than 900 miles. As the march was taken in the 
 height of summer (April — August), the travellers probably moved only 
 in the early morning and at night. A caravan with women and chil- 
 dren and household effects would move more slowly than a trained and 
 
92 EZRA, VII. [vv. lo, II. 
 
 xo good hand of his God upon him. For Ezra had prepared 
 
 his heart to seek the law of the Lord, and to do //, and to 
 
 II teach in Israel statutes and judgments. Now this is the copy 
 
 lightly equipped force. There is nothing therefore in the length of 
 time spent in the march to cause any surprise. See on viii. 32. 
 according lo the good hand of his God &c.] Cf. note on verse 6. 
 
 10. For Ezra had prepared (R. V. set) his heart &c.] The precise 
 meaning of the 'for' which determines the connexion of the verse, is 
 not very evident. The verse either explains the preceding clause and 
 attributes God's favour towards Ezra during the journey to the latter's 
 devotion to the Divine Law, or is added as a general comment on the 
 whole preceding section, explanatory of Ezra's resolve and expedition. 
 Those who take the former view illustrate it by ch. viii. 31, 32. But 
 the latter interpretation of the verse is to be preferred. It corresponds 
 better with the somewhat abrupt mention of Ezra's rule of life. It 
 harmonizes with the description of Ezra's chai-acter. ' Ezra had set his 
 heart «S:c.' That fact lay at the bottom of the religious movement 
 which he set on foot. It explained something veiy much more than 
 the mere fortunate issue of the journey. 
 
 ' Had set his heart '. A not uncommon phrase, cf. 2 Chron. xii. 14, 
 xix. 3, XXX. 19. In every instance the R.V. has rightly changed 'prepare 
 his heart ' to * set his heart '. The idea of the original is not ' prepared- 
 ness for the unforeseen', but 'fixity and stabihty of purpose'. Compare 
 the expression 'my heart is fixed' (Ps. Ivii. 7, cviii. i, cxii. 7) where 
 the same verb occurs. 
 
 to seek the law of the Lord] Cf. Ps. cxix. 45, 155 ; i Chron. xxviii. 8. 
 The search, no mere investigation of the letter, but for the sake of 
 ascertaining the true principles of practical life embodied in the law, 
 cf. 2 Chron. xiv. 4 '(Asa) commanded Judah lo seek the Lord the 
 God of their fathers, and to do the law and the commandment '. 
 
 and to teach] Those principles are self-diffusive, the teaching by 
 example as much as by precept, cf. 2 Chron. xvii. 9 ' And they (the 
 priests) taught in Judah, having the book of the law with them'. Ezra's 
 purpose to search for truth, to live by it and to teach it his countrymen 
 is an epitome of the ideal scribe's career. We may compare Acts i. i 
 'All that Jesus began both to do and to teach\ 
 
 statutes atid Judgments] These words in the Hebrew are singular, 
 and are rendered 'a statute and an ordinance' in Ex. xv. 25; Jos. 
 xxiv. 25, where they are lound together. The singular is generic. The 
 two words are frequently found together in the plural : e.g. Lev. xxvi. 
 46; Deut. iv. I, 5, 8, 14, V. i, 31, xi. 32, xii. i &c.; 2 Chron. vii. 17, 
 xix. 10 and Mai. iv. 4 'statutes and judgments'. 'Statutes' are the 
 appointed rules or regulations of conduct or ceremony, ' judgments ' 
 are the duties and rights determined by equity, authority, or custom. 
 The phrase is however used very generally without any close distinction 
 in the shades of meaning. 
 
 11—26. Artaxerxes' Commission to Ezra. 
 
 11. Noio] Cf. ver. I. This verse serves as a brief introduction. 
 
vv. 12, 13.] EZRA, VII. 93 
 
 of the letter that the king Artaxerxes gave unto Ezra the 
 priest, the scribe, even a scribe of the words of the command- 
 ments of the Lord, and of his statutes to Israel. 
 
 Artaxerxes, king of kings, unto Ezra the priest, a scribe of 
 the law of the God of heaven, perfect /^<2^f, and at such a 
 time. I make a decree, that all they of the people of Israel, 
 and ^his priests and Levites, in my realm, which are minded 
 of their own freewill to go up to Jerusalem, go with thee. 
 
 the copy of the lette}-] See on iv. 7, 11, 23. 
 
 Ezra the priest, the scribe\ See note on vv. r — 5 for Ezra's priestly 
 lineage. He is called 'the priest' ch. x. 10, 16; Neh. viii. 2; and so 
 commonly was this designation given him, that the title of i Esdras 
 appears in the Alexandrian MS. (Cod. A) as 6 tepeiJs 'the priest'. He 
 is called 'the scribe', Neh. viii. 4, 13, xii. 36, He receives the two- 
 fold appellation here and elsewhere in verses 12, 21; Neh. viii. 9, 
 xii. 26. 
 
 even a scribe'] R.V. even the scribe. The LXX. rendering 'the 
 scribe of the book of the words of the commandments of the Lord' 
 (r^i ypaixixaTei ^l^XIou Xoyojv evroKwv rod Kvpiov) was due to its misunder- 
 standing the repetition of the word * scribe ', and reading ' sepher ' ' a 
 book ', instead of ' sopher ' ' scribe'. 
 
 12 — 26. The contents of the letter are given in Aramaic. 
 
 12. king of kings'] title common in inscriptions of Persian monarchs. 
 (Cf. of Nebuchadnezzar, Ezek. xxvi. 7; Dan. ii. 37.) No mere 
 hyperbole, when the great empire included so many subject kingdoms. 
 
 a scribe] R.V. the scribe. 
 
 the God of heaven] See note on i. 2. 
 
 perfect peace, a^id at such a time] R.V. perfect and so forth. The 
 Aramaic word 'perfect', 'g'mir', occurs only here. The salutation, 
 probably a lengthy affair, is here condensed and the sentence breaks off 
 abruptly. The word ' perfect ' refers to ' the scribe ' Ezra and was 
 probably the first of a series of complimentary epithets. So the 
 Vulgate 'doctissimo'. The A.V. understands the words of saluta- 
 tion, cf. I Esdras, 'hail' {xa-lpeiv). The LXX. 'the word has been 
 ended and the answer' {TereXearai 6 Xoyos Kai t) aTroKpt-cns) is com- 
 pletely at fault. Others render the word as an adverb ( = 'completely'), 
 to be connected either with 'the scribe', or with the omitted words of 
 salutation, i.e. the completely (learned) scribe', or 'full greetings'". 
 
 'and so forth ', as in iv. 10, 11. 
 
 13. Permission to Jews to return with Ezra to Jerusalem. 
 /make a decree] The same phrase as in iv. 19, vi. 8, 11. 
 
 all they of the people of Israel] Cf. Cyrus's decree i. 3 'Whosoever 
 there is among all his people'. Here, by the side of 'the priests and 
 Levites', the expression, as in ver. 27, should be compared with 
 ii. 2. 
 
 ol his priests] R.V. their priests, i.e. the priests of the people. 
 
94 KZRA, VII. [vv. 14—17. 
 
 14 Forasmuch as thou art sent of the king, and of his seven 
 counsellers, to enquire concerning Judah and Jerusalem, 
 
 15 according to the law of thy God which is in thine hand; and 
 to carry the silver and gold, which the king and his counsel- 
 lers have freely offered unto the God of Israel, whose habi- 
 
 16 tation is in Jerusalem, and all the silver and gold that thou 
 canst find in all the province of Babylon, with the freewill 
 offering of the people, and of the priests, offering willingly 
 
 17 for the house of their God which is in Jerusalem : that thou 
 mayest buy speedily with this money bullocks, rams, lambs, 
 
 14. Object of the commission : {a) to investigate. 
 
 of the king, and of his seven counsellers'] R.V. marg. Aram, fj-om 
 before the king\ 
 
 'The counsellers' are mentioned again vv. 15, 28. 'The seven' 
 here spoken of should be compared with 'the seven princes of Peisia 
 and Media, which saw the king's face, and sat first in the kingdom' 
 (Esth. i. T4). 
 
 to enquire] R.V. to inquire. Same word in the original as ' to 
 make sea ch' in iv. 15. The object of the enquiry is not defined 
 except by the clause ' according to the law of thy God ' ; from which 
 we must conclude that the moral and religious condition of the Jews 
 at Jerusalem having occasioned anxiety to the Jews at Babylon, Ezra, 
 wiio in some way enjoyed the favour of the court, obtained permission 
 to enquire generally into the position. 
 
 Judah and Jertisaleni] Cf. v. i. 
 
 according to the law] Literally 'with, or, through the law'. 
 
 which is in thine hand] Not a book in Ezra's private possession, but 
 the law of the Israelite people, in which Ezra was reputed to be the 
 best instructed of his day. 
 
 16, {b) To carry (i) the gifts of the king and his council. 
 
 to carry] The LXX. mistaking two very similar letters (reading 
 D for 1) render els oIkov Kvpiov. 
 
 whose habitatioti is in Jerusalem] i.e. whose temple is in Jeru- 
 salem. 
 
 16. (ii) The gifts of the king's subjects in Babylon, (iii) freewill 
 ofierings of Jewish priests and people. 
 
 that thou canst find] R.V. that thou Shalt find. Permission is 
 granted to Ezra to ask for contributions from the people of the province 
 of Babylon. Many would be ready to assist the Jews who had lived 
 among them for a hundred and thirty years. 
 
 proz'ince of Babylon] Cf. Dan. ii. 48, 49, iii. i, &c. On 'the 
 province of the Medes' see vi. 2, 'the province of Judah' v. 8. 
 
 with the freewill offering] i.e. along with, over and above, the 
 voluntary contributions of their Jewish countrymen. 
 
 17. Purpose of the gifts and offerings : (i) sacrifices. 
 
 that thou mayest buy speedily] R.V. therefore thou Shalt buy with 
 
.] EZRA, VI I. 95 
 
 with their meat offerings and their drink offerings, and offer 
 them upon the altar of the house of your God which is 
 in Jerusalem. And whatsoever shall seem good to thee, and is 
 to thy brethren, to do with the rest of the silver and gold, 
 t/iat do after the will of your God. The vessels also that are 19 
 given thee for the service of the house of thy God, those 
 dehver thou before the God of Jerusalem. And whatsoever 20 
 more shall be needful for the house of thy God, which thou 
 shalt have occasion to bestow, bestow it out of the king's 
 treasure house. And I, even I Artaxerxes the king, do make 21 
 a decree to all the treasurers which are beyond the river, 
 
 all diligence; 'therefore', i.e. because of the gifts received from the 
 crown, the Babylonians ?nd the Jews. 
 
 'with all diligence ', see note on v. 8. The sacrifices here mentioned, 
 as in vi. 9, 10, consist of burnt offerings (bullocks, rams, lambs), with 
 their accompanying 'meal' and 'drink-offerings', Num. xv. i — 16. 
 
 meat offerings] R.V. meal offerings (i.e. 'Minkhah', as always 
 in R.V.). 
 
 18. (ii) General purposes. 
 
 that do after the will of yotir God] R.V. that do ye after &c. The 
 command is given to Ezra and his brethren, i.e. the priests. They who 
 disposed of the money expended upon the sacrifices, were to determine 
 as to the disposition of the remainder. 
 
 the will ofyotir God] with reference here to the Law. 
 
 19. The vessels a/j(?... those] R.V. And the vessels. The vessels 
 here mentioned are probably those enumerated chap. viii. 25 — 27, 
 gifts {avadr^ixaTo) to the Temple from the king and from individuals. 
 Quite separate from the sacred vessels (i. 7) restored by Cyras. 
 
 for the service ^&c.] A word occurring only here, connected with 
 the word rendered A.V. 'ministers', R.V. 'servants' in verse 24. 
 LXX. translates by Xeirovpyiav, Vulgate ' ministerium'. 
 
 defore the God of Jerusalem] A remarkable expression, probably a 
 condensed form for 'before the God of Israel, whose habitation is in 
 Jerusalem' (ver. 15). 
 
 20« Permission to draw, for further expenditure, upon the king's 
 treasury, i.e. upon the sums in the local treasury, which the satrap paid 
 annually out of the tribute money into the king's treasury at Susa or 
 Ecbatana. 
 
 out of the kings treasure house] See note on vi. 8 'of the king's 
 goods even of the tribute beyond the river, &c.' The treasury of the 
 satrapy of the country W. of the Euphrates (Abhar-Nahara). Cf. 'the 
 king's treasure house' v. 17, 'the king's house' vi. 4. 
 
 21. Credit to Ezra to be granted on local treasuries W. of the 
 Euphrates. Limit of credit stated in verse 22. 
 
 treasurers] Officials to be found in each satrapy and province, 
 
96 EZRA, VII. [vv. 22, 23. 
 
 that whatsoever Ezra the priest, the scribe of the law of the 
 God of heaven, shall require of you, it be done speedily, 
 
 22 unto an hundred talents of silver, and to an hundred mea- 
 sures ^ wheat, and to an hundred baths <?/"wine, and to an 
 hundred baths ^oil, and salt without prescribing how much. 
 
 23 Whatsoever is commanded by the God of heaven, let it be 
 diligently done for the house of the God of heaven : for why 
 should there be wrath against the realm of the king and his 
 
 (LXX. rais yci^ais. Vulg. 'custodibus arcse publicse '). On *gizbar' a 
 treasurer cf. i. 8. 
 
 beyond the river] i.e. this decree only applied to the financiers of the 
 particular satrapy to which Jerusalem belonged. 
 
 Ezra the priest, the scribe, &c.] See onver 12. 
 
 of yoii\ The decree here addresses 'the treasurers'. 
 
 speedily'] R.V. with all diligence. 
 
 22. iinto an hundred talents of silver] or ;^37, 500. Money reckoned 
 by weight. A 'kikkar ' or talent of silver was of value about ;^375. A 
 talent contained 60 manim or 3000 shekels, cf. on ii. 69. 
 
 an hundred measures of zvheat] The ' measure ' or 'cor', equivalent to 
 8 bushels or i quarter. We learn from Ezek. xlv. 14 that the 'cor' 
 contained 10 'baths' and was the same as the 'homer', see also 
 I Kings iv. -22, v. 11; 1 Chron. ii. to, xxvii. 5. 
 
 an hundred baths of wine] The 'bath' contained 6 or 7 gallons 
 ( = hins). 
 
 salt without prescribing how much] The importance of salt in the 
 sacrificial system appears from Levit. ii. 13 'And every oblation of thy 
 meat offering shalt thou season with salt, neither shalt thou suffer the 
 salt of the covenant of thy God to be lacking from thy meat offering : 
 with all thine oblations thou shalt offer salt', cf. vi. 9; Ezek. xliii. 24. 
 The translation of the A.V. and R.V. gives the general sense of the 
 original ( = 'which is not written'); LXX. oS oiiK eartv ypa<pri. The 
 Vulg. 'absque mensura'. 
 
 23. Whatsoever is commanded &c.] literally, "Whatsoever is from 
 the commandment", same word as in vi. 14. 
 
 let it be diligently done] R.V. Let it be done exactly. The word in 
 the original 'adrazda', occurs only here ; if, as is very probable, of Ba- 
 bylonian origin, it will mean "strenuously", being compounded of two 
 words 'adar' abundance or excellence, *azda' strength or firmness. 
 Others assign it a Persian origin. 
 
 The A.V. follows on the line of the Vulgate 'tribuatur diligenter'. 
 
 The LXX. irpoa^x^re [xt} tis eirLxeipria-r] missed the meaning alto- 
 gether. 
 
 ydr why should there be wrath &c.] Wrath •q'9aph', like the He- 
 brew 'qe9eph', especially of Divine displeasure, cf. Jos. ix. 20; i Chron. 
 xxvii. 24 ; 2 Chron. xix. 2, 10 ; Zech. i. 2, 15. 
 
 It is natural to connect this allusion to the Divine displeasure with 
 the disasters which had overtaken the Persian Empire since the days of 
 
vv. 24, 25.] EZRA, VI I. 97 
 
 sons ? Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests 24 
 and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this 
 house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or 
 custom, upon them. And thou, Ezra, after the wisdom of 25 
 thy God, that is in thine hand, set magistrates and judges, 
 which may judge all the people that are beyond the river, all 
 such as know the laws of thy God ; and teach ye them that 
 
 Marathon, and more especially with the revolt of Egypt in the year 
 560 B.C. It was in this very year 558 that a Persian army was marched 
 into Egypt to attempt its pacification. 
 
 The king desired to propitiate the wrath of the gods, and more espe- 
 cially to conciliate Divine favour upon the S.W. frontier. 
 
 the king and his sons] see note on vi. lo. The reference is to the 
 dynasty generally, but Artaxerxes left sons behind him, and they may 
 have been born at this time. 
 
 24. Nethinims] R.V. Nethinim, cf. ii. 43. 
 
 fuittisters] R.V. servants. The word in the original connected 
 with that rendered "service" (ver. 19). The expression "or servants" 
 would cover any other branch (e.g. Solomon's servants, ii. 55) of 
 attendants on the Temple. 
 
 toll, tribute, or custom] R.V. tribute, custom, or toll. See on v. 13. 
 
 Compare immunity from all taxation described by Josephus as having 
 been granted to the priests and Levites by Antiochus the Great {Atit. 
 XII. 3, 3), "And let the senate and the priests and the scribes of the 
 Temple and the sacred singers be discharged from all poll-money and 
 the crown tax, and other taxes also." (Tran. Whiston.) 
 
 25. Ezra again addressed, empowered to appoint judges for Jews 
 in the country W. of the Euphrates and to inflict penalties for the 
 violation of the law. 
 
 after the wisdotn of God, that is in thine hand] cf. ver. 14, ' the law of 
 thy God which is in thy hand'. Law in its obligation, wisdom in its 
 spirit. 
 
 magistrates and judges] The former is the same word as the 'Judges' 
 (Shophetim) of the book so called. The two words, if capable of dis- 
 tinction, represent administrative and judicial functions. 
 
 all such as know the laws of thy God] No authority save over those 
 of Israelite race or Jewish religion. But this commission gave Ezra 
 and the community at Jerusalem the right to exercise special powers 
 over all countrymen in Syria, Phoenicia and Palestine. 
 
 and teach ye them that know them not] R.V. and teach ye him that 
 knoweth them not. The injunction, expressed in the plural, seems to 
 include the leaders of the Jews along with Ezra, with special reference 
 to the 'magistrates and judges' to be appointed. The primary inten- 
 tion of this sentence is to ensure instruction in the Law for those Jews, 
 who by living among the heathen had grown to neglect or to forget the 
 obligations of their religion. It does not amount to a command ' to 
 proselytize', but would, no doubt, include the instruction of proselytes, 
 and grant general permission to teach the Jewish religion. 
 
 EZRA 7 
 
98 EZRA, VII. [vv. 26—28. 
 
 26 know tJiem not. And whosoever will not do the law of thy 
 God, and the law of the king, let judgment be executed 
 speedily upon him, whether // be unto death, or to banish- 
 ment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment. 
 
 27 Blessed be the Lord God of our fathers, which hath put 
 such a timig as this in the king's heart, to beautify the house 
 
 28 of the Lord which is in Jerusalem : and hath extended 
 mercy unto me before the king, and his counsellers, and 
 before all the king's mighty princes. And I was strengthened 
 
 26. Penalty for Contumacy. 
 
 whosoever zvill not do] i.e. whoever of the Israelite race or of those 
 that had attached themselves to the Jewish religion. 
 
 speedily] R.V. with all diligence. 
 
 death . . . banishment. . . confiscation . . dmprisonment] The king hands over 
 to Ezra plenaiy powers of punishment. 
 
 banishment] R.V. marg. Aram, rooting ont. LXX. ivaiZda. Vulg. 
 * exilium'. ' Banishment' is probably the meaning of the word, coming 
 as it does between 'death' and 'confiscation'. Some explain it of 
 'excommunication' or separation 'from the congregation'. 
 
 It is not to be supposed that Ezra's commission superseded the official 
 governors of the satrapy. Rather his powers (i) to appoint judges, 
 (2) to instruct, (3) to inflict penalties, were given him to secure the 
 strengthening of the religious organization based on the Law, which it 
 was his object to make permanent and universal for his countrymen. 
 
 27, 28. Ezra's Thanksgiving. 
 
 Abrupt transition from the letter of Artaxerxes to Ezra's thanks- 
 giving. Compare chap. vi. 8, the transition from the quotation of 
 Cyrus's decree to the words of Darius. 
 
 These two verses contain Ezra's outburst of praise to God for the 
 favours conceded by Darius. 
 
 The Hebrew is here resumed. 
 
 27. Blessed be the Lord God of our fathers] R.V. Blessed be the 
 LORD, the God of our fathers. A similar phrase occurs in viii. 28, x. i r. 
 We find it elsewhere in i Chron. xxix. 18; 2 Chron. xx. 6. Cf. Acts 
 iii. 13. 
 
 The thanksgiving of Ezra relates to the blessing which had been 
 vouchsafed not to himself personally but to the whole nationality. 
 
 hath put into the heart] as in Neh. ii. 12, vii. 5 ; i Kings x. 24. 
 
 to beautify] This effect of the king's bounty would result from the 
 general grant contained in vv. 14 — 20. The actual adornment of the 
 Temple had not been specified. 
 
 28. hath extended mercy unto me] First usage of the ist person, 
 which continues to close of chap. ix. ' Hath extended mercy', cf. ix. y ; 
 Gen. xxxix. 21. 
 
 his counsellers] see on ver. I4. 
 
vv. 1—3.] EZRA, VIII. 99 
 
 as the hand of the Lord my God was upon me, and I 
 gathered together out of Israel chief men to go up with me. 
 
 These are now the chief of their fathers, and this is the 8 
 genealogy of them that went up with me from Babylon, 
 in the reign of Artaxerxes the king. Of the sons of 2 
 Phinehas ; Gershom : of the sons of Ithamar ; Daniel : of 
 the sons of David ; Hattush. Of the sons of Shechaniah, 3 
 
 as the hand...'W2LS Kpoji] R.V. according to the hand: see on 
 ver. 6. 
 
 out of Israel] i.e. of the laity, cf. ii. 2. 
 chief n-\Qn] literally, 'heads', cf. v. 10. 
 
 Chap. VIII. 1—20. The List of those that went up with 
 
 Ezra to Jerusalem. 
 {a) 1—14. List of the Heads of Fathers' Houses, accom- 
 panying Ezra. 
 
 1. These are now the chief of their fathers'] R.V. Now these are the 
 heads of their fathers' houses. Literally, ' now these are the heads of 
 their fathers', a shortened form of expression, as in ii. 68. 
 
 and this is the genealogy of them] In the following list we have the 
 names both of the houses and of their chiefs or representatives. 
 On the word ' genealogy' see ii. 62. The LXX. ol bd-qyol. 
 
 2. The Priestly and Royal houses. The numbers from these houses 
 are not given. They are placed in a position of honour at the head of 
 the list. 
 
 Of the sons of Phinehas ; Gershom] R.V. Of the sons of Phinehas, 
 Gershom. The punctuation is corrected throughout 2 — 14. 
 
 The family of Phinehas (son of Eleazar, son of Aaron) is represented 
 by Gershom. To his ' house' Ezra must have belonged (cf. vii. i — 5). 
 
 Daniel] represented the line or family of Ithamar, Aaron's younger 
 son, and gave his name to a house (see Neh. x. 6). His name appears 
 as Gamael in r Esd. viii. 29. From this mention of "the sons of 
 Ithamar we gather that the priesthood was not, as Ezekiel required 
 (xliii. 19, xlv. 15) limited to the line of Zadok. 
 
 That Gershom and Daniel were not the only two priests, but heads 
 of two 'fathers' houses', is shown by ver. 24. 
 
 of the sons of David ; Hattush] According to i Chron. iii. 22, the 
 words "Of the sons of Shechaniah" (ver. 3) belong to the genea- 
 logy of Hattush. "And the sons of Shechaniah (query, Zerubbabel's 
 grandson); Shemaiah: and the sons of Shemaiah ; Hattush and Igal." 
 Hattush was therefore the grandson of Shechaniah, and (?) the great- 
 great-grandson of Zerubbabel. The line of David was represented by 
 the house of Shechaniah, which was represented by Hattush. 
 
 I Esd. viii. 29 has "Ot the sons of David, Lettus the son of Seche- 
 nias", which in conjunction with the rest of the list seems to show that 
 our text should run "Of the sons of David, Hattush, the son of She- 
 chaniah". This Hattush of the lineage of David must therefore not 
 
EZRA, VIII. 
 
 [v. 3- 
 
 of the sons of Pharosh ; Zechariah : and with him were 
 reckoned by genealogy of the males an hundred and fifty. 
 
 be confounded with the priest of the same name mentioned Neh. x. 4, 
 xii. 2. 
 
 3 — 14. The register of the laity or "the men of the people of 
 Israel" as in ii. 2. 
 
 The names of these houses with the exception of Shechaniah (ver. 5) 
 and Shelomith (ver. 10) appear also in chap. ii. and Neh. vii. But it 
 is most probable that the text has in the case of both these exceptions 
 suffered (see notes on the verses), and that the houses of Zattu and 
 Bani (Ezra ii. 8, 10) are represented by Shechaniah and Shelomith. 
 
 Twelve households are represented by their chiefs and the number of 
 their males given. The number 'twelve' was perhaps designedly taken 
 to symbolize the united Israel. 
 
 The parallel list in 1 Esdras does not contain many variations. The 
 following table places them side by side. 
 
 Ezra 
 Of the sons of 
 
 „ Parosh, Zechariah, 150 
 Pahath-Moab, E- 
 liehoenaijtheson 
 ofZerahiah, 200 
 
 „ Shechaniah, the son 
 
 of Jahaziel, 300 
 
 Adin, Ebedjtheson 
 
 of Jonathan, 
 Elam.Jeshaiah the 
 
 son of Athalian, 
 Shephatiah, Zeba- 
 
 diah, the son of 
 
 Michael, 
 Joab, 01:)adiah, the 
 
 son of Jehiel, 
 Shelomith, the son 
 
 of Josiphiah, 
 
 Bebai, Zechariah, 
 
 the son of Bebai, 
 Azgad, Jonathan, 
 
 the son of Hak- 
 
 katan, 
 Adonikam, Eliphe- 
 
 let, Jeuel, She- 
 
 maiah, 
 Bigvai, Uthai and 
 
 Zabbud, 
 
 50 
 
 80 
 
 218 
 
 160 
 
 28 
 
 60 
 
 Esdras viii. 30 ff. 
 
 Of the sons of Zathoe, Seche- 
 nias, the son of 
 Jezelus, 300 
 
 „ Adin, Obeth, the 
 
 son of Jonathan, 250 
 
 ,, Elam, Josias, the 
 
 son of Gotholias 70 
 
 ,, Saphatias, Zaraias, 
 
 son of Michael, 70 
 
 ,, Joab, Abadias, the 
 
 son of Jezelus, 212 
 
 „ Banid, Assalimoth, 
 the son of Josa- 
 phias, 160 
 
 ,, Astath, Johannes, the 
 
 son of Acatan, no 
 
 Adonicam the last, 
 ...Eliphalet, Jeuel 
 and Samaias, 70 
 
 Bago, Uthi, the son 
 of Istalcurus, 70 
 
vv. 4—13] EZRA, VIII. loi 
 
 Of the sons of Pahath-Moab ; Elihoenai the son of Zerahiah, 4 
 and with him two hundred males. Of the sons of Shecha s 
 niah; the son of Jahaziel, and with him three hundred 
 males. Of the sons also of Adin ; Ebed the son of Jo- 6 
 nathan, and with him fifty males. And of the sons of 7 
 Elam ; Jeshaiah the son of AthaHah, and with him seventy 
 males. And of the sons of Shephatiah ; Zebadiah the son s 
 of Michael, and with him fourscore males. Of the sons of 9 
 Joab ; Obadiah the son of Jehiel, and with him two hun- 
 dred and eighteen males. And of the sons of Shelomith ; 10 
 the son of Josiphiah, and with him an hundred and three- 
 score males. And of the sons of Bebai ; Zechariah the n 
 son of Bebai, and with him twenty and eight males. And 12 
 of the sons of Azgad; Johanan the son of Hakkatan, and 
 with him an hundred and ten males. And of the last sons 13 
 
 The total numbers given in the Hebrew text are 1496, in i Esdr. 
 1690. 
 
 3. This verse should begin with ' of the sons of Parosh ' (see note 
 on ver. 2). 
 
 'by genealogy of the males'. The present list differs in this respect 
 from that recorded in chap. ii. There the total numbers are given ; 
 here the number of the males only. 
 
 4. Elihoenai] R.V. Eliehoenai, literally, 'unto Jehovah mine eyes'. 
 
 5. The Hebrew text gives Shechaniah as the house, but fails to 
 give the name of its representative. * Shecaniah' does not occur in the 
 other lists as the name of a house. The text of i Esdr. has ' of the 
 sons of Zathoe, Shechenias the son of Jezelus' (i Esdr. viii. 32). 
 'Zathoe' is the same as Zattu (ii. 8). This name has most probably 
 accidentally dropped out. We should therefore read "Of the sons of 
 Zattu, Shechaniah the son of Jahaziel', i.e. Shechaniah is the repre- 
 sentative of the house of Zattu : so also the LXX. (otto viGiv Zadorjs 
 Sexei'fas w^s'A^njX). 
 
 6. The Hebrew text and the LXX. give 50 : i Esdras gives 250. 
 The smaller number is probably the original. 
 
 10. Here, as in ver. 5, the name of the representative is not given, 
 while the name of the house Shelomith does not occur in the other 
 lists. 
 
 I Esdras viii. 36 gives "Of the sons of Banid, Assalimoth son of 
 Josaphias", which is here supported by the LXX. (a7r6 tQv viwv Baavi, 
 ^eXifjLovd vibs 'loiaecpla). This shows the original reading to have been 
 in all probability *'of the sons of Bani (cf. ii. 10) Shelomith the son of 
 Josiphiah ". 
 
 13. 0/ the last sons of Adonikam, whose natnes are these] R.V. 
 Of the sons of Adonikam, that were the last ; and these are their 
 names. 
 
EZRA, VIII. [vv. 14, 15. 
 
 of Adonikam, whose names are these, Eliphelet, Jeiel, and 
 A Shemaiah, and with them threescore males. Of the sons 
 
 also of Bigvai; Uthai, and Zabbud, and with them seventy 
 
 males. 
 iS And I gathered them together to the river that runneth 
 
 * The sons of Adonikam, that were the last'. (Acheronim) is a peculiar 
 expression. It is generally supposed that the elder branches of this 
 house had joined with Zerubbabel (ii. 13) and that the younger 
 branches ('the last') returned with Ezra. 
 
 Others have supposed that the sons of Adonikam attached them- 
 selves * late', last of all, to Ezra's company. 
 
 It is noteworthy that this 'household', is represented not by one 
 name, but by three. Perhaps we have here the names of three families, 
 Eliphelet, Jeuel and Shemaiah, who had but recently attached them- 
 selves to the Adonikam 'house'. It may be conjectured that these 
 'last' sons of Adonikam had not yet become sufficiently united to have 
 a single representative. 
 
 14. The house of Bigvai is represented by two names, though the 
 parallel passage of i Esdr. viii. 40 gives but one, i.e. Uthi the son of 
 Istalcurus. 
 
 Zabbud'] R.V. marg. Another reading is Zaccur. The variation 
 illustrates the liability to confusion, in the MSS., between S and D 
 {beth — h and caph = c), and 1 and "1 {ddletk = di and resh = x). 
 
 {b) 15—20. The Encampment of Ahava ; the Absence of 
 Levites. 
 
 15. The Rendezvous. 
 
 15. the river that runneth to Ahava] 'Ahava' is here the name of a 
 place, which seems to have also given its name to the river. Ewald 
 conjectured that the river Ahava {or Peleg- Ahava) was to be identified 
 with the Palacopas, which flowed S. of Babylon. Rawlinson identifies 
 with the river Is mentioned by Herodotus (i. 179) flowing from the E. 
 into the Euphrates at a point, where stood a town of the same name 
 (the modern Hit), an eight days' journey distant from Babylon. He 
 points out that a well-known town upon the line of march would be a 
 likely spot for a halting-place. 
 
 We do not however gatiier from the verse that Ezra's march had 
 actually begun. The rendezvous at Ahava enabled Ezra to make the 
 necessary preliminary review of his large company. It is hardly likely 
 that this first review would be held at a great distance from Baby- 
 lon, where the great majority of the Jews were settled. On the other 
 hand it is equally unlikely that a gathering of 1500 men and of a cara- 
 van which must have comprised 7000 or 8000 souls would have met 
 within the walls of Babylon. 
 
 The conjecture therefore that the Ahava was one of the many canals 
 or artificial rivers in the vicinity of Babylon, appears to be the most 
 probable. Perhaps there was a specially influential settlement of Jews 
 
V. i6.] EZRA, VIII. 
 
 to Ahava ; and there abode we in tents three days : and 
 I viewed the people, and the priests, and found there 
 none of the sons of Levi. Then sent I for Eliezer, i6 
 
 on the banks of the Ahava, as there had been once on the banks of the 
 Chebar (cf. Ezek. i. i &c.). For purposes of lustration the pious Jews 
 may have met with special frequency by the banks of rivers (cf. the 
 proseuchae and synagogues of later times), "By the rivers of Babylon," 
 (Ps. cxxxvii. i). See Acts xvi. 13. 
 
 I Esdras viii. 41 renders by 'a river called Theras' (^Trt tou \ey6/j.e- 
 vov Qepav irbraixov). The LXX. gives irpo$ top Evi (ver. 21 'Aove). 
 
 abode tve in tents'] R.V. we encamped. The three days' encampment 
 preceded the final move. The short interval was employed by Ezra in 
 securing the services of Levites. As the camp was struck and the 
 march begun on the 12th day (see ver. 31), the encampment lasted 
 from the 9th to the 12th. Ezra's preparations were begun on the ist 
 day (see vii. 9 and note). 
 
 I viewed] i.e. gave attention to. The same word occurs in Neh. xiii. 7, 
 " I came to Jerusalem and understood of the evil." Cf. Prov. vii. 7, 
 "I discerned 2jnor\g the youths". Job xlii. 3; Dan. xii. 8. 
 
 the people, and the priests] i.e. the laity (cf. ii. 2), and the priests. 
 
 and found there none of the sons of Levi] On the occasion of Zerubba- 
 bel's journey from Babylon, only seventy-four Levites accompanied him, 
 although over four thousand priests returned (cf ii. 36, &c.). The back- 
 wardness of the Levites to join in the return to the Temple-worship is 
 probably to be explained by their having been especially concerned in 
 {a) the worship at the high places, {b) the idolatrous forms of worship, 
 which the reformation of Josiah had sought to abolish. See Introduc- 
 tion § 7. iv. C. 
 
 16. Then sent I for Eliezer, <S:c.] '■^ For''\ [a) The preposition in 
 the original is sometimes found as the sign of the object : thus 2 Chron. 
 xvii. 7, A. v., "he sent to his princes, even to Ben-hail", R.V. "he 
 sent his princes, even Benhail", &c. This is the alternative rendering 
 (" then sent I liliezer") of the Vulgate (misi Eliezer et Ariel et Seme- 
 jam, &c.) and the Syriac, and gives the most natural sense. Ver. 16 
 then gives the general fact, ver. 17 the details of the mission. (1!^) The 
 rendering of the A.V., R.V. and LXX. (aTr^o-retXa ry 'EXedj'ap) is quite 
 literal: ver. 16 then contains Ezra's summons to these leading men: 
 ver. 17 the mission, with which he empowers them, upon their coming 
 into his presence. Of these two renderings the first seems to give the 
 better sense. It hardly seems suited to the context to mention that 
 Ezra, who commanded the whole assembly, summoned to his presence 
 certain leading men before sending them upon an important mission. 
 On the other hand it was quite in keeping with Ezra's position to 
 despatch such men upon his errand at once; and while the first verse 
 (ver. 16) records the fact of the message and the names of the leading 
 men, whom he sends, the second verse (ver. 17) describes the object and 
 purpose of the mission. The peculiar usage of the preposition is quite 
 in character with the style of the Hebrew in the books. The probability 
 
I04 EZRA, VIII. [v. 17. 
 
 for Ariel, for Shemaiah, and for Elnathan, and for Jarib, 
 and for Elnathan, and for Nathan, and for Zechariah, 
 and for MeshuUam, chief vwi ; also for Joiarib, and 
 17 for Elnathan, men of understanding. And I sent them 
 with commandment unto Iddo the chief at the place 
 
 that this is the correct rendering is increased by the variation in the 
 reading of ver. 17 (see note). 
 
 chief m^xC^ Literally 'heads': not 'the heads' referred to in ver. i, 
 but certain leaders. 
 
 men of nnderstanding\ R.V. whicli were teachers. Marg. which had 
 tdtderstanding. The word in the original occurs in Neh. viii. 7 (R.V. 
 'caused. ..to understand'); i Chron. xv. 22, xxv. 7 (R.V. 'skilful'); 
 2 Chron. xxxiv. 12 (R.V. 'that... could skill of). 
 
 Joiarib and Elnathan receive a distinguishing epithet corresponding 
 to the 'chief men' applied to the other names. It is not probable that 
 a merely general epithet describing mental capacity should be given to 
 two out of the party of ten. The word therefore is better rendered 
 "teachers", describing their position, than 'men of understanding', 
 describing their abilities (LXX. a-vvtiPTas, Vulg. sapientes). 
 
 17. And I sent them with comtnandmenf] R.V. And I sent them 
 forth. Marg. another reading is I gave the?Ji command tnent. The A.V. 
 combines the two readings. 
 
 The variety of reading arises from the uncertainty felt as to the true 
 rendering of the previous verse. The rendering 'then sent I for' in 
 that verse requires in this verse the reading 'And I sent them forth' 
 (C'thib). The rendering ' then sent I ' could be followed by either ' I 
 sent them forth ' or 'I gave them commandment' (K'ri), the latter being 
 less a repetition of the previous sentence. 
 
 Supposing that "I gave them commandment" was the original 
 reading, we can see that, when the Hebrew idiom in ver. 16 ' then 
 sent I' (the object expressed by a preposition) dropped out of sight 
 and the literal translation seemed to be "then sent I for", a reason was 
 given for the very slight alteration, by which " I gave them command- 
 ment " was altered to "I sent them forth" (LXX. ki,r\ver^Ka). This 
 accounts for the existence of the two readings, and for the prevalence of 
 that accepted in the R.V. text. But the R.V. margin seems prefer- 
 able. It gives a natural sense and agrees well with what precedes and 
 follows. On the other hand the alternative reading "I sent them 
 forth" represents a word of great frequency in the sense of 'bring forth 
 or out' (e.g. i. 7, x. 3, 19; Neh. ix. 7, 15): it denotes 'deliverance', 
 'dismissal', 'removal', 'utterance': but is not at all suited to the 
 description of the mission. It occurs very often in the O.T., but it 
 may be questioned whether it is ever elsewhere rendered "send foi-th". 
 
 unto Iddo the chief at the place Casiphia] Lit, ' Iddo the head '. 
 Iddo clearly exercised some position of authority over the Jews, and 
 particularly over the Levites and Nethinim settled at Casiphia. We 
 may conjecture that Iddo was a Levite presiding over a college of young 
 
V. i8.] EZRA, VIII. 105 
 
 Casiphia, and I told them what they should say unto Iddo, 
 and to his brethren the Nethinims, at the place Casiphia, 
 that they should bring unto us ministers for the house of 
 our God. And by the good hand of our God upon us they 18 
 brought us a man of understanding, of the sons of Mahli, 
 
 Levites and Nethinim, and who might be ready to send young men to 
 Ezra's aid. 
 
 Casiphia] which some of the older commentators used to identify 
 with the ' Caspian', was probably some village in the neighbourhood of 
 Babylon. The LXX. rendered the word from the similarity of the first 
 part of the word to the Hebrew ' ceseph ' (silver), ev dpyvpicp tou tottov. 
 
 and I told them what they should say] Lit. 'And I put words in 
 their mouth to speak '. The general charge comprised verbatim in- 
 structions. On the phrase "put words... in mouth", cf. Ex. iv. 15; 
 Num. xxiii. 16; Deut. xxxi. 19. 
 
 unto Iddo, and to his brethren the Nethinims] R.V. unto Iddo and 
 Ms brethren the Nethinim. Marg. ' The text as pointed has, Iddo, his 
 brother.^ The text is here corrupt. The uncertainty as to Iddo's 
 position, and the unlikelihood that a man of such influence would have 
 been one of the Nethinim, has increased the doubtfulness of the true 
 reading, {a) Adopting the pointed text, and supposing the letter Vaw 
 (=and) to be accidentally dropped after the name of Iddo which ends 
 with that letter, we could render 'unto Iddo and his brother, the 
 Nethinim '. (/;) Altering the vowel-points and assuming the omission 
 of the same letter, we obtain the rendering of the A.V. and R.V. "unto 
 Iddo and his brethren the Nethinim " (cf. iii. 2, Jeshua and his brethren 
 the priests), {c) Supposing a second similar omission to have taken 
 place, we have "unto Iddo and his brethren (i.e. Levites) and the 
 Nethinim ". 
 
 Of these alternative renderings (r) appears to be the most probable. 
 The appeal is made to Iddo and to his brethren the Levites. As the 
 response (j8 — 26) comes from Levites and Nethinim, we conclude that 
 Iddo presided over the Nethinim as well as over the Levites. Just as 
 a High-priest himself a priest, would preside over priests and Levites, 
 so Iddo himself a Levite would preside over Levites and Nethinim. The 
 Nethinim may have been more numerous and influential than the 
 Levites. At any rate it is not likely that Iddo himself belonged to 
 this inferior class. 
 
 ministers] A very general word in the original, to include Levites 
 and Nethinim. Cf. i Sam. ii. 11. The LXX., misreading a letter, 
 renders "singers" {^hovrai). 
 
 18. And by the good hand] R.V. And according to the good hand. 
 For the phrase see on chap. vii. 6. 
 
 a man of icnderstanding] R.V. a man of discretion. Marg. Or 
 Ish-sechel. Discretion [sechel). Cf. i Chr. xxii. 12; 2 Chr. ii. 12; 
 Prov. xix. 11: = understanding, Prov. iii. 4, xiii. 15, xvi. 22; Ps. cxi. 
 10: = wisdom Prov. xii. 8; xxiii. 9: =policy Dan. viii. 25. The fact 
 that we find in the following clause "And Sherebiah", &c. favours the 
 
[o6 EZRA, VIII. [vv. 19—21. 
 
 the son of Levi, the son of Israel ; and Sherebiah, with his 
 
 19 sons and his brethren, eighteen ; and Hashabiah, and with 
 him Jeshaiah of the sons of Merari, his brethren and their 
 
 20 sons, twenty ; also of the Nethinims, whom David and the 
 princes had appointed for the service of the Levites, two 
 hundred and twenty Nethinims : all of them were expressed 
 
 21 by name. Then I proclaimed a fast there, at the river 
 
 supposition that we ought to have the name of the individual mentioned 
 who was "of the sons of Mahli". Either, as is most probable, this 
 proper name has dropped out of the text before the words "a man of 
 discretion", or as is possible 'Ish-sechel' (LXX. dvr]p Saxwi/) is a proper 
 name (cf. Ishbosheth, Ish-tob, 2 Sam. x. 6; Ish-hod, i Chr. vii. 18). But 
 such names are rare, and the name Ish-sechel does not occur elsewhere. 
 The view that the 'and' before Sherebiah has been carelessly inserted, 
 and that Sherebiah himself is the man of discretion, fails to account for 
 the order of the Hebrew words. 
 
 Mahli, the son of Levi, &c.] Cf. Ex. vi. 16, 19; i Chron. vi. 19. 
 Mahli was son of Merari, and therefore a grandson of Levi. 
 
 Sherebiah^ Cf. ver. 24; Neh. viii. 7, ix. 4, x. 12, xii. 24. 
 
 19. Hashabiah'] see ver. 24; Neh. x. 11, xii. 24. 
 
 20. also of the Nethinims] R.V. and of the NetMnim. 
 
 lohoni David and the princes had appointed] R.V. whom David and 
 the princes had given. * Given ', not 'appointed ', more literal rendering 
 and corresponds with meaning of Nethinim ( = given). See on ii. 55. 
 The sentence illustrates the prevailing tradition as to the origin of 
 the Nethinim. 
 
 for the service of] here as usually = "for ministration or service to"; 
 cf. Ex. XXX. 16: frequent in Chron. in the phrase "the service of the 
 house of God". Sometimes = " service rendered by", e.g. Ex. xxxviii. 
 21. For its primary meaning cf. Neh. v. 18 (bondage). 
 
 all... expressed by name] cf. the same phrase i Chron. xii. 31, xvi. 41 ; 
 2 Chron. xxviii. 15, xxxi. 19. The metaphor of the original is that of 
 being 'pricked' off on the list. The list was probably before the com- 
 piler, who does not think it worth while to occupy space with the 
 names. 
 
 21—36. The Events of the Journey. 
 21 — 30. Preparations for the journey, (a) 21 — 23. The 
 
 RENDEZVOUS AND SOLEMN FAST AT AhAVA. 
 
 21. I proclaimed a fast] For "fasting" see also on ix. 3, x. 6. 
 Here however the fast is not proclaimed in connexion with any special 
 commission of sin. Ezra appoints the fast {a) as the symbol of sub- 
 mission before God's will and of repentance from sin, [b) as the means 
 of intensifying religious fervour in prayer through the restraint laid upon 
 physical appetite, (<r) as the testimony that ' man lives not by bread 
 alone '. 
 
 Viewed in this aspect, the public fast proclaimed by Ezra was a 
 
V. 22.] EZRA, VIII. 107 
 
 Ahava, that we might afflict ourselves before our God, to 
 seek of him a right way for us, and for our little ones, and 
 for all our substance. For I was ashamed to require of the 22 
 king a band of soldiers and horsemen to help us against the 
 enemy in the way : because we had spoken unto the king, 
 saying, The hand of our God is upon all them for good that 
 
 spiritual exercise; from which the pagan notion of propitiating God's 
 favour by voluntary human suffering was altogether absent. Cf. 2 Chron. 
 XX. 3. 
 
 Compare the fast of Judas Maccabeus and his companions (i Mace, 
 iii. 47) before they addressed themselves to the conflict with the forces 
 of Antiochus Epiphanes. 
 
 that we 7night afflict oierselves] R.V. that we might humble our- 
 selves. A moral not a physical discipline. The self-affliction or 
 humiUation is expressed by a verb which gave rise to the regular word 
 in later Hebrew for fasting, "Taanith". 
 
 a right taaj'] R.V. a straight way. Both a direct road, that they 
 might not have to turn aside on account of attacks and dangers from 
 robbers or enemies, and a level road without obstacles and inequalities. 
 Cf. Is. xl. 3, 'make straight (or level) in the desert a high way for our 
 God'; where the same word occurs. 
 
 our siibstance\ same word as is rendered ' goods ' in eh. i. 6 (see 
 note). 
 
 22. / was ashamed] same word as in ix. 6 * I am ashamed ', Jer. 
 xxxi. 19 ' I was ashamed '. 
 
 to require] R.V. to ask. The simplest rendering for the commonest 
 word. 
 
 a band of soldiers and horsemcji] Such an escort as Nehemiah had, 
 Neh. ii. 9, ' Now the king had sent with me captains of the army and 
 horsemen '. 
 
 a band of soldiers] This word is rendered dvvafxiv by the LXX. and 
 *auxilium' by the Vulgate. It is the word rendered 'army' in the 
 passage just quoted (Neh. ii. 9) and in Neh. iv. 2; it is a word of fre- 
 quent occurrence, e.g. 2 Kings vi. 14, 'horses, and chariots, and a great 
 host'. Here it simply means 'armed men'. 
 
 against the enemy in the way] against 'the enemy' generally. No 
 enemy in particular, Samaritan (iv. i) or Syrian, is contemplated. 
 Rather the reference is to the robbers and Bedouins of the desert, who 
 might easily inflict damage upon a large caravan by robbing stragglers 
 and harassing the line of march. 
 
 The hand of God] cf. on vii. 6. 
 
 upon all thefn for good that seek him] R.V. upon all them that seek 
 him, for good. The word rendered 'seek' here (biqqesh) differs from 
 that rendered by the same English word in iv. 2, vi. 21, vii. 10 (darash). 
 Both words occur in the same verse in Deut. iv. 29, ' But if from thence 
 ye shall seek (biqqesh) the LORD thy God, thou shalt find him if thou 
 search after (darash) him with all thy heart and all thy soul'. This word 
 
io8 EZRA, VIII. [vv. 23, 24. 
 
 seek him ; but his power and his wrath is against all them 
 
 23 that forsake him. So we fasted and besought our God for 
 this : and he was intreated of us. 
 
 24 Then I separated twelve of the chief of the priests, 
 Sherebiah, Hashabiah, and ten of their brethren with them, 
 
 (biqqesh) is the commonest, denoting 'to look for', e.g. ii. 62; Gen. 
 xxxvii. 16; Ps. xxiv. 6. 
 for good] cf. vHi. 9; Neh. ii. t8. 
 
 his pozver and his ivrath] cf. the same two words in Ps. xc. 11, 
 •who knoweth the power of thine anger', i.e. His might revealed 
 in displeasure. 
 
 against all them that forsake him] as if Ezra and his companions, if 
 they had relied on the protection of an armed escort rather than of 
 their God, would have 'forsaken' Him. A common expression (cf. 
 
 1 Sam. xii. 10; Is. Ixv. 11; 2 Chron. vii. 22, xii. 5, xiii. 11, xxi. 10, 
 xxiv. 20, 24) for religious faithlessness. 
 
 23. /or this] either prayed for this favour, or as in ix. 15, 'because 
 of this', i.e. on the ground of this mingled faith and self-abasement. 
 
 and he was intreated oftis] This phrase occurs also in Gen. xxv. 21 ; 
 
 2 Sam. xxi. 14, xxiv. 25 j 2 Chron. xxxiii. 13. 
 
 24 — 30. {]}) Provision for the custody of the votive gifts 
 
 AND offerings DURING THE MARCH. 
 
 24. twelve of the chief of the priests] R.V. twelve of the chiefs of 
 the priests. Literally 'twelve of the princes of the priests'. The 
 R.V. margin adds, In Neh. xii. 24, Lcuites. 
 
 Sherebiah, Hashabiah] R.V. even Sherebiah, Hashabiah. Marg. 
 besides. The exact meaning is not very evident. 
 
 {a) The A.V. follows the Vulgate, "et separavi de principibus sacer- 
 dotum duodecim, Sarabiam et Hasabiam et cum eis de fratribus eorum 
 decem ". The preposition which in the original stands before ' Sherebiah' 
 is then treated (as in ver. 16) as the sign of the object. The objection 
 to this is that vSherebiah and Hashabiah seem to have been Levites. 
 
 {b) The LXX. translates the preposition as the sign of the dative, 
 'And I assigned of the chiefs of the priests twelve unto Sherebiah, &c." 
 {koX 8ieaT€i\a...T(^ llapatqi). The objection to be made to this rendering 
 is that it represents the priests as placed in a subordinate position to 
 those who were Levites. 
 
 (<:) I Esd. viii. 54 and Eresibia {KaVEpeai^iav) suggests another read- 
 ing (1 for ^), "And I separated... twelve and Sherebiah, &c." 
 
 {d) The same result is obtained by the rendering of the R.V. margin, 
 which is to be preferred, "I separated twelve of the chiefs of the priests, 
 besides Sherebiah, Hashabiah and ten of their brethren with them ", i.e. 
 12 priests in addition to 12 Levites (Sherebiah, Hashabiah and their 10 
 brethren). Accepting this rendering, we see that Ezra selected two 
 groups of twelve, one of priests, the other of Levites, to act as guardians 
 of the treasure, which agrees with ver. 30. The names of Slierebiah 
 
vv. 25—27.] EZRA, VIII. 109 
 
 and weighed unto them the silver, and the gold, and the 25 
 vessels, eveti the offering of the house of our God, which the 
 king, and his counsellers, and his lords, and all Israel 
 there present, had offered : I even weighed unto their hand 26 
 six hundred and fifty talents of silver, and silver vessels 
 an hundred talents, and of gold an hundred talents ; also 27 
 twenty basons of gold, of a thousand drams; and two 
 
 and Hashabiah are for some reason specially mentioned, either being 
 the best known of the twenty-four, or perhaps alone recorded in the 
 chronicle employed by the compiler. The only other explanation 
 possible, that of the R.V. text, is that Sherebiah and Hashabiah were 
 two of ' the chiefs of the priests ' and not to be identified with the 
 Levites of the same name in Neh. xii. 24. This gives a satisfactory 
 meaning, according to which Ezra selected twelve ' chiefs of priests ' to 
 act as custodians. But (i) the clause 'and ten of their brethren with 
 them', after the previous mention of the 'twelve', rather denotes a 
 second group of the same number: (2) it is expressly stated in ver. 30, 
 ' the priests and the Levites received the weight of the silver, &c.', 
 while according to the R.V. text the Levites were not of the number. 
 
 25. and weighed'^ Money was still for the most part reckoned by 
 weight (cf. on vii. 22). 
 
 the silver, &c.] The offerings referred to in vii. 15 — 18, and the 
 vessels given by the king and others vii. 19, 27. 
 
 the offering of the house, &c.] R.V. the offering for the house. A 
 dedicatory offering (t'rumah), as is described in Ex. xxxv. 24. Literally 
 'the offering of, as in Ex. xxx. 15, 'the offering of the Lord', or 
 'heave offering unto the Lord', Num. xviii. 26, 28, 29, xxxi. 29; 
 2 Chr. xxxi. 14, ' the oblations of the Lord '. Here ' the offering of, 
 i.e. 'belonging to the house' is equivalent to 'the offering for the 
 house.' Tlie expression does not occur again. 
 
 his counsellers^ cf. on vii. 14. 
 
 his lords'] R.V. Ms princes; as in vii. 28. 
 
 and all Israel there present] Literally 'and all Israel that were 
 found'. A peculiar phrase, occurring also in i Chron. xxix. 17, 
 'thy people which are present here* (lit. that are found here) ; 2 Chron. 
 V. II, 'all the priests that were present ' (lit. that were found). 
 
 26. unto their hand] R.V. into their hand. Cf note on i. 8. 
 
 The enormous value of these gifts is startling. The suspicion that the 
 figures have been exaggerated by copyists is not unnatural. 
 
 six hiindred and fifty talents of silver] A talent of silver being 
 reckoned as worth ^375, this means a sum approaching to a quarter of 
 a million sterling, ;i^243,75o. 
 
 silver vessels an hundred talents] i.e. worth a 100 talents = ;i^37,50o. 
 
 and of gold an hundred talents] R.V. omits ' and '. A gold talent 
 was worth about ;^6,75o; 100 talents would then =£(^1^,000. 
 
 27. also twenty basons of gold] R.V. and twenty bowls of gold; 
 ' bowl' as in i. 10. 
 
no EZRA, VIII. [vv. 28— 30. 
 
 28 vessels of fine copper, precious as gold. And I said unto 
 them. Ye are holy unto the Lord ; the vessels are holy 
 also ; and the silver and the gold are a freewill offering unto 
 
 29 the Lord God of your fathers. Watch ye, and keep them^ 
 until ye weigh t/iem before the chief of the priests and the 
 Levites, and chief of the fathers of Israel, at Jerusalem, 
 
 30 /;/ the chambers of the house of the Lord. So took the 
 
 of a thoiisand drams] R. V. of a thousand darics. About ^i each : 
 see on ii. 69. 
 
 The total specified vakies then are about 
 
 ;^243,75o + ;^37,500 + i;675,ooo + ;^i,ooo = ;^957,250, 
 or nearly a million of our money. 
 
 JiJie copper'] R.V. fine briglit brass. The Hebrew word (Mu9habh) 
 occurs only here. LXX. ctlK^ovtos. Some have suggested 'orichal- 
 chum ', a variety of brass. 
 
 I Esdras viii. 57, 'And twelve (not 'two') vessels of brass even of 
 fine brass, glittering like gold '. 
 
 precious] a rare word in the Hebrew, occurring also in Gen. 
 xxvii. 15, ^goodly raiment'; 2 Chr. xx. 25; Dan. xi. 38, 43, 
 ' precious things ' (cf. Dan. x. 3, ' pleasant bread ' or bread of 
 preciousness), applied metaphorically to Daniel himself ' greatly be- 
 loved ' (lit. a man of precious things), Dan. ix. 23, x. ir, 19. 
 
 28. Ye are holy] i.e. consecrated to the Lord, as priests and 
 Levites. Their sanctity not lessened by life in exile. 
 
 ike vessels are holy also] R.V. and the vessels are holy, being votive 
 offerings. 
 
 unto the Lord God of your fathers] R.V. unto the LORD, the God 
 Of your fathers. Cf. note on vii. 28. The appeal to their hereditary 
 sanctity and to their special vocation recalls to memory the covenant of 
 Jehovah with the Israelites. Cf, Ex. xix. 5, 6. 
 
 29. Watch ye] A word denoting vigilance and wakefulness (LXX. 
 aripvnvdre): cf. Ps. cxxvii. i, 'The watchman %vaketh but in vain': 
 generally metaphorically Ps. cii. 7, *I watch and am become like a 
 sparrow '. Cf. Jer. i. 12, v. 6. 
 
 the chief of the priests] R.V. the chiefs of the priests. See note on 
 ver. 24. 
 
 and chief of the fathers of Israel] R. V. and the princes of the fathers' 
 houses in Israel. In i. 5, iii. 12 we have ' heads of the fathers' houses'. 
 Possibly the word 'sare' (princes) is here an error for 'rashe' (heads). 
 
 in the chambers^ &c.] Such chambers are described in i Kings vi. 5 ; 
 I Chr. xxviii. 12. They served as store-rooms and as places of meeting 
 for the priests. The chambers here referred to probably belonged to 
 the outer buildings of the Temple. Cf. i Chron. xxiii. 28 ; Jer. xxxv. 2, 
 xxxvi. 10; Neh. x. 39, xiii. 4, 7 — 9. 
 
 30. So took the priests and the Levites] R.V. So the priests and the 
 Levites received. This expression goes to prove that the body of men 
 to whom Ezra entrusted the precious things consisted of two groups of 
 twelve, the one priests the other Levites (see on ver. 24). 
 
vv. 31— 33-] EZRA, VIII. iii 
 
 priests and the Levites the weight of the silver, and the 
 gold, and the vessels, to bring them to Jerusalem unto the 
 house of our God. 
 
 Then we departed from the river of Ahava on the twelfth 31 
 day of the first month, to go wiio Jerusalem : and the hand 
 of our God was upon us, and he delivered us from the hand 
 of the enemy, and of such as lay in wait by the way. And 32 
 we came to Jerusalem, and abode there three days. Now 33 
 on the fourth day was the silver and the gold and the 
 vessels weighed in the house of our God by the hand of 
 
 31—36. The Journey and the Arrival at Jerusalem. 
 
 31. from the river of Ahavd\ See note on ver. 15. Here 'the river 
 of Ahava' translates the Hebrew accurately as 'the river Ahava' does 
 in ver. 11. Vulg. 'a flumine Ahava'. 
 
 on the twelfth day of the first month'] Compare with this date the 
 statements in chap. vii. 8, 9, viii. 15. The encampment at Ahava lasted 
 three days (viii. 15). The arrival at Ahava was therefore on the ninth 
 day of the month. Supposing that Ahava is the same as Is (cf. ver. 15), 
 those nine days would have been consumed in the march from Babylon, 
 and the march would have actually begun on the first of the month, 
 vii. 9. 
 
 Preferring another explanation of chap. vii. 9, and regarding the en- 
 campment at Ahava as a preliminary muster of the whole company made 
 at a convenient spot not far from Babylon, we consider the actual march 
 did not begin till ' the twelfth day of the first month ' (Nisan). 
 
 the hand, «&c.] Cf. on vii. 6. 
 
 the memy] See note on a^. 
 
 and of such as lay in wait by the way] R.V. and the lier in wait by 
 the way. This explains more fully who ' the enemy ' was. Whether 
 any attack was made we are not told. The deliverance may either 
 imply the repulse of such an attack or the absence of any hostile move- 
 ment. 
 
 32. And we came to Jerusalet)i] On the first day of the fifth month 
 (vii. 8). See note on the length of the journey. The size of the caravan, 
 the number of women and children, the stoppages at Jewish settlements 
 on the way to apply for further contributions (in accordance with the 
 king's decree), and to enforce the observance of the Law, the possible 
 encounters with Bedouin tribes, were some among the elements of 
 delay. 
 
 three days] A three days' interval to rest after the journey and to 
 prepare plans. Nehemiah waited for the same period, Neh. ii. 11. 
 
 33, 34. The Presentation of the Gifts and Offerings. 
 
 33. zueighed...by the hand of] R.V. weighed... into the hand of. 
 
 Marg. by. The expression " into the hand " has occurred in ver. 26, and 
 
112 EZRA, VIII. [vv. 34, 35- 
 
 Meremoth the son of Uriah the priest ; and with him was 
 Eleazar the son of Phinehas ; and with them ivas Jozabad 
 the son of Jeshua, and Noadiah the son of Binnui, Levites ; 
 
 34 by number and by weight of every one : and all the weight 
 
 35 was written at that time. Also the children of those that 
 had been carried away, which were come out of the cap- 
 tivity, offered burnt offerings unto the God of Israel, twelve 
 
 is probably right both here and in chap. i. 8. Meremoth and his three 
 companions were probably deputed by ' the chiefs of the people ' to 
 receive the treasure, upon its being weighed and found to tally with 
 the ' invoice ', and to convey it to the sacred treasury. These official 
 receivers, consisting of two priests and two Levites, corresponded with 
 the priestly and Levitical commissioners appointed by Ezra for the 
 transport. 
 
 The rendering "by the hand of" supposes that the act of weighing 
 was performed by a special body of four men, two priests and two 
 Levites, appointed by the people. 
 
 But the other rendering is more suitable. The names not of those 
 who weighed the treasure, but of those v/ho were deemed worthy to be 
 entrusted with its charge were most likely to be preserved, 
 
 Meremoth the son of Uriah^ is mentioned also in Neh. iii. 4, 21, 
 xii. 3. 
 
 Eleazar, &c.] See Neh. xii. 42. 
 
 Jozabad] Perhaps mentioned in x. 23; Neh. viii. 7. 'The son of 
 Jeshua', see on ii. 40. 
 
 Noadiah the son of Binnui] The name of Binnui occurs in Neh. x. 
 10, xii. 8. The first two names are those of priests ; the latter two those 
 of Levites. 
 
 34. by number and by weight of every ofu] R.V. the whole by 
 number and by weigM. The amount of the silver and gold was tested 
 by weighing. The vessels and gifts were numbered, and their value 
 estimated by weight. This list and valuation would check that which 
 was supplied by Ezra's commissioners (ver. 24). 
 
 was written at that ti?ne] An exact inventory made at the date and 
 accessible among other state documents. 
 
 35. Also the children of those that had been carried away, which were 
 come out of the captivity] R.V. The children of the captivity wMcli 
 were come out of exUe. 
 
 By this term is intended Ezra's company which had just returned. 
 The sacrifices offered by them resembled those offered by Zerubbabel 
 and his companions at the dedication of the Temple (vi. 17). (i) 
 They consisted of the same animals, bullocks, rams and lambs ; (2) 
 they were offered in the name of the whole people. 
 
 For the expression 'the children of the captivity' compare vi. 19, 
 and see note on chap. ii. i. The 'exile' (sh'bhi) refers to the condition 
 of captivity, the 'captivity' (haggulah) to the community of exiles. 
 
vv. 36; I.] EZRA, VIII. IX. 113 
 
 bullocks for all Israel, ninety and six rams, seventy and 
 seven lambs, twelve he goats for a sin offering : all this was 
 a burnt offering unto the Lord. And they delivered the 36 
 king's commissions unto the king's lieutenants, and to the 
 governors on this side the river: and they furthered the 
 people, and the house of God. 
 
 Now when these things were done, the princes came to 9 
 
 twelve bullocks .. .twelve he goais\ i.e. for the twelve tribes, cf. on vi. 
 17, ' for all Israel'. 
 
 ninety and six rams] i.e. eight for each tribe. 
 
 seventy and seven lambs] a magnification of the perfect number (cf. 
 Gen. iv. 24; Matt, xviii. 22). 
 
 for a sin offering] The twelve he goats as in vi. 17. 
 
 all this was a burnt offering] i.e. it was completely consumed. 
 
 An offering, of thanksgiving for protection in the journey, and of 
 consecration of the new life. 
 
 36. the king's commissions] i.e. especially those mentioned in vii. 21, 
 22, 24 which would concern the provincial administration, by requisi- 
 tioning for supplies and by exemption from taxation. 
 
 The word rendered "commissions" occurs elsewhere in the O.T. 
 only in the Aramaic sections, e.g. = 'law' Ezr. vii. 12, 14, 21, 25, 26; 
 Dan. ii. 9, vi. 5, 8, 12 ; " decree" Dan. ii. 13, 15. 
 
 the king's lieutenants] R.V. the king's satraps. A Persian word 
 found in Esther iii. 12, viii. 9, ix. 3, and in Dan. iii. 2, 3, 27, vi. 2, 3, 
 4, 7, 8. In Hebrew it is transliterated as "akhashdarpan". 
 
 In the Persian inscriptions 'khshatrapava' occurs frequently as 
 " governor of a district". It is probably the same as our satrap, which 
 is derived from the Greek ((TarpdTTTjs). 
 
 The LXX. rendering (StotKTjrats) reminds us of the original extensive 
 area implied by the word ' diocese'. 
 
 and to the governors] The 'governor' or 'pekhah', cf. Tatnai v. 3, 
 4 and Zerubbabel vi. 7; Hag. i. i &c. (LXX. €7rdpxots). 
 
 The 'satrap' was governor of a province; the 'pekhah' administered 
 the affairs of a petty kingdom or a small district. 
 
 on this side the river] R.V. beyond the river. See note on iv. 10. 
 
 and they furthered the people &c.] The word "furthered" is the 
 same in Hebr. as that rendered "help" in i. 4 ; it conveniently repro- 
 duces the 'zeugma' of the Hebrew construction, by which the same 
 verb is used of assistance to the people and of decoration for the Temple. 
 
 The LXX. eloiaaav, Vulg. elevaverunt, give common but here 
 inappropriate renderings. 
 
 The royal decree turned the scale in favour of the Jews. Officials 
 now aided them. Foreign countries ceased to be neutral. 
 
 Commencement of the Religious Reform. 
 Chap. IX. 1 — 4. The Sin of the People. 
 1. Now ivhen these things weredone] Cf. 2 Chron. xxxi. i. A very inde- 
 finite note 01 time. We have two dates given by which we can conjecture 
 
 EZRA 8 
 
tt4 EZRA, IX. [v. I. 
 
 me, saying, The people of Israel, and the priests, and the 
 Levites, have not separated themselves from the people of 
 the lands, doing according to their abominations, even of 
 
 the length of the interval that had occurred since the events narrated at 
 the close of the previous chapter, (i) The sacred gifts had been handed 
 over to the care of the priests and Levites on the 4th day of the fifth 
 month, ch. vii. 8, viii. 33. (2) The summons for the general assembly, 
 convened to enquire into the people's sin was sent out on the 27th day 
 of the ninth month, ch. x. 8, 9.— On the one hand, it is said, not very 
 much time could have elapsed since Ezra's arrival ; for otherwise neither 
 the subject of the complaint could have escaped his observation, nor the 
 information have affected him with such astonishment. On the other 
 hand, if, as is likely, the mention of 'these things' refers to the com- 
 munication of the king's commissions to the neighbouring satraps and 
 governors, Ezra himself may at first have been occupied in these trans- 
 actions and perhaps have been absent from Jerusalem, attending in 
 person at the courts of the local governors, to claim the Jewish 
 privileges and exemptions. Furthermore Ezra would have made his 
 ground secure with the princes of the people (x. 6), before proceeding 
 to meet the question that had arisen with strong measures. 
 
 We therefore conjecture that the report of 'the princes' described 
 in this verse was made about four months after the events described in 
 ch. viii. 31—35, and a week or two before the summons of the general 
 assembly. 
 
 the princes] the leaders of the people, the chiefs of the fathers' houses. 
 The term does not mean the whole number, but rather representatives 
 of the class. Many princes were implicated in the charge. 
 came to me] R.V. drew near unto me: more literally. 
 The people of Israel, and the priests, and the Levites] The three 
 divisions of the Jewish settlement. 'The people, namely Israel' are 
 the laity as distinguished from the priests and Levites. See vi. 16, 
 vii. 13. 
 
 have not separated themselves] The explanation is given in ver. 2. 
 Compare also vi. 21, 'all such as had separated themselves unto them 
 from the filthiness of the heathen of the land '. Idolatry was the 
 inevitable evil attendant upon the mixed marriages with the heathen. 
 
 f7'om the people of the lands] R.V. from the peoples of the lands- 
 referring especially to the heathen of the neighbouring countries. See 
 note on vi. 21. 
 
 doing according to their abominatio7is] The phrase 'the abominations 
 of the heathen' (haggoyyim) is very familiar. Deut. xviii. 9 : i Kings 
 xiv. 24 : 2 Kings xvi. 3, xxi. 2 : 2 Chron. xxviii. 3, xxxiii. 2, xxxvi. 14. 
 ' The heathen ', thus usually found in connexion with this phrase, can 
 hardly differ from ' the peoples of the lands '. Their ' abominations ', 
 which primarily referred to the immoralities of their nature worship, 
 are here associated with the mixed marriages, since the foreign wives 
 introduced impure forms of worship among the Israelites. Others 
 render * in respect of their abominations '. 
 
V. 2.] EZRA, IX. 
 
 115 
 
 the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, 
 the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the 
 Amorites. For they have taken of their daughters for 2 
 themselves, and for their sons : so that the holy seed have 
 mingled themselves with the people of those lands : yea, 
 the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this 
 
 even of the Canaanites &c.] The Hebrew preposition is better here 
 rendered as expressing identification = ' even', 'namely' &c. than 
 comparison = ' according to ' (the abominations of). The eight nation- 
 alities here mentioned exemplify the possibilities of contamination 
 from intercourse with 'the peoples'. They differ therefore from the 
 list of nations whose conquered territory the Israelites were to 
 possess. Five in Ex. xiii. 5, Canaanite, Hittite, Amorite, Hivite, 
 Jebusite: six are named in Ex. iii. 8; Deut. xx. 17; Josh. ix. i, 
 xii. 8, Canaanite, Hittite, Amorite, Perizzite, Hivite, Jebusite : seven 
 in Deut. vii. i; Jos. iii. 10, xxiv. 11, Hittite, Girgashite, Amorite, 
 Canaanite, Perizzite, Hivite, Jebusite. Of the seven names occurring 
 in these lists, two i.e. the Hivite and the Girgashite are not here 
 mentioned. Three others are inserted, the Ammonite, the Moabite, 
 and the Egyptian. (In the parallel passage of i Esd. viii. 69 'the 
 Ammonites' are omitted, and 'the Edomites ' substituted for 'the 
 Amorites'— a change indicating the later date of this composition.) 
 The position of the Ammonites, Moabites and Egyptians between 
 the Jebusites and the Amorites is strange. But the list so far as it 
 refers to contemporaneous influences, is illustrative rather than ex- 
 haustive of 'peoples' (a) not driven out of Palestine, {b) dwelling on 
 the frontier of Israel. It combines typical names, familiar in the lists 
 of the early writings of this people, with those of countries which 
 were the chief source of more recent corruption. 
 
 The mention of the Ammonite, Moabite, and Egyptian together 
 suggest the influence of Deut. xxiii. 3—7. 
 
 2. they have take7i\ i.e. 'taken wives' as in x. 44; 2 Chron. xi. 21, 
 xiii. 21. 
 
 the holy seed] i.e. the race set apart and consecrated to God, cf. 
 Ex. xix. 5, 6. The term 'the holy seed ' is found also in Isai. vi. 13. 
 
 have mingled themselves] The same phrase occurs in a passage which 
 well illustrates our verse. Ps. cvi. 34, 35. 'They did not destroy 
 the peoples ('ammim) as the Lord commanded them; but mingled 
 themselves with the nations (haggoyyim) and learned their works '. 
 
 with the people ^/ those la7ids\ R.V. with the peoples of the lands, as 
 in ver. i. 
 
 the hand of the princes and rulers] marg. ' princes and deputies '. 
 Compare the same phrase Neh. v. 7. 
 
 The word rendered 'rulers' (marg. 'deputies') 'seganim' is of 
 Assyrian origin. It occurs in Is. xli. 25, and preceded by ' pekhah' in 
 Jer. h. 23, 28, 57 ; Ezek. xxiii. 6, 12, 23 as 'governors and deputies'; 
 in Neh. iv. 14, 19, v. 7, vii. 5, xii. 40, xiii. 11 as 'rulers' (marg. 
 ' deputies'). 
 
 8—2 
 
ii6 EZRA, IX. [v. 3. 
 
 3 trespass. And when I heard this thing, I rent my garment 
 and my mantle, and pluckt off the hair of my head and 
 
 * The princes ' seem to have been the chief authorities. A ruler or 
 deputy (sagan) held under the governor a post of subordinate responsi- 
 bility. 
 
 chief in this trespass] R.V. marg. Jirsi. This is probably more 
 correct ; the chiefs and rulers had set the example of wrong-doing. 
 'Trespass' ver. 4, x. 6. Compare the use of this word with reference 
 to national sin, Jos. vii. i, xxii. 16. 
 
 3. / rent my garment and my mantle] Ezra's conduct betrays his 
 surprise, his grief, and his indignation. The rending of the clothes is 
 frequently mentioned in Scripture as a sign of grief: Ezra here is 
 described as rending the under-garment or tunic (the ' begedh ') and the 
 long loose robe (the m'il) in which he was attired. Reuben rent his 
 'clothes' (plur. of 'begedh') on not finding Joseph (Gen. xxxvii. 29) : 
 Jacob rent his ' garments ' (plur. of ' simlah ') on seeing Joseph's blood- 
 stained coat (Gen. xxxvii. 34) : Joseph's brethren rent their clothes 
 (plur. of * simlah ') when the cup was found in Benjamin's sack 
 (Gen. xliv. 13) : Joshua rent his 'clothes' (plur. of 'simlah') after the 
 repulse at Ai (Jos. vii. 6) : Jephthah rent his clothes (plur. of 'begedh ') 
 on meeting his daughter (Judg. xi. 35) : the messenger from the field of 
 Ziklag came with his clothes (plur. of 'begedh') rent (2 Sam. i. 2, cf. 
 I Sam. iv. 12): Job rent his mantle ('m'il') on hearing of his 
 children's death (Job i. 20), and his friends rent each one his mantle 
 ('m'il ') when they came to visit him (Job ii. 12). These were all signs 
 of grief. The action also denoted ' horror ' on receiving intelligence or 
 hearing words, which shocked : thus Hezekiah and his ministers rent 
 their clothes (plur. of 'begedh') after Rabshakeh's speech (2 Kings 
 xviii. 37, xix. i) : Mordecai rent his clothes (plur. of 'begedh') on 
 hearing of Haman's determination (Esth. iv. i) : the High-priest rent 
 his garments on hearing the testimony of Jesus (Matt. xxvi. 65). See 
 also Isai. xxxvi. 22 ; Jer. xli. 5 ; 2 Chron. xxxiv. 27. 
 
 The 'mantle' was a long flowing robe ; by this name is designated 
 the High-priest's robe (Ex. xxviii. 31, 34, xxxix. 22, 23); the 'robe' 
 which Hannah made for Samuel (i Sam. ii. 19); Jonathan's 'robe', 
 which he presented to David (i Sam. xviii. 4) ; Samuel's robe (i Sam. 
 XV. 27) ; Saul's 'robe' (i Sam. xxiv. 4) ; the 'robe' which covered the 
 apparition of Samuel (i Sam, xxviii. 14). Its use in metaphor (Ps. cix. 
 29; Is. lix. 17) agrees with this. 
 
 and pluckt off the hair &c.] This sign of grief is not described 
 elsewhere in the O. T. Compare Esther (additions to), xiv. 2, ' All 
 the places of her joy she filled with her torn hair '. 
 
 The shaven head was a common sign of mourning, e.g. Job i. 20; 
 Ezek. vii. 18 ; Amos. viii. 10. Ezra's action denotes in an exaggerated 
 way his great grief. 
 
 Nehemiah's indignation made him 'pluck off' the hair of his 
 opponents (Neh. xiii. 25 ; cf. 2 Esdr. i. 8), but is hardly a parallel 
 
vv. 4, 5.] EZRA, IX. 117 
 
 of my beard, and sat down astonied. Then were assembled 4 
 unto me every one that trembled at the words of the God 
 of Israel, because of the transgression of those that had 
 been carried away ; and I sat astonied until the evening 
 sacrifice. And at the evening sacrifice I arose up from my 5 
 heaviness ; and having rent my garment and my mantle, 
 
 and sat down astoniedl cf. Dan. iv. 19 'Then Daniel. ..was astonied 
 for a while '. The word in the original is the same as that rendered 
 'desolator' (marg. desolate) in Dan. ix. 27, and 'that maketh desolate' 
 Dan. xi. 31. Here the sense of ' bewilderment ' is uppermost. See the 
 use of ' astonied ' in the R. V., Job xvii. 8, xviii. 20 ; Ezek. iv. 17 ; Dan. 
 iii. -24, iv. 19. 
 
 4. There are collected unto Ezra those who believed in the word of 
 God and dreaded the displeasure consequent upon such transgression. 
 Perhaps the reference is especially to the fhreats contained in the Law. 
 Cf. Deut. vii. i — 4. 
 
 ez'e7y one that trembled at the zuo)-ds &c.] cf. x. 3, ' those that tremble 
 at the commandment of our God'. Isai. Ixvi. 2, 'to him that is 
 poor and of a contrite spirit, and that trembleth at my word ', and 
 ver. 5, ' Hear the word of God, ye that tremble at his word '. The 
 dread of the consequences of disobedience rather than horror at the 
 nature of the offence seems here depicted. But if the nature of sin was 
 not yet realised, the sovereignty of a Higher Law was recognised, and 
 'sin is lawlessness' (i John iii. 4). 
 
 of those that had been carried away] R. V. of them of the captivity. 
 Heb. 'haggolah', the collective abstract name for those who had 
 shared the captivity, 
 
 zmtil the evening sacrifice'] R. V. until the evening oblation. This is 
 the daily evening minkhah or meal offering. See note on Neh. x. 33. 
 
 It is here mentioned as a common division of the day, as in i Kings 
 xviii. 29. Cf. Judith ix. i, 'about the time that I he incense of that 
 evening was offered in Jerusalem '. Ezra probably spent the greater 
 part of the day in this posture. 
 
 5 — 15. Ezra's Confession. 
 
 5. And at the evening sacrifice] R.V. And at the evening oblation, 
 i.e. at the time of its being olifered. 
 
 / arose tip from ??iy heaviness] R.V. I arose up from my humi- 
 liation. Marg. fasting. The Hebrew word ' Taanith ' occurs only 
 here in the O.T. : in later Hebrew it became the accepted for religious 
 fasting. This passage favours the original application to general 
 humiliation rather than to abstinence from food. So the LXX. Tairel- 
 
 VCJfflS. 
 
 and having rent my garment and my mantle] R.V. even with my 
 garment and my mantle rent ; and. There is no need to render 
 as the A.V. and most commentators, as if Ezra for a second time 
 rent his clothes. He calls attention to the fact that in the presence of 
 
EZRA, IX. [v. 6. 
 
 I fell upon my knees, and spread out my hands unto the 
 6 Lord my God, and said, 
 
 O my God, I am ashamed and blush to lift up my face to 
 
 the assembled people he stood before them with these evident signs of 
 his grief and dismay, and thus by a mute appeal united them with him 
 in his act of prayer. 
 
 fell upon my knees, and spread out my hands'] We find in Scripture 
 both kneeling and standing as the postures of prayer. For kneeling 
 compare i Kings viii. 54, Solomon... kneeling on his knees with his hands 
 spread forth toward heaven. Dan. vi. 10 ' And he kneeled upon his 
 knees three times a day.' Ps. xcv. 6 'Let us kneel before the Lord our 
 Maker'. Cf. Luke xxii. 41; Acts vii. 60, ix. 40, xx. 36, xxi. 5. For 
 standing cf. i Sam. i. 26; i Kings viii. 22; i Chron. xxiii. 30; Matt, 
 vi. 5 ; Luke xviii. 11. 
 
 The attitude of spreading out the hands expressed the desire to receive 
 and to embrace the Divine gift, the hands open and the palms turned 
 upwards as if to accept. Cf. Ex. ix. 29; i Kings viii. 22. Isai. i. 15 
 'And when ye spread forth your hands'. 2 Mace. iii. 20 *All holding 
 their hands toward heaven made supplication '. 
 
 the Lord my God] Cf. vii. 6, 9, 14, 19, 20, 25, 26 and especially 28. 
 
 6 — 15. Ezra's Prayer. 
 Ezra's prayer, as a confession of national sin, should be compared 
 with the prayer of the Levites (Neh. ix. 6—38), and more especially 
 with the prayer of Daniel (Dan. ix. 4 — 19). As in the confession of 
 Daniel, the personality of the speaker is merged in that of the nation. 
 The sin of the race no less than its shame and its punishment is 
 acknowledged in the 'we', 'our', and 'us'. The self-abnegation and 
 love of Ezra as of Moses (Ex. xxxii. 32), and of Paul (Rom. ix. 3), 
 accept the obligations of nationality as the source of guilt as well as of 
 privilege to the individual. 
 
 The general plan of the confession resembles that of Daniel. It 
 consists of (i) general confession, ver. 6 (cf. Dan. ix. 4 — 6), (2) the sins 
 of former time, ver. 7 (Dan. ix. 7, 8); (3) God's mercy and goodness, 
 verses 7, 8 (Dan. ix. 9); (4) Israel's sin in the face of the Divine 
 warning, verses 10—12 (Dan. ix. 10—14); (5) the fresh guilt and final 
 appeal, verses 13 — 15 (Dan. ix. 15 — 19). 
 
 6. A brief exordium : expression of personal shame and national 
 guilt. 
 
 / am ashamed and blush] These words occur together frequently as 
 in Jer. xxxi. 19 'I was ashamed, yea, even confounded, because I did 
 bear the reproach of my youth*. Is. xlv. 16; Ps. xxxv. 4. Ezra's ex- 
 pression of shame and confusion is the echo of the prophet's words, 'Be 
 ashamed and confounded for your ways, O house of Israel' (Ezek. xxxvi, 
 32), the very opposite of their spirit, who 'were not at all ashamed, 
 neither could they blush ' (Jer. vi. 15, viii. 12). 
 
 to lift up my face to thee] The consciousness of sin will not permit 
 the humble supplicant to 'lift up so much as his eyes to heaven' (Luke 
 xviii. 13). The lirst person singular is here dropped. 
 
V. 7.] EZRA, IX. 119 
 
 thee, my God: for our iniquities are increased over our 
 head, and our trespass is grown up unto the heavens. 
 Since the days of our fathers have we been in a great trespass 7 
 unto this day; and for our iniquities have we, our kings, 
 and our priests, been dehvered into the hand of the kings 
 of the lands, to the sword, to captivity, and to a spoil, and 
 
 for our iniquities are increased over our head'\ The metaphor is 
 drawn from the waters of a flood (cf. Gen. vii. 17, 18). Compare Es. 
 xxxviii. 4 'For mine iniquities are gone over mine head '. 
 
 and our trespass] R.V. our guiltiness. The word ' guiltiness' ('ash- 
 mah', not 'ma-al' 'trespass 'of ver. i) is used here and in vv. 7, 13, 15, 
 X. 10, 19. It is the state of guilt resuUing from sin, e.g. Lev. iv. 3, 'if 
 the anointed priest shall sin so as to bring guilt (ashmah) on the people '; 
 vi. 5, 7. 2 Chron. xxviii. 13 'For ye purpose that which will bring upon 
 us a trespass (marg. 'guilt', Hebr. 'ashmah') against the Lord, to add 
 unto our sins and to our trespass; for our trespass is great', xxiv. 18, 
 xxviii. 10, xxxiii. 23. Amos viii. 14 'Swear by the sin (ashmah) of 
 Samaria'. Ps. Ixix. 5 ' My sins (marg. Heb. guiltinesses) are not hid 
 from thee'. 
 
 is grown up unto the heavens] Compare the same metaphor applied 
 to 'rage', 2 Chron. xxviii. 9 'In a rage which hath reached up unto 
 heaven'. Either, which is most probable, hyperbolically of magnitude, 
 as of the tower of Babel, ' whose top may reach unto heaven' (Gen. xi. 
 4), cities walled up to heaven (Deut. i. 28), the judgement of Babylon 
 (Jer. li. 9), or metaphorically, as if the magnitude of the guilt had 
 forced itself upon the notice of God like the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah 
 (Gen. xviii. 20. 21). 
 
 7. The record of Israelite history, i.e. sin and its retribution. 
 But for their sin, the Israelites would have had a far different 
 history. 
 
 Since the days of our fathers] The exact phrase hardly occurs else- 
 where except Mai. iii. 7 ' From the days of your fathers ye have turned 
 aside from mine ordinances'. The context there seems to show that, 
 though the expression is purposely indefinite, it points back to the 
 time when the Law was first given, and is equivalent to saying 'from 
 the first beginnings of the Israelite people'. 
 
 have we been in a great trespass] R.V. we have been exceedingly 
 guilty, '^ia.rg. Heb. in great guiltiness. See note on ver. 6. 
 
 we^ our kings, and our priests] i.e. the nation, with its civil and 
 sacred chiefs. Cf. the luUer category Neh. ix. 32 'Our kings... our 
 princes. ..our priests.. .our prophets... our fathers'. 
 
 the kings oj the lands] With special reference to 'the kings of 
 Assyria' (Neh. ix. 32) and Babylon. 
 
 sword... captivity... spoil (R.V. ^■^Q'il\Xi%) ...confusion of face] Life, 
 freedom, property, honour : items of the penalty. ' Confusion of 
 face', lit. shame of face, i.e. dishonour. Cf. Dan. ix. 7, 8 'Unto us 
 confusion of face, as it is this day', 'To us belongeth confusion of face'. 
 
EZRA, IX. [v. 8. 
 
 to confusion of face, as it is this day. And now for a little 
 space grace hath been shewed from the Lord our God, 
 to leave us a remnant to escape, and to give us a nail in 
 his holy place, that our God may lighten our eyes, and give 
 
 ^ Chron. xxxii. 21 *So he returned witli shame of face'. 'Spoiling': a 
 late Hebrew word, occurring also in Esth. ix. lo, 15, 16; Dan. xi. 24, 
 33; 2 Chron. xiv. 14, xxv. 13, xxviii. 14. 
 
 as it is this day\ cf. ver. 15 ; Neh. ix. 10 ; Deut. vi. 24 ; Jer. xliv. 22. 
 
 8. The period since the decree of Cyrus a divinely appointed 
 respite of probation. 
 
 And tiowfor a little space] R.V. And now for a little moment. *For 
 a little moment', as in Isai. xxvi. 20 'Hide thyself for a little moment, 
 until the indignation be overpast'. Ezra means that as compared with 
 the long periods of Israel's disobedience (ver. 7), and Israel's punish- 
 ment, the interval of eighty years since Zerubbabel's return was but a 
 short chapter in the people's history. 
 
 grace] The word in the Hebrew is practically always elsewhere in 
 the O.T. rendered 'supplication' (e.g. i Kings viii. 30, 38, 52, ix. 3 ; 
 Ps. vi. 9, Iv. I, cxix. 170; Jer. xxxvi. 7, xxxvii. 20, xxxviii. 26, xlii. 9; 
 Dan. ix. 20; 2 Chron. vi. 19,29, 35, 39, xxxiii. 13). The only possible 
 exception is Jos. xi.20 'That they might utterly destroy them, that they 
 might have no favour' (marg. Or, might not sue for favour). Here the 
 word clearly means the favour or grace, for which the supplication is 
 made. 
 
 to leave us a remnant to escape] A remnant to escape (p'letah) 
 (i) from the destruction of Jerusalem, as in Ezek. xiv. 22 'Yet, behold, 
 therein shall be left a reninant that shall be carried forth', (2) from 
 the evils and degenerating influences of the captivity, as in Neh. i. 3 
 'I asked them concerning the Jews that had escaped, which were left of 
 the captivity, and concerning Jerusalem '. 
 
 and to give us a nail in his holy place] R. V. marg. * See Is. xxii. 23 ', 
 'And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place', referring to Eliakim. 
 The writer makes use of a metaphor, which to us is a little obscure. 
 The passage from Isaiah gives us the image of a nail or peg firmly 
 fastened into a wall so that vessels could be hung from it securely. 
 Others have derived the metaphor from camp life : upon the peg being 
 driven into a firm soil depended the security of the tent. Cf. Is. liv. 2 
 'lengthen thy cords and strengthen thy stakes' (or nails). In either 
 case the nail is that which holds up or supports. Its power to do 
 so, however strong the nail may be itself, depends upon the firmness 
 of that into which it is driven. — 'The nail' here is neither the Temple, 
 as some have supposed, nor the princes and priests, but the com- 
 munity returned from Babylon established at Jerusalem. Upon this 
 community depended the whole hopes of Israel. Ezra acknowledges 
 the mercy which has permitted ' the nail ' of the new Israel to be fixed 
 once more in the place which God had chosen. 
 
 in his holy place] i.e. in Jerusalem, and at his Temple. The phrase 
 occurs again in Ps. xxiv. 3 ' Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord? 
 
vv. 9, lo.] EZRA, IX. 
 
 us a little reviving in our bondage. For we were bondmen; 9 
 yet our God hath not forsaken us in our bondage, but hath 
 extended mercy unto us in the sight of the kings of Persia, 
 to give us a reviving, to set up the house of our God, and to 
 repair the desolations thereof, and to give us a wall in 
 Judah and in Jerusalem. And now, O our God, what 10 
 
 and who shall stand in his holy place'? cf. Isai. Ix. 13. That 'holy 
 place' was the centre of the nation's life, the witness to the Divine 
 Presence. ' The nail ' fixed there should bear any weight and resist all 
 pressure; it was 'the place of the name of the Lord of hosts, the 
 mount Zion' (Is. xviii. 7), 'the place which the Lord shall choose' 
 (Deut. xii. 14 passim), cf. 'the holy mountain of my God' Dan. ix. 20 
 (16, 24), 'the holy city' Matt. iv. 5, xxvii. 53. 
 
 that our God may lighten otir eyes\ The period of punishment had 
 been one of night and gloom. The new gracious period of respite had 
 brought daylight and brightness, cf. Ps. xiii. 3 ' Lighten mine eyes, lest 
 I sleep the sleep of death'. 
 
 and give us a little reviving iji our bondage'] The restoration of the 
 Jews had been a renewal of life (cf. Ezek. xxxii. i — 14) out of death. 
 Ezra says 'a little'; for (i) the period had been short, (2) they were 
 still subject to foreign rulers. But it was a rekindling of the vital spark 
 — a reviving. The Hebrew word is not very common, comp. Gen. xlv. 
 5 'God did send me before you to preserve life' (lit. for reviving or the 
 maintenance of life). 
 
 9. For ive were bondmen'l R.V. For we are bondmen. Ezra explains 
 his words 'in our bondage'. The bondage is not past. The Jews are 
 still bondmen, in servitude to the king of Persia. 
 
 yet our God, &c.] The hand of God's mercy could be discerned in 
 the events of past history. 
 
 extended mercy] Cf. vii. 28. 
 
 to give us... to set up... to repair] God, by the kings of Persia, gave 
 the 'reviving' ; through their favour the Jews had been able 'to set up' 
 the Temple and 'to repair' its ruins; the royal favour acted as a fence to 
 the Jews against the neighbouring nations. 
 
 the desolations] R.V. the ruins. Marg. waste places. Isai. xliv. 
 26 ' I will raise up the waste places thereof, Ixi. 4 'And they 
 shall build the old wastes'. Here where the word is applied to the 
 house and is found in connexion with the 'repair' (lit. 'cause to stand' 
 or 'set up' as in Neh. vi. i) 'ruins' seems the best English equivalent. 
 
 a wait] So also R.V. text. R.V. marg. 'a fence'. The Hebrew 
 word Cgader') is specially used of a fence round a vineyard. It is used 
 by Isaiah 'I will break down the fence thereof (Is. v. 5) in the cele- 
 brated allegory in which Israel is the vineyard. It occurs also in the 
 Psalm (Ixxx. 12) 'Why hast thou broken down her fences ?', where the 
 same image of the sacred vine is employed. The use of the word here 
 is perhaps an allusion to these well-known passages. It is not a literal 
 'fence' or 'wall', but 'protection' and 'defence'. 
 
 iti Judah and in Jerusalem] Cf. ii. i, iv. 6, v. i. 
 
EZRA, IX. [v. II. 
 
 shall we say after this ? for we have forsaken thy command- 
 II ments, which thou hast commanded by thy servants the 
 prophets, saying, The land, unto which ye go to possess it, 
 is an unclean land with the filthiness of the people of the 
 lands, with their abominations, which have filled it from 
 
 10. A sudden apostrophe. God's mercy has been great; but 
 now, in spite of all, Israel has broken this command : what does 
 she deserve ? 
 
 And now, ..after this\ It has been very generally supposed that 
 * after this' means 'after this manifestation of Divine clemency'. But it 
 seems better to suppose that Ezra breaks abruptly off at verse 9. The 
 thought of God's favour in the past makes Ezra mentally compare it 
 with the present position of the Jews. 'And now, at this moment, 
 after this fresh violation of commandment, after this further proof of our 
 guiltiness, what can we say?' 
 
 11. The Divine commands which Israel had violated had been 
 conveyed to them expressly by the prophets. The people were without 
 excuse. 
 
 commanded by thy servatits the prophets] Lit. 'by the hand of. To 
 command by 'the hand of occurs often, as in the Heb. of Neh. viii. 
 14; Lev. viii. 36; Num. xvi. 40, xxxvi. 13; Judg. iii. 4, &c. : cf. 
 'to speak by the hand of, 2 Kings xvii. 23, xxi. 10, xxiv. 2. 
 
 sayhtg] The prophetic word is contained in this and the following 
 verse. There is no passage in the prophets resembling the words here 
 given. It is generally supposed that Ezra is citing from Deut. vii. i — 3, 
 and that the expression 'thy servants the prophets' alludes to Moses. 
 But it must be remembered that ' the law of Moses ' in these books is 
 always directly referred to, e.g. Ezra iii. 2, vi. 18, vii. 6; Neh. viii. i, 14, 
 xiii. 1; 2 Chr. xxiii. i8, xxv. 4, xxx. 16, xxxv. 12. It is better then 
 to regard the passage as a perfectly general statement by Ezra of pro- 
 phetical teaching upon the subject of intermarriage with foreign nations. 
 Such a statement would naturally reecho the Deuteronomic law, and 
 even repeat words and phrases which, by oral as well as by written 
 tradition, would be familiar. We are forcibly reminded how much of 
 the teaching of the prophets has never come down to us. On the 
 other hand it is no less instructive to observe that the prophetical 
 teaching seems naturally to embody itself in a form, which recalls the 
 language of the Deuteronomic legislation, e.g. 'The land unto which 
 ye go to possess it', cf. Deut. vii. i 'Then the Lord thy God shall 
 bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it'. 
 
 The land... xi an tmclean land] This expression (lit. land of unclean- 
 ness) is not found in the Pentateuch with reference to the promised 
 land. 
 
 %vith the filthiness of the people of the land] R.V. througli the unclean- 
 ness of tlie peoples of the lands. The same word ' uncleanness ' (niddah) 
 is used here as in the phrase an 'unclean land '. It occurs in 2 Chron. 
 xxix. 5 'carry forth the filthiness owl of the holy place'. Cf. Lam. i. 17. 
 It is a strong word to denote anything that would convey defilement. 
 
vv. 12, 13.] EZRA, IX. 123 
 
 one end to another with their uncleanness. Now therefore 12 
 give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their 
 daughters unto your sons, nor seek their peace or their 
 wealth for ever : that ye may be strong, and eat the good 
 of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children 
 for ever. And after all that is come upon us for our evil 13 
 
 with their aboniinaiions] R.V. through their abominations. Added 
 by way of explanation. On the word see note on ver. i. The 'abomi- 
 nations ' are described as acts of impurity because these were the ac- 
 companiment of the local worship. Cf. Levit. xviii. 27 'All these 
 abominations (vv. 6 — 23) have the men of the land done... and the land 
 is defiled'. 
 
 from one end to another'] Lit. 'from mouth to mouth'. Cf. almost 
 the same expression in 2 Kings x. 21, xxi. 16. It means 'from one ex- 
 tremity to another'; perhaps the metaphor has been taken from a 
 drinking vessel. 
 
 with their iincleanness\ R.V. with their filthiness. The same word 
 in the Hebrew as that rendered ' filthiness ' in chap. vi. 21. It denotes 
 'impurity', 'defilement' generally. Cf. Zech. xiii. 2 'I will cause the 
 prophets and the unclean spirit to pass out of the land'. See, for the 
 special application, the whole passage Lev. xviii. 24 — 30. 
 
 12. Now therefore give not^ &c.] This sentence reproduces the sub- 
 stance of Deut. vii. 3 'Neither shalt thou make marriages with them ; thy 
 daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou 
 take unto thy son '. 
 
 nor seek their peace or their wealth for ever] R.V. ...or their 
 prosperity. . . . This phrase is found in Deut. xxiii. 6 ' Thou shalt not seek 
 their peace nor their prosperity all thy days for ever ', where the Ammo- 
 nites and Moabites are especially referred to. The words had probably 
 become almost proverbial. Here its application is destitute of any 
 reference to the context in Deut. xxiii. The thought reproduces the 
 prohibition of Ex. xxiii. 32 'Thou shalt make no covenant with them 
 (i.e. the inhabitants of the land) nor with their gods '. Compare Jer. 
 xxix. 7 ' And seek the peace of the city, whither I have caused you to 
 be carried away captive '. 
 
 that ye may be strong] The same blessing is promised Deut. xi. 8 
 'Therefore shall ye keep all the commandment... that ye may be strong'. 
 The power to maintain God's gift was the measure of their true 
 prosperity. 
 
 and eat the good of the land] Isai. i. 19 ' If ye be wiUing and obedient, 
 ye shall eat the good of the land '. The present enjoyment of the gift. 
 The clause, in spite of the reference to ' the land ', has no verbal parallel 
 in the Pentateuch. 
 
 and leave it for an inheritance] The blessing perpetuated. Practi- 
 cally equivalent to ' That thy days may be long in the land which the 
 Lord thy God giveth thee'. Cf. Deut. xi. 9. The allusion to Prov. 
 xiii. 22 ; Ezek. xxxvii. 25 can only be of the most shadowy kind. 
 
 13 — 14. Great as haye been our punishments in the past, they have 
 
124 EZRA, IX. [v. 14. 
 
 deeds, and for our great trespass, seeing that thou our God 
 hast punished us less than our iniquities deserve, and hast 
 14 given us such deHverance as this ; should we again break 
 thy commandments, and join in affinity with the people 
 of these abominations? wouldest thou not be angry with us 
 till thou hadst consumed us, so that there should be no 
 
 been less than we deserved. Now that we have sinned yet again, 
 what do we deserve but extermination ? 
 
 13. great trespass\ R.V. great guilt. Cf. on ver. 7. Not an 
 isolated offence, but the condition of deep obligation for sin. 
 
 seeing that thou. ..hast, &c.] According to this rendering, Ezra asks 
 as it were in grief and dismay, 'After all that is past, shall we take 
 advantage of God's mercy to sin yet once more and offend against I lis 
 majesty?' Another rendering, more difhcult but quite admissible, 
 translates the conjunction 'seeing that' [ki], as the mark of an excla- 
 mation. 'After all that has happened, to think that God should have 
 so spared us ! — shall we then provoke Him again by our disobedience?' 
 
 hast punished tis less than our iniquities deserve] The words in 
 the original are difhcult. Literally, 'hast kept back, downward, from 
 our sins'. Some have rendered 'hast as it were held back, and kept 
 down from rising to view, many of (partitive) our sins '. Others, ' hast 
 spared beneath our sins', i.e. thy mercy has been out of all proportion 
 greater than our sins, has as it were gone deeper than our iniquities. 
 The R.V. gives the general sense. The LXX. €KOV(pLaas t^/xQv tcls 
 dvofiias and Vulg. 'liberasti nos de iniquitate nostra' are paraphrastic. 
 
 such deliverance as this] R.V. such a remnant. The same word as 
 in ver. 8. 
 
 14. shoidd we again, &c.] R.V. shall we again. 
 
 break thy co??imandments'\ The work rendered ' break ' is found with 
 'commandment' in Num. xv. 31, and is especially frequently found 
 with 'covenant', e.g. Gen. xvii. 14; Deut. xxxi. 16; Judg. ii. i; Isai. 
 xxiv. 5 ; Jer. xxxi. 32; Ezek. xvii. 16 in the sense of 'annul', 'violate'. 
 Compare its use in iv. 5 'frustrate their purpose'. 
 
 joiji in affinity'] This word occurs once only in the Pentateuch, 
 Deut. vii. 3. 
 
 with the people of these abominations] R.V. witli the peoples that do 
 these abominations. See note on ver. 11. 
 
 wouldest thou not be angry, &c.] The question expects the answer 
 ' yes '. Ezra recalls the declarations of God's displeasure in such passages 
 as Deut. vii. 4 ' For he will turn away thy son from following me, that 
 they may serve other gods ; so will the anger of the Lord be kindled 
 against you, and he will destroy yoic utterly\ xi. 17; Jos. xxiii. 16. 
 The tense is missed in the LXX. yur? irapo^vvdys and the Vulg. ' numquid 
 iratus es'. 
 
 till thou hadst consumed us] The precise form of this phrase only 
 occurs elsewhere in 2 Kings xiii. 17, 19 'till thou have (hadst) consumed 
 them' ; but a very similar form of it appears in 2 Chron. xxiv. 10 'until 
 they had made an end', xxxi. i 'until they had destroyed them all'. It 
 
V. IS.] EZRA, IX. 125 
 
 remnant nor escaping ? O Lord God of Israel, thou art 15 
 righteous : for we remain yet escaped, as it is this day : 
 behold, we are before thee in our trespasses : for we cannot 
 stand before thee because of this. 
 
 means 'up to the point of extinction'. Cf. LXX. ews awreXeias. Vulg. 
 'usque ad consummaiionem'. 
 
 7w remnant nor escaping] R. V. no remnant nor any to escape. It is 
 hard to render the two words in Enghsh. 'Any to escape' is the same 
 word as 'remnant' in vv. 8, 13. The two words occur together in 
 I Chron. iv. 43 ' they smote the remnant of the Amalekites that escaped'. 
 The former word denotes simply the 'remainder'; the latter has the 
 idea of 'survival from flight' (cf. ver. 15). The LXX. distinguishes by 
 eyKaTd\€LiJ,/xa Kai d(,aau}^ofji.evov. The Vulgate renders 'reliquias ad 
 salutem '. 
 
 15. The prayer ends in expression of complete surrender. There 
 is no excuse to plead. The nation stands in its sin in the presence 
 of the perfect God, and awaits the sentence of ' righteousness '. 
 
 O Lord God of Israel] R.V. LORD, the God of Israel. See on i. 3. 
 The prayer had begun 'O my God' (ver. 6). It ends, O Lord the God 
 oi Israel. The thought ot his nation overmastered the supplicant. 
 
 thou art righteous] This must not be softened down as if it were 
 'thou art gracious'. The words are an acknowledgement of the perfect 
 justice ot God's dealings with Israel in the past. The next sentence 
 'for we are left a remnant' is not uttered in gratitude for the mercy 
 which spared 'a remnant', but is added to express the greatness of the 
 catastrophe, which had carried off the whole nation except 'a remnant'. 
 And yet the visitation had been just. The prayer of Ezra (?) in Neh. ix. 
 has a very similar phrase, ver. 33 ' Howbeit thou art just (^addiq) in all 
 that is come upon us; for thou hast done truly, but we have done 
 wickedly '. Thou art righteous (gaddiq), and we who are left ' a remnant ' 
 have failed to profit by the righteous judgement of the past. God is 
 called 'righteous' in reference to the 'fixed and unalterable rule of truth 
 and goodness'. Cf. Neh. ix, 8 ; 2 Chron. xii. 6; Ps. cxix. 137, cxxix. 
 4, cxlv. 7. (See Cheyne on Ps. vii. 17.) 
 
 as it is this day] Cf ver. 7. 
 
 we are before thee] i.e. arraigned as it were before thy judgement seat. 
 Ezra was praying 'before the house of God' (x. 2). 
 
 in our trespasses] R.V. in our guiltiness. See on ver. 7. Fresh 
 guilt has been added to the old. There is nothing to plead in extenua- 
 tion. Nor had there been in the past. Righteous as Jehovah was, He 
 had granted 'a remnant': now the guiltiness of the remnant seemed to 
 merit its extinction. 
 
 for we cannot stand before thee because of this] R.V. for none can 
 stand before thee because of this. None, for all Israelites, innocent as 
 well as guilty, are bound up together in that responsibility for the 
 nation's guilt. Cf. Ps. Ixxvi. 7 'And who may stand in thy sight when 
 once thou art angry?' cxxx. 3 'If thou, Lord, shouldest mark iniquities, 
 O Lord, who shall stand?' Nah. i. 6 'Who can stand before his indig- 
 
126 EZRA, X. [vv. I, 2. 
 
 10 Now when Ezra had prayed, and when he had confessed, 
 weeping and casting himself down before the house of God, 
 there assembled unto him out of Israel a very great con- 
 gregation of men and women and children: for the people 
 2 wept very sore. And Shechaniah the son of Jehiel, one of 
 
 nation? and who can abide in the fierceness of his anger?' The Spirit 
 alone gives the power to 'stand before' God and to hear His word. 
 Ezek. ii. i, 2. 
 
 because of this] See note on viii. ■23, x. i: i.e. on account of this last 
 sin, in which the people have once more offended their God. 
 
 Chap. X. 1 — 5. The People's Confession and Oath. 
 
 1. No2v when Ezra had prayed, and %vhcn he had confessed] R. V. 
 Now while Ezra prayed and made confession. The Hebrew shows 
 that the people were assembling during Ezra's prayer. The report of 
 Ezra's public grief would quickly spread, and he had maintained his 
 attitude of shame and humiliation throughout the day (ix. 4). The 
 Vulgate 'Orante Esra et implorante' is more correct than the LXX. ws 
 Trpoarjv^aTo "EtrSpas /cat ws e^Tjyopevae. 
 
 It will be observed that the ist person is here dropped, having been 
 maintained since vii. 27. Henceforward the Compiler only adapts 
 instead of quoting Ezra's memoirs, or perhaps he here makes use of 
 other materials. 
 
 'Made confession'. As in Neh. i. 6, ix. 2, 3 ; Dan. ix. 4, 20; 2 Chron. 
 XXX. 22; Lev. V. 5, xvi. 21, xxvi. 40; Num. v. 7. 
 
 casting himself down before the house of God] In the agony of his 
 confession he had ceased to kneel (ix. 5) and had prostrated himself on 
 the ground. 
 
 before the house of God] Ezra was probably in one of the outer 
 courts of the Temple, and in prayer turned himself in its direction, 
 cf. I Kings viii. 30, 35, 38, &c. 2 Chron. xx. 9 'If evil come upon 
 us... we will stand before this house and before thee (for thy name is in 
 this house) and cry unto thee in our affliction, and thou wilt hear and 
 save', Dan. vi. 10. See on ix. 15. 
 
 the7'e assembled] R.V. there was gathered together, cf. ver. 7 
 'gather themselves together'. 
 
 out of Israel] See vii. 28. The word 'Israel' refers here as in vv. 2,10 
 to the whole community, not as in ver. 5 to the laity. 
 
 a very great congregation... wept] Large numbers were of the same 
 mind with Ezra. 
 
 2. And Shechaniah the son of Jehiel, one of the sons of El am] R.V. 
 Shecaniah. A Jehiel is mentioned in ver. 26 as one 'of the sons of 
 Elam ' that had married ' strange women '. It is hardly likely that 
 Shecaniah would have taken action against his own father and mother 
 (or stepmother) ; though, if he did, it would strikingly illustrate the 
 intensity of the feeling aroused. 'The children of Elam ' are mentioned 
 in ii. 7, viii. 7. 
 
V. 3.] EZRA, X. 
 
 127 
 
 the sons of Elam, answered and said unto Ezra, We have 
 trespassed against our God, and have taken strange wives 
 of the people of the land : yet now there is hope in Israel 
 concerning this thing. Now therefore let us make a covenant 3 
 with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are 
 born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of 
 
 We have trespassed] See on ix. 1. 
 
 have taken strange ivives] R.V. have married strange women. 
 'Have married' a word meaning literally 'caused to dwell' used in this 
 technical sense here and vv. 10, 14, 17, 18; Neh. xiii. 23, 27. 
 
 of the people of the land] R.V. of the peoples of the land. ' of the 
 land', not as in ix. i, 2, 11 'of the lands'. Shecaniah refers especially 
 to the heathen living amongst the people of Israel. 
 
 yet now there is hope in Israel] 'Hope'. This word in the Hebrew 
 IS used for the object of hope in Jer. xiv. 8, xvii. 13, 1. 7. In 
 1 Chron. xxix. 15 'our days on the earth are as a shadow, and there is 
 no abiding (Heb. 'hope')', and in this passage, the source or means 
 of 'hope' is denoted. 
 
 Shecaniah relied upon the promise attached to repentance (e.g. Deut. 
 XXX. I — 10). 'Even now' corresponds to the 'and now' in ix. 10. 
 
 concerning this thing] The same words in the Hebrew as ' because 
 of this' (ix. 15). Shecaniah clearly does not mean 'on account of this 
 repentance', but Svith reference to this offence'. 
 
 3. let us make a covenant &c.] Compare other covenants under- 
 taken by the people, e.g. 2 Chron. xv. 12, xxix. 10, xxxiv. 31, 32; 
 Neh. x. 29; Jer. xxxiv. 15. 
 
 to put azvay the wives &c.] Either legal divorce or the annulling 
 of the marriages by public decree. The marriages had been valid, 
 but were now declared sinful. The method of separation was forcible 
 expulsion. The case of the wives and of their children, who had 
 become ' proselytes' and embraced the Israelite religion, is not taken into 
 account. The words 'and such as are born of them' probably refer 
 to the children of tender years. 
 
 according to the counsel of my lord] so R.V. text: R.V. Marg. Or, 
 Hhe Lord\ The Hebrew text is 'Adonai ', 'my Lord', and the Vulgate 
 accordingly renders 'juxta voluntatem Domini'. It is objected, (i) that 
 the word 'counsel' (as in ver. 8) seems in this context to imply human 
 counsel, as generally. (2) Used of the Divine purpose, it is found 
 chiefly in poetry and prophecy (e.g. Ps. xxxiii. n; Is. v. 19, xix. 17; 
 Jer. xlix. 20, 1. 45). (3) The name 'Adonai' (Lord) as a Divine title 
 only occurs elsewhere in these books, Neh. i. 11, iv. 14, viii. 10, x. 30. 
 (4) The expression 'the counsel of the Lord and of those that tremble at 
 the word of God' is harsh. The rendering 'my lord' requires us to 
 read ' Adoni', a very slight change. This was apparently read by the 
 LXX. and by i Esdr., where there is no mention of the Divine name. 
 The application of the title 'my lord' to Ezra is peculiar (but see 
 Neh. iii. 5), and the allusion to his 'counsel', which can only refer to 
 the substance of Ezra's prayer, is not very natural. It is not easy to 
 
128 EZRA, X, [vv. 5, 6. 
 
 those that tremble at the commandment of our God ; and 
 
 4 let it be done according to the law. Arise ; for this matter 
 belongeih unto thee : we also will be with thee : be of good 
 
 5 courage, and do //. Then arose Ezra, and made the chief 
 
 decide between the two readings. On the whole the R.V. text render- 
 ing is to be preferred. The tendency of Jewish scribes would be rather 
 to introduce the Divine Name, if it was not in the text, than to alter it, 
 if it was in the text, into a common word : and this tendency would be 
 assisted, in this case, by the use of 'Adonai' in Neh. i. ii, iv. 14. 
 If the rendering of the R. V. marg. be adopted, then the 'counsel of the 
 Lord' will refer to the teaching of the law. The combination of the 
 Divine name 'with those who trembled at the commandment of our 
 God' may be paralleled by Ezr. vi. 14, or Acts xv. 28. 
 
 of those that tre7nble at &c.] Cf. note on ix. 4. 
 
 and let it be done according to the law'\ or 'and according to the law 
 it shall be done'. The clause is not very definitely expressed. And it 
 has been differently understood to mean either that the general law for- 
 bidding marriage with the heathen should now be observed, or that this 
 particular act of 'putting away the strange wives' should be performed 
 in accordance with the regulations for divorce contained in the law (e.g. 
 Deut. xxiv. I — 4). 
 
 4. The appeal to Ezra. 
 
 Arise'l Not a reference to Ezra's prostration but a summons to 
 energetic action, Jos. i. i; Jud. iv. 14; i Sam. xvi. 13 and often. 
 
 for this matter belongeth unto thee:] R.V. for the matter &c. Literally 
 'for this matter is upon thee'. Cf. Neh. xiii. 13, 'And their business 
 was (lit. and it was upon them) to distribute unto their brethren'. 
 Isai, ix. 6, 'And the government shall be upon his shoulder'. Ezra 
 was marked out for the duty, partly because he had so publicly 
 testified to his condemnation of the people's sin, partly because he 
 had received the royal commission 'to teach' them that knew not the 
 laws of his God (vii. 25). 
 
 we also will be 7vith thee\ R.V. and we are with thee. The R.V. 
 gives the full meaning, by placing only a comma after 'thee'. The 
 lead in the work was Ezra's, but Shechaniah and his friends were 
 ready to cooperate at once in the reform. The present tense is there- 
 fore more appropriate than the future. 
 
 be of good courage, and do it] Literally, 'be strong, and do'. The 
 responsibility of initiative required especial courage, when the policy 
 would inevitably produce widespread discontent with no material com- 
 pensation. David uses the same words to Solomon when entrusting to 
 him the work of constructing the Temple, i Chron. xxviii. 10, 'Take 
 heed now ; for the Lord hath chosen thee to build an house for the 
 sanctuary: be strong, and do it': cf. 2 Chron. xix. 11, 'Deal coura- 
 geously' (Heb. Be strong and do), are the words of encouragement 
 given to Amariah, Zebadiah and the Levites by Jehoshaphat, as he 
 commissioned them to act as judges among the people. 
 
 5. Ezra's prompt action : an oath administered to the princes. 
 
V. 6.] EZRA, X. 129 
 
 priests, the Levites, and all Israel, to swear that they should 
 do according to this word. And they sware. Then Ezra 6 
 rose up from before the house of God, and went into the 
 chamber of Johanan the son of Eliashib: and when he 
 
 the chief priests, the Levites, and all Israel^ R.V. the chiefs of the 
 priests. Here as in viii. 29 the A.V. by rendering 'chief priests' gives 
 an erroneous meaning. 'The chiefs' here spoken of are the princes 
 or leaders of the three groups into which the people divides itself at 
 this time, priests, Levites, and Israel or laity. Cf. 'the chiefs of the 
 priests' (2 Chron. xxxvi. 14), 'the chiefs of the Levites' (2 Chron. 
 XXXV. 9), 'the princes (or chiefs) of Judah' (Neh. xii. 31), 'the princes 
 of the people' (Neh. xi. i). The rendering of the LXX. {uipKiae tovs 
 dpxoPTas Toiis iepeh k.t.X.) seems to make 'the princes' or chiefs a 
 separate class from the priests and the Levites. 
 
 Ezra's policy was at once to bind to his side the leaders of the people. 
 By administering to them the oath of cooperation in the work of reform, 
 while public feeling was still intensely aroused, he secured from them a 
 public assurance of support. After that, they could not well recede 
 from their oath. If they did not second his efforts, their hands were 
 effectually tied. In dealing with a community which was to all intents 
 and purposes a religious oligarchy, to compromise the chiefs or princes 
 in his favour was the first and surest step to a successful result. 
 
 according to this word] i.e. Shecaniah's proposal that the people 
 should put away from them the foreign women, whom they had married. 
 
 6—15. The Assembly and the Reform. 
 
 6. went into the chamber] See on viii. 29, and cf Neh. xiii. 4. 
 
 Johanan the son of Eliashib] R.V. Jehohanan the son of Eliashib. 
 The best-known Eliashib of this period is the High-priest who appears 
 as a contemporary of Nehemiah (Neh. iii. i, xiii. 4, 28). In Neh. xii. 
 23 we find the mention of a 'Johanan the son of Eliashib', but who, 
 by comparison with vv. 7 and 22, must have been this Eliashib's grand- 
 son. It is probable that the ' Jehohanan the son of Eliashib' is the same 
 as that 'Johanan the son of Eliashib'. If so, how are we to account 
 for a chamber, presumably in the Temple precincts, being assigned to 
 one who was the grandson of the High-priest Eliashib? {a) Some 
 suppose that Johanan the grandson of Eliashib was old enough at this 
 time to receive as one of the High-priestly family a special chamber. 
 But why should Ezra betake himself to the chamber of one who must 
 have been but a mere boy? For Eliashib was living 20 years later (cf. 
 Neh. xiii. 7). {b) Others suppose the Compiler to be using the language 
 of a considerably later generation than that of Ezra ; he knew of a 
 certain chamber in the Temple's precincts as Johanan's chamber, 
 because it had become associated with the name of Eliashib's grandson 
 during his High-priesthood. This appears to be the most probable 
 explanation. If so, the use of the name helps to determine the date at 
 which Ezra's Memoirs were compiled. It is however possible that the 
 Jehohanan the son of Eliashib was of a different family from the 
 
 EZRA O 
 
I30 EZRA, X. [v. 7. 
 
 came thither, he did eat no bread, nor drink water: for he 
 mourned because of the transgression of them that had 
 7 been carried away. And they made proclamation through- 
 out Judah and Jerusalem unto all the children of the captivity, 
 
 Johanan the son of Joiada and grandson of Eliashib, and that the 
 difficulty is only an apparent one arising from the similarity of names 
 in the families of the same great house or tribe. 
 
 and when he cafne thither, he did eat, &c.] So the R.V. text. The 
 R.V. marg. says ' According to some ancient versions, and he lodged 
 there \ The Hebrew word for ' he came ' is the same as that for ' went ' 
 in the previous clause. This reading is supported by the Hebrew text 
 and by the LXX. [koX eiropeid-rj €K€l). It is however hard to believe 
 that it can be the original reading, (i) The repetition of the word is 
 awkward. (2) The clause, stating that he refused to taste food, does 
 not follow suitably upon the mention of his arrival. (3) The adverb in 
 the original does not strictly mean ' thither', but 'there'. The parallel 
 passage in i Esdras (ix. 2) has 'and having lodged there', and this 
 reading is supported by the Syriac Peshitto and the Arabic. The 
 variation in the Hebrew text requisite to give this meaning is ex- 
 ceedingly small. In the old Hebrew characters the two letters (| and 
 *]) are very liable to be confused, while the use of the very similar verb 
 just before made an accidental repetition very possible. 
 
 This reading is probably correct, and we should accordingly translate 
 'And he lodged (or passed the night) there'. The words are then the 
 same as in Gen. xxviii. ir, 'And he tarried there all night'; xxxii. 13, 
 'And he lodged there that night'; Jos. viii. 9, 'but Joshua lodged 
 that night '. The point emphasized is that Ezra continued in the 
 precincts of the Temple all that night and protracted his fast. ' He 
 lodged there and did eat no bread nor drink water ' : i.e. while he 
 lodged there, he fasted. 
 
 because of the transgression of them that had been carried azuay\ R.V. 
 because of the trespass of them of the captivity. 'Trespass', cf. 
 ix. 4. 'Them of the captivity', i.e. 'haggolah', cf. on viii. 35. 
 
 7. And they niade proclamation &c.] The phrase for making a pro- 
 clamation is peculiar ; it occurs also in chap. i. i, where see note. 
 
 The authors of this proclamation are not mentioned. But we are 
 evidently intended to understand the princes and the chiefs of the 
 people (ver. 5) who had taken the oath administered by Ezra. That 
 some little interval of time elapsed between the events just narrated 
 and the issue of this proclamation is a natural supposition. The policy 
 advocated by Shecaniah (vers. 2, 3) had been approved. But time and 
 deliberation were needed to determine upon the best method of putting 
 it into execution (see note on ix. i). 
 
 throughout Judah and Jerusalefn'] That is to say, in every district 
 in southern Palestine and in every quarter of the capital. Cf. 'Jerusalem 
 and Judah' (ii. i), 'Judah and Jerusalem ' (iv. 6, v. i, ix. 9). 
 
 unto all the child7-en of the captivity] Ct. notes on this phrase ii. i, 
 iv I, vi. 16, 19, viii. 35. 
 
vv. 8, 9.] EZRA, X. 13] 
 
 that they should gather themselves together unto Jerusalem; 
 and that whosoever would not come within three days, 8 
 according to the counsel of the princes and the elders, all 
 his substance should be forfeited, and himself separated 
 from the congregation of those that had been carried away. 
 
 Then all the men of Judah and Benjamin gathered them- 9 
 selves together unto Jerusalem within three days. It was 
 the ninth month, on the twentieth day of the month; and 
 
 8. and that whosoever would not come] R.V. and tliat whosoever 
 came not, i.e. whosoever failed (not, whosoever refused) to appear. 
 The causes for non-appearance are not hinted at. All defaulters were 
 to be treated as contumacious. 
 
 within three days] An expression which shows within what narrow 
 limits the new community was established. The mention of Bethel 
 (ii. 28), Lod (ii. 33), and Jericho (ii. 34) as some of the most distant 
 towns belonging to the Jews, shows that the requirement to be in Jeru- 
 salem within three days made no impossible demand upon the powers 
 of an ordinarily active man. 
 
 according to the counsel of the princes and the elders] The real ad- 
 ministrative body in Jerusalem. The representatives of the chief house- 
 holds and families. On the elders cf. v. 5. 
 
 all his substance shotdd be forfeited] R.V. marg. Heb. devoted. A man's 
 substance is his possessions, 'goods'. Cf. i. 4. The first part of the 
 penalty was confiscation of property and the appropriation of the 
 money, realized from its sale, by the Temple treasury. On ' devotion ' 
 (herem) see Levit. xxvii. 28, 29. In early times 'devotion' was tanta- 
 mount to 'destruction* (cf. Ex. xxii. 20; Jos. vii. i — 26, &c. ; i Sam. 
 XV. 8, 33). 
 
 and himself separated] The sentence of excommunication (see on 
 Neh. xiii. 28). To be separated from the congregation was no mere 
 decree of banishment. A man with such a sentence was to be outlawed 
 and disowned by his own race. The community was a religious one. 
 Its heaviest punishment was exclusion from its privileged ranks. 
 
 from the congregation of those that had been carried away] R.V. from 
 the congregation of the captivity. 
 
 9. all the men of Jtidah and Benjamin] All the male population 
 capable of attending. 'Men of Judah and Benjamin', cf. i. 5, iv. 1. 
 
 It was the jtinth month] R.V. it was the ninth month — not a fresh 
 sentence. The ' ninth month ' was Chislev, corresponding nearly to our 
 December. The Assyrian month Ki-shilivu is the same name. The 
 month is mentioned in Neh. i. i ; Zech. vii. i. On the 15th of this month 
 168 B.C. the Temple was profaned and the altar polluted by Antiochus 
 Epiphanes; on the 25th of this month, three years later, 165 B.C., Judas 
 the Maccabee and his companions celebrated 'the Dedication' or Purifi- 
 cation of the Temple, which was afterwards observed as an annual festival 
 (cf. Tohn x. 22). See i Mace. i. 54, iv. 59. The general assembly was 
 thereiore summoned ovAy fotir months after Ezra's arrival (see vii. 8). 
 
132 EZRA, X. [vv. lo, II. 
 
 all the people sat in the street of the house of God, 
 trembling because of this matter, and for the great rain. 
 
 10 And Ezra the priest stood up, and said unto them, Ye 
 have transgressed, and have taken strange wives, to in- 
 
 11 crease the trespass of Israel. Now therefore make con- 
 fession unto the Lord God of your fathers, and do his 
 
 sat in the street of the house of God] R.V. sat in the broad place 
 before the bouse of God. Literally 'in the broad place of the house of 
 God'. Cf. Neh. viii. i 'And all the people gathered themselves to- 
 gether as one man into the broad place (A.V. street) that was before the 
 water gate ', and 3. An area belonging to ' the house of God' in which 
 the whole assembly could collect, must have been a large open court. 
 See the same word in Deut. xiii. 16 and 2 Sam. xxi. 12, where an open 
 place or square in the middle of a town gives a truer sense than the 
 word 'street'. The idea of the word in the original is width, not 
 narrowness. 
 
 trembling becatcse of this matter^ The popular apprehension was 
 aroused to the utmost, partly by the penalty for non-attendance at the 
 assembly (ver. 8), partly by the rumours of the action proposed by 
 Shecaniah and approved by the princes, partly by dread of Divine wrath 
 at the national transgression. The verb used here for ' trembling ' occurs 
 elsewhere in the O. T. only in Dan. x. 11 and Ps. civ. 32. 
 
 and for the great rain] R.V. marg. Heb. the rains. We must sup- 
 pose that the rains, which prevail during December in Palestine, were 
 on this occasion exceptionally ' heavy ' and seemed to the people to 
 denote the Divine displeasure (cf. i Sam. xii. 18), besides adding to the 
 discomfort of gathering to Jerusalem. This was 'the early rain' follow- 
 ing after seed-time (cf. Deut. xi. 14; Jer. v. 24; Joel ii. 23) as dis- 
 tinguished from 'the latter rain' of spring-time. 
 
 10 — 11. Ezra's address to the people: (i) the offence stated ; (2) the 
 reform commanded, consisting of {a) public confession, {b) practical 
 amendment. 
 
 10. Ez7-a the priest] See note on vii. 11. 
 
 Ye have tra7isgressed] R.V. Ye have trespassed, as in vv. 2, 6, ix. 4 
 and Neh. i. 8, xiii. 27. It is best to keep 'transgress' and 'trans- 
 gression' for the Hebrew words 'pasha' and 'pesha', which only once 
 occur in this book (x. 1 3) but are very frequent elsewhere. 
 
 and have taken strange wives] R.V. and have married strange 
 women. See note on ver. 2. 
 
 to ijicrease the trespass of Israel] R.V. to increase tbe guilt of 
 Israel. The 'guilt' or 'guiltiness of Israel', see on ix. 6, 15. The 
 fresh offence had added to the black account against Israel. 
 
 11. make co7ifession unto the Lord God of your fathers] R.V. make 
 confession (marg. Or, give thanks) unto the Lord, the God of your fathers. 
 'Make confession'. Literally 'give thanksgiving or praise'. The sub- 
 stantive is connected with the verb which in its reflexive form means, as 
 in ver. i, 'made confession'. It is found elsewhere in these books 
 (Neh. xii. 27, 31, 38 — 40; 2 Chron. xxix. 31, xxxiii. 16) with the mean- 
 
V. 12.] EZRA, X. 133 
 
 pleasure: and separate yourselves from the people of the 
 land, and from the strange wives. Then all the congrega- 12 
 tion answered and said with a loud voice, As thou hast said, 
 
 ing of 'thanksgiving', which is the general sense of the word in other 
 books (Lev. vii. 12, 13, 15; Ps. xxvi. 7, xlii. 4, 1. 14, 23, Ivi. 12, c. 4, 
 cvii. 22, cxvi. 17, cxlvii. 7 ; Is. li. 3; Jer. xvii. 26, xxx. 19, xxxiii. 11 ; 
 Am. iv. 5 ; Jon. ii. 9). The only possible exception is Jos. vii. 19 
 ' My son, give, I pray thee, glory to the Lord, the God of Israel, and 
 make confession (marg. Or, give praise) unto him'. There, as in this 
 passage, ' make confession ' is a good paraphrase rather than a strict 
 translation. 'Praise' was given to God by the utterance of confession. 
 The penitent who renounced his sin and threw himself upon the mercies 
 of God rendered that true praise of trust and love, from which 'con- 
 fession' springs. Cf Ps. 1. 23 'Whoso offereth the sacrifice of thanks- 
 giving glorifieth me'. On 'the Lord, the God of your fathers', see 
 note on viii. 28. 
 
 and do his pleasure\ The words of praise to be verified in action. 
 The same phrase as in Ps. xl. 8 'I delight to do thy will, O God', cxliii. 
 10 ' Teach me to do thy wilV. 
 
 and. ..from the people of the land, and frorti the strange wives'] R.V. 
 from the peoples of tlie land and from the strange women. See note 
 on ver. 2. The separation entailed not merely the divorce of the wives 
 but a complete breaking of intercourse with all residents in the land 
 who had not adopted the religion of the Jews. 
 
 12 — 14. The resolution of the general assembly epitomised. A 
 general assent to Ezra's proposal. The time of the year and the 
 magnitude of the task make it necessary to appoint a commission to 
 carry it into execution. 
 
 12. Then all the congregation, &c.] The deliberations are not 
 recorded. The substance of their decision is here paraphrased. The 
 method of its expression was probably by unanimous acclamation. We 
 can hardly suppose that there was free discussion. The princes debated 
 and harangued the multitude : the multitude listened and expressed dis- 
 approval or approbation by cries and shouting. 
 
 with a loud voice'] Cf. iii. 12 ; 2 Sam. xv. 23. 
 
 As thou hast said, so must we do] R.V. As thou hast said concerning 
 us, so must we do. R.V. marg. ' As thou hast said, so it behoveth us 
 to do '. Literally the clause runs ' According to thy word (or words) 
 upon us to do '. It is a disputed point whether 'upon us ' is to be taken 
 with what precedes or with what follows, i.e. ' according to thy word 
 respecting us, it is necessary to do' or 'according to thy word, it 
 falls upon us to do '. [a) The rendering of the R.V. text is that of the 
 Vulgate ' juxta verbum tuum ad nos, sic fiat', and is supported by the 
 traditional Jewish interpretation supplied by the Hebrew accents. The 
 sentence is then clearly greatly condensed, and although the construction 
 of the verb ' to do ' is very harsh, the meaning is clear, (b) As however 
 the rest of the people's reply shows no symptom of such compression, 
 the alternative explanation of the rendering in the margin seems prefer- 
 
134 EZRA, X. [vv. 13, 14. 
 
 13 so must we do. But the people are many, and // is a time 
 of much rain, and we are not able to stand without, neither 
 is this a work of one day or two : for we are many that have 
 
 14 transgressed in this thing. Let now our rulers of all the 
 congregation stand, and let all tlwn which have taken 
 strange wives in our cities come at appointed times, and 
 
 able. The use of the preposition ' upon ', with a sense of ' duty ' or ' obli- 
 gation' occurred in ver. 4. Cf Neh. xiii. 13; 2 Sam. xviii. 11. The 
 people then accept the responsibility in which their assent involves 
 them. 
 
 13. Such an enquiry must be of a lengthy nature. The matter 
 cannot be summarily disposed of. The people who have come in from 
 a distance cannot in the rainy weather protract their stay in the city by 
 living and sleeping in the open air, as they would have done had it 
 been summer. 
 
 for we are many that have transgressed in this thing\ R.V. for we 
 have greatly transgressed in this matter. The A. V. is not the correct 
 rendering, but it expresses the general meaning. The greatness of the 
 transgression consisted in the number of the offenders as well as in the 
 heinousness of the offence. 'Transgress', see note on ver. 10. The 
 verb (pasha) frequently means to rebel (e.g. 2 Kings i. i, iii. 5, 7, viii. 
 20, 11 ; 2 Chron. xxi. 8). The transgression of the people was * rebel- 
 lion' against 'the law' of the Divine king. 
 
 14. A commission recommended. 
 
 Let ncTd) otir riders of all the congregation statid] R.V. Let now our 
 princes be appointed (marg. Heb. stand) for all the congelation. The 
 A.V. fails to give the idea of the original, where a difficulty is occasioned 
 by the preposition 'for'. There are practically two ways of explaining 
 the passage (i) Let now our princes stand for (i.e. in the place of avTl) 
 all the congregation. (2) Let there now stand our princes for (i.e. in 
 the interests of, vir^p) all the congregation. The latter is the prefer- 
 able. The commission then was to consist of the princes who, in 
 conjunction with the local elders and judges, should enquire into the 
 cases that had occurred in each town and district. 
 
 and let all them which have taken strange wives in our cities'] R.V. 
 and let all them that are in our cities which have married strange 
 women. The R.V. reproduces the two relative sentences of the 
 original, the one giving the locality of the offender, the other par- 
 ticularizing the offence ; perhaps the formal character of the actual 
 wording of the decree here peeps out. 
 
 in our cities] This expression seems to exclude Jerusalem. The 
 case of those who dwelt in the capital could be investigated by the 
 princes on the spot and without delay. In the case of inhabitants of 
 other towns, the officials of each town were to be convened at Jeru- 
 salem and to assist the permanent commission ; the offenders at the 
 same time were to be summoned to attend the investigation in 
 person. 
 
 at appointed tiffiesl Cf. *at times appointed', Neh. x. 34, xiii. 31. 
 
V. 14-] EZRA, X. 135 
 
 with them the elders of every city, and the judges thereof, 
 until the fierce wrath of our God for this matter be turned 
 
 the elders of every city, and the judges thereof^ i.e. the representatives 
 of the populace and the administrators of justice, belonging to each 
 town. 
 
 until the fierce wrath of our God... he turned fr on 715^ So also R.V. 
 It is much to be doubted whether this can be regarded as a satisfactory 
 rendering. 
 
 (i) There is no real connexion between the previous sentence 'let 
 our princes be appointed &c.' and the words 'until the fierce wrath, &c.' 
 •The fierce wrath' had not been displayed, as in David's day, by a 
 visitation such as a plague or a famine, nor by any fresh hostile op- 
 pression. There is therefore no natural explanation for the expression, 
 such as there is for the very similar words 'Hide thyself for a little 
 moment, until the indignation be overpast', Isa. xxvi. 20; 'Yea, in 
 the shadow of thy wings will I take refuge, until these calamities be 
 overpast', Ps. Ivii. i. If there was no external symptom of the Divine 
 displeasure, its continuance could only be apprehended mentally or 
 morally, and would have no sort of relation to the investigation and 
 punishment of the offence. 
 
 (2) The work of the commission — in a great measure an under- 
 taking of popular contrition, but very largely also the expression of a 
 definite policy of excluding aliens from the community— could not be 
 concluded, until its ends had been accomplished. Now unless we are 
 prepared to change the words 'until the fierce wrath, &c.' into so 
 different a meaning as 'until the cause of the fierce wrath &c. be 
 removed', it seems that a limitation of time has no rightful place 
 here. 
 
 (3) The English rendering ignores the literal transitive meaning 
 of the verb. Literally translated, the sentence runs, 'up to the point 
 of, to turn away the fierce wrath of our God'. It seems very probable 
 that we should reject the temporal signification of the word rendered 
 'until', and treat it as an instance of a redundancy not uncommon in 
 late Hebrew. It will then merely strengthen the preposition, de- 
 noting purpose, prefixed to the verb. Supposing this to be the true 
 explanation, the rendering will be 'with a view (or, unto this end) to 
 turn away the fierce wrath of our God'. 
 
 The verb, which is transitive, is thus given its proper force familiar 
 in other similar passages. Ps. Ixxviii. 38 'Yea, many a time turned 
 he his anger away'-, cvi. 23 'Had not Moses his chosen stood before him 
 in the breach to turn azuay his zurath'; Jer. xviii. 20 'Remember how I 
 stood before thee to speak good for them, to turn azvay thy fury from 
 them ' ; Prov. xv. i ' A soft answer turneth azvay wrath'. 
 
 The English version gives the general sense in the same way as the 
 Vulgate 'donee revertatur ira Dei nostri a vobis'. But the English 
 reader would never guess that the verb is used, not in the intransitive 
 form 'to return' (as in Num. xxv. 4; 2 Chron. xxix. 10, xxx. 8:^Jer. 
 XXX. 24), but in the causative 'to cause to return', 'to turn away' ' to 
 avert'. 
 
136 EZRA, X. [v. 15. 
 
 15 from us. Only Jonathan the son of Asahel and Jahaziah 
 the son of Tikvah were employed about this matter: and 
 
 the fierce wrath of our God] This particular expression ' the fierce 
 wrath', as applied to the Almighty, occurs in the O.T. thirty-four 
 times, being used with special frequency (ten times) in Jeremiah. See 
 also 2 Chron. xxviii. 11, 13, xxix. 10, xxx. 8. 
 
 for this matterl R.V. until this matter be dispatched. Marg. Or, 
 as touching this niatta-. Literally rendered, the Hebrew words give 
 'up to the point of (or, until), to this matter'. The R.V. apparently 
 coordinates this clause with the preceding one. But there can be but 
 one opinion that the whole sentence 'Let now our princes be appointed 
 ...until the fierce wrath of our God be turned from us, until this matter 
 be dispatched ', is quite intolerably harsh. The last clause only receives 
 definiteness from the insertion of the words 'be dispatched'. But it 
 constitutes a most empty addition to state that the enquiry should last 
 until its business was dispatched. The present phrase is apparently 
 only another instance, if the text be correct, of the same redundancy of 
 expression in the later Hebrew mentioned above. The word, rendered 
 'until', amplifies the preposition. And the usage of the compound 
 preposition is the same as that of the simple preposition when found 
 with the same words elsewhere. Gen. xix. 21 'concerning this thing'; 
 I Sam. xxx. 24; Dan. i. 14 'in this matter'. The rendering of the 
 margin is therefore to be preferred, 'to turn away the fierce wrath of 
 our God as touching this matter'' . The words are the same in meaning 
 as ix. 15 'because of this', x. 2 'concerning this thing'. 
 
 15. Slight opposition. 
 
 Only Jonathan the son of Asahel and Jahaziah the son of Tikvah 
 were employed about this matter] R.V. stood up against (Marg. 
 Or, were appoijited over) this matter. 
 
 The word 'only', the English reader should take notice, is not used 
 in the sense of 'alone', but as an adversative, 'notwithstanding', 'never- 
 theless'. It would therefore naturally introduce the mention of an 
 exception or of an opposition. 
 
 There are two views as to the correct rendering of the verse. The 
 point of difference lies in the Hebrew words variously rendered 'were 
 appointed over' and 'stood up against'. — (i) The rendering of the 
 A.V. 'were employed about', though less accurate, agrees with that of 
 the R.V. margin 'were appointed over'. — The Hebrew literally trans- 
 lated is 'stood over'; [a) it is noticeable that this verb to 'stand' is the 
 same as that used in the previous verse 12 'Let now our rulers he 
 appointed (Heb. stand)'. If there were no other point to be considered, 
 it would seem most natural that the narrative should be resumed with 
 the same verb as had just occurred in a reported speech and with the 
 repetition of the phrase 'about this matter' (ix. 15). [b) After the 
 people's declaration, it was to be expected that the names of some 
 of the commission would be recorded, {c) The use of the adversative 
 may betaken toimply a departure from the first proposal of a commission. 
 \d) The mention of Meshullam and Shabbethai, who 'helped', seems 
 to suggest cooperation in the execution of, not in the opposition to, the 
 
V. 1 6.] EZRA, X. 
 
 137 
 
 Meshuliam and Shabbethai the Levite helped them. And 
 the children of the captivity did so. And Ezra the priest, 
 
 scheme. (2) The rendering of the R.V. 'stood up against' has 
 greater probability, {a) It accounts for the use of the adversative 
 'only', (d) The use of the words to 'stand over or against' in a 
 hostile sense is supported by i Chron. xxi. i; 2 Chron. xx, 23; Dan. 
 viii. 25, xi. 14. (<:) Except for this verse we should have no record 
 of any of the opposition, which, considering the extreme severity of 
 the measures, would be almost inevitable. It is indeed a reasonable 
 objection that the mention of the opposition is very awkwardly in- 
 serted between the people's declaration and the statement (in ver. 16) 
 of their action. But this objection applies to the verse (15) as a whole 
 rather than to the special interpretation of it, and, as a matter of fact, 
 the abruptness of the insertion is due to the Compiler's work, and 
 is scarcely lessened by the alternative interpretation. Another objection, 
 that the word 'help' used of Meshullam and Shabbethai would not 
 naturally express their support of an opposition, can only be partially 
 admitted. It is true that, as only four opponents are mentioned by 
 name, they might much more easily have been grouped together, unless 
 there was some special reason for separating them. But whatever 
 special reason there was for separating the pairs of names, would apply 
 equally well, whether the individuals were said to carry out or to oppose 
 the scheme. This objection therefore like the other is equally well raised 
 against any explanation of the verse ; it does not affect the selection 
 to be made between the two renderings. 
 
 Accepting the rendering of the R.V., we need not suppose that these 
 four individuals were the only opponents of Ezra's policy. They are 
 here mentioned as the leaders of the opposition, and there is every 
 reason to suppose that their opinions must have been shared by very 
 many. 
 
 and Meshullatn'\ Possibly the same as the Meshullam mentioned in 
 ver. 29. If so, we may suppose from verse 19 that he along with the 
 others who had similarly offended 'gave his hand' that he would put 
 away his wife. Perhaps he had been convinced of the public necessity 
 for^ the action, which for private reasons he felt obliged to condemn. 
 This conflict of feeling might account for his being described as only 
 'helping' the opponents. 
 
 Shabbethai the Levite] This name does not occur in 23 or 24 among 
 the Levites who had offended. Shabbethai may have opposed for other 
 reasons, either because members of his family were implicated, or because 
 he considered the letter of the law to be strained by the adoption of the 
 proposed measures. The opposition of a Levite deserved especial 
 record. 
 
 helped thevi\ As if their position were a subordinate one in the 
 opposition. They supported, but did not head the movement, cf. 
 I Kings i. 7 'they following Adonij ah helped him'. 
 
 16, 17. The Commission at work. 
 16. the children of the captivity did so] For this expression cf. ver. 7. 
 
138 EZRA, X. [v. 17. 
 
 with certain chief of the fathers, after the house of their 
 
 fathers, and all of them by their names, were separated, and 
 
 sat down in the first day of the tenth month to examine 
 
 [7 the matter. And they made an end with all the men 
 
 The proposal was no sooner made than it was carried into execution. 
 The personal influence of Ezra must account for the ready acquiescence 
 of the people generally. 
 
 And Ezra the priest] Ezra is here mentioned first, and it is probable 
 that he presided over the court of enquiry. On his title 'the priest', 
 of vii. II. 
 
 with certain chief of the fathers, after the house of their fathers'] R. V. 
 Avith certain heads of fathers' houses, after their fathers' houses. 
 The word 'with' does not appear in the Hebrew, but, if the existing 
 text be correct, we clearly need some such copula, which is supplied 
 in the LXX. and Vulg. The phrase 'certain heads of fathers' houses, 
 after their fathers' houses' seems to mean that each 'father's house' 
 (cf ii. 3, &c.) was represented on the commission by its chief or head. 
 Literally rendered, the Hebrew runs, 'Ezra the priest, men, heads of 
 fathers' houses, &c.' 
 
 all of them by their names] A full list of the households being 
 furnished, the representative chiefs of certain ' houses ' were required by 
 name to attend. Cf 'were expressed by name', viii. 20. 
 
 were separated] i.e. were set apart for the work. The use of this word 
 * separated ' shows that a certain number and not all of the chiefs were em- 
 ployed on this occasion. The text is not quite free from suspicion. 
 The absence of the copula before 'men (or, certain) heads' taken in 
 conjunction with the reading of the Syriac Peshitto favours another 
 rendering ' And Ezra the priest separated (or set apart for the work) 
 certain men (that were) heads &c.' In other words Ezra made the 
 necessary selection. Not all the heads of the great houses were sum- 
 moned to sit on the commission. We read of ninety-eight in ii. 3 — 6, 
 and this number would have been far too unwieldy for the purpose. 
 Certain of them were therefore to be set apart from the whole number. 
 And Ezra was the natural person to make the selection. Having 
 recently arrived from Babylon, he would be impartial, while the fact of 
 his having originated the whole movement marked him out to be head 
 of the enquiry. 
 
 , and sat doiun] R.V. ; and they sat down. The R.V. separates 
 the clause more definitely from the preceding one. The Hebrew phrase 
 is the same as the English 'and the commission held its first sitting'. 
 
 in the first day of the tenth month] The first of Tebeth (see Esth. ii. 
 16), the Assyrian Tibi-tuv, about the same as our January. 
 
 to examine the matter] The Hebrew word 'to examine' is of very 
 strange form, and looks as if the name of ' Darius ' had been carelessly 
 introduced by a copyist in the place of the similar word 'to examine'. 
 He was perhaps reminded, by the look of the letters, of the word simi- 
 larly formed composing the familiar name of the king. 
 
 17. And they ?nade an end ivilh all the men, (S:c.] The Hebrew runs 
 
vv. 1 8, 19.] EZRA, X. 139 
 
 that had taken strange wives by the first day of the first 
 month. 
 
 And among the sons of the priests there were found that is 
 had taken strange wives : na7?iely, of the sons of Jeshua 
 the son of Jozadak, and his brethren; Maaseiah, and Ehezer, 
 and Jarib, and Gedaliah. And they gave their hands that 19 
 they would put away their wives; and being guilty, they 
 
 'And they made an end with the whole (business), i.e. the men that 
 had, &c.' The English rendering expresses the meaning. But the 
 wording of the present Hebrew text can hardly be correct, and there is 
 some ground for the conjecture that the words 'the men that had married 
 strange wives' found their way into the text from a heading or a marginal 
 gloss. 
 
 that had taken strange wives] R.V. that had. married strange 
 women. 
 
 by the first day of the first month] The investigation had lasted pre- 
 cisely three months. It lasted until the ist of Nisan, having been con- 
 tinued throughout the months of Tebeth, Shebat (Zech. i. 7) and Adar 
 (Ezr. vi. 15). 
 
 18—44. The List of those who 'had married strange women'. 
 
 The record of the names was probably one of the documents officially 
 preserved. The publicity of such a list was in itself a punishment to 
 the offenders and a warning to others. 
 
 As in chap, ii., the list falls into the three groups of Priests, Levites, 
 and Israel (or Laity), i.e. 17 Priests, 10 Levites, 86 'of Israel'— 113 
 in all. 
 
 18 — 22. Priests. 
 
 18. that had taken strange tvives] R.V. that had married strange 
 women: the R.V. puts a colon after 'women', and a comma after 
 'brethren'. The 'Jeshua the son of Jozadak' here mentioned is clearly 
 the High-priest, the contemporary of Zerubbabel. In chap. ii. 36 we 
 have mention of 'the children of Jedaiah, of the house of Jeshua, nine 
 hundred seventy and three'. It is to the house of Jedaiah that these 
 four priests belonged ; for in that passage as in this, the houses of 
 Immer, Harim and Pashur are mentioned immediately afterwards. 
 Whether Maaseiah, Eliezer, Jarib and Gedaliah were grandsons or only 
 kinsmen of Jeshua the son of Jozadak we are not told. 
 
 19. they gave their hands] R.V. their hand. The Hebrew has the 
 singular. On this symbol of a promise or pledge compare 2 Kings x. 
 15 ' If it be, give me thine hand. And he gave him his hand '. Ezek. 
 xvii. 18 'And behold, he had given his hand, and yet hath done all 
 these things'. Lam. v. 6 'We have given the hand to the Egyptians'. 
 •2 Chron. xxx. 8 'But yield yourselves (Heb. give the hand) unto the 
 Lord'. 
 
 and being guilty, &c.] It has been supposed that whereas the solemn 
 pledge or promise, to put away the strange women, was made by all, 
 
I40 EZRA, X. ivv. 20—26. 
 
 20 offered a ram of the flock for their trespass. And of the 
 
 21 sons of Immer ; Hanani, and Zebadiah. And of the sons 
 of Harim; Maaseiah, and EHjah, and Shemaiah, and Jehiel, 
 
 22 and Uzziah. And of the sons of Pashur ; EUoenai, Maa- 
 seiah, Ishmael, Nethaneel, Jozabad, and Elasah. 
 
 23 Also of the Levites ; Jozabad, and Shimei, and Kelaiah, 
 
 24 (the same is KeUta,) Pethahiah, Judah, and EUezer. Of 
 the singers also; Eliashib: and of the porters; Shallum, 
 and Telem, and Uri. 
 
 25 Moreover of Israel: of the sons of Parosh ; Ramiah, and 
 Jeziah, and Malchiah, and Miamin, and Eleazar, and Mal- 
 
 26 chijah, and Benaiah. And of the sons of Elam; Mattaniah, 
 
 the priests alone had to offer the sacrifice of a ram. The sacrifice of a 
 ram for a guilt offering is enjoined, 'if anyone commit a trespass and 
 sin unwittingly, in the holy things of the Lord' (see Lev. v. 14 — 19). 
 There is however no real reason for limiting the guilt offering to the 
 priests. The passage from Leviticus makes no such restriction. It is 
 probable that this verse represents the form of solemn renunciation im- 
 posed upon all the offenders, i.e. the promise and the guilt offering. It 
 is mentioned after the first names on the list, and should be understood 
 after each recorded group of names. The repetition of the formula was 
 considered unnecessary. 
 
 being guilty\ These words sound like the sentence of the commission, 
 after investigating each case. 
 
 20, 21, 22. The sons of Immer, Harim and Pashur. In Ezra ii. 37 — 
 39 and Neh. vii. 40 — 42 the order of the names is Immer, Pashur and 
 Harim. In i Chron. xxiv. 8 — 14 'Harim' is the third and Immer the 
 sixteenth priestly course: see notes on Ezra ii. 37, &c. 
 
 Several of the names here mentioned occur in the lists of Neh. viii. 
 xii. 
 
 23—25. Levites, singers, and porters. 
 The Levites. 
 
 23. Kelaiah {the same is Kelita)] See Neh. viii. 7, x. 10, Kelita. 
 Jozabad, Neh. viii. 7. 
 
 24. Of the singers also] R.V. And of the singers. There is no 
 variety in the copula, such as the A.V. would imply. Only one 
 * singer' is recorded in the list of offenders. On the prominence given 
 in these books to the 'singers,' see Introd, 
 
 25—43. Israel, or the laity, 
 
 as distinguished from priests and Levites. Cf. ii. 2 'the men of the 
 people of Israel', ix. i 'the people of Israel, and the priests and the 
 Levites '. 
 Moreover of Israel] R.V. And of Israel. There is no variety to 
 
w. 27—33.] EZRA, X. 
 
 141 
 
 Zechariah, and Jehiel, and Abdi, and Jeremoth, and Eliah. 
 And of the sons of Zattu; Elioenai, Eliashib, Mattaniah, 27 
 and Jeremoth, and Zabad, and Aziza. Of the sons also of 28 
 Bebai ; Jehohanan, Hananiah, Zabbai, and Athlai. And of 29 
 the sons of Bani; Meshullam, Malkich, and Adaiah, Jashub, 
 and Sheal, and Ramoth. And of the sons of Pahath-moab ; 30 
 Adna, and Chelal, Benaiah, Maaseiah, Mattaniah, Bezaleel, 
 and Binniii, and Manasseh. And of the sons of Harim ; sr 
 Eliezer, Ishijah, Malchiah, Shemaiah, Shimeon, Benjamin, 32 
 Malluch, and Shemariah. Of the sons of Hashum; Matte- 33 
 
 break the simplicity of the list. The names of the houses here men- 
 
 tioned have all been mentioned 
 
 in 
 
 chap. ii. 
 
 Thus 
 
 
 Parosh (ver. 25) 
 
 in 
 
 Ezra ii 
 
 3 '• 
 
 number of offenders 7 
 
 Elam (ver. 26) 
 Zattu (ver. 27) 
 
 
 j^ 
 
 7 
 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 ) 
 
 8 
 
 J, 
 
 6 
 
 Bebai (ver. 28) 
 
 
 
 
 II 
 
 1) 
 
 " 4 
 
 Bani (ver. 29) 
 
 
 
 
 10 
 
 )> 
 
 6 
 
 Pahath-Moab (ver. 
 
 30) 
 
 
 , 
 
 6 
 
 
 8 
 
 Harim (ver. 31) 
 
 
 
 , 
 
 32 
 
 J, 
 
 8 
 
 Hashum (ver. 33) 
 
 
 
 , 
 
 19 
 
 f> 
 
 >' 7 
 
 Bani (ver. 34) 
 
 
 
 , 
 
 10 
 
 
 27 
 
 Nebo (ver. 43) 
 
 
 , 
 
 . 
 
 29 
 
 „ 
 
 7 
 
 In this list, as compared vidth that in Ezra ii., the following points 
 may be observed : 
 
 (a) The house of Bani is twice mentioned (ver. 29 and ver. 33). This 
 is almost certainly due to an early error in the text. The conjecture 
 that the name of Bigvai (Ezra ii. 14) or of Bezai (Ezra ii, 17) should be, 
 in one instance or the other, substituted for that of Bani is not improbable, 
 especially as otherwise there are seven houses (Ezra ii. 12 — 19) in suc- 
 cession not mentioned here. 
 
 {d) The disproportionately large number of offenders belonging to 
 the second Bani (ver. 34) makes it probable that we have lost the names 
 of three other houses. It will be noticed that the ' sons of Nebo ' are 
 the only representatives of about twenty towns mentioned in Ezra ii. 
 21— 35- 
 
 (<:) The order of the hst of houses is here quite different from that of 
 Ezra ii., an illustration probably of the faithfulness with which the 
 various extant lists were reproduced. 
 
 26. Jehiel\ * of the sons of Elam', see note on ver. 2. 
 
 29. and Ramoth'] R.V. Jeremoth. Marg. 'Another reading is, awa? 
 Ramoth '. The reading of the C'thib is ' Jeremoth ' ; of the K'ri, of the 
 LXX. and Vulg. 'and Ramoth' (LXX. Kal "Prifxwd, et Ramoth). The 
 reading of C'thib 'Jeremoth' is nevertheless preferable. It has support 
 in 3 Esdras ix. 30 'and Jeremoth' {Kai'l€pe/xu6). It is also the less 
 familiar word and would be more likely to undergo change to 'and 
 Ramoth ' than vice versa. 
 
142 EZRA, X. [vv. 34—44. 
 
 nai, Mattathah, Zabad, Eliphelet, Jeremai, Manasseh, mid 
 
 34 Shimei. Of the sons of Bani; Maadai, Amram, and Uel, 
 
 35, 36 Benaiah, Bedeiah, Chelluh, Vaniah, Meremoth, Eliashib, 
 
 37, 38 Mattaniah, Mattenai, and Jaasau, and Bani, and Binnui, 
 
 39j 40 Shimei, and Shelemiah, and Nathan, and Adaiah, Mach- 
 
 41 nadebai, Shashai, Sharai, Azareel, and Shelemiah, Shema- 
 
 4^5 43 riah, Shallum, Amariah, ajid Joseph. Of the sons of Nebo; 
 
 Jeiel, Mattithiah, Zabad, Zebina, Jadau, and Joel, Benaiah. 
 
 44 All these had taken strange wives : and sone of them had 
 
 wives by whoju they had children. 
 
 35. ChelhiJi] R.V. Cheluhi. Marg. 'Another reading is, Chehihu\ 
 
 37. and Jaasau^ R.V. and Jaasu. Marg. ' Another reading is, 
 
 JaasaV. The LXX. clearly had 'Jaasu', which they mistook for a verb 
 
 and rendered 'and they did or made' {koX iiroiTjaav) regardless of the 
 
 lack of meaning. The C'thib has 'Jaasu': the K'ri 'Jaasai'. 
 
 43. Jadati\ R.V. Iddo. Marg. 'Another reading is, Jaddai\ 
 Here the LXX. has Jadai ('laSat) and i Esdr. ix. 35 Edais ('HSats), 
 which agree with the reading of the K'ri. The reading of the C'thib is 
 ' Iddo', and is preferred by the R.V. as in the three preceding instances 
 (vv. 29, 35, 37). 
 
 44. All these had taken strange wives] So also the R. V., a different 
 phrase in the original from that rendered 'had married strange women'. 
 See on ix. 2. 
 
 and some of them had wives by whom they had children] So R.V. 
 Marg. Or, soyne of the wives had borne children. The clause in the 
 original is beset with difficulties. Literally rendered it seems to be 
 'And there were of them (masc) wives, and they (masc.) begat chil- 
 dren'. The LXX. renders freely 'And they begat of them sons' {k(£i. 
 iyhvr}<7av i^ avrCov vloius) agreeing generally with the A.V. and R.V. 
 text. The Vulgate has 'And there were of them wives which had 
 borne children', agreeing with the margin of the R.V. This, it must be 
 confessed, gives the best sense, although it does violence to the grammar 
 in the matter of genders. The exact purpose of the clause is also a 
 matter of uncertainty, (i) By some it is supposed that the clause is in- 
 tended to illustrate the difficulties with which this general divorce was 
 attended. The action was complicated by the question of the children. 
 (2) Others think that it is added to show how thoroughly the com- 
 mission was carried out. Mothers and their children were alike driven 
 forth, in accordance with Shecaniah's proposal (ver. 3) 'Let us make a 
 covenant with our God to put away all the wives and such as are born 
 of them '. The probability that we are here confronted with another 
 instance of textual corruption receives support from the parallel passage, 
 I Esdr. ix. 36 'And they put them away along with their children', 
 which suggests the existence of a different original text. 
 
EZRA, IX. X. 143 
 
 NOTE ON CHAPTERS IX. AND X, 
 
 The great severity which characterises Ezra's policy, as described in 
 these two chapters, calls for special notice. The fact that he was so 
 close a student of the law lends peculiar importance to his acts. His 
 own words (ix. ro — 12) indicate his view. The Jews by contracting 
 marriages with strange women had violated the law of God. They 
 had courted a renewal of national catastrophe. Their only hope lay in 
 the renewal of God's mercy. Their present duty was clear. They 
 must prove the sincerity of their repentance by putting away the 'strange 
 women'. Though it meant ruin to the happiness of scores of homes, 
 the step would vindicate ' the commandment ' and eradicate the source 
 of peril to the people. 
 
 The laws to which Ezra must have referred would have been those 
 found in Ex. xxiii. 31 — 33, xxxiv. 12 — 16; Deut. vii. i — 5. 
 
 These passages contain prohibitions, very similar in character, directed 
 against intermarriage with the nations that dwelt in Canaan, on the 
 ground that such marriages would inevitably lead to idolatry and to the 
 abominations connected with idolatrous worship. The evils arising 
 from a disregard of these laws are touched upon in Judges iii. 5 — 6, 
 where the language, if based upon that of the legislation quoted above, 
 belongs to the Compiler rather than to an early fragment of writing. 
 
 The laws themselves, which are obviously more ancient in substance 
 than the literary shape in which they are presented to us, must indeed 
 at an early time have become disregarded (cf. Judg. xi. ; 2 Sam. xi. 
 3; I Kings xi. i); but their antiquity is shown by the threefold treat- 
 ment of the subject, perhaps also by the apparent allusions to the same 
 subject in Gen. xxiv. 3, xxvii. 46. 
 
 It was not strange however that the prohibition should become a 
 dead letter, when marriage with foreigners generally, and even with 
 Ammonites and Moabites, was permitted by custom (cf. Lev. xxiv. 10; 
 Deut. xxi. II, 12; Ruth i. 4; 2 Sam. iii. 3; i Kings iii. i, xiv. 21; 
 I Chron. ii. 17, 34, &c.), when the rights of the stranger were respected 
 and safe-guarded (Ex. xii. 49; Lev, xxiv. 22), when Edomite and 
 Egyptian could be received in the third generation into Israelite citizen- 
 ship (Deut. xxiii. 7 — 8). 
 
 The rigour of Ezra's reform included all 'foreign wives' among the 
 inhabitants of the seven proscribed nations of Canaan (Deut. vii. i — 5). 
 The severest code was accepted as the highest standard of action. The 
 exclusiveness, which the law had required to be exercised towards 
 Canaanites alone, was now to be practised towards all alike. If the 
 letter of the law was exceeded, the critical position of the Jewish com- 
 munity explains the measure. The permanence of Judaism depended 
 on the religious- separateness of the Jews. The holy mission of the 
 Jewish people could alone be realized by complete freedom from con- 
 tamination with idolatrous influences. 
 
 By the dissolution of marriage with the heathen Ezra sought to check 
 at its source the stream of laxer conceptions upon religious duty. By 
 
144 EZRA, IX. X. 
 
 demanding of the people so heavy a penalty, he taught them that the 
 purity of 'the holy seed ' was worthy of so great a sacrifice. He awoke 
 the national pride in their call to be the 'peculiar people' of the Lord. 
 His action even if it strained the letter of the law, as it has been trans- 
 mitted to us, enforced the sovereignty of its rule. He fenced off the 
 people against the subtler temptations to idolatry and averted the immi- 
 nent danger of his time, the fusion of the Jews at Jerusalem with the 
 semi-heathen 'peoples of the land'. 
 
THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH, 
 
 THE words of Nehemiah the son of Hachaliah. And it 1 
 came to pass in the month Chisleu, in the twentieth 
 
 Part I. NEHEMIAH'S FIRST VISIT TO JERUSALEM. 
 THE REBUILDING OF THE WALLS. 
 
 Ch. i. 1—4. The Evil Tidings. 
 5 — If. Nehemiah's Prayer. 
 ii. 1 — 10. The Royal Commission to Nehemiah. 
 
 II — 20. The Work of Rebuilding the Walls undertaken, 
 iii. The Distribution of the Work, 
 
 iv. The Opposition from without. 
 
 V. The Difficulties in the City. 
 
 vi. The Final Intrigues ; and Completion of the Walls, 
 
 vii. I — 5. The Protection of the City. 
 
 5 — 73 a. The Register of those who returned with Zerub- 
 babel. 
 
 I.— VII. 73 a. Extract from the memoirs of Nehemiah. 
 
 1. The Superscription. 'In many MSS. and editions the beginning 
 of this book is closely united with the last verse of Ezra, and in some it 
 appears without line or interval between as part of Ezra' (Davidson's 
 Hebrew Text). 
 
 The words\ R.V. marg. the history, [a] The rendering 'words' 
 merely calls attention to the fact that we here have a portion of 
 the writings of Nehemiah himself, {b) The rendering 'history' is 
 more formal, and is capable of being understood in two different ways, 
 (i) as a reference to a well-known work of history from the pen of 
 Nehemiah, as in 'the histories (marg. Heb. words) of Shemaiah, the 
 prophet, and Iddo, the seer' (2 Chron. xii. 15) and 'the history 
 (marg. Heb. zvords) of Jehu, the son of Hanani ' (2 Chron. xx. 34); 
 (2) as a descriptive heading of the present book, 'the history of 
 Nehemiah' being equivalent to 'the acts of Nehemiah'; the common 
 expression 'the acts of,' e.g. Solomon (i Kings xi. 41), is literally 'the 
 words of,' 
 
 In order to choose between these renderings, we must remember 
 that the clause is probably an editorial heading, inserted by the 
 Chronicler in the compilation of his work. Perhaps the preference 
 should be given to [a) 'the words of,' on the ground that when Ezra 
 
 NEHEMIAH lO 
 
146 NEHEMIAH, I. [v. 2. 
 
 2 year, as I was in Shushan the palace, that Hanani, one of 
 my brethren, came, he and certain men of Judah ; and I 
 
 and Nehemiah formed one continuous work it was not likely that 
 a heading (whether giving the title of a work that is quoted, or 
 describing the remainder of the Chronicler's book) would be inserted 
 in the middle of the text. But the insertion of a note, to explain 
 the transition from the ist person, used in the extracts from Ezra's 
 memoirs, to the ist person used in the memoirs of Nehemiah, is only 
 what we might expect. 
 
 For superscriptions introduced by editorial hands, compare Isai. 
 i. i; Jer. i. i; Hos. i. i; Am. i, i; Mic. i. i. This, however, is 
 the only superscription of the kind in an historical book. 
 
 Hachaliahl R.V. Hacaliah, cf. x. i. The father's name enables 
 us to distinguish Nehemiah from the men of the same name mentioned 
 in Ezra ii. 1; Neh. iii. 16. The name Hacaliah does not occur 
 elsewhere in the O.T. 
 
 We are not told what tribe Nehemiah belonged to. Some have 
 supposed the tribe of Levi ; and in favour of this suggestion should be 
 observed (a) the mention of his 'brother' Hanani's appointment (vii. 2) 
 along with the appointment of the porters, singers, and Levites; {U) 
 the prominent consideration paid by Nehemiah to the interests of 
 the priests and Levites. 
 
 Others have suggested the tribe of Judah, and in support of their 
 view refer to the mention of his 'house' (i. 6). 
 
 I. 1 b—\\. 11. Nehemiah's Commission. 
 1 (^— 4. The Evil Tidings from Jerusalem. 
 
 1 b. Jjid] R.V. Now. See note on Ezra i. i. The copula implies 
 that something has preceded. The Memoirs of Nehemiah did not 
 open with these words. The Chronicler only gives us extracts (i. i d — 
 vii. 73 a, xii. 27 — 43, xiii. 4 — 31). The retention of the copula at 
 the beginning of the section shows that there was no intention to conceal 
 the fragmentary character of the section. 
 
 Ckisleu\ R.V. Chislev. See note on Ezra x. 9. Hanani's arrival 
 was in the winter, some three or four months before the events narrated 
 in ii. I if. 
 
 in the twentieth year] R.V. marg. 'see ch. ii. i.' In ch. ii. i we 
 find that the events described in the beginning of that chapter are 
 said to have taken place in the month Nisan, in the 20th year of king 
 Artaxerxes. Now Nisan is the first month, Chislev the ninth month 
 in the year. How then comes it that in this verse the events of the 
 ninth month seem to precede those of the first month, in the 20th year 
 of Artaxerxes ? 
 
 {a) The explanation usually given is that Nehemiah employs the 
 post-exilic calendar, in which Tisri (the seventh month) opens the 
 sacred Jewish year, Chislev being then the third and Nisan the seventh 
 months. 
 
V. 3-] NEHEMIAH, I. 147 
 
 asked them concerning the Jews that had escaped, which 
 were left of the captivity, and concerning Jerusalem. And 3 
 
 The objections, however, to this explanation are considerable: 
 (i) There is nothing in the context, here or in ii. i, to cause Ne- 
 hemiah to employ a sacred in preference to a civil computation. As 
 he reckons the year by the reign of the Persian king, and employs 
 the Babylonian (not the old Hebrew) names of months, we should 
 expect him to adopt the calendar in vogue in the Persian dominion. 
 
 {2) The custom of reckoning Nisan as the first and Chislev as the 
 ninth month in the year was almost universal in Western Asia. 
 
 (3) In post-exilic Jewish writings we find this method of computing 
 the months employed with reference to sacred and secular matters 
 indifferently (cf. Zech. i. 7, vii. i; Esth. ii. 16, iii. 7, 13, viii. 9, ix. i; 
 I Mace. iv. 52, X. 21, xvi. 14, 2 Mace xv. 36). 
 
 (4) The system of reckoning the ist of Tisri, the Feast of Trumpets, 
 as New Year's Day is to be dated, according to Jewish tradition, either 
 from the age of Alexander the Great, or, more probably, from the 
 time of the adoption of the Seleucid era {312 B.C.). (The theory which 
 connects it with the restoration of the daily burnt- offering 'on the 
 first day of the seventh month ' Ezra iii. 6, cf. Neh. viii. 11, rests on 
 no foundation.) Even where reference is made to 'the Feast of 
 Trumpets,' the feast is stated to occur in the seventh month (see 
 Lev. xxiii. 24, 25; Num. xxix. i). 
 
 In the opinion of some scholars (e.g. Wellhausen, I/zsL of Isr. 
 p. 109) the Hebrew year was reckoned from autumn to autumn until 
 the Exile, and then the influence of the Babylonian usage caused 
 a change from autumn to spring to take place. There are some 
 indications of an early Israelite practice of reckoning the year from 
 autumn to autumn (Ex. xxiii. ;6, xxxiv. 22; Lev. xxv. 22, cf. Gen. vii. 
 11); and Josephus {Ant. i. i, 3) says this was altered by Moses, in 
 order that the year might date from the month in which the Exodus 
 occurred. But the impression produced by the narrative of the regal 
 period (see 2 Sam, xi. i ; i Kings xx. 22, 26; Jer. xxxvi. 9, 22) is 
 in favour of the mode of reckoning from spring to spring. It seems 
 on every account more probable, that Nehemiah would follow the 
 numeration of months, starting from the month Nisan, which both his 
 countrymen and the people, among whom he lived, commonly employed. 
 
 (b) Another explanation has been given, that the years of Ar- 
 taxerxes' reign were not reckoned, as calendar years, from the month 
 Nisan, but from the month in which he ascended the throne : if there- 
 fore his reign began in any one of the months between Nisan and 
 Chislev (i.e. lyyar, Sivan, Tammuz, Ab, Elul, Tisri, Marcheswan), 
 Chislev would precede Nisan in the year so calculated. But for this 
 view there is no evidence from other sources. 
 
 {c) It is better to acknowledge that we have here a contradiction, 
 and to suppose that a mistake has been made either by the Compiler 
 or by a scribe, who was anxious that the extract from Nehemiah 's 
 writings should open with the mention of a date, and inserted, from 
 ch. ii. I, the year of the king's reign, not perceiving the difficulty to 
 
 10 — 2 
 
148 NEHEMIAH, I. [v. 3. 
 
 they said unto me, The remnant that are left of the captivity 
 there in the province are in great affliction and reproach : 
 
 which it would give rise. The omission of the king's name is an 
 additional reason for suspecting an error in the text. 
 
 Shushafi] Shushan or Susa, atter its capture by Cyrus (546?), 
 became 'the principal capital of the Persian Empire, and its river, the 
 Choaspes, a branch of the Eulaeus (Ulai, Dan. viii. 2, 16), had the 
 honour of supplying the (Persian) kings with the only drinking water 
 they would use' ('The Stoiy of the Nations:' Media, p. 318). 
 "The city of Susa was cut in two by a wide river, known at 
 present under the name of Ab-Kharkha (ancient Choaspes). On 
 the right bank were the populous quarters; on the left, temples, or 
 at least a Ziggurat, the royal city, the citadel, and the palace, the ruins 
 of which, entombed in an immense earth-mound, rise in the midst 
 of the other lesser mounds, like a steep islet from the sea." {id. 
 
 PP;333f-) 
 
 Shushan had formerly been the capital of the kingdom of Elam, 
 whose territory had embraced the alluvial plain E. of the lower Tigris, 
 and stretched S. along the shores of the Persian Gulf {Kiepert). For 
 a mention of the early Elamite kingdom see the reference in Gen. 
 xiv. I ff. to the invasion of Chedor-laomer (Kudur-lagamer). In the 
 Assyrian Inscriptions of Assur-bani-pal, king of Assyria (668 — 626), 
 we have an extraordinarily vivid and minute account of that monarch's 
 two campaigns against the kingdom of Elam. Few, if any, of the 
 treasures of the Assyrian Rooms in the British Museum exceed in 
 dramatic interest, vigour of treatment, and beauty of preservation, the 
 representation, on three slabs (nos. 45 — 47) in the Kouyunjik Gallery, 
 of the overthrow and death, by the banks of Eulaeus, of Teumman, 
 king of Elam. Assur-bani-pal entered Shushan with his victorious 
 army and carried away enormous treasure. The city was sacked and 
 its fortifications destroyed. Elam as a kingdom ceased to exist. 
 Shushan however rose from its ashes. Darius Hystaspes rebuilt the 
 city and erected there a magnificent palace. This was destroyed by 
 fire. But on its site Artaxerxes built another and yet more splendid 
 residence. The remnants of 'a magnificent piece of painted and glazed 
 tiles representing striding lions, which formed the decoration of the 
 pillared porticos' (Ragozin's Media) have been discovered; and along 
 it ran an inscription on which appears the name of Artaxerxes. This 
 was probably the palace in which Nehemiah attended the king as 
 cupbearer. 
 
 It became the usual winter residence of the Persian kings, who 
 made use of Ecbatana for their summer quarters. The importance 
 of the town caused the whole district to be called 'Susiana' in the 
 Macedonian period. After its capture by the Mahommedans it sank 
 gradually into decay. The modern town of Dizful stands near the 
 site of Shushan. Other passages of Scripture which make mention 
 of Shushan (Dan. viii, 2 ; Esth. passim) point to the fact that a large 
 number of Jews resided in the city. 
 
 the palace] R.V. marg. the castle. The word ' birah ' is used here, 
 
V. 4.] NEHEMIAH, I. 149 
 
 the wall of Jerusalem also is broken down, and the gates 
 thereof are burnt with fire. And it came to pass, when I 4 
 
 in Dan. viii. 2, and in Esther, as an appellation of Shushan. It is 
 applied in i Chron. xxix. r, 19 to the Temple at Jerusalem ; in Neh. 
 ii. 8, vii. 2, to the 'capitol' or 'castle' of Jerusalem. In Ezra vi. 2 
 (Aram.) it is used of Ecbatana. It means something more than 'the 
 royal house of residence,' for which we have 'palace' ( = bithan) 
 (Esth. i. 5, vii. 7, 8) or 'the king's house' (Esth. ii. 8, iv. 13). 
 It is probably a special title of Shushan, denoting it as a stronghold as 
 well as a royal city. 
 
 The Vulgate here renders by 'castro': the LXX. transliterates 
 (d/Stpd). 
 
 2. Hanani, one of my brethren'\ Cf. vii. 2 'my brother Hanani,' 
 where the context places it beyond all doubt that the word 'brother' 
 is not to be understood in the sense of 'fellow-countryman.' But 
 'brother' may mean 'cousin' or 'relative,' cf. Gen. xiv. 16, xxiv. 48; 
 and we find 'brethren' used for 'fellow-tribesmen' in 1 Sam. xix. 
 I?; Neh. iii. i. The term 'one of my brethren' favours the ex- 
 planation that Hanani was a relative, not his actual brother. 
 
 certain men ofyiuiah'\ R.V. certain men out of Judah. The R. V. 
 gives the truer rendering of the preposition. The emphasis does not 
 lie upon the men being Jews, but upon their having just come from 
 Judea. 
 
 the yezvs that had escaped, which ivere left of the captivity] i.e. the 
 Jews in the land of Judea as distinguished from those in Babylon and 
 dispersed in other countries. They are described as refugees, or as 
 the children of refugees, who had survived the captivity; cf. Ezr. 
 iii. 8, viii. 35; Neh. viii. 17. 
 
 'that had escaped,' one word in the Hebrew, the same abstract 
 substantive as in Ezr. ix. 15, 'A remnant that is escaped.' 
 
 'the captivity,' not collectively 'the captives,' abstract for concrete 
 like 'hag-golah' (Ezr. ii. 1), but descriptively, 'the scene or condition 
 of captivity' (sh'bhi). 
 
 and concerning yeriisalem'\ Nehemiah's anxious enquiry relates to 
 two things, the welfare of the people and the condition of the city. 
 He does not ask about the Temple. 
 
 3. The reply of the Jews corresponds to the enquiry, and is given 
 in two sentences, the one relating to the inhabitants, the other to 
 the walls and defences of Jerusalem. 
 
 in the provijice] See note on Ezra ii. r. 
 
 great affliction and reproach] Compare the description in ii. 17 
 and the sarcasms of Sanbailat in iv. 2, 3. This 'affliction and re- 
 proach' is something quite distinct from the humiliation of being 
 subject to foreign rulers, as in ix. 37. The 'affliction' denotes 'the 
 evil plight' within the walls; the 'reproach,' the scornful attitude of 
 enemies without. Ct. Ps. Ixxix. 4 — 9, ' we are become a reproach 
 to our neighbours, &c....; for we are brought very low,' and Ixxxix. 
 38-46. 
 
 the wall... IS broken down] Speaking of the wall, the Jews describe 
 
I50 NEHEMIAH, I. [v. 4. 
 
 heard these words, that I sat down and wept, and mourned 
 certaiji days, and fasted, and prayed before the God of 
 
 its present condition ; speaking of the gates, they refer to a past event. 
 For the condition of 'the wall,' cf. ii. 13. 'Broken down': in 
 order to deprive a walled city of its power of resistance, a victorious 
 enemy used to make breaches in the walls at one or more vulnerable 
 points. Cf % Kings xiv. 13 (2 Chron. xxxii. 5). 
 
 the gates... are burnt with fire) cf ii. 13. 'The gates,' as in Jer, 
 xvii. 27, are the fortified gateways, the principal objects of assault. 
 The verb here is in the past tense, and alludes to an historical event, 
 not to a long-standing condition. 
 
 It has been commonly supposed that the Jews are informing Ne- 
 hemiah of the condition in which the walls and gates of Jerusalem 
 had been lying ever since the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chal- 
 deans, 143 years previously (588) ; and Rashi points out that the 
 walls and gates are mentioned and not the Temple, because the 
 Temple had been rebuilt, and 'the walls' and 'the gates' remained 
 in ruins. But this explanation is not sufficient, (i) If Neheniiah's 
 brethren informed him of a condition of things which had continued 
 ever since the return from the Captivity, we fail to see any reason 
 for the vehement consternation into which he was thrown. (2) As 
 a reply to an enquiry concerning the condition of Jerusalem, we should 
 not expect the words 'the gates... are burned with fire,' relating to 
 so distant an event as the Chaldean overthrow, (3) The verb 'are 
 burned' seems to denote a recent event = 'have been burned.' 
 
 It is more natural to suppose that Nehemiah's brethren inform him 
 of a recent catastrophe at Jerusalem. It is a probable conjecture that 
 they refer to a forcible interference, on the part of Samaritan foes, 
 with some recent attempt of the Jews, perhaps led by Ezra, to rebuild 
 their walls. This may be the failure described in Ezr. iv. Artaxerxes' 
 decree of prohibition was, we may well imagine, followed up by hostile 
 action, on the part of the enemies of the Jews, by the demolition of the 
 wall, so far as it had been built, and by the destruction of the gates. 
 
 Nehemiah, a leading Jew at the court, would have been made 
 acquainted both with the project of rebuilding the wall and with the 
 fact of Artaxerxes having prohibited it. Hence his anxious enquiiy 
 about the people beset with foes, and about the city whose defences 
 were in danger. The Temple, on the other hand, had long been rebuilt 
 with the sanction of the Persian king, Darius. There was no appre- 
 hension to be felt on its behalf. 
 
 The news which he receives at first overwhelms Nehemiah with 
 dismay. He connects in his mind the religious and national inde- 
 pendence of his people with a strong and fortified Jerusalem. For the 
 moment his hopes for his people seem to be shattered at a blow. 
 
 4. / sat down and wepf] Cf. Ezr. ix. 3 'sat down astonied,' 
 Ps. cxxxvii. X 'we sat down and wept.' Nehemiah's sudden grief 
 shows that the information brought by his 'brethren' was unexpected. 
 
 fnourned] A word in the original used especially for formal lamen- 
 
V. 5.] NEHEMIAH, I. 151 
 
 heaven, and said, I beseech thee, O Lord God of heaven, 5 
 the great and terrible God, that keepeth covenant and mercy 
 
 tation, e.g. over the dead, Gen. xxxvii. 35, or on account of sin, 
 viii. 9; Ezr. x. 6; Dan. x. 2. 
 
 certain days] R.V. certain days. Literally 'days,' sometimes used 
 to denote a short indefinite period, cf. xiii. 6; it is rendered *a season' 
 in Gen. xl. 4, 'many days,' i Kings xvii. 15. 
 
 fasted, and prayed] Cf. Ezr. viii. -23. 
 
 before the God of heaveti] See note on Ezr. i. •2. The use of this 
 Divine title in Nehemiah's writings is of especial interest, on account of 
 the frequency with which it occurs in Persian inscriptions. It is not 
 merely to be understood as an abridged form of the title of universal 
 sovereignty, 'God of heaven and earth,' but rather as indicating that 
 the Almighty dwelt in the heaven of heavens beyond the visible sky, 
 cf. Ps. cxv. 16. 
 
 'before:' literally *in the presence of This expression has some- 
 times been understood by commentators to denote 'turning with the 
 face towards Jerusalem,' as in Dan. vi. 10, 11. But it is too general to 
 admit of such a limitation (cf. i Sam. i. i^). 
 
 5—11. Nehemiah's Prayer. 
 
 This prayer falls into five portions: (i) the opening address, ver. 5; 
 (2) the humble approach, ver. 6 a ; (3) the confession of sins, vv. 6 ^, 7; 
 (4) the appeal to the Divine Promise, vv. 8—10; (5) the closing sup- 
 plication for [a) the people, and {p) Nehemiah as their representative at 
 the royal court, ver. II. 
 
 Points of resemblance may be noted with the prayer of Ezra (Ezr. ix. 
 5—15), and, in particular, with that of Daniel (Dan. ix. 4—19). The 
 opening words (ver. 5), which are almost word for word the same as we 
 find in Dan. ix. 4 (the only variations being ' Adonai' for 'Jehovah' and 
 the additional title 'God of heaven'), were very probably a recognised 
 formula of prayer based on the language of Deuteronomy. 
 
 5. The opening address blends the Divine attributes of might and 
 majesty with those of faithfulness and mercy. TiWmQ forgivejiess alone 
 could vouchsafe the restoration, which DWme pozuer alone could effect. 
 
 / beseech thee, Lord God of heaven] R.V. LORD, the God of 
 heaven. See on Ezra i. 2. 
 
 'I beseech thee.' (Vulg. quaeso). In the original one strong sup- 
 plicatory word, 'anah,' used also in ver. 11; 2 Kings xx. 3; Ps. cxvi. 4, 
 cxviii. 25 ; Isa. xxxviii, 3 ; Jon. i. 14. 
 
 On 'the God of heaven' see note on ver. 4. . 
 
 ths great and terrible God] This phrase, as in Dan. ix. 4, with its 
 use of the Divine name 'El' is derived from Deut. vii. 21 (x. 17). See 
 the very similar expressions in chap. iv. 14, ix. 32. 
 
 God in the manifestation of His strength (El) is 'terrible.' Cf. Ps. 
 xlvii. 2, Ixvi. 3, Ixviii. 35, xcix. 3. For the fear which Jehovah in- 
 spires cf. Isai. viii. 13 ; jer. v. 22; Mai. i. 6. 
 
 that keepeth covettant and mercy for them that love him and observe 
 
152 NEHEMIAH, I. [v. 6. 
 
 6 for them that love him and observe his commandments : let 
 thine ear now be attentive, and thine eyes open, that thou 
 mayest hear the prayer of thy servant, which I pray before 
 thee now, day and night, for the children of Israel thy 
 
 (R.V. keep) his conimandvients\ The reciprocity of the covenant rela- 
 tion, denoted by the use of the same Hebrew word for 'keeping' 'co- 
 venant and mercy' as for keeping commandments, is thus brought 
 out in the R. V. The sentence which is borrowed from Deut. 
 vii. 9, cf. V. 12, is also found in i Kings viii. 23; Neh. ix. 32 ; Dan. ix. 
 4, in each case, as here, being made use of in a prayer. 
 
 'Keepeth covenant and mercy,' a condensed phrase for 'keepeth 
 covenant and sheweth mercy.' On the Divine side, the keeping of the 
 covenant consisted in shewing 'mercy.' God will not break His cove- 
 nant, cf. Judg. ii. I ; Ps. Ixxxix. 34. 
 
 'for them that love him and keep his commandments,' as in Exod. 
 XX. 6; Deut. v. 10. One class is described in motive and act. 
 The love of those who are in covenant with the Lord is shown in 
 obedience. Compare the New Covenant, 'if ye love me keep my 
 commandments' (John xiv. 15). 'Love to God,' in the Pentateuch, 
 is only expressed in Ex. xx. 6 and in Deuteronomy (v. 10, vi. 5, vii. g, 
 X. 12, xi. I, 13, 22, xiii. 3, xix. 9, xxx. 6, 16, 20); it is found in 
 the historical books, Jos. xxii. 5, xxiii. 11; Jud. v. 31; i Kings 
 iii. 3: in the Psalms, Ps. xviii. i, xxxi. 23, xcvii. 10, cxvi. i, cxlv. 20 
 (v. II, Ixix. 36, cxix. 132). Elsewhere in the O.T. the thought of love 
 to God is hardly directly found except in the parallel passage Dan. 
 ix. 4, and less definitely in Isai. Ivi. 6 ; Mai. ii. 11. 
 
 It is as if the writers of the O.T. shrank from expressing the thought 
 of devotion to God by a term familiarly used of human friendship and 
 earthly affection. The relation of sinful man to the Almighty was that 
 of the subject to the sovereign, of the servant to the master. Devotion 
 was realized in obedience to His law. 
 
 6. The humble access leading to the confession of sin. 
 
 let thine ear now be attentive'] The word 'attentive' is not very com- 
 mon in the original. It occurs again in ver. 11, in Ps. cxxx. 2. And 
 with the rendering 'attent' (A.V. and R.V.) in 2 Chron. vi. 40, vii. 15. 
 The LXX. renders irpoaexov. 
 
 and thine eyes open] We should expect this clause to come first, as 
 in 2 Chron. vi. 40 and vii. 15. We need not however supply the 
 words 'to the misery of thy people' or 'to him that prayeth.' A 
 similar passage in i Kings viii. 52, 'that thine eyes may be open unto 
 the supplication of thy servant,' shows that the metaphor is not to be 
 pressed too literally. 
 
 hea?'] R.V. hearken unto. An alteration due to the wish to give 
 the full force of the Hebrew. 'Thy servant.' Compare i Sam. iii. 9, 
 10, xxiii. 10; 2 Sam. vii. 20. 
 
 nozu, day and night] R.V. at this time, day and night. Literally, 
 'this day, day and night,' cf. ver. 11. 'At this time' then refers to the 
 
vv. 7, 8.] NEHEMIAH, I. 153 
 
 servants, and confess the sins of the children of Israel, 
 which we have sinned against thee : both I and my father's 
 house have sinned. We have dealt very corruptly against 7 
 thee, and have not kept the commandments, nor the statutes, 
 nor the judgments, which thou commandedst thy servant 
 Moses. Remember, I beseech thee, the word that thou 8 
 commandedst thy servant Moses, saying, If ye transgress, I 
 
 'certain days' mentioned in ver. 4 : it does not mean that he went into 
 the presence of the king on the day of this prayer. 
 
 The Vulgate 'hodie nocte et die.' Cf. Acts xx. 31 'night and day 
 with tears.' 
 
 for the children of Israel thy servants^ i.e. in their behalf. In spite 
 of their sin and disobedience, the children of Israel are still God's ser- 
 vants, cf. Levit. XXV. 55; Isai. Ixiii. 17. The exact phrase used here 
 does not occur elsewhere. But the permanent ideal relation, in spite of 
 all failure or rebellion, is frequently expressed in the prophets ; cf. 
 'Jacob, my servant,' used in Isaiah (xh. 8, xliv. 2 &c.), Jeremiah (xxx. 
 10, xlvi. 27, 28), Ezekiel xxxvii. 25. 
 
 and confess'] R.V. while I confess. The A.V. is not grammatical. 
 
 'Confess.' See on Ezr. x. i. 
 
 the sins of the children of Israel, which %ve &c.] Nehemiah identifies 
 himself with the guilt of the people. Cf. Moses in Ex. xxxiv. 9 'Par- 
 don our iniquity and our sin.' 
 
 both I and 7ny father's honse\ i.e. Neither the individual nor the 
 family being free from the responsibility of national sin. It has been 
 remarked that, if Nehemiah belonged to the house of David, there 
 would be a special appropriateness in these words. According to one 
 tradition (Euseb.), he was of the tribe of Judah. 
 
 7. We have dealt very corruptly] The words in the original occa- 
 sion some difticulty. There is however no connexion, as commentators 
 have supposed, between the Hebrew words used here and a similar root 
 meaning 'a pledge.' The Vulgate, adopting a different derivation, has 
 ' vanitate seducti sumus.' The LXX. rendering StaXuVet dieXvaafiev 
 Trpos ae and that of a few MSS. /iaratwcrei ifxaLraLLodTjfxev iu aoL (Field's 
 Orig. Hex.) show the uncertainty as to the meaning. Elsewhere in the 
 O.T. the word occurs in Job xvii. i; Isai. xiii. 5, xxxii. 7, liv. 16; 
 Prov. xiii. 13; Mic. ii. 10; Cant. ii. 15. The substantive derived from 
 the root here used is rendered 'hurt' Dan. vi. 23. It is found with 
 the same meaning as in this verse Job xxxiv. 31 'I will not offend 
 any more.' 
 
 conunandments... statutes... judgments] The three words occur to- 
 gether in Deut. V. 31, vi. I, vii. 11, viii. 11, xi. 1. 
 
 which thou commandedst] e.g. Deut. vi. i. 
 
 thy servant Moses] and ver. 8, ix. 18. 
 
 'The servant of the Lord' was a lavourite title applied to Moses. 
 In Joshua it occurs with great frequency (e.g. i. i, 2, 7, [3, &c.). 
 Elsewhere it is found in i Kings viii. 53, 56; 2 Kings xviii. 12, xxi. 8; 
 
154 NEHEMIAH, I. [v. 9. 
 
 9 will scatter you abroad among the nations : but if ye turn 
 unto me, and keep my commandments, and do them ; 
 though there were of you cast out unto the uttermost part 
 
 3 Chr. i. 3 ; Ps. cv. 26; Mai. iv. 4. He is called 'the servant of God' 
 in Neh. x. 29; i Chr. vi. 49; Dan. ix. 11; 'the man of God' Ezr. iii. 
 2; I Chron. xxiii. 14; Ps. xc. (title). Cf. in the New Testament the 
 description of Moses as the 'faithful servant' in Heb. iii. 2 — 5, and 
 Rev. XV. 3. The LXX. rtp Mwwa^ -Kaiti aov (Vulg. /amti/o tuo) will 
 illustrate Acts iv. 27 'thy holy Servant Jesus' {jov dyiov iraWd crov 
 'Irjaovv). 
 
 8. Re7nember...the word... saying] The reference here made is in 
 general terms. No passage in the Pentateuch exactly agrees with it 
 (of. x. 34). This may be shown by the words used in the first sen- 
 tence. The Hebrew word for 'I will scatter' is only found in 
 Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch: the Hebrew word for 'transgress' 
 only occurs once in Deuteronomy (xxxii. 51), but in quite a different 
 context from the threat of dispersion. 
 
 The threat of dispersion is found in the Pentateuch in Lev. xxvi. 33 ; 
 Deut. iv. 27, xxviii. 64, xxx. 3. The promise of restoration is given 
 in Deut. iv. 29 and in xxx. 4, 5 (Lev. xxvi. 40 — 42). The passage 
 most resembling the words here given is Deut. xxx. i — 5. On 'trans- 
 gress,' see note on Ezr. ix. 4. 
 
 scatter... abroad among the nations'] Cf. Jer. ix. 16; Ezek. xi. 16, 
 xii. 15, XX. 23, xxii. 15, xxxvi. 19. 
 
 In the original the position of the personal pronouns is very em- 
 phatic, Ye transgress, / scatter. 
 
 For the appeal to the Lord to 'remember,' cf. Ps. cvi. 4. 
 
 9. The Promise. The appeal to this promise marks the crisis of the 
 prayer. 
 
 if ye turn] R.V. return. The word, as in Deut. xxx. 2, is 
 stronger than to 'turn'. It denotes a 'return' from a wrong road. 
 The back is turned upon the former wrong direction. Cf. Mai. iii. 18. 
 
 and keep my cof7imandments^ afid do them] R.V. omits comma. 
 These words contain the practical explanation of the 'return.' No 
 distinction can really be drawn between 'keeping' and 'doing' the 
 commandments. The vi^ords occur together with great frequency in 
 Deuteronomy, both as 'observe to do' and 'observe (or keep) and 
 do.' 
 
 though there were of you cast out unto the uttermost part of the heaven, 
 &c.] R.V. though your outcasts were in the uttermost part of the 
 heaven, &c. This and the next clauses are clearly taken from Deut. 
 xxx. 4, where the same words (except for the use of the 2nd sing, 
 for the 2nd plur.) occur. The term 'your outcasts' does not occur with 
 this usage elsewhere in the Pentateuch, while the exact phrase Hn the 
 uttermost part of heaven' also only occurs there. The word 'outcasts' 
 maybe illustrated from 2 Sam. xiv. 13, 14; Isai. xvi. 3, 4, xxvii. 13, 
 Ivi. 8; Jer. xxx. 17, xlix. 36, and 'the uttermost part of heaven' from 
 Deut. iv. 32 and Jud. vii. 11. But the occurrence here side by side of 
 
V. lo.] NEHEMIAH, I. 155 
 
 of the heaven, yet will I gather them from thence, and will 
 bring them unto the place that I have chosen to set my 
 name there. Now these are thy servants and thy people, 
 whom thou hast redeemed by thy great power, and by thy 
 
 these two forms can only be accounted for on the supposition that 
 Nehemiah has here in his thoughts the passage Deut. xxx. i — 4. 
 
 On 'gathering the outcasts' compare the title given to the Lord 
 in Isai. Ivi. 8, ' The Lord God which gathereth the outcasts of Israel.' 
 
 and will bring them'\ The promise to bring together 'the outcasts' 
 of Israel should be compared with the metaphor of the shepherd and 
 the scattered sheep, in Ezek. xxxiv. 11 — 18. See especially, ver. 13, 
 'And I will bring them out from the peoples, and gather them from 
 the countries, and will bring them into their own land.' 
 
 u7ito the place that I have chosen to set my 7iame there"] R.V., to 
 cause my name to dwell there. This sentence is again characteristically 
 Deuteronomic. The words, 'the place which the Lord thy God 
 shall choose,' do not occur in the Pentateuch except in the book 
 Deuteronomy, where they are found some 20 times. In five of these 
 passages (xii. 11, xiv. 23, xvi. 6, 11, xxvi. 2) the full phrase is found, 
 ' the place which the Lord thy God shall choose to cause his name to 
 dwell there,' which Nehemiah here quotes. 
 
 That 'the place' so designated is Jerusalem and the Temple at 
 Jerusalem is beyond all doubt. This was the place of which God 
 had said 'My name shall be there' (i Kings viii. 29). At Shiloh 
 God ^caused his na?ne to dwell at the first' (Jer. vii. 12). But Shiloh 
 passed away. And though Jerusalem for a time seemed threatened 
 with a like fate (Jer. vii. 12 — 15), the day came when the watchmen 
 upon the hills of Ephraim cried, 'Arise ye and let us go up to Zion 
 unto the Lord our God' (Jer. xxxi. 6). 
 
 The Hebrew verb 'cause to dwell' is that from which came the 
 late Hebrew word 'Shechinah', applied to the visible manifestation 
 in Glory of the Divine Presence. 
 
 The association of 'the Name' with the Temple is very frequent 
 in Chronicles (e.g. i Chr. xxii. 7 — 10, 19, xxviii. 3, xxix. 16; 2 Chr. 
 ii. I, 4, vi. 5—9, 20, 33, 34, 38, vii. 16, 20, xii. 13, xx. 8, 9, xxxiii. 
 
 4' 7). 
 
 10. This verse states the ground on which the privilege of the 
 promise is claimed. 
 
 Now these are thy servants, &c.] The connexion of thought, which 
 is not very obvious at first sight, seems to be as follows. Having stated 
 the Divine promise, Nehemiah returns in thought to 'the children of 
 thy servants' of ver. 6. They, by their confession of sin, had fulfilled 
 the condition, they had 'returned' unto their God. They could claim 
 the fulfilment of His promise. They were not aliens. They were His 
 own people whom He Himself had redeemed. 
 
 whom thotc hast redeemed] Of the two Hebrew words, rendered 
 by the English 'redeem,' i.e. 'ga'al' and 'padah,' the word here used 
 is 'padah.' It is noteworthy that in the similar expression, Exodus 
 
156 NEHEMIAH, I. [v. ii. 
 
 II strong hand. O Lord, I beseech thee, let now thine ear be 
 attentive to the prayer of thy servant, and to the prayer of 
 thy servants, who desire to fear thy name : and prosper, I 
 
 vi. 6, 'redeem you with a stretched out arm,' the word 'ga'al' is used, 
 while here, as always in Deuteronomy (vii. 8, ix. 26, xiii. 5, xv.^ 15, 
 xxi. 8, xxiv. 18), the word 'redeem' is 'padah.' LXX. iXvTpuxru; 
 Vulg. redeinisti. The redemption, here spoken of, looks back, beyond 
 the recent restoration from Babylon, to the original deliverance from 
 Egypt, which sealed for ever the relation between Jehovah and His 
 people. 
 
 by thy great power, and by thy stivng hand] Nehemiah combines 
 two familiar phrases which do not seem to be elsewhere combined 
 except in Exodus xxxii., 11 'thy people which thou hast brought forth 
 out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand.' 
 Along with 'great power' we frequently find 'a stretched out arm,' 
 as in Deut. ix. 29; 2 Kings xvii, 36; Jer. xxvii. 5, xxxii. 17: and 
 again *a stretched out arm' following upon 'a strong (or mighty) hand,' 
 as in Deut. iv. 34, v. 15, vii. 19, xi. 2 ; i Kings viii. 42; 2 Chron. vi. 
 32; Ps. cxxxvi. 12; Jer. xxxii. 21; Ezek. xx. 33, 34. 
 
 It is possible that Nehemiah here has the Jehovist Ex. xxxii. 1 1 in 
 his thoughts. But as the reading there is doubtful, both the Samaritan 
 and the LXX. texts having 'a stretched out arm' instead of 'a mighty 
 hand,' we cannot be confident that we have here a quotation. 
 
 The words ' yad hakhezakah' are rendered by the R.V. 'strong 
 hand' here and Ex. iii. 19, vi. i, xiii. 9; Num. xx. 20; Ps. cxxxvi. 12; 
 Jer. xxxii. 21 (Ezek. xxx. 22), and 'mighty hand' in Ex. xxxii. ir; 
 Deut. iv. 34, v. 15, vi. 21, vii. 8, 19, ix. 26, xi. 2, xxvi. 8, xxxiv. 12; 
 Jos. iv. 24; 1 Kings viii. 42 ; 2 Chron. vi. 32; Ezek. xx. 33, 34. 
 
 11. The special Intercession {a) generally, that the prayer of Nehe- 
 miah and his countrymen might be heard, [b) particularly, that Nehe- 
 miah's application to the king might be successful. 
 
 O Lord\ The Hebrew word 'Adonai' is also used for the Divine 
 name in Neh. (iii. 5) viii. 10, x. 29 : see also note on Ezra x. 3. 
 
 The use of 'Adonai' by itself as a Divine title is common in poetry 
 and in prophetical writings (e.g. Job xxviii. 28 ; Ps. xvi. 2, xxxv. 23, 
 xxxvii. 13 iS:c.; Isai. iii. 17, 18, viii. 7 &c.; Jer. ii. 22; Ezek. xviii. 25, 
 29; Amos i. 8, V. 16; Mic. i. 2, and in Lamentations chaps, ii. \\\. pas- 
 swt). It is generally used in prayer or humble address, as in Gen. 
 xviii. 3, 27, 30 — 32; Ex. iv. 10, 13, v. 22, xxxiv. 9; Num. xiv. 17; 
 Jos. vii. 8 ; Jud. vi. 15, xiii. 8; 2 Sam. vii. 19 ; i Kings viii. 53; Ps. 
 xxxix. 7, Ii. 15 ; Dan. ix. 4, 7, 8, 16, 17, 19. 
 
 / beseech thee] see note on ver. 5. 
 
 who desire to fear thy name] R.V. who delight &c. 
 
 The R.V. gives the true rendering. The Hebrew word is more gene- 
 rally used of ' delight in' a person or a thing, e.g. i Sam. xix. 2 ; Ps. 
 xxii. 8, cxii. i ; Isai. i. i r ; but it is also found with an infin., e. g. Ps. 
 xl. 8 ' I delight to do thy will, O God.' Isai. Iviii. 2 ' delight to know 
 my ways.' Eslh- vi. 6 &c. ' the king delighteth to honour.' 
 
V. II.] NEHEMIAH, I. 157 
 
 pray thee, thy servant this day, and grant him mercy in the 
 sight of this man. For I was the king's cupbearer. 
 
 'delight to fear.' The union of fear and joy is the paradox of spi- 
 ritual service. Cf. Ps. ii. II 'Serve the Lord with fear and rejoice 
 with trembling,' xxii. 23 'Ye that fear the Lord praise him.' 
 
 thy name] i.e. Thy nature and Thy attributes. As often in the O. T. 
 For ' fear thy name,' comp. Ps. Ixxxvi. 11; Mai. iv. 2. 
 
 this day] The same word as in ver. 6 'at this time,' and to be un- 
 derstood here in the same sense. There is an obvious interval of time 
 between ch. i. and ch. ii. 
 
 and grant him mercy] The idiom here employed, literally ' and give 
 him to mercy' occurs with the word here used for 'mercy' (rachamim = 
 'bowels' or 'mercies,' to, avXayxv a) in r Kings viii. 50; Ps. cvi. 46. 
 The sense strictly is ' and give him over for purposes, or as an object, 
 of mercy and kindness,' just as in iv. 4 'give them up to spoiling' 
 represents an opposite thought. 
 
 in the sight of this ??ian] i.e. the king; the final words of the prayer 
 are explained by the parenthetical clause which follows. The word 
 'this' shows that the prayer was the petition of Nehemiah at the king's 
 court, not necessarily in his presence. 
 
 For I was &c.] R.V. (Now I was, &c.) The clause in the Hebrew 
 is parenthetical. 
 
 the king's cupbearer] R.V. cupbearer to the king. The article is 
 wanting before ' cupbearer.' Nehemiah stood in the relation of 
 'cupbearer' to the Persian king, but there were others holding the 
 same office. Compare the use of the plural, 'cupbearers,' i Kings x. 5 ; 
 2 Chron. ix. 4; the title of 'chief butler,' i.e. chief of the cupbearers, 
 in Gen. xl., xli ; and the title Rab-shakeh ( = chief cupbearer) in 
 1 Kings xviii. 17. This last passage shows the important place 
 occupied at the court by the head of these functionaries. For, although 
 the title probably represents the Assyrian '7?a(5'-jfl'/^' = ' Generalissimo,' 
 the Hebrew transliteration of it, based on the similarity of sound, 
 conveyed the idea of 'chief cupbearer' to Hebrew readers, and pre- 
 supposed his prominence among the ministers of an Oriental king. 
 
 A good representation of the duties of a ' cupbearer ' at the Persian 
 court is given by Xenophon {Cyrop. i. 3, 4). See note on ii. r. 
 
 The majority of such attendants at an Oriental court were eunuchs. 
 We must certainly admit the probability that the Jews who occupied 
 places of distinction at the court like Nehemiah, Daniel and his com- 
 panions (Dan. i. 7), Mordecai (Esth. ii. 5, 19, &c.), Zerubbabel (i Esdr. 
 iii. 14, iv. 13), belonged to this class. The words of consolation 
 addressed by the Prophet of the Exile (Is. Ivi. 4, 5) to pious Jews, who 
 according to the strict letter of the law were excommunicate, were 
 applicable to such cases. 
 
 LXX. oiuox^os: Vulg. pincema. The old Rabbinic explanation of 
 the word ' Tirshatha,' as equivalent to ' cupbearer ' and therefore 
 applied to Nehemiah, is an illustration of obsolete methods of deriva- 
 tion (see Ezr. ii, 65). 
 
158 NEHEMIAH, 11. [v. i. 
 
 2 And it came to pass in the month Nisan, in the twentieth 
 year of Artaxerxes the king, that wine was before him : and 
 
 II. 1—11. Nehemiah receives His Commission. 
 
 1. Nisaitl See note en i. i. This name only occurs elsewhere in 
 the O.T. in Esther iii. 7, 'in the first month, which is the month Nisan,' 
 of. Josephus, Ant. xi. 4, 8, ' The first month, which according to the 
 Macedonians is called Xanthicus, but according to us Nisan.' Its 
 meaning is uncertain; according to some its root-idea is ' fruitfulness, ' 
 according to others 'beginning' or 'origin.' It corresponds to the 
 month of which the older Israelite name was 'Abib' (Ex. xiii. 4, xxiii. 
 15, xxxiv. 18; Deut. xvi. i), 'the harvest month,' equivalent to our 
 latter part of March and beginning of April. 
 
 The same month appears in the Assyrian dialect as Nisannu, and it 
 is quite possible that the Jews may have adopted the name from Baby- 
 lonian usage. 
 
 the twentieth year of Artaxerxes] 445 B.C. : Artaxerxes reigned 41 
 years (465 — 424 B.C.). In the year 445 Pericles had obtained control 
 of Athenian affairs ; and a thirty years' truce was concluded between 
 Athens and Sparta. At Rome the conflict between patricians and 
 plebeians was being waged ; the deposition of the Decemvirs had 
 occurred only four years before. 
 
 that 'wine'\ R.V. when wine. The R.V. shows the connexion of the 
 sentences. The present clause states the occasion, when Nehemiah 
 preferred his request. 'When wine was before him;' i.e. when the 
 Icing was at a repast, and the cupbearers were (or a cupbearer was) in 
 attendance. At such a time the king would naturally remark upon 
 any alteration of demeanour in a favourite ' cupbearer.' 
 
 According to Rawlinson {Ancient Monarchies, vol. iii. p. 214) the 
 Persian king himself rarely dined with his guests. For the most part 
 he dined alone. Sometimes he admitted to his table the queen and 
 two or three of his children. Sometimes at a ' banquet of wine ' (Esth. 
 vii. 2) a certain number of privileged boon companions were received. 
 
 before him] Another reading is found in the LXX. 'before me,' 
 {koI rjp 6 oTvos evwiriov i/xov), which is followed in the Arabic version 
 and was known to the translators of the Syriac. The change needed 
 in the Hebrew to give this rendering is very slight, being only the 
 omission of a single letter {vazu), which is read once instead of being 
 repeated {Vphdn&{y) vaessa instead of Vphdndv vaessa). It has been 
 very ingeniously maintained that this is the right reading, and that the 
 words ' when wine was before me ' denote ' when my turn came round 
 to attend as cupbearer at the royal table.' According to this explana- 
 tion, the clause accounts for the delay of three or four months, before 
 Nehemiah made his appeal to the king; it also accounts for the king 
 not having before recognised the sadness of his cupbearer, this being 
 the first occasion on which he had appeared in the royal presence since 
 the sad news arrived in the month Chislev. 
 
 But it does not seem likely that a cupbearer, who enjoyed the favour 
 of the king, should have appeared so rarely in his presence as this 
 
V. 2.] NEHEMIAH, II. 159 
 
 I took up the wine, and gave // unto the king. Now I had 
 not been beforetime sad in his presence. Wherefore the z 
 
 view supposes. The LXX. reading makes practically no distinction in 
 meaning between the clauses ' wine was before me ' and ' I took up 
 the wine,' and it is a pure assumption, that the former was a phrase 
 for the rotation of the cupbearer's office. 
 
 On the other hand, the Hebrew text gives with great minuteness the 
 full circumstances of the event : (i) the month and year; (2) the time 
 of day, at the dinner ; (3) the stage at the dinner, when the cupbearer 
 offered the king wine. It distinguishes between 'wine... before him,' 
 the occasion of the repast, and ' I took up... the wine,' the act of pre- 
 senting the royal cup. 
 
 and I took np\ R.V. that I took up. The cupbearer's duties were 
 to pour out the wine, to taste it so as to prevent any scheme of 
 poisoning, and to present it to the king. Perhaps the words ' took up ' 
 relate to the reverential gesture with which the goblet was offered. 
 
 the wifie] 'The vines of Helbon were cultivated for the special 
 purpose of supplying the Persian king with wine ' (Rawlinson, Anc. 
 Alon., iii. p. 226). Helbon, a village near Damascus (see Ezek. xxvii. 
 18), seems to be the place intended by Strabo and Athenaeus, who call 
 it 'Chalybon.' 
 
 No^u I had not been beforetime sad in his presence\ These words 
 have given rise to considerable difficulty. There is nothing to show 
 that this was the first occasion on which Nehemiah had stood before 
 the king since the month Chislev. To suppose that the king had 
 been absent for several months from Shushan would of course get 
 over the difficulty. But we have no evidence upon which to base 
 such an assertion. The passage, as it stands, suggests that Nehemiah 
 was performing his usual duties as on former days. If so, how are we 
 to explain Nehemiah's words ? For surely we may suppose his sadness 
 to have dated from the arrival of the distressing news (ch. i. 2). 
 
 Various explanations of the words have been attempted ; e.g., 
 
 (i) ' Now I was not evil in his sight,' i.e. he was well disposed to 
 me. The rendering ' evil ' instead of ' sad ' is equally in accordance 
 with the Hebrew, but the use of the same adjective in the sense of 
 'sad ' in verse 2 (see note) is fatal to this interpretation. 
 
 (2) ' To suppose that I should not have been sad in his presence!' 
 Grammatically possible, an exclamation is not a probable turn of the 
 sentence. 
 
 (3) 'And I was not sad in his presence.' The preterite tense is 
 understood to refer to this particular occasion, and not generally to 
 past time. This interpretation supposes that Nehemiah did not wear a 
 sad countenance, but that the quick eye of his royal master perceived 
 that something was wrong with his favourite. This, it is claimed, 
 would account for the perturbation of Nehemiah described in ver. 2. 
 But it is sufficient to object that (a) ver. 2, leaves us to suppose that 
 Nehemiah's sadness was clearly visible; {b) the ist pers. sing, of the 
 preterite of the auxiliary is used in three other passages in this book 
 and refers to past time indefinitely (i. i, 11, xiii. 6). Had Nehemiah 
 
i6o NEHEMIAH, II. [v. 3. 
 
 king said unto me, Why is thy countenance sad, seeing 
 thou art not sick ? this is nothing else but sorrow of heart. 
 3 Then I was very sore afraid, and said unto the king, Let 
 the king Hve for ever : why should not my countenance be 
 sad, when the city, the place of my fathers' sepulchres, lieth 
 
 wished to say that he was not sad on this occasion he would not have 
 employed the auxiliary at all. 
 
 (4) Accepting the English rendering, ' Now I had not been before- 
 time sad in his presence,' it seems necessary to assume that Nehemiah 
 chose his opportunity and deliberately gave occasion for the king's 
 enquiry. It was forbidden for royal servants to appear before the king 
 gloomy and unhappy. It was ill-omened, and suggested discontent 
 and plotting at the court, cf. Esth. iv. 2. Nehemiah had not therefore 
 beforetime been sad in the king's presence. He had not made up 
 his mind up to this time what steps to take or what petition to present. 
 Now, however, after his prayer to God (ch. i. 5 — 11), he had been 
 able to resolve upon his course of action. He appeared before the 
 king at the banquet table in a state of sadness and dejection, which 
 could not possibly escape the king's notice when he stood before him 
 as cupbearer and presented him the cup. 
 
 2. Wherefore'] R. V. And. 
 
 sad] The Hebrew adjective which means literally *bad' is used 
 constantly in this sense, just as we speak of ' bad news ' when we mean 
 'sad news.' For this usage cf. Gen. xl. 7 'sadly,' Prov. xxv. 20 'an 
 heavy heart.' 
 
 sorrow of heart} The substantive, being derived from the same root 
 as the adjective 'sad,' had better have been rendered 'sadness,' to 
 bring out the antithesis between 'countenance' and 'heart.' It is so 
 rendered in Eccles. vii. 3, 'the sadness of the countenance.' 
 
 Then I was very sore afraid] See note on ver. i. Nehemiah's fear 
 was very natural. The long-expected and dreaded moment had come, 
 on which he was to plead his people's cause. Their destiny and 
 perhaps his own life depended upon his success. The capricious 
 temper of Persian kings was well known. Artaxerxes may very pro- 
 bably have been prejudiced against the Jews by such complaints as had 
 occasioned the disastrous edict of Ezr. iv. 17 — 22. 
 
 3. Let the ki7ig live for ever] For this formula opening an address 
 to a king see Dan. ii. 4, iii. 9. Cf i Kings i. 31. 
 
 7vhy should not my countenatice be sad ?] i.e. how could it be other- 
 wise than sad ? 
 
 the place of my fathers' sepulchres] ' the place,' literally ' the house : ' 
 compare i Sam. xxv. i ; i Kings ii. 34, where Samuel and Joab are 
 said to have been buried each ' in his own house.' This is explained by 
 comparing 2 Kings xxi. 18, 'Manasses...was buried in the garden of his 
 own house,' with 2 Chron. xxxiii. 20, 'they buried him (Manasses) in 
 his own house.' Rich families had their own private places of sepulture 
 (rock-hewn tombs, caves and the like). Nehemiah's words would be 
 particularly appropriate if he was, as some have supposed, a descendant 
 
vv. 4, 5-] NEHEMIAH, II. i6i 
 
 waste, and the gates thereof are consumed with fire? Then 4 
 the king said unto me, For what dost thou make request? 
 So I prayed to the God of heaven. And I said unto the 5 
 king. If it please the king, and if thy servant have found 
 favour in thy sight, that thou wouldest send me unto Judah, 
 unto the city of my fathers' sepulchres, that I may build it. 
 
 of the royal house. The tombs of David and the kings of Jerusalem 
 seem to have been cut out of the rock on the S. side of the Ophel hill, 
 cf. iii. 16. 
 
 consuined'\ Literally 'eaten up,' as in ver. 13. The more usual 
 phrase is ' burned,' as in i, 3, ii. 17. 
 
 4. For zvhat dost thou rnake request] See Esth. iv. 8, vii. i, 7. Tl.e 
 king is favourable, and asks how he can render assistance. 
 
 So I prayed'] Literally, ' And I prayed '. Nehemiah instantaneously 
 turns from the great king of Persia to the King of kings. The simplicity 
 with which Nehemiah narrates this little incident of his momentary 
 ejaculatory prayer adds wonderfully to the vividness of the scene. For 
 Nehemiah's habit of recourse to prayer see ch. iv. 4, 9, v. 19, vi. 9, 14, 
 xiii. 14. 
 
 It is not easy to parallel this act of ejaculatory prayer from the Old 
 Testament. In the New Testament we turn to the examples of our 
 Lord, e.g. John xi. 41, xii. 27; Luke xxiii. 34; and St Stephen, 
 Acts vii. 60. 
 
 The object of his prayer is doubtless for wisdom to make his request 
 aright and for a favourable assent from the king. He could not but ex- 
 pect that the king would be startled by the magnitude of a request, first 
 to nominate his cupbearer as the royal commissioner at Jerusalem, and 
 then to empower him to rebuild its walls and defences. 
 
 5. If it please the king, and if thy servant, &c.] A double conditional 
 sentence precedes the request. On the king's approbation of the policy 
 and on the king's personal favour to Nehemiah must depend the issue. 
 
 The words run literally, ' If it is good before the king and if thy ser- 
 vant be good in thy presence.' The phrase in the first clause is the 
 same as that used, e.g. in Esth. i. 19, ix. 13. The second clause differs 
 from the common phrase ' to find favour or grace,' e.g. i Sam. xvi. 22 ; 
 Esth. ii. 15. The verb which with this meaning is generally used 
 impersonally, here has a subject ; elsewhere this construction is unusual, 
 cf. Esth. V. 14, 'the thing pleased Haman ;' Eccles. vii. 26, 'whoso 
 pleaseth God,' literally, ' is good in the presence of God.' 
 
 that I may build it] If, as is most probably the case, Ezra iv. 7—24 
 refers to the events of the reign of Artaxerxes, Nehemiah in alluding to 
 the city of Jerusalem introduces a subject that had some time previously 
 engaged the king's attention. According to the letters in that chapter 
 the work of ' building ' the city had been stopped. But the decree, 
 which had stopped the work, also contemplated the possibility ot its 
 being resumed : seeEzr.iv.2i,'Make ye now a decree to cause these men 
 to cease and that this city be not builded until a decree shall be made 
 by me.' Nehemiah makes request that such a decree should be maile. 
 
 NEHEMIAH I I 
 
i62 NEHEMIAH, II. [vv. 6— 8. 
 
 6 And the king said unto me, (the queen also sitting by him,) 
 For how long shall thy journey be? and when wilt thou 
 return ? So it pleased the king to send me ; and I set him 
 
 7 a time. Moreover I said unto the king, If it please the king, 
 let letters be given me to the governors beyond the river, 
 
 8 that they may convey me over till I come into Judah ; and 
 a letter unto Asaph the keeper of the king's forest, that he 
 
 The knowledge of this previous edict would have increased his appre- 
 hensions. * Build ' in this passage is equivalent to ' building the walls,' 
 cf. Ezra iv. 12, 16. 
 
 6. The account is very condensed. Nehemiah's request is favourably 
 received, but only the general results of the conversation are related. 
 The king seems at once to have appointed Nehemiah to be ' governor ' 
 at Jerusalem (cf v. 14), and to have approved the policy of restoring 
 the walls. 
 
 the qtieen^ The royal consort (cf. Ps. xlv. 10; Dan. v. 2, 3, 23) the 
 head of the Harem. She may possibly have been Damaspia, who is 
 mentioned by the historian Ctesias as the consort of Artaxerxes. 
 
 sitting by hini] It was clearly not a public banquet (cf Esth. i.). 
 The position of the queen sitting by or before the king corresponds 
 with representations in the monuments. Compare especially the represen- 
 tation of Assurbanipal reclining at a banquet, his queen being seated 
 on a chair at the foot of his couch (Brit. Mus.). 
 
 and I set him a titne'\ The duration of this period is not stated. 
 And the length of Nehemiah's first residence in Jerusalem has been 
 much disputed, some holding that he returned to the king's court 
 immediately after the completion of the walls, others saying that he 
 remained as governor (cf. v. 14) for twelve years, having obtained an 
 extension of the time of absence originally agreed upon. 
 
 7. letters'] see note on Ezra iv. 8. 
 
 the governors beyond the river] The ' Pekhahs ' of the province on 
 the west bank of the Euphrates (Ezra viii. 36). A reference to Ezra iv. 
 7 — ro, 17 shows the importance of securing the recognition of these 
 provincial governors. 
 
 convey me over. . .into Judah] R.V. let me pass through. . .unto Judah. 
 Letters of safe conduct through their territory. The governors would 
 not be asked to assist the journey, but to secure that Nehemiah should 
 not be hindered or molested on the way. 
 
 8. Asaph the keeper of the king s forest] R.V. marg. * or park '. The 
 forest or park from which the timber was to be supplied has been iden- 
 tified by some with the forests of Lebanon, by others with the well- 
 wooded. ' plain' abounding in olives and sycomores (i Chron. xxvii. 28) 
 near the coast. In the present day scholars incline to identify it with 
 'Solomon's Garden' at Etan or Etam, described by Josephus {Ant. 
 VIII. 7.3) as richly wooded and well watered (7rapa5ei'crois.../cai vajxanov 
 eirippoais eiriTepir^s ofxov kul irXovcnov) distant about six or seven miles 
 S. from Jerusalem. The ' pleasure-grounds' of Solomon may have been 
 handed down as ' royal domains.' 
 
V. 8.] NEHEMIAH, II. 163 
 
 may give me timber to make beams for the gates of the 
 palace which appertained to the house, and for the wall of 
 the city, and for the house that I shall enter into. And the 
 king granted me, according to the good hand of my God 
 upon me. 
 
 In a scantily- wooded country like Palestine a well-preserved forest 
 would have constituted a valuable piece of property. 
 
 The management of the ' timber ' was committed to a royal officer, 
 'the keeper of the king's forest ' or ' park.' The name Asaph suggests 
 that ' the keeper ' was a Jew, which would favour the view of the forest 
 being not far from Jerusalem. 
 
 •forest,' 'park' or 'pleasure-garden.' The Hebrew word " pardes " 
 (Gr. TrapaSeto-os = English 'paradise ') is found in the O.T. only in Cant, 
 iv. 13; Eccles. ii. 5. It is said to be of Persian ( = Zend pairidaha) 
 origin, signifying an 'enclosure.' It seems to have been used especially 
 of ' the royal parks ' or 'enclosed hunting-grounds ' of the Persian kings, 
 and in this sense to have been received into Hebrew and Greek lite- 
 rature. It occurs with the meaning of a 'garden' in Ecclus. xxiv. 30, 
 xl. 17, 27, Susann./^j«;//. For its technical usage among the Jews for 
 'the abode of the blest,' see, on Luke xxiii. 43, Lightfoot's Horae 
 Hebraicae. 
 
 that he may give me timber\ Nehemiah asks for timber for the pur- 
 pose of building (i) the castle or citadel of Jerusalem, (2) the walls 
 generally, (3) his own house of residence as governor. 
 
 the gates of the palace which appertained to the hoiise\ R.V. the gates 
 Of the castle wMch appertaineth to the house. The word ' Birah ' 
 rendered 'castle' by the R.V. is of foreign, possibly Babylonian origin, 
 and is represented in the Greek by BSpts. See note on i. i. 
 
 The building here referred to was destined to play an important part 
 in the later history of Jerusalem. It lay on the north side of the Temple 
 (' the house '), which it was intended to defend, and with which it com- 
 municated. It is not mentioned in xii. 39, and therefore probably lay 
 inside the circuit of the wall. A special officer commanded it (vii. 2) on 
 account of its great importance. 
 
 It was rebuilt by the Asmonean princes (r Mace. xiii. 52), and again 
 by Herod the Great, who gave it the name of ' Antonia,' after his friend 
 and patron Mark Antony. Into this castle St Paul was carried by the 
 Roman soldiers, when they rescued him from the hands of the mob in 
 the Temple precincts (Acts xxi. 37, xxii. 24). 
 
 the wall of the city] The timber would be required especially for the 
 gates and for the towers which commanded the gates. 
 
 the hoicse that I shall enter into] By this is apparently intended 
 Nehemiah's official residence, where he afterwards so generously enter- 
 tained, V. 17, 18. The old interpretation which explained it to mean 
 the Temple gives no satisfactory meaning to the words ' that I shall 
 enter into.' Nehemiah was not a priest ; and had no right to enter the 
 Temple (see vi. 11). 
 
 according to the good hand, &c.] Cf. ver. 18 ; Ezra vii. 6, viii. 18 — 22. 
 
i64 NEHEMIAH, II. [vv. 9, lo. 
 
 9 Then I came to the governors beyond the river, and gave 
 
 them the king's letters. Now the king had sent captains of 
 
 10 the army and horsemen with me. When Sanballat the 
 
 9. the governors beyond the river"] The governors of the provinces 
 W. of the Euphrates. According to Josephus the chief governor of 
 Syria, Phcenicia and Samaria was Adaeus {Ant. xi. 5. 6). The state- 
 ment that Nehemiah went to the various 'governors beyond the river' 
 may indicate the hne of his journey, of which we are told nothing. 
 The Compiler for brevity's sake has here condensed 'the Mem.oirs 
 of Nehemiah,' omitting whatever was not directly connected with the 
 purpose of his history. Nehemiah would jouiney to Babylon, and 
 from Babylon probably to Hamath and Damascus, which as the most 
 important cities in Syria would be the residences of 'governors.' From 
 Damascus he either journeyed along the E. of the Jordan, crossing it at 
 Jericho, or he crossed it by the usual fords south of the Lake of Galilee 
 and visited Samaria on his way to Jerusalem. At Samaria there may 
 very possibly have resided a Persian officer (cf. iv. 2). If Nehemiah 
 took Samaria on his way to Jerusalem, this would account for his 
 mention of Sanballat and Tobiah (ver. 10) before the mention of his 
 arrival at Jerusalem (ver. 11). 
 
 had sent... with me] R.V. had sent with me.... As the king's com- 
 missioner Nehemiah was attended by an armed retinue. These royal 
 soldiers placed at his disposal would greatly strengthen the independence 
 of his position at Jerusalem. Nehemiah's progress as governor with an 
 armed escort is in striking contrast to the similar journey of Ezra, 
 who was ashamed to ask for military protection for his large and 
 unarmed company. (Ezr. viii. 22.) 
 
 10. I'Vhen] R.V. And when. 
 
 This is the first meniion of the opposition which Nehemiah en- 
 countered. The news of his mission quickly spread, although its 
 precise object was not known (cf. vv. 12, 16). 
 
 Sanballat and Tobiah appear throughout the book as the bitterest 
 foes he had to encounter. 'Sanballat,' or, as perhaps it should be 
 called, Saneballat (LXX. Zam/SaXXdr, Josephus HavajJaW^Trjs) is pro- 
 bably an Assyrian name, meanmg 'Sin (the moon-god of the Assyrians) 
 giveth life,' just as Nabubalitanni means 'Nebo giveth the life.' The 
 name of the moon-god appears also in Sennacherib=' Sin gives many 
 brothers.' Sanballat is distinguished as 'the Horonite,' by which is 
 probably meant 'dweller in Beth-horon,' a town on the borders of 
 Ephiaim (Josh. xvi. 3, 5, xviii. 13, xxi. 22; 2 Chron. viii. 5, xxv. 13), about 
 18 miles N.W. of Jerusalem, upon the main road leading to the plain 
 of the coast. Beth-horon commanded the pass into the mountains. 
 Strategically it was a place of great importance. It is famous for its 
 connexion with the victories of Joshua (Josh. x. 10), of Judas Maccabeus 
 (i Mace. iii. 15, vii. 39), and as the scene of the overthrow of Cestius 
 Gallus (Joseph. Be/t. J. ii. 19. S). 
 
 Sanballat was evidently one of the leaders of the Samaritan com- 
 munity (see on iv. 2). Some scholars imagine from the frequent 
 
V. II.] NEHEMIAH, II. 165 
 
 Horonite, and Tobiah the servant, the Ammonite, heard of 
 it^ it grieved them exceedingly that there was come a man 
 to seek the welfare of the children of Israel. So I came to 1 
 
 conjunction of his name with that of Tobiah the Ammonite, that San- 
 ballat must have been a Moabite, and that the title ' Horonite ' denotes 
 a dweller in ' Horonaim,' a town in Southern Moab, mentioned in 
 Isai. XV. 5; Jer. xlviii. 3, 5, 34, and twice in the Inscription of the 
 Moabite Stone. 
 
 Tobiah the sei-vanf, the Ammonite] Why Tobiah is called ' the servant ' 
 is not clear. It may denote that he once held some position under the 
 Persian governor or under the king. Rawlinson's suggestion that he 
 was Sanballat's secretary and councillor, and had originally been an 
 Ammonite slave, is less probable. He is generally mentioned on an 
 equality with Sanballat, and in Neh. vi. 12, 14, his name stands first. 
 Frequent mention is made of Tobiah's intrigues against the work and 
 authority of Nehemiah. According to some, the termination ' -jah ' 
 shows him to have been a renegade Jew: cf. Ezra ii. 60; Zech. vi. 10, 
 where the same name occurs. His son's name, Jehohanan (vi. 18), is 
 also compounded of the Jewish Sacred Name. 
 
 The race-hatred between the Jews and the Ammonites and Moabites 
 (see xiii. i, 2) may explain in some degree Tobiah's hostility. But in 
 all probability the Samaritans and the neighbouring nations (Moabites, 
 Ammonites, Arabians, &c.) were combined in the desire to foil any 
 effort made to reinstate Jerusalem in her old position of being the most 
 powerful town in Palestine. The policy of Nehemiah would weaken 
 the neighbouring tribes in proportion as it would strengthen the Jews. 
 
 Tobiah may have in some way represented the Ammonites, possibly 
 as governor of their small community, having received the position from 
 the court where he had been a slave (cf. Eccles. x. 6; Lam. v. 8, 'ser- 
 vants rule over us'). 
 
 it grieved them exceedingly] Cf. the same phrase in Jonah iv. i. 
 
 that there was come a ?nan] R.V, for that, &c. 
 
 a matt] Contemptuous reference to Nehemiah. His office and 
 position as ' pekhah ' not referred to. The Hebrew 'adam,' not 'ish,' 
 is used. For the difference when both occur together, cf Ps. xlix. 2 
 ('both low and high'), Ixii. 9; Isai. ii. 9, v. 15. 
 
 to seek the welfare of] Literally, ' to seek good for.' The phrase is 
 not common; it is the antithesis of * to seek the hurt ' (Esth. ix. 2). In 
 Jerem. xxxviii. 4, 'this man seeketh not the rvelfare of this people, but 
 the hurt,' the word rendered 'welfare' is 'shalom ' or 'peace,' here it is 
 'tobh,' the good or prosperity. 
 
 II. 11 — VII. 5. The Commission performed. 
 II. 11—20. The Work undertaken. 
 The incidents of this passage may be grouped as follows: 
 {a) 11. Nehemiah's arrival : (/;) 12— 15, His preliminaiy investiga- 
 tion : {c) 16—18, the resolution to undertake the work : {d) 19, 20, Nehe- 
 miah and his opponents. 
 
i66 NEHEMIAH, II. [vv. 12, 13. 
 
 12 Jerusalem, and was there three days. And I arose in the 
 night, I and sojue few men with me ; neither told I any man 
 what my God had put in my heart to do at Jerusalem : 
 neither was there aiiy beast with me, save the beast that I 
 
 13 rode upon. And I went out by night by the gate of the 
 
 11. After his arrival at Jerusalem, Nehemiah waited three days 
 before taking any steps. Ezra had done the same (Ezra viii. 32). It 
 was necessaiy to rest after the journey, and to interchange the formalities 
 of Eastern courtesy with the principal people of the city. 
 
 12. Nehemiah went out ' by night ' with only a few attendants. He 
 did not wish to excite the curiosity of the people or to arouse the 
 suspicion of his foes with respect to his intended project. 
 
 neither told I any man^ He preserved a discreet silence, until he 
 had personally formed some estimate of the nature and extent of the 
 work to be undertaken in the rebuilding of the walls. It was also 
 important to have the scheme thoroughly matured, so that upon its 
 announcement he could anticipate objections and forestall opposition 
 by immediate action. 
 
 had put'] R. V. put. The R. V. reproduces the present tense of the 
 original more accurately. The consciousness of the Divine inspiration 
 continued with him. For the expression cf. vii. 5. 
 
 at Jenisalem] R. V. for Jerusalem. Undoubtedly the right ren- 
 dering of the preposition here. Nehemiah's project was primarily to 
 renovate Jerusalem and to remove the shame of its position as described 
 in i. 2, 3. It was preeminently \\ox\ifor the city. 
 
 neither was there any beast, &c.] A cavalcade would have attracted 
 notice. Nehemiah probably rode a mule or ass rather than a horse. 
 Riding over rough places by night he would require the most surefooted 
 animal. 
 
 13—15. Nehemiah's tour of inspection*. 
 
 13. by the gate of the valley] R. V. by the vaUey gate. The R. V. 
 rendering is preferable, showing that Nehemiah is not merely defining 
 the position of the gate but is referring to it by its recognised name. 
 
 The valley-gate is mentioned again in iii. 13. The king Uzziah 
 according to 2 Chron. xxvi. 9 had fortified this gate with towers. We 
 may safely identify this gate as the chief gate in the western wall of 
 Jerusalem, and as thus corresponding to the modern Jaffa Gate, 
 although very possibly not standing at precisely the same spot. There 
 were two well-known valleys outside the walls of Jerusalem, (i) the 
 'valley' or 'ravine' {gai) of Hinnom or 'the son of Hinnom,' i.e. 
 Gehenna, cf Josh. xv. 8, xviii. 16; 2 Kings xxiii. 10; 2 Chron. xxviii. 3, 
 xxxiii. 6; Neh. xi. 30; Jer. vii. 31, 32, xix. 6; (2) the 'valley' or 
 
 * The Topography of the Walls of Jerusalem, in pre-Maccabean times, remains in 
 great obscurity. The places mentioned in Neh. ii. 13 — 15, iii., xii. 37 — 39 cannot as 
 yet be said to have been certainly identified exxept in one or two instances. So long 
 as those who are best acquainted with the subject, differ widely from one another, we 
 may be content to forbear expressing any decided opinion, until further evidence be 
 brought to light. 
 
V. 13.] NEHEMIAH, II. 167 
 
 valley, even before the dragon well, and to the dung port, 
 and viewed the walls of Jerusalem, which were broken down, 
 
 * brook' or 'watercourse' [nakhal) of Kedron. In the present verse 
 the word for 'valley' is \i^ai,^ and this fact coupled with the general 
 topographical description here and in iii. 13, shows that 'the valley-gate ' 
 was the western gate leading out into the ravine of Hinnom. 
 
 Recent investigations, however, have given rise to the supposition that 
 pre-exilic Jerusalem was much smaller in circuit and that the western 
 wall passed down the valley of the Tyropoeon. If so, 'the valley-gate' 
 would be the gate opening into the Tyropoeon, which in those days 
 was a considerable ravine but has since become almost completely 
 choked with accumulations of ruin. According to this view the 
 Tyropoeon is to be identified with the Valley of the Son of Hinnom. 
 
 even before the dragon 7ve/l] R. V. even towards the dragon's well. 
 The LXX. misreading the less common word in the Hebrew for 
 'dragon,' renders Kai Trpos arbfia Trrjyrjs tQv ctvkwv. The name is 
 doubtless connected with some sanctuary at this fountain in prehistoric 
 times, when * living water ' was associated with the worship of a deity 
 often represented by a ' dragon.' Prof. Robertson Smith {Religion of 
 the Semites, pp. 156, 157) calls attention to 'the connection oi jinns 
 in the form of dragons or serpents with sacred or healing springs'... 
 ' The river of Coele-Syria, the Orontes, was carved out, according to 
 local tradition, by a great dragon, which disappeared in the earth at 
 its source.' The explanation that the well was so called ' because 
 some curious large watersnake or crocodile was kept in it in Nehemiah's 
 time ' may be disregarded as fanciful and improbable. 
 
 The identification of the well is uncertain. By some it has been 
 identified with ' En-Rogel,' near 'the serpent's stone,' the stone of 
 Zoheleth (i Kings i. 9). But see ver. 15. By others it has been 
 identified with 'the fountain of Gihon ' (i Kings i. 33). Neither of 
 these suggestions suits the present verse, from which we gather that 
 •the dragon fountain stood on the W. or S.W. wall of the city.' If 
 it was a spring in the Tyropoeon Valley, it has long since been choked 
 up. ' The rock-hewn conduit which has been found running along the 
 bed of the Tyropoeon Valley' (Sir Chas. Wilson's Jerusalem, p. 113, 
 18S9) "^^y "^s^T w^ll ^^'SM^ conducted the water from such a spring. 
 The 'serpent,' or Mamilla Pool, lay at the N. end of the modern 
 Hinnom Valley (Joseph. Bell. ytid. v. 3. 2). 
 
 dung poi-t} R. V. dung gate. The A. V. probably introduced the 
 rendering 'port' as an intentional variation. For 'port' as the old 
 English word for 'gate,' compare in the Prayer-book Version Ps. ix. 14, 
 'within the ports of the daughter of Sion.' Shakespeare, Coriolanus^ 
 i. 7, ' So let the ports be guarded ' (see The Bible Word-Book, by 
 W. Aldis Wright). 
 
 The dung-gate was probably so called because the refuse of the town 
 was carried out through this gate. Some scholars suppose this to be the 
 same as ' the gate Harsith'or ' gate of potsherds ' mentioned in Jer. xix.2. 
 It is mentioned also in Neh. iii. 13, 14, xii. 31. The proposal to 
 identify it with the modern 'dung-gate,' the ' Bab-el-Mugharibe,' is 
 
i6S NEHEMIAH, II. [w. 14, 15. 
 
 14 and the gates thereof were consumed with fire. Then I 
 went on to the gate of the fountain, and to the king's pool : 
 but there was no place for the beast that was under me to 
 
 15 pass. Then went I up in the night by the brook, and viewed 
 
 very natural ; but the similarity of the name may be misleading. We 
 might however assume that such a gate would be near the Southern 
 extremity of the city, or at any rate not far from the lowest depression 
 in the neighbourhood of the city. 
 
 and vircved the walls, &c.] ' viewed,' that is, ' surveyed,' as in Shake- 
 speare Zr<?«. V. II. 4, 'Therefore, I say 'tis meet we all go forth To 
 z'iew the sick and feeble parts of France.' — So the Vulg. 'considera- 
 bam.' 
 
 The Hebrew word, 'shobher,' which it translates is very unusual 
 in this sense. It ordinarily means to 'break' or 'burst,' and hence 
 some have rendered ' and broke my way through the walls, ' and even 
 'made my way over the broken fragments;' while the LXX. has koX 
 rjfjLTiv (TvvTpi^uv iv T(2 Teixei 'lepovaaXrj/x. The similar late Hebrew 
 verb 'sabhar,' rendered 'hope' (Esth. ix. i ; Is. xxxviii. 18; Ps. cxix. 
 166), 'wait' (Ps. civ. 27, cxlv. 15), 'tarry' (Ruth i. 13), is probably only 
 a variant of the word which occurs here. It was the misunderstanding 
 of this word which caused Rashi to suggest in his note on ver. 12 that 
 the object of Nehemiah and his companions was to break down portions 
 of the wall that remained, in order that on the next morning the Jews 
 might the more readily assent to his proposals ! 
 
 b7'oken down,... consumed ivith fire\ Cf i. 3, ii. 3. It is uncertain 
 whether the Hebrew text had ' wall ' or 'walls.' The LXX. and Latin 
 versions both have the singular (retxet, mnriim). The traditional Hebrew 
 vocalization favours the plural. 
 
 14. / wentoji] Literally ' I crossed ' or ' passed over.' 
 
 to the gate of the fountain'\ R.V. to the fountain gate. On the 
 disputed identification of 'the fountain gate,' see iii. 15, xii. 37. It 
 seems to have stood almost at the southernmost part of the city, at the 
 mouth of the narrow valley of the Tyropoeon. It derived its name 
 either from its proximity to the waters of ' the only real well at Jeru- 
 salem,' now known as Bir Eyub, ' the well of Job' (probably En-Rogel) 
 ' a little below the junction of the Kidron and Hinnom valleys ' (Wil- 
 son's Je7-usalem, p. 104), or from its proximity to Siloam, called by 
 Josephus 'a fountain' (TTTyy^) in Bell. Jiid. v. 4. i. 
 
 the king's pooI\ Probably to be identified with the Pool of Siloam, 
 and here called ' the king's pool' because it adjoined 'the king's garden.' 
 It consisted of an upper and a lower reservoir (Is. vii. 3, xxii. 9, 11 ; 
 2 Kings xviii. 17) fed by a subterranean conduit from the waters of 
 Gihon (cf 2 Kings xx. 20). 
 
 there was no place'] Apparently owing to the ruins of the walls and the 
 steepness of the slope Nehemiah could not continue his investigation, 
 following the line of the wall. 
 
 15. Then went I up] The tense in the original denotes the gradual 
 progress. 
 
vv. i6, r;.] NEHEMIAH, 11. 169 
 
 the wall, and turned back, and entered by the gate of the 
 valley, and so returned. And the rulers knew not whither I 
 went, or what I did ; neither had I as yet told it to the Jews, 
 nor to the priests, nor to the nobles, nor to the rulers, nor 
 to the rest that did the work. Then said I unto them. Ye 
 see the distress that we are in, how Jerusalem lieih waste, 
 and the gates thereof are burnt with fire : come, and let us 
 build up the wall of Jerusalem, that we be no more a re- 
 
 by the brook'\ i.e. the 'nakhal' or 'brook' {xelfxappos) of Kedron. 
 Leaving the ruined line of wall, he goes down to the hollow of the 
 Kedron valley, and proceeds northward 'up' the stream, surveying the 
 remains of the walls that crowned the steep declivity on his left. 
 
 and turned back] R.V. and I turned back. This word has been 
 taken to mean not a retracing of his steps, but the turn westward in his 
 route, which would lead eventually in the direction from which he had 
 started. After leaving the Kedron valley the journey would not be so 
 difficult, being probably on the more level ground where the ruins had 
 been cleared ; or where less destruction had been wrought. The 
 absence of mention of any spot on the N. or N.W. wall has caused 
 others to suppose that Nehemiah 'turned back,' having seen enough, 
 without completing his circuit of the walls. More probably we have 
 here an instance of condensation on the part of the compiler who at this 
 point passes at once to the return journey, without giving us sufficient 
 material to judge whether the complete circuit of the walls was made. 
 
 16—18. The Nation's Resolve. 
 
 16. the rulers] R.V. marg. Or deputies. ' S'ganim ' is the title used in 
 Ezr. ix. 2, and in this book (iv. 8, 13, v. 7, vii. 5, xii. 40) for the chief 
 magistrates and officials of the city. 
 
 whither I went, or what I did] More literally 'whither I had gone 
 and what I was doing.' 
 
 neither had I as yet to/d it] i.e. the prospect of rebuilding the walls. 
 
 the yews. ..the work]K remarkable division of the inhabitants of Jeru- 
 salem : ' the Jews ' here are the great mass of the lay population, as 
 distinguished from {a) the priests, {b) 'the nobles' ^ Khdrim\ the 
 aristocracy, heads of houses, &c. (cf. iv. 13, 14, v. 7, vi. 17, vii. 5, 
 xiii. 17), {c) 'the rulers,' the official element [segdnivi), [d) 'the rest that 
 did the work,' referring by anticipation to tlie large body who were 
 shortly afterwards employed on ' the work' of building the walls. 
 
 17. Nehemiah's appeal. It is implied that Nehemiah having satis- 
 fied himself as to the practicability of his plan called an assembly of 
 those mentioned in the previous verse. How soon after his nocturnal 
 ride is not stated. 
 
 the distress] R.V. the evil case, the same word as in i. r. 
 
 yerusakfu lieth zvaste, &c.] Cf ii.3. 
 
 that lue be no more a reproach] See i. 3, where the words 'affliction' 
 
I70 NEHEMIAH, II. [vv. i8, 19. 
 
 18 proach. Then I told them of the hand of my God which 
 was good upon me; as also the king's words that he had 
 spoken unto me. And they said, Let us rise up and build. 
 
 19 So they strengthened their hands for this good work. But 
 when Sanballat the Horonite, and Tobiah the servant, the 
 Ammonite, and Geshem the Arabian, heard /V, they laughed 
 us to scorn, and despised us, and said, What is this thing 
 
 and 'reproach' are the same as the 'distress' or 'evil case,' and 'reproach' 
 in this verse. 
 
 a reproacli] i.e. an object of reproach by reason of our inability to 
 defend ourselves, cf. Ps. xxii. 6, ' a reproach of men, and despised of the 
 people;' Joel ii. 19, 'I w^ill no more make you a reproach among the 
 nations.' Ezek. xxii. 4. 
 
 18. the hand of my God] Cf. ver. 8. The blessing which had so far 
 attended his plan. 
 
 as also the kitig's words'] R.V. as also of, &c. He reported the sub- 
 stance of the king's words, v^'hich the compiler has not given us. 
 
 Let us rise tip and build] The people responded with enthusiasm. 
 
 So they strengthened their hands] The presence of enemies on every 
 side made the undertaking hazardous. At the same time the need of 
 courage will be more obvious if we accept the theory of a recent 
 hostile attack (cf. note on i. 2). The versions render the verb in the 
 passive, LXX. iKparaididrjcTav at x^'P^s avTwv, Vulg. confortatae stint 
 mantis eorum, which is followed by Luther, ' ihre Hdnde %viirdcn 
 gestdrkt. 
 
 for this good work] R.V. for the good work. Literally, ' for the good,' 
 the same expression as ' the well-fare' in ver. 10. LXX. ets rh dyadov, 
 Vulg. in bono. 
 
 19, 20. The Derision of the Enemy. 
 
 19. Sanballat... Tobiah] See ver. 10. 
 
 Geshem the Arabian] A third prominent adversary of Nehemiah is 
 here introduced. His name occurs again in vi, i, 2. In vi. 6, the 
 name is written as 'Gashmu,' a dialectical variety agreeing, as it is said, 
 with North- Arabian usage. Geshem is clearly the chief of some Arabian 
 tribe. Cut whether he represented Arabians on the Southern border of 
 Judah or the Arabian community established by Sargon king of Assyria 
 in the depopulated neighbourhood of Samaria (715) is a disputed point. 
 If the former, then the movement, which he now took part in, must be 
 regarded as a coalition of all the neighbouring peoples against the 
 restoration of Jerusalem's greatness. If the latter, then the movement 
 is to be chiefly connected with the hostility of the Samaritans. 
 
 the Arabian] See on iv. 7. 
 
 laughed ns to scorn] A strong word, familiar to us from its occurrence 
 in the Psalter (ii. 4, xxii. 7, lix. 8, Ixxx. 6). We are not told whether 
 this scorn was expressed by letter or in a personal interview. 
 
 despised ns] See the two words occurring together in 2 Kings xix. 21; 
 
V. 20.] NEHEMIAH, 11. 171 
 
 that ye do ? will ye rebel against the king ? Then answered 20 
 I them, and said unto them, The God of heaven, he will 
 prosper us ; therefore we his servants will arise and build : 
 but you have no portion, nor right, nor memorial, in Jeru- 
 salem. 
 
 Ezek. xxxvi. 4. The ground of the contempt here expressed is not quite 
 obvious. Some suppose that the enemy scoffed in ignorance of the 
 king's deci-ee in favour of Nehemiah's action, and that, regarding the 
 Jew^s as embarking upon a course of open rebellion, they derided an 
 undertaking which they thought could have but one conclusion. On 
 the other hand, it is hardly likely that Nehemiah would have kept in the 
 background the royal authority for his undertaking. We know he had 
 been to the 'governors' of the province (ver. g). 
 
 It is more probable that in order to alienate the Persian officials and 
 to frighten the more timid spirits among the Jews, they pretended to 
 interpret Nehemiah's action as the first step towards a real rebellion. 
 The insignificance of the Jewish community in size and strength — its 
 inability to take any political step of real importance — presented an 
 easy target for ridicule, which was calculated to arouse the suspicions 
 of Persian ofiicials at the same time that it promoted disaffection amongst 
 the waverers in Jerusalem. 
 
 will yc rebel] Or 'are ye rebelling?' Vulg. Numquid contra regein 
 vos rebellatis? LXX. diroaTaTeiTe. 
 
 20. The God of heave )i\ see on i. 4, 
 
 will prosper us\ See i. 11. The Vulgate 'juvat nos,' the present tense 
 corresponding to the following clause 'we are his servants,' is quite per- 
 missible : but is not so suitable to the occasion of Nehemiah's reply. 
 
 we his servants] as in i. 6, 10. 
 
 arise and build] ver. x8. The LXX. by a strange error renders hovKoi 
 auTou Kadapoi, Kai olKo8oiJ.r]ao/j.€u, reading 'n'qiyyim' for ' naqum.' 
 
 no portion, nor right, nor nionoriaU] These words closely resemble 
 the declaration in Ezr. iv. 3, and imply some sort of claim on the part 
 of these adversaries to a share in the fortunes of Jerusalem. If so, the 
 adversaries must be regarded as mainly consisting of the Samaritan 
 community. Nehemiah renouncing connexion with the Samaritans, 
 affirms that they have no share in the present community, no ground for 
 claiming it in the future, no memorial or justification of such claim in 
 the past. 
 
 no portion] Cf. 1 Sam. xx. i. 
 
 nor right] The word here used has generally the sense of righteous- 
 ness. Here it means 'right,' 'just claim;' so in 2 Sam. xix. 28 ' What 
 right therefore have I, &c. ;' and Joel ii. 23, 'he giveth you the former 
 rain in just measure' (marg. 'Or in (or for) righteousness'). 
 
 nor memorial] i.e. the Samaritans had no memorial nor proof of their 
 past connexion with Jerusalem. The word is rendered ' remembrance' 
 in Eccles. i. 11, ii. 16; 'memorial,' Num. xvi. 40, xxxi. 54. Cf. 
 • write this for a memorial in a book' (Ex. xvii. 14) ; 'a book of remem- 
 brance ' (Mai. iii. 16). 
 
172 NEHEiMIAH, HI. [v. i. 
 
 3 Then Eliashib the high priest rose up with his brethren 
 the priests, and they built the sheep gate ; they sanctified it, 
 
 Ch. hi. 1—32. The Distribution of the Work. 
 
 The Rebuilding of the Wall. The present chapter mentions 42 
 portions of the work. But the description is clearly incomplete; and 
 we may suppose that Nehemiah's list either has been only partially 
 reproduced by the Compiler or had been preserved in a mutilated 
 copy. See notes on w. 7, 25 — iS. 
 
 Eliashib the high priesi\ Eliashib was the son of Joiakim, and the 
 grandson of Jeshua (Ezr. iii. 2; Neh. xii. ro). Though he co-operated 
 in the work of rebuilding the walls, his close connexion with Tobiah, as 
 described in chap. xiii. 4, shows that he did not sympathize with the 
 policy of Ezra and Nehemiah in separating the Jews from any alliance 
 or combination with other nations. 
 
 The technical title * the high-priest,' literally 'the great priest,' which 
 is used here and in v. 20, xiii. 28, is found in Lev. xxi. 10 ; Num. xxxv. 
 25, 28 ; Jos. XX. 6 ; 2 Kings xii. 10, xxii. 4 ; 2 Chron. xxxiv. 9; Hag. i. 
 I, 12, 14, ii. 2, 4; Zech, iii. i, 8, vi. 11. Elsewhere we find him called 
 'the chief priest,' e.g. 2 Kings xxv. 18; 2 Chron. xxiv. 11, xxvi. 20; 
 Ezra vii. 5, viii. 17; Jer. Iii. 24. 
 
 the sheep gate] This gate is also referred to in ver. 32 and xii. 39. 
 There can be little doubt that it is the same gate as that mentioned by 
 St John V. 2, ' Now there is in Jerusalem by the sheep gate a pool, 
 which is called in Hebrew Bethesda,' The fact that the priests restored 
 it suggests its proximity to the Temple. This is confirmed by the 
 reference to it in chap, xii. 39. Its position was in the N.E. portion of 
 the city, and corresponded to the modern St Stephen's gate, so far as 
 the change in walls and ground-level permits of comparison. We may 
 suppose that the name was taken from a sheep-market in the immediate 
 neighbourhood. Large numbers of sheep would be required for the 
 Temple sacrifices. The chief supplies of sheep would come from 
 Eastern Palestine and the land of Moab. Their arrival through this 
 eastern gate, whether a market stood near or not, was sufficient to 
 account for the name. 
 
 Socin (Baedeker, Palestine and Syria, p. 151) says 'As the pool of 
 Bethesda is now believed to have been near the present 'Ain esh-Shifa,' 
 and not at the place assigned to it by tradition, we must inter that the 
 sheep gate led from the industrial quarter of the Tyropoeon into the 
 Temple precincts.' Comparing, however, this passage with Zech. xiv. 
 lo, it is tempting to identify 'the sheep gate' with 'the gate of Ben- 
 jamin,' which is not mentioned in our chapter, -but which clearly stood 
 at the N.E. of the city (cf. Jer. xxxvii. 13). 
 
 they sanctified it ] The same Hebrew word occurs in connexion with 
 the completion of a building in i Kings viii. 64, 'The same day did the 
 king hallow the middle of the court.' It does not anticipate the solemn 
 dedication of the walls in chap. xii. The completion of the priests' 
 work was signalised by a special sacred function. (See note on the 
 word 'sanctify' in xii. 47.) 
 
V. 2.] NEHEMIAH, III. 173 
 
 and set up the doors of it ; even unto the tower of Meah 
 they sanctified it, unto the tower of Hananeel. And next 
 unto him builded the men of Jericho. And next to them 
 
 set up the doors] This was the final act. See i Kings xvi. 34, where 
 'gates ' is kept by the R.V. as the rendering of the same word. 
 
 tinto the tower of Meah] R.V. unto the tower of Hammeali. Marg., 
 unto the tower of'' The hundred.^ What is intended by * the tower of 
 Hammeah,' we have no means of determining. The alternative ren- 
 dering ' the tower of The hundred,' supposes either that the tower was 
 approached by 100 steps, or that it required 100 men to defend it. It 
 is possible that there has been some early defect in the reading. 
 
 they sanctified it] The repetition of these words shows that the wall 
 running from the sheep gate to the tower is here intended. But the 
 omission of the object to the verb creates a difficulty. 
 
 unto the tower of Hananeel] R.V. Hananel. This was a well-known 
 building, which is mentioned also in chap. xii. 39; Jer. xxxi. 38; Zech. 
 xiv. 10. From the first of these passages we gather that the tower stood 
 midway between the sheep gate and the fish gate. From the two others, 
 that it stood at the N.E. corner of the city. Probably from this point 
 the wall, which had run N.W., now turned due W. It may have owed 
 its name to its builder. 
 
 The way in which it is mentioned here occasions some difficulty. If 
 it is the same as the tower of Hammeah, there seems no reason why the 
 writer should first of all have designated the well-known tower of 
 Hananel by the name of Hammeah. If it is a different tower, how 
 does it happen that two towers are mentioned as the limit of the priests' 
 restoration of the wall? 
 
 Supposing the text to be correct, the tower of Hammeah may have 
 been the Eastern tower of the same stronghold which is also called 
 Hananel. From the emphatic way in which it is mentioned this 
 fortress probably represented an important strategic point. Now * the 
 castle (or birah) which appertaineth to the house ' may have stood on 
 high ground near this point. And the conjecture is plausible that the 
 tower of Hananel was the name given to an outwork of the great 
 fortress at the point where the city wall ran into it. 
 
 According to this theory, Eliashib and the priests restored the city- 
 wall between the sheep gate and a portion of the great fortress which 
 commanded the Temple. It does not appear from this chapter that 
 these towers had been pulled down. They had possibly been left to 
 receive a garrison or were not so easily dismantled as the walls. 
 
 2. next tmto him] i.e. next to Eliashib and the priests. The de- 
 scription passing northward from the Temple, now turns west. 
 
 the men of Jericho] Some suppose that this section of the wall lay 
 sufficiently on the N.E. quarter to offer to ' men of Jericho ' a conve- 
 nient piece of work. 
 
 On the other hand, the term may only denote a clan of fellow- towns- 
 men, who had held together during the exile and were known by this 
 name after they had settled in Jerusalem. See Ezr. ii. 34. 
 
174 NEHEMIAH, III. [w. 3, 4. 
 
 3 builded Zaccur the son of Imri. But the fish gate did the 
 sons of Hassenaah build, who also laid the beams thereof, 
 and set up the doors thereof, the locks thereof, and the bars 
 
 4 thereof. And next unto them repaired Meremoth the son 
 of Uriah, the son of Koz. And next unto them repaired 
 MeshuUam the son of Berechiah, the son of Meshezabeel. 
 
 to iheni] R.V. marg. Heb. to him. Perhaps the Hebrew indicates 
 here an abbreviation of or omission from the list, ' Next to,' here and 
 in ver. 19 should have been rendered ' next unto ' as elsewhere. 
 
 3. But the fish gate] R.V. And the fish gate. This gate is referred 
 to in chap. xii. 39 ; 2 Chron. xxxiii. 14 ; Zeph. i. 10. It was on the 
 northern or north-western wall ; how far distant from the ' tower of 
 Hananel ' we cannot tell. But the two sections of wall-building under- 
 taken by 'the men of Jericho' and ' Zaccur the son of Imri' intervened. 
 
 The name of the gate may have been derived from the proximity of 
 the fish market. It has been suggested that the fish brought by the 
 Tyrian traders (xiii. 16) and by the fishermen of Lake Galilee would 
 arrive by this gate. From Zeph. i. 10, 11, it appears that this gate 
 adjoined the merchant quarter of Jerusalem. 
 
 Hassenaah] cf. Ezr. ii. 35 ; Neh. vii. 38, Senaah. 
 
 who also] R.V. they. 
 
 the locks thereof] R.V. the bolts thereof. The details of the fully 
 completed gate are repeated in -uv. 6, 13, 14, 15. What the ' bolts' 
 (A.V. 'locks') were, is not certain (LXX. K\(Wpa, Vulg. valvas). 
 The word occurs again in Cant. v. 5. 
 
 Some suppose them to be the 'sockets' or 'supports' into which the 
 ' bars ' and ' stanchions ' of the gate filled; others the ' bolts ' which held 
 the cross-bars firm. The city gates of ancient times turned upon pivots 
 in sockets instead of upon hinges ; and we may conjecture that the 
 word rendered ' locks ' denoted that which held a gate in its place, 
 while ' the bars ' fastened it to the side-posts. 
 
 4. repaired] Literally ' made strong.' The word in the Hebrew is 
 used of 'calking' a ship in Ezek. xxvii. 9, 27. In this chapter it is 
 used of making good the defects and filling up the breaches in the 
 wall. In ver. 19 the same verb is used with a different shade of mean- 
 ing. 
 
 Meremoth the S07i of Uriah, the son of Koz] R.V. Meremoth the 
 son of Uriah, the son of Hakkoz. The children of Hakkoz are men- 
 tioned in Ezr. ii. 61. 
 
 We hear of a further piece of restoration undertaken by this Mere- 
 moth in ver. 21. 
 
 MeshnUajH... Meshezabeel] R.V. Meshezabel. Meshullam the son of 
 Berechiah appears from vi. 18 to have been one of the leading nobles, 
 but, like Eliashib the high-priest, though he cooperated in the restora- 
 tion of the walls, to have been also a close ally of Tobiah, whose son, 
 Jchohanan, married Meshullam's daughter. He was therefore probably 
 opposed to Nehemiah in general policy. 
 
 The identity of name with one of the sons of Zerubbabel (i Chr. iii. 
 
vv. 5, 6.] NEHEMIAH, III. 175 
 
 And next unto them repaired Zadok the son of Baana. 
 And next unto them the Tekoites repaired ; but their nobles 5 
 put not their necks to the work of their Lord. Moreover 6 
 
 19) suggests the possibility that this noble was of David's line and that 
 connexion with the royal family may have been a successful piece in the 
 diplomacy of Tobiah. 
 
 Zadok the son of Baana] This may be the same as the Baanah who 
 came up with Zerubbabel (Ezr. ii. 2 ; Neh. vii. 7, x. 27). 
 
 5. the Tel-ones'] Tekoa was a town about 10 miles due S. of Jeru- 
 salem on the edge of the ' Wilderness. ' It is well known as the home of 
 the prophet Amos (Am. i. r, vii. 14), and as the dwelling-place of ' the 
 wise woman ' of 2 Sam. xiv. 2. The absence of the name of Tekoa • 
 from the list of towns in Ezra ii. is remarkable. Perhaps the Jews in 
 Zerubbabel's time could not extend so far south. Here the mention of 
 the Tekoites implies that the town was now occupied by Jews, or that 
 old dwellers in Tekoa still formed a distinct community (cf. ver. 2) in 
 Jerusalem. Their ardour in restoring the walls of Jerusalem receives 
 further confirmation from ver. 27. 
 
 but their nobles] ' Nobles ' {addiri^n = 'LX.'K. ddc^plfi, Vulg. optimates), 
 the same word is thus rendered in x. 29 ; 2 Chr. xxiii. 20 ; it differs 
 from that used in ii. 16, iv. 14, v. 7, vi. 17, vii. 5, xiii. 17. 
 
 put not their necks] The metaphor is taken from the ox ploughing 
 with its neck in the yoke, cf. Jer. xxvii, 12. 
 
 the work of their Lord] R. V. of their lord. Marg. ' Or lords or Lord '. 
 There are here three alternative renderings, (i) A.V. 'of their Lord.' 
 The somewhat unusual phrase 'the work of their Lord' (Adonai) instead 
 of 'the work of the Lord (Jehovah),' or 'the work of their God,' has 
 been defended on the ground that it carries out the metaphor of the 
 clause. This is the traditional Jewish interpretation. But the word is 
 not common in these books as a Divine name (see note on i. 11), and 
 the use of the pronoun 'their' makes the interpretation improbable 
 (Vulg. in opere Domini stii). The use of this title for God in plain 
 narrative is most improbable. 
 
 (2) R, V. marg. 'their lords,' namely, the leaders of the Jews; but 
 this would not be at all a suitable word to describe the relation of the 
 'nobles' of a town to the 'rulers' of Jerusalem. 
 
 (3) 'their lord.' This rendering of the R.V. seems the most natural, 
 and is best understood to mean a reference to Nehemiah himself (cf. 
 Ezra X. 3). He was 'the lord' of the Jews, appointed by the king, and 
 'the nobles' of the Jewish towns as well as of Jerusalem owed him 
 service and assistance in his great work. 
 
 The hostility of Sanballat, Tobiah, and Geshem to Nehemiah would 
 make itself felt on the towns upon the borders of the neighbouring 
 races. The nobles of 'Tekoa,' which lay on the outskirts of the wilder- 
 ness, may very possibly have sympathised with the Arabian chiefs 
 represented by Geshem, or have had intimate relations with the out- 
 lying peoples. 
 
 6. Moreover ihe old gate] R.V. And the old gate. Marg. ' Or, the 
 
176 NEHEMIAH, III. [v. 7. 
 
 the old gate repaired Jehoiada the son of Paseah, and 
 MeshuUam the son of Besodeiah ; they laid the beams 
 thereof, and set up the doors thereof, and the locks thereof, 
 7 and the bars thereof And next unto them repaired Melatiah 
 the Gibeonite, and Jadon the Meronothite, the men of 
 Gibeon, and of Mizpah, unto the throne of the governor 
 
 gate of the old city or, of the old wall.' Literally rendered the words are 
 'And the gate of the old,' so that there is some uncertainty which word 
 we should supply. From the mention of the same gate elsewhere (Neh. 
 xii. 39) we gather that it stood between the 'fish gate' and the 'gate of 
 Ephraim,' and is possibly the same as the 'corner gate' (2 Kings xiv. 
 13) which Zechariah calls 'the first gate' (xiv. 10). On the N. side the 
 ground being more level the city would naturally extend itself in this 
 direction. The gate possibly derived its name from being the entrance 
 to the old city. Prof. Robertson Smith (Art. Jerusalem, Enc. Brit.) 
 says : ' For obvious engineering reasons the eminence at the N.W. of the 
 Harani area must always have been a principal point in the fortifications, 
 and here the old gate may very well have been placed.' The ' gate of 
 the old wall' is a less likely appellation. In one sense every gate that 
 was restored was a gate of the old wall. If 'the old wall' was a part of 
 an ancient or disused rampart, it would not have been a portion included 
 in this description. When the fortifications coincided with an earlier 
 and thicker wall, it was called 'the broad wall' (ver. 8). 
 
 Jehoiada] R.V. Joiada. 
 
 they laid the beams, &c.] See on ver. 3. 
 
 7. Melatiah the Gibeonite, and Jadon the Meronothite, the men of 
 Gibeon, and of Mizpah] In this arrangement of names it is natural to 
 see the names of two leaders followed by the description of their re- 
 spective followers. Melatiah is thus at the head of the Gibeonites, 
 Jadon at the head of the men of Mizpah. But as the latter is called 
 'the Meronothite' (see also i Chron. xxvii. 30), we conclude that 
 Meronoth, his native place, must have been a village in the immediate 
 neighbourhood of Mizpah. 
 
 The men of Gibeon are included in vii. 25 among those who returned 
 with Zerubbabel (see the parallel passage, Ezra ii. 20). 
 
 Mizpah, about 3^ miles N. of Jerusalem, the modern Nebi-Samwil. 
 Rulers of Mizpah are further on mentioned as concerned in the restora- 
 tion of other portions of the wall {w. 15, 19). The men of Mizpah 
 referred to in this verse may have been under different control (see next 
 note). 
 
 unto the throne of the governor on this side the river] R.V. which 
 appertained to the throne of the governor beyond the river. 
 
 This obscure clause has occasioned great difficulty, {a) According 
 to the rendering of the A.V., it denotes the limit of the restoration un- 
 dertaken by the men mentioned in this verse. 'The throne of the 
 governor, &c.' will then be the official residence of the Persian satrap 
 or the actual throne in which he sate dispensing justice. The preposition 
 
V. 8.] NEHEMIAH, III. 177 
 
 on this side the river. Next unto him repaired Uzziel the 1 
 son of Harhaiah, of the goldsmiths. Next unto him also 
 repaired Hananiah the son of one of the apothecaries, and 
 
 ' unto ' may be understood to mean, either that the governor's house was 
 built on the wall, and that the restoration mentioned in this verse 
 reached this point; or that the governor's 'throne' was in the vicinity, 
 and the restoration was carried on to a point over against it. 
 
 The chief objection to this rendering is the use of the word 'throne.' 
 But it is more simple than the alternative rendering given below. And 
 the supposition is very natural, that an official spot, close to the 
 chief northern gate of the city (ver. 6), should become a recognised 
 landmark. The visit of the satrap of the country W. of the Euphrates 
 to the provincial capitals would be a rare event ; and the spot which 
 symbolised his dignity would receive a distinctive name. 
 
 {b) According to the rendering of the R.V., the clause is added by 
 way of limitation after the mention of Mizpah. Mizpah it is supposed 
 was partly under Jewish rulers {vv. 15, 19), partly under the rule of the 
 Persian provincial governor. The boundary passed through the district 
 of Mizpah. 'The men of Mizpah,' mentioned here, represented the 
 portion under Persian rule, in which perhaps the village of Maronoth 
 was included. By the indulgence of the Persian rulers (cf. ii. 7) a con- 
 tingent was permitted to render aid to their brethren. 
 
 The phrase ' the throne of the governor beyond the river ' will then 
 be a technical term of authority in vogue among the Jews during the 
 Persian supremacy. 'Throne' in the sense of ' rule ' is poetical, cf. Ps. 
 Ixxxix. 29, 36. 
 
 There is nothing to be said in favour of another proposed rendering 
 ♦in the name of the governor, &c.' The Vulgate renders 'pro duce,' 
 the LXX. ews Opovov rod dpxovTos. 
 
 8. Uzziel. . .of the goldsmiths] R. V. Uzziel. . . , goldsmiths. The R.V. 
 gives the literal rendering. The meaning of course is that a guild or the 
 guild of goldsmiths, who were represented by Uzziel, undertook the 
 next piece of the wall. The wealth of 'the goldsmiths' is shown by 
 the large portion undertaken by the members of their 'guild.' Cf. 
 w. 31, 32. 
 
 Next unto him also] R.V. And next unto him. 
 
 Ha7ianiah the son of orve oi the apothecaries] R.V. Hananiah, one of 
 the apothecaries. Marg. '■ perfumer s\ The R.V. gives the meaning of 
 the Hebrew, which is literally ' Hananiah, a son of the apothecaries or 
 perfumers.' This Hananiah, possibly ' the son of Shelemiah' mentioned 
 as engaged in restoring another portion of the wall, represented the 
 guild of 'perfumers.' 
 
 The word 'apothecary,' which appears in the A.V. in Ex. xxx. 25, 35, 
 xxxvii. 29; 2 Chron. xvi. 14; Eccles. x. i, is not used in the sense of a 
 vendor of medicines. The context in each passage shows that a dealer 
 in ointments, spices, and perfumes is intended. The same word in the 
 feminine is rendered 'confectionaries' in i Sam. viii. 13, where the R.V. 
 marg. ' perfumers ' is to be preferred. 
 
 This was a most important industry in Eastern countries, combining 
 
 NEHEMIAH 1 2 
 
178 NEHEMIAH, III. [v. 9. 
 
 9 they fortified Jerusalem unto the broad wall. And next 
 unto them repaired Rephaiah the son of Hur, the ruler of 
 
 provision for the comforts of the poor and the luxuries of the rich (Cant, 
 iii. 6), with the elaborate arts of embalming the dead. 
 
 In hot climates the anointing of head or feet with ointment and 
 perfumes was a recognised courtesy offered a distinguished guest (Luke 
 vii. 38, 46; John xii. 3). Anointing with sweet oil was an act of 
 cleansing or purification (Ezek. xvi. 9; Ruth iii. 3; Judith x. 3). With 
 women cosmetics constituted a considerable part of personal adornment 
 (Cant. iv. 10). 
 
 and they fortified Jerusalem unto (R.V. even unto) the broad wall} 
 R.V. marg. *0r, left'' for ' fortified,' giving the usual sense of the Hebrew 
 verb. 
 
 The LXX. has koI KaTiXnrop'lepovaaXt^fj. ecos rod reixovs rod vXareos: 
 the Vulgate 'dimiserunt lerusalem usque ad murum plateae latioris.' 
 
 The difficulty occasioned by the verb has given rise to very different 
 interpretations of the passage : 
 
 (i) The A.V. following ancient Jewish interpretation renders 
 'fortified Jerusalem;' and it appears to be the case that the word 
 occurs in Talmudic Hebrew with a meaning connected with building 
 operations (Buxtorf, sud voce, 'pavimentarunt '). But even if this mean- 
 ing be accepted, it is not easy to account for the occurrence of the words 
 ' fortified Jeinisalem ' in the middle of a description, the whole of which 
 deals with the fortification of Jemsalem. 
 
 (2) Accepting the usual rendering 'left,' the following explanations 
 have been given : 
 
 (a) 'And they', i.e. the Babylonian troops, at the destruction of 
 Jerusalem, had left this portion untouched. This translation introduces 
 an imaginary subject, i.e. the Babylonians. It fails to explain the 
 introduction of the reference to Jerusalem. It makes 'left' equivalent 
 to ' left undestroyed. ' 
 
 {d) The Jews who were engaged upon the work of restoration 'left 
 untouched ' this portion of the wall, which happened not to require 
 rebuilding. This again gives an arbitrary meaning to the word 'left,' 
 and the mention of 'Jerusalem ' remains unexplained. 
 
 (c) They carried on the fortification at some distance from the 
 dwelling-places of Jerusalem. The city wall extended further north 
 than the houses. The builders 'left the city,' i.e. the neighbourhood 
 of the houses, in order to complete the circumvallation included in the 
 plan. 
 
 (d) ' And the Jews had abandoned Jerusalem,' i.e. Jerusalem was 
 at this point not occupied by the Jews returned from the Captivity. 
 The northern limit of the inhabited quarter did not extend so far as it 
 had done in the Monarchy. 
 
 {e) It is possible that the builders at this point ' left ' some portion 
 of Jerusalem outside their wall. The circumference of the old city was 
 larger than was now needed. In the course of the restoration of the 
 wall the builders abandoned at some point the old outer wall and the 
 uninhabited portion ol Jerusalem which it included. 
 
vv. lo, II.] NEHEMIAH, III. 179 
 
 the half part of Jerusalem. And next unto them repaired 10 
 Jedaiah the son of Harumaph, even over against his house. 
 And next unto him repaired Hattush the son of Hashabniah. 
 Malchijah the son of Harim, and Hashub the son of Pahath- n 
 moab, repaired the other piece, and the tower of the furnaces. 
 
 The exact meaning lies hid in the topographical allusion, which we 
 cannot hope to understand. It seems most natural, (1) that the subject 
 to the verb 'left' should be the builders just previously mentioned; 
 (2) that 'Jerusalem' should imply the inhabited city. The solution 
 offered by {e) seems to be the most probable. The new circumvallation 
 was, as a rule, larger than the old. Here only where the builders went 
 inside and left the old wall, it is expressly mentioned. 
 
 the broad wal[] The broad wall is mentioned again in chap. xii. 
 38 as between ' the tower of the furnaces ' and ' the gate of Ephraim.' 
 The name was probably given to a portion of the wall where the 
 thickness and strength of the structure indicated the strategic import- 
 ance of this point in the fortifications. It is possible that this was 
 the portion of 400 cubits which Amaziah pulled down (see 2 Kings xiv. 
 13; 2 Chron. xxv. 23) with the view of rendering Jerusalem defenceless 
 on the N., and that this was the portion which Hezekiah took pains to 
 strengthen and renew (2 Chr. xxxii. 5). 
 
 9. the rider of the half part of Jerusalem'] R.V. the ruler of half 
 the district of Jerusalem. Rephaiah was ruler not of the city but of 
 one of the districts into which Jerusalem was divided. The ruler of the 
 other half is Shallum, mentioned in ver. 12. Compare the different 
 positions of 'the ruler of Mizpah ' {v. 19) and 'the ruler of the district 
 of Mizpah ' (v. 5). By comparison of this expression with 2 Kings xxii. 
 14; Zeph. i. 10, it would appear that some such division, necessitated 
 by the growth of the Capital, had taken place during the Monarchy in 
 the interests of urban administration. The district here referred to 
 would be the commercial quarter of the city. 
 
 10. And next unto them] i.e. next unto those who were represented 
 by Rephaiah. 
 
 Hattush..^ Possibly a priest belonging to the family of this name 
 mentioned in x. 4, or a Levite the son of the Hashabneiah mentioned 
 in ix. 5. 
 
 Hashabniah] R.V. Hashabneiah. 
 
 11. Hari77i...Pahath-moab] See on Ezr. ii. 6, 32. 
 
 the other piece] R.V. another portion. This phrase, which occurs 
 again in this chapter in vv. 19, 20, 21, 24, 27, 30, has been explained, 
 (i) (as the A. v.), as equivalent to 'a further portion' of the same 
 section of wall, (2) as 'a second portion' of restoration-work undertaken 
 by those mentioned in the verse. The latter is the more natural inter- 
 pretation. There is this difficulty: whereas in vv. 21 and 27 we find 
 the recurrence of names which have occurred earlier in the chapter 
 (z/z/. 4 and 5), in this verse and in 19, 20, 24, 30 the names of those 
 who are said to repair ' another portion ' are not mentioned again. 
 Accordingly some commentators, laying stress on the point that in 
 
 12 2 
 
i8o NEHEMIAH, III. [vv. 12, 13. 
 
 12 And next unto him repaired Shallum the son of Hallohesh, 
 the ruler of the half part of Jerusalem, he and his daughters. 
 
 13 The valley gate repaired Hanun, and the inhabitants of 
 Zanoah; they built it, and set up the doors thereof, the locks 
 thereof, and the bars thereof, and a thousand cubits on the wall 
 
 vv. 19, 20, 21, 24, 27 the phrase is accompanied by a minute topo- 
 graphical notice, maintain that the words do not imply a second piece of 
 work, but a special contimiation of the work just mentioned. 
 
 On the other hand, it should be observed that (i) Malchijah's name 
 at any rate recurs in v. ^i ; (2) in this portion of Nehemiah's descrip- 
 tion ' the gate of Ephraim ' is strangely altogether omitted, in spite of 
 its great importance (cf. viii. 16, xii. 39) : (3) it is on other grounds very 
 probable that the complete list of those engaged on the work of 
 restoration has not been preserved, and that numerous names have been 
 lost. A recognition of the incompleteness of the list will fully meet 
 the difficulty presented in this verse, and in vv. 19, 20, 24, 30. 
 
 i/te to'cver of the furnaces\ This tower lay between the gate of 
 Ephraim and the gate of the valley (see xii. 38). It may have stood a 
 little to the N. of the modern citadel. It was the fortress of the N.W. 
 angle of the city, and probably constituted the chief fortification in 
 connexion with the corner gate (2 Kings xiv. 13; 2 Chr. xxvi. 9; Jer. 
 xxxi. 38 ; Zech. xiv. 10. 
 
 12. the ruler of the half part of Jertisaleni] R.V. the ruler of half 
 the district of Jerusalem. See note on ver. 9. This was the ' Zion ' 
 half of the city. 
 
 he and his daughters'] The mention of 'his daughters' is strange. 
 Some consider that the word ' daughters ' is here used in its technical 
 sense of ' villages ' and ' country towns ' (cf. xi. 25, 27), the inhabitants 
 of which placed workers under the command of the ruler of the whole 
 district. Others again accepting this rendering of ' daughters ' = ' vil- 
 lages,' refer the pronoun 'he' to 'the district,' i.e. 'the district and 
 the villages adjacent to that quarter of Jerusalem. ' 
 
 But the most simple and literal explanation is probably the best. The 
 whole chronicle of the restoration of the walls is a register of personal 
 effort. The exceptional mention of women does not justify us in exclud- 
 ing the possibility of theia- useful cooperation, not only by sympathy 
 and exhortation, but also by gifts of money, by contributions of food, and 
 by the labour of their servants and retainers. 
 
 13. The valley gate] See note on ii. 13, 15. This was the main 
 entrance on the western side. 
 
 Zanoah] This town, mentioned in xi. 30 ; Jos. xv. 34, is probably the 
 modern Zanuah, some 13 miles W. of Jerusalem. 
 
 the doors thereof, &c.] See note on ver. 3. 
 
 and a thousand cjibits on the wall unto the dutig gate] R.V. of the 
 wall. Some who have thought that this would be too great a distance 
 of wall to be restored by a single section of the community regard tlie 
 clause as a topographical parenthesis, = ' There were a thousand cubits 
 
vv. 14, 15.] NEHEMIAH, III. 181 
 
 unto the dung gate. But the dung gate repaired Malchiah 14 
 the son of Rechab, the ruler of part of Beth-haccerem ; he 
 built it, and set up the doors thereof, the locks thereof, and 
 the bars thereof. But the gate of the fountain repaired 15 
 Shallun the son of Col-hozeh, the ruler of part of Mizpah ; he 
 
 between the two gates.' But if we may suppose little restoration was 
 here needed, no further details would be recorded of this section of the 
 wall. This very reason, however, would enable us to accept the repairing 
 of ' the thousand cubits ' as the work of ' Hanun and the inhabitants of 
 Zanoah.' Comparatively little work was here needed, and a small party 
 could undertake a long stretch. 
 
 The 'dung gate' was probably at the S.W. angle of the wall. The 
 wall having passed due S. from the 'valley gate' to the 'dung gate,' 
 turned thence in an easterly direction. 
 
 14. But\ R.V. And. 
 
 MalchiaJi] R.V. Malchijali. It is the same spelling as the ' Mal- 
 chijah ' in ver. 11. ' the son of Rechab.' Not necessarily a Rechabite. 
 The Rechabites were forbidden to dwell in houses (Jer. xxxv. 7). 
 
 of part of Beth-haccerem'] R.V. of the district of Beth-hacclierem. 
 Beth-haccherem (the house of the vineyard) is mentioned in Jer. vi. r. 
 It seems to have been due S. of Jerusalem, between Bethlehem and 
 Tekoa. It is frequently identified with a well-known spot 6 or 7 miles S. 
 of Jerusalem, the Frank Mountain (Arab. Jebel Ferdis= Hill of Paradise 
 or Orchard), where are to be seen the remains of the Herodium, the 
 castle built by Herod the Great. It is called ' the Frank Mountain ' 
 because tradition connects it with the stubborn resistance of the Crusaders 
 against the Moslems. It commands one of the most beautiful views 
 over the Dead Sea to be obtained near Jerusalem. 
 
 doors thereof &c.] Cf. note on ver. 3. 
 
 15. But the gate of the foimtaini R.V. And the fountain gate. See 
 ii. 14. According to the old view, Nehemiah's description here passes 
 over a considerable space (nearly half a mile in straight line) between 
 the 'dung gate' and the 'valley gate.' The omission is capable of 
 being explained as due either to the omission of certain details, cf. ver. 
 II, or to the fact that the precipitous nature of the ground rendered little 
 work necessary upon the southern wall. But it can hardly be accidental 
 that a similar omission has to be understood in the other description of 
 the wall's circuit (ch. xii. 31, 37). It seems reasonable to incline to the 
 recent suggestion, that, 'the valley' of ver. 13, being the Tyropoeon, 
 the circuit of the fortification wall did not include the Western Hill, but 
 ran directly S. down the E. side of ' the valley ' as far as ' the dung gate ', 
 when it began to deflect eastward. 
 
 Shalluni The A.V. (1611) spelling 'Shallum' is perhaps due to 
 ver. 12. 
 
 the ruler of part of Mizpah] R.V. the ruler of the district of Mizpah. 
 A distinction is drawn between the town of Mizpah and the adjacent 
 district. Cf. ' the district of Jerusalem,' z/z;. 9, 12. ' The ruler of Miz- 
 pah ' itself is mentioned in ver. 19. See also on ver. 7. 
 
i82 NEHEMIAH, III. [v. i6. 
 
 built it, and covered it, and set up the doors thereof, the 
 locks thereof, and the bars thereof, and the wall of the pool 
 of Siloah by the king's garden, and unto the stairs that go 
 i6 down from the city of David. After him repaired Nehemiah 
 the son of Azbuk, the ruler of the half part of Beth-zur, unto 
 
 covered it\ The word so rendered does not occur elsewhere in the 
 Bible. The LXX. renders kaTkyacrev. It seems to correspond to the 
 expression ' laid the beams thereof ' in verses 3 and 6. 
 
 and the wall of the pool of Siloah by the king's garden"] R. V. And the 
 wall of the pool of Shelah toy the king's garden. Marg. ' In Is. viii. 6, 
 Shiloah '. On Siloam { = Birket Silwdji), cf. John ix. 7. ' The pool of 
 Shelah,' or of ' leading,' is fed by a subterranean channel leading from 
 the Virgin's Spring, distant 1708 feet, through the Ophel rock. The 
 connexion was discovered by Sir Charles Warren. The tunnel is a re- 
 markable piece of engineering. On the veiy ancient inscription describ- 
 ing its construction which was found in 1880, see Sayce's Fresh Lights. 
 
 The pool here mentioned is probably the same as the lower pool, the 
 modern 'Birket el Hamra.' The water from the pool flowed through 
 ' the king's garden.' The old city wall extended much further south 
 than the modern city. The pool was formed by a heavy dam of 
 masonry, probably part of the city wall. ' The king's garden ' is men- 
 tioned also in 2 Kings xxv. 4; Jer. xxxix. 4, lii. 7. We cannot con- 
 clude for certain from this verse that it was included within the walls. 
 But the water supply of the town depending largely upon the pool, the 
 pool was probably enclosed by the wall. The double walls mentioned 
 in 2 Kings xxv. 4 probably protected both pool and gardens. 
 
 and tmto the stairs, &c.] R.V. even unto the stairs, &c. These 
 'stairs' mark the limit of Shallum's work in a northerly direction. The 
 'stairs' were the steps ascending the steep declivity of the 'Ophel' or 
 southern spur of Mt. Zion, on the eastern side of the city, and leading 
 to the 'water-gate' mentioned in Neh. viii. i, 16, above 'the house of 
 David' (see xii. 37). See Sayce, p. 87. ' Remains of these stairs have 
 been discovered by Schick and Guthe a little to the east of the Pool of 
 Siloam, as well as a little to the south of the Virgin's Spring (but within 
 the line of the old wall), so that they must have run up the eastern slope 
 of Zion, and ended not very far from the square in front of the water- 
 gate.' 
 
 frotn the city of David] The 'city of David' was the name given to 
 the fortress captured by David, known as Zion. Its locality has been 
 much disputed, (i) General tradition has identified it with the southern 
 extremity of the western hill; (2) recently Conder and Warren have 
 assigned it to the northern elevated portion of the same hill; (3) there 
 is, however, good reason for identifying it with 'the Temple hill.' This 
 last view is favoured by the language of the O. T. associating Zion with 
 the dwelling or Temple of Jehovah. The present context almost con- 
 clusively proves that the 'city of David' lay on the eastern or Temple 
 Hill. 
 
 16. the ruler of the half part of Beth-zur] R.V. the ruler oi half 
 
vv. 17, 18.] NEHEMIAH, III. 183 
 
 the place over against the sepulchres of David, and to the 
 pool that was made, and unto the house of the mighty. 
 After him repaired the Levites, Rehum the son of Bani. 17 
 Next unto him repaired Hashabiah, the ruler of the half 
 part of Keilah, in his part. After him repaired their brethren, 18 
 
 the district of Beth-Zur. Beth-Zur (Jos. xv. 58), the modern Beitsur, 
 was about 13 miles S. of Jerusalem. It commanded the road to Hebron 
 and was fortified by Rehoboam (2 Chr. xi. 7). From the mention of it 
 in this verse we may gather that it ranked as an important town on the 
 Southern frontier. In the Maccabean Wars it appears as a strongly 
 fortified place and the scene of three of the bloodiest conflicts (cf. i Mace, 
 iv. 29, xi. 65. 66, xiv. 7. 
 
 unto the place over against the sepulchres of David'\ This must have 
 been a well-known spot opposite the tombs of the former kings of Judah. 
 From the way in which these are mentioned in 2 Chron. xxxii. 33 'they 
 buried (Hezekiah) in the ascent of the sepulchres of the sons of r)avid,' 
 they were probably on the side of the south-east or east cliff of Mt. Ophel. 
 We may expect interesting discoveries to result from investigations in- 
 stituted at this spot for the sake of identifying the royal sepulchres. 
 
 a7id to the pool that was made^ R.V. and unto &c. From this 
 description of ' the pool ' some have supposed that Nehemiah regarded 
 it as a recent construction in his own time. Others identify it with the 
 pool constructed by Hezekiah mentioned in Isai. xxii. 9 — 11. 
 
 It clearly lay north of the pool of Shelah, and was fed perhaps by the 
 same conduit from the Virgin's Well. Cf. Sayce, 'Traces of this have 
 been found by Dr Guthe, close to the so-called tree of Isaiah; and since 
 the city wall here formed one of the walls of the reservoir, the latter 
 must have been constructed after the walls had been built. ' 
 
 the hotise of the 7Jiighty\ R.V. the house of the mighty men. This 
 name was probably given to the traditional site (or building on the site) 
 of the former royal barracks erected by David for his ' body-guard of 
 mighty men' (2 Sam. xvi. 6, xxiii. 8). That it denotes the residence of 
 the Temple guard (cf. i Chron. ix. 26, xxvi. 6), is a less probable ex- 
 planation of the name. 
 
 Rabbi Saadiah understands by the expression 'the Sanhedrin,' who 
 were mighty in the Law, and compares Ps. ciii. 20, ' ye mighty in 
 strength that fulfil his word.' 
 
 17. the Levites, Rehum the son of Bani\ Here it may be noticed 
 that the community is mentioned first, its representative afterwards. 
 This variation from the usage in vv. 7 and 8 is perhaps intended to 
 give prominence to the work of the Levites or of a particular band of 
 them. 
 
 Rehum, whose name is the same as that of one of the chief colleagues 
 of Zerubbabel at the Return from Exile (Ezra ii. 2), is perhaps to be 
 identified with the Rehum in Neh. x. 25. Bani is mentioned in ix. 5. 
 
 the ruler of the half part of Keilah'] R.V. the ruler of half the district 
 of Keilah. This is in all probability to be identified with the Keilah of 
 Josh. XV. 44; I Sam. xxiii. i, a town about 15 miles S.W. of Jerusalem. 
 
i84 NEHEMIAH, III. [vv. 19, 20. 
 
 Bavai the son of Henadad, the ruler of the half part of 
 
 19 Keilah. And next to him repaired Ezer the son of Jeshua, 
 the ruler of Mizpah, another piece over against the going 
 
 20 up to the armoury at the turning of the ivall. After him 
 Bai uch the son of Zabbai earnestly repaired the other piece, 
 
 in his part] R.V. for his part, i.e. for the district which he re- 
 presented, in distinction from the district mentioned in the verse 
 following. 
 
 18. their brethren] i.e. the men of the other half of the same district. 
 Bavai, the son of Henadad] This can hardly be different from the 
 
 'Binnui, the son of Henadad' mentioned in v. 24. So the LXX. 
 which reads Bej/et 
 
 19. Ezer... the rider of Mizpah, another piece] R.V. portion. 'The 
 ruler of Mizpah' as distinguished from 'the ruler of the district of 
 Mizpah' {v. 15). 
 
 over against the going tip to the armoury at the turning of the wall]. 
 A much-disputed piece of topography. There is nothing to show in 
 which direction the wall turned. 
 
 The ' armoury ' will naturally be connected with the mention of ' the 
 house of the mighty men' of z'. 16; to the N. of which the present 
 description seems to place it. The ' armoury ' is mentioned in i Kings 
 X. 17, 21, xiv. 26; Is. xxii. 8. 
 
 * the turning of the wall.' This spot is referred to in 2 Chron. xxvi. 
 9 ; ' Uzziah built towers in Jerusalem at the corner gate, and at the 
 valley gate, and at the tiiming of the wall, and fortified them.' It 
 was clearly then strategically one of the most important points in the 
 fortifications of the city. 
 
 20. Bar uch the so7i of Zabbai] R.V. marg. ' Another reading is, 
 Zaccai.' Zabbai (so Ezr. x. 28) is the reading of C'thib and LXX., 
 Zaccai of K'ri and Vulg. 
 
 earnestly f-epairecT] The word rendered * earnestly ' calls for remark. 
 {a) In the original it appears as an unusual causative of a verb meaning 
 'to be angry,' which in this exact form is only elsewhere found in 
 Job xix. ir. 'He hath also kindled his wrath against me. The 
 word occurs also in Jer. xii. 5 = 'contend,' xxii. i5 = 'strivest to excel.' 
 {b) A causative verb in the past tense immediately preceding the finite 
 verb ' repaired,' may be idiomatic Hebrew, but is not to be expected in 
 narrative prose, [c) The word ' repaired ' is found nowhere else in this 
 list with any qualification. If the reading is correct, the word will 
 denote the ardour or the emulous spirit with which Baruch undertook 
 his work. 
 
 The same word differently pointed is capable of meaning ' towards 
 the hill,' being then the same as that rendered in Gen. xiv. 10 'to the 
 mountain.' This must have been the reading of the Vulgate 'in monte 
 cedificavit Baruch.' 
 
 If this is the right reading, it refers to the summit of the Ophel, 
 where the high-priest's house would have stood immediately S. of the 
 Temple. 
 
vv. 21—24.] NEHEMIAH, III. 185 
 
 from the turning of the 7vaU unto the door of the house of 
 EHashib the high priest. After him repaired Meremoth the 
 son of Urijah the son of Koz another piece, from the door ^' 
 of the house of Eliashib even to the end of the house of 
 Eliashib. And after him repaired the priests, the men of 
 the plain. After him repaired Benjamin and Hashub over 22 
 against their house. After him repaired Azariah the son of 23 
 Maaseiah the son of Ananiah by his house. After him re- 
 paired Binnui the son of Henadad another piece, from the 
 
 Ihe other piece] R.V. another portion. See note on z'. 11. Here 
 these words, as Baruch's name has not occurred before, suggest the 
 incompleteness of the description. 
 
 21. Urijah the son of Koz] R.V. Uriah the son of Hakkoz. 
 another piece] R.V. another portion. Meremoth was also con- 
 cerned in the repair of the Northern wall. See on v. 4. 
 
 evett to the end] This description seems to imply that the high- 
 priest's house was a building of considerable extent, and that it was 
 built upon the city wall. The word rendered 'end' {taclith) seems 
 only to occur in this sense twice elsewhere in the O.T., Job xxvi, 10, 
 'confines,' xxviii. 3, 'end.' Elsewhere e.g. Ps. cxxxix. 22 it is used to 
 denote 'perfection,' 'completeness.' The words proved a difficulty to 
 the versions, e.g. LXX. ews e/cXet^ews, Vulg. donee extenderetur. 
 
 22. the priests, the men of the plain] R.V. the men of the Plain. 
 R.V. marg. 'Or, CircuiV. Literally, 'the men of the Ciccar,' LXX. 
 'E/cxexctp. Vulg. ' de campestribus Jordanis.' 
 
 Some have explained the term to refer to the neighbourhood of 
 Jerusalem according to its use in xii. 28 ' the Plain (or Circuit) round 
 about Jerusalem.' Others have explained its use in this passage by its 
 technical application to the Jordan plain, Gen. xiii. 10, xix. 17 ; 2 Sam. 
 xviii. 23. As in xii. 28 the reference to Jerusalem is carefully expressed, 
 the absolute use of the word here may be thought to favour the latter 
 signification. If so, the priests mentioned came from Jericho and the 
 other cities of 'the Plain,' y] Tr€plx(^pos tov 'lopddvov, Matt. iii. 5. 
 
 23. After him] R.V. After them. Marg. Heb. him, see on 7k 2. 
 i?y his house] R.V. heside his own house. Judging from the marked 
 
 manner in which it is mentioned in v. 24, Azariah's house must have 
 been conspicuous for its size or its position near the wall. A difference 
 of aspect is implied by ' over against ' and ' beside.' 
 
 24. Binnui the son of Henadad another piece] R.V. portion. 
 In all probability the same as ' Bavvai the son of Henadad ' mentioned 
 in V. \%. ' Binnui ' is mentioned in x. 9 as one of the Levites. 
 
 We have either to suppose that ' Bavvai ' in z". 18 is a corruption for 
 Binnui, or as some have held, that Binnui is the name of the Levitical 
 house of which Bavvai was the chief representative. Of these alter- 
 natives the former is preferable. For (i) the reading in v. 18 is 
 doubtful ; (2) the names in these verses are clearly those of priests 
 and Levites ; (3) ' Binnui ' is mentioned in x. 9 as a leading Levite. 
 
i86 NEHEMIAH, III. [vv. 25, 26. 
 
 house of Azariah unto the turning of the wall, even unto the 
 
 25 corner. Palal the son of Uzai, over against the turning 
 of the wall, and the tower which lieth out from the king's 
 high house, that was by the court of the prison. After him 
 
 26 Pedaiah the son of Parosh. Moreover the Nethinims dwelt 
 
 He may very well have assisted in one portion of the restoration as a 
 leading citizen of Keilah, in another as a chief Levite. 
 even unto the corner] R.V. and unto the corner. 
 25. Falal the son of Uzat] R.V. Palal the son of Uzai repaired. 
 the tower which lieth out from the king's high house, that was by 
 the court of the prison] R.V. the tower that standeth out from the 
 upper house of the king, which is toy the court of the guard, R.V. 
 marg. ' Or, the upper tower., from the house of the king \ 
 
 It is not easy to determine the meaning of this description. The 
 adjective ' upper ' may be applied either to the king's house or to the 
 tower ; and the clause ' which is by the court of the guard ' follows it as 
 a further description either of house or tower. In Jer. xxxii. 2 ' the 
 court of the guard' is in 'the king's house' (cf. Jer. xxxiii. i, xxxvii. 
 21, xxxviii. 6, 13, 28, xxxix. 14, 15). In the present passage we have 
 either ' the king's upper house,' so called to distinguish it from the 
 king's house, in which was the court of the guard ; or, as seems more 
 probable, seeing that the passage is a description of the city wall, * the 
 upper tower,' which is identified as the one projecting from the king's 
 palace and close to the 'court of the guard.' In the vicinity of the 
 royal palace and Temple there would probably be several towers. The 
 LXX. 6 TTvpyos . . .6 avJjTepos accepted the latter explanation. 
 
 It is very probable that the base of ' the tower ' here spoken of was 
 reached by Sir Charles Warren. 'A great wall still exists, though 
 buried in rubbish, joining the Haram wall at the south-east angle. 
 It was evidently built for purposes of fortification, for it is fourteen feet 
 thick.... There are several towers projecting from the wall, one of which 
 is very remarkable, as it projects more than any of the rest, standing 
 upon scarped rock, and having another wall leading from it going down 
 towards the Kedron.' (Harper, The Bible and Modern Discoveries, 
 p. 509,) 
 
 * the upper house of the king '. This building, erected upon the site of 
 the old palace of the kings of Judah and perhaps at this time occupied 
 by the chief officials of the city, stood apparently on the 'Ophel' 
 summit, immediately S. of the Temple precincts. 
 
 Pedaiah the son of Parosh] R.V. Pedaiah the son of Parosh repaired. 
 R.V. marg. "■ Pedaiah the son of Parosh {now. ..Ophel) repaired wito, &c.' 
 See note on v. 26. On Parosh see Ezr. ii. 3. As in the earlier part of 
 the verse the verb ' repaired ' has to be understood. 
 
 26. Moreover the Nethinims dwelt in Ophel.. dieth out] R.V. (Now 
 the Nethinim dwelt in Ophel... standeth out). The parenthesis pro- 
 bably includes the whole verse. We prefer the R.V. translation to 
 that of the fnargin of the R.V., which limits the parenthesis to the first 
 clause, and connects the second clause with the previous verse. 
 
V. 27.] NEHEMIAH, III. 187 
 
 in Ophel, unto the place over against the water gate toward 
 the east, and the tower that heth out. After them the 27 
 Tekoites repaired another piece, over against the great 
 
 (i) The omission of the verb at the close oi v. 25 creates no real 
 difficulty ; for we have had a similar omission at the beginning of the 
 verse. 
 
 (2) We should not expect that a parenthetical clause relating to the 
 dwellingplace of the Nethinim would, in the midst of so much detailed 
 topography, describe it in such brief and general terms as ' in Ophel.' 
 (In xi. 21, where the same words occur, they are possibly based on this 
 passage.) 
 
 (3) The reference to ' the tower that standeth out ' is an allusion to 
 the same tower as that mentioned in the previous verse. The paren- 
 thesis seems to be introduced in order to connect the dwelling of the 
 Nethinim with the tower just spoken of. 
 
 (4) Verse 27 opens with (R.V.) ' After him:' and although in view 
 of vv. 2, 23, 29 this is not conclusive, it certainly favours the R.V. 
 treatment of the parenthesis. 
 
 in Ophel] This may possibly mean on the brow of the Ophel hill 
 to the east of the Temple. The wall of ' Ophel ' was built on by 
 Jotham (2 Chr. xxvii. 3). And the 'hill' was surrounded by a wall in 
 Manasseh's reign, 2 Chr. xxxiii. 14. 'Ophel' means 'a mound,' and 
 was the name applied to the S. continuance of the Temple hill. 
 
 over against the water gate tozvard the east] Between the Temple and 
 the water gate there seems to have been a large open space in which the 
 people could assemble (see viii. i, 3, 16, xii. 37, 39 ; Ezra x. 9). The 
 houses of the Nethinim approached or abutted on the city wall at this 
 point. 
 
 The 'water gate' was obviously so called because the path leading 
 from the spring of Gihon, the Virgin's Spring, entered the city here. 
 Water-carriers passing in and out gave the gate its name. On Gihon, 
 cf. I Kings i. 33, 38. It is "the one spring of Jerusalem, known as 
 the Virgin's Fountain to Christians, and as 'the Mother of Steps' to 
 Moslems, because of the steps which lead down into the vault from the 
 present surface of the valley" (Conder's Palestine^ p. 26). 
 
 From here the wall led northward or north-eastward to ' the corner ' 
 
 (^- 30- 
 
 the tower that Heth out] Probably the same as that mentioned in 
 V. 25. Perhaps the tower was intended especially to protect 'the 
 water gate,' in connexion with which it is here mentioned. 
 
 27. After them] R.V. After him, i.e. after Pedaiah the son of 
 Parosh {v. 25). 
 
 the Tekoites] See note on z^. 5. 
 
 another piece] R.V. another portion. 
 
 the great tower that Heth out] R.V. standeth out. 
 
 The adjective 'great' is perhaps intended to distinguish this tower 
 from that similarly mentioned in vv. 25, 26. It may have been one of 
 the defences on the eastern side of the Temple. 
 
i88 NEHEMIAH, III. [vv. 28—30. 
 
 28 tower that lieth out, even unto the wall of Ophel. From 
 above the horse gate repaired the priests, every one over 
 
 29 against his house. After them repaired Zadok the son of 
 Immer over against his house. After him repaired also 
 Shemaiah the son of Shechaniah, the keeper of the east gate. 
 
 30 After him repaired Hananiah the son of Shelemiah, and 
 Hanun the sixth son of Zalaph, another piece. After him 
 repaired Meshullam the son of Berechiah over against his 
 
 eveti unto the wall of Ophel] R. V. and unto the wall of Ophel. I'his 
 
 is clearly the same wall as that mentioned in 2 Chron. xxvii. 3, xxxiii. 14. 
 
 28. FrofH above] R.V. Above. The word implies that the dwelling- 
 places of the priests stood on higher ground. 
 
 the horse gate] This gate is mentioned 2 Kings xi. 16; 2 Chron. xxiii. 
 15; Jer. xxxi, 40, where it seems to be described as the easternmost 
 portion of Jerusalem overlooking the valley of Kedron. It must have 
 led to the S.E. corner of the Temple courts. It has been suggested that 
 its name is derived from the horses dedicated to the sun by idolatrous 
 kings of Judah (2 Kings xxiii. 11). It was probably a little south of 
 the modern 'golden gate.' 
 
 over against his house] R.V. over against his own house, as in v. 29. 
 
 29. After theju] R.V. marg. ' Heb. him '. See note on v. 3. 
 Zadok the son of Ijn?ner] The head of the priestly family of Inniier. 
 
 See Ezra ii. 37. 
 
 After him] R.V. And after him. 
 
 the keeper of the east gate] This has sometimes been identified with 
 'the water gate' of v. 26. But it is very improbable that, in a topo- 
 graphical chapter such as this, the same gate should be mentioned by 
 two different names without any word of explanation. 
 
 Considering that the previous name is that of a priest, it is natural to 
 suppose that Shemaiah, 'the keeper of the east gate,' was a Levite, and 
 the east gate was the eastern approach to the Temple precincts. 
 
 30. Hamm the sixth son of Zalaph,... piece] R.V. portion. This 
 particular mention of Hanun as 'the sixth son' of Zalaph is noteworthy, 
 since the mention of other names in this chapter is unaccompanied with 
 any detail of description. It is not mentioned in z'. 13, where Hanun's 
 name first occurs; but in this passage it has the support of all the 
 versions. If therefore the word is, as some suppose, a corruption for 
 'and the inhabitants of Zanoah' {v. 13), or a numerical gloss that has 
 accidentally found its way into the text, the error must have arisen in 
 very early times. 
 
 Meshiilla7n the son of Berechiah] His name has occurred in v. 4 
 and it is strange that the words ' another portion ' are not added in 
 connexion with this second mention of his work. We should naturally 
 expect this tribute to be applied to him rather than to Hanun. 
 
 over against his chatnber] The word for ' chamber ' is an unusual 
 form — occurring elsewhere in the O.T. only in xii. 44, xiii. 7 — for the 
 ordinary word occurring in Ezr. viii. 29, where see note. Perhaps 
 
vv. 31, 32.] NEHEMIAH, III. 
 
 chamber. After him repaired Malchiah the goldsmith's son 31 
 unto the place of the Nethinims, and ^the merchants, over 
 against the gate Miphkad, and to the going up of the corner. 
 And between the going up of the corner unto the sheep gate 32 
 repaired the goldsmiths and the merchants. 
 
 it is used here to denote some ofificial residence (LXX. ya^o<f)v\dKLou, 
 Vulg. gazophylaci7i})i). The mention of Meshullam's 'chamber' in- 
 creases the probability that he was a priest of eminence, if, as the context 
 somewhat suggests, *the chamber' was within the Temple precincts. 
 
 31. Malchiah the goldsmith'' s soil] R.V. Malchijah one of the gold- 
 smiths. See note on v. 8. Malchiah belonged to the guild of the 
 goldsmiths. 
 
 unto the place of the Nethinims] R.V. unto the house of the Nethinim. 
 The Nethinim were stated {v. 26) to have their dwelling 'in Ophel.' 
 Here a house belonging to their number is described as on the wall, 
 probably N.E. of the Temple precincts. This we may presume was 
 the ofificial residence of those engaged in the service of the Temple. 
 
 and of the merchants'] LXX. ol pcoiroTruiXaL. The tradesmen of the 
 same class generally lived near to one another, cf. Jer. xxxvii. 21. 
 
 It is at first sight strange to find a house belonging to a mixed body 
 of Nethinim and merchants. But the needs and equipment of the 
 Temple services and of those who took part in them were sufficiently 
 varied to account for this combination. We should think of an Oriental 
 bazaar rather than of a modern house. The open spaces near the 
 Temple would be thronged with money-changers and sellers of animals 
 for sacrifice and of articles for offerings. On the later abuse of this 
 custom cf. Matt. xxi. 12; John ii. 14. Some who have found a 
 difficulty in this combination disregard the tradition of the accents, 
 and divide the verse differently, stopping at 'Nethinim,' and making 
 a new clause of which ' the merchants ' are the subject, i.e. ' and the 
 merchants repaired, &c.' We should however certainly expect the 
 phrase ' after him ' at the beginning of such a clause. 
 
 over against the gate Miphkad] R.V, over against the gate of Ham- 
 miphkad. The word ' Miphkad ' occurs in Ezek. xliii. 21, ' Thou shalt 
 also take the bullock of the sin offering, and he shall burn it in the 
 appointed place {miphkad) of the house, without the sanctuary.' It 
 has hence been often supposed to be the gate through which the bullock 
 of the sin oftering was led 'without the sanctuary.' 
 
 The words 'over against' seem to imply that the gate of Ilam- 
 miphkad was not on but opposite the city wall. Some identify it with 
 the modern ' golden gate.' 
 
 The LXX. Ma0e/fd5 and the Vulg. 'porta judicialis' fail to throw 
 light upon its position or purpose. 
 
 and to the going up of the corner] R.V. and to the ascent (marg. ' Or, 
 upper chamber'') of the corner. We seem here to have the junction 
 point of two walls, where the elevation was greater than elsewhere, or 
 where there was a well-known ' upper chamber ' used for look-out 
 purposes or as a place of public gathering. 
 
190 NEHEMIAH, IV. [w. i, 2. 
 
 4 But it came to pass, that when Sanballat heard that we 
 builded the wall, he was wroth, and took great indignation, 
 
 2 and mocked the Jews. And he spake before his brethren 
 and the army of Samaria, and said, What do these feeble 
 Jews ? will they fortify themselves ? will they sacrifice ? will 
 
 32. the going up, Sac.'] see z/. 31. 
 
 imto the sheep gate'] R.V. and the sheep gate. This was the starting 
 place of the description [v. i). 
 
 the goldsmiths] see vv. 8 — 31. 
 
 the fuerchants] see v. 31. 
 
 The proximity of their work of restoration suggests that both gold- 
 smiths and merchants represented communities largely and closely 
 interested in the transactions connected with Temple offerings. For, 
 apart from the supply and repair of vessels, furniture, and dress, required 
 for the daily ministration, the dedication of precious things would 
 create a constant traffic close to the Temple. The merchants 
 would establish themselves at the main approaches to the Temple and 
 expose their wares to the throngs of worshippers and sacrificers who 
 collected about this spot. 
 
 Ch. IV. 1—23. The Opposition to the Work, (a) 1 — 6. The 
 
 RIDICULE OF THE SAMARITANS. {b) 7 — 23. THE MENACES OF 
 THE FOE, AND THE PRECAUTIONS TAKEN BY NeHEMIAH. 
 
 1. The IVth Chapter in ordinary editions of the Hebrew text does 
 not begin till v. 7. 
 
 and took great indignation] The form of the word here used in the 
 original is of rare occurrence and is found only in late Hebrew, -2 Chron. 
 xvi. 10, 'was in a rage;' Ezek. xvi. 42, 'be angry;' Ps. cxii. 10, 'be 
 grieved,' Eccles, v. 17, vii. 9. For the common use of the word in its 
 causative sense, 'provoke to anger' see v. 5. 
 
 2. And he spake before his brethreji] Sanballat's 'brethren' would 
 be the chiefs of the Samaritan community. 
 
 and the army of Samaria] 'the army' (LXX. diivaiiis): the word 
 here used is the one generally employed for 'armed forces,' see ii. 
 9; Ezra viii. 22; Esth. i. 3. The Samaritans seem to have hastily 
 summoned their forces to consider whether it would be practicable to 
 compel the Jews by a sudden onslaught to desist from an undertaking 
 so menacing to Samaritan independence. 'The army' therefore is not 
 equivalent to 'an assembly (Vulg. frequentia)^' but to the population 
 trained in war and capable of bearing arms, collected in face of a sudden 
 emergency. Some have supposed that a body of regular Persian troops 
 stationed at Samaria under a Governor (ii. 7) is intended. 
 
 What do i\ies& feeble Jews?] The word rendered 'feeble' only occurs 
 here in the O.T. It denotes the languor of weakness. It is akin to a 
 word found in i Sam. ii. 5, 'And she that hath many children 
 languisheth^ (A.V. 'is waxed feeble'). 
 
 will they fortify themselves?] so R.V. text. R.V. marg. 'Or, will they 
 leave to thc7nselves aught? Or, will men lei them alone? ^ 
 
V. 3-] NEHEMIAH, IV. 191 
 
 they make an end in a day ? will they revive the stones out 
 of the heaps of the rubbish which are burnt ? Now Tobiah 3 
 
 This short interrogative clause has occasioned much difficulty, on 
 account of the word rendered 'fortify,' the natural rendering of which 
 (as in iii. 8, where see note) would be 'leave.' The versions, LXX. 
 OTL oi 'lovSaiot. ovtol olKoSo/xouai tt\v eavrwv iroKiv, Vulg. mwt diniittent 
 eos gentes, fail to throw any light upon the passage. 
 
 {a) The rendering of the English versions gives a clear and intelligible 
 meaning. But (1) the use of the word in the sense of 'fortify' belongs 
 to late Hebrew and is very rare: (2) in Biblical Hebrew it can only be 
 supported by the uncertain testimony of iii. 8: (3) there is no mockery 
 in such a question, corresponding to the tone of the other queries. 
 
 (b) 'will they leave to themselves aught?' This rendering which 
 preserves the usual meaning of the disputed word, is open to the two very 
 strong objections that, (i) the point of the question is conveyed by a 
 word which is not found in the text, i.e. 'aught,' (2) the full meaning, 
 obtained from this rendering (i.e. 'do they expect to survive such an 
 attempt? the Persian Empire will extirpate a people of such pre- 
 sumption; and nothing will be left to them'), is read into the words 
 rather than derived from them. 
 
 {c) 'will men let them alone?' i.e. will the Persian Government or 
 the neighbouring races permit the Jews to carry out their design? Against 
 this rendering, which gives a very intelligible meaning, it must be 
 urged, that (i) it necessitates an awkward change of subject introducing 
 a new subject between two clauses in which 'the Jews' are the subject, 
 (2) it treats the Jewish project with serious indignation instead of with 
 the contempt expressed in the other queries. 
 
 (li) 'will they commit themselves unto them?' i.e. will the Jews 
 entrust themselves and so great a work to their leaders? But we should 
 expect a greater definiteness of expression in a short scornful question. 
 
 {e) 'will they on their own behalf (lit. for themselves) commit them- 
 selves (i.e. unto God)?' According to this rendering Sanballat is 
 quoting a cant Jewish phrase 'to commit oneself,' leaving his hearers 
 to understand its special application. This use of the word may be 
 illustrated from Psalm x. 14, 'the helpless committeth (lit. leaveth) him- 
 self unto thee.' The mockery of such a question is quite in harmony 
 with the general tone of Sanballat's question. 
 
 (/) But it is more probable that the great obscurity of the words 
 arises from an early error in the text, a scribe omitting two syllables 
 very similar to those which followed, and writing 'lahem' = 'to them' for 
 'leloheyhem' = 'to their God.' The sense then would be, 'Will they 
 commit themselves to their God?' The same textual error occurs in 
 I Sam. iii. 13 (see R.V. marg.). It may then be compared with 
 Rabshakeh's words in 1 Kings xviii. 30, 32, 35. 
 
 will they sacrifice '^\ A mocking question; equivalent to 'do the 
 Jews imagine that they have only to collect together and propitiate 
 their God with sacrifices, and their work will be done?' 
 
 will they make an end in a day?] Is it to be all done so simply and 
 so quickly? 'In a day' might be rendered 'in the day,' as if they said, 
 
192 NEHEMIAH, IV. [v. 4. 
 
 the Ammonite was by him, and he said, Even that which 
 
 they build, if a fox go up, he shall even break down their 
 
 4 stone wall. Hear, O our God ; for we are despised : and 
 
 turn their reproach upon their own head, and give them for 
 
 'will they make a beginning and an end in this day?' (LXX. arjixepov, 
 Vulg. in una die). 
 
 7uill they revive ... ?'\ Are they going to work miracles? The LXX. 
 renders 'will they heal?' {idaovTai). Cf. 'the repairing' (R.V.) in ver. 7. 
 
 of the heaps of the rubbish zvhich are btirnt] R.V. out of the heaps 
 of rubbisli, seeing they are burned ? The word 'burned' refers to 'the 
 stones.' Compare on the accumulation of rubbish Sir C. Warren's state- 
 ments respecting the excavations at Jerusalem, e.g. in his paper 'The site 
 of the Temple of the Jews' {Trans. Bibl. Arch. vol. vii. p. 320), 'We... 
 found that the old wall exists to the enormous depth of 125 feet below 
 the rubbish, with stones of very great size.' 
 
 3. Even that which they build &c.] Whatever they are trying to 
 build. 
 
 a fox\ R.V. marg. ^Ox,jackal\ The light tread of some creeping 
 animal was enough to bring down their weak wall stone though it 
 was. The '■ shtidV or fox is elsewhere mentioned in Judg. xv. 4; 
 Ps. Ixiii. 10; Ezek. xiii. 4; Lam, v. 18; Cant. ii. 15. In the passages 
 from Ps., Ez., Lam., it is spoken of in connexion with ruined places. 
 The R.V. margin gives the alternative, 'jackal ' in each case, except in 
 Ezek. and Cant., where the slyness of the animal (cf. Luke xiii. 32) 
 shov/s that the fox is clearly intended. The Hebrew language probably 
 does not distinguish between the 'jackal' and the 'fox.' Perhaps the 
 allusion in Canticles to the depredations committed by foxes in a vine- 
 yard throws light upon Tobiah's sneer. A fox, he seems to say, would 
 have as little difficulty in breaking through the wall of Jerusalem as 
 through a vineyard fence. 
 
 break downl Vulg. transiliet. 
 
 4, 5. Nehemiah's Soliloquy and Prayer. — A parenthesis. 
 
 4. This is the first of the parenthetical addresses to the Almighty, 
 which are a characteristic feature of Nehemiah's writing. See also 
 v. 19, vi. 9, 14, xiii. 14, 22. 
 
 Hear., O our God'\ Cf. Lam. iii. 61, 'Thou hast heard their reproach 
 O Lord, and all their devices against me.' 
 
 for we are despised\ Literally, ' we have become an object of contempt.' 
 The people are inseparable from their God ; the mockery of Sanballat 
 and Tobiah directed against the Jews affects Jehovah. 
 
 turn their reproach upon their own head"] R.V. turn back &c. Cf. 
 Ps. Ixxix. 12, 'And render unto our neighbours sevenfold into their 
 bosom their reproach, wherewith they have reproached thee, O Lord.' 
 Lam. iii. 64, 'Thou wilt render unto them a recompence, O Lord, 
 according to the work of their hands.' 
 
 and give them pr a prey hi the latid of captivity'\ R.V. and give them 
 up to spoiling in a land of captivity — 'Spoiling,' a word used in late 
 
vv. 5—7.] NEHEMIAH, IV. 193 
 
 a prey in the land of captivity: and cover not their iniquity, 5 
 and let not their sin be blotted out from before thee : for 
 they have provoked thee to anger before the builders. So 6 
 built we the wall ; and all the wall was joined together unto 
 the half thereof: for the people had a mind to work. 
 
 But it came to pass, that when Sanballat, and Tobiah, 7 
 
 Hebrew (2 Chr. xiv. 13, xxv. 13, xxviii. 14; Ezra ix. 7; Esth. ix. 10, 15, 
 16; Dan. xi. 24, 33) here, as in Ezra ix. 7, Dan. xi. 33, to denote the 
 process of phmdering, not as in A.V. the thing plundered and carried 
 off. 'A land of captivity' (not 'the land'), the expression is general, 
 but obviously Nehemiah wishes for the enemies of the Jews the mis- 
 fortunes of his own race. 
 
 5. and cover not their iniquity] i.e. forgive it not. Cf. Ps. Ixxxv. 2, 
 'Thou \\'3&\. forgiven the iniquity of thy people, thou hast covered all 
 their sin ' — i.e. so as not to see and visit it. 
 
 a7id let not their sin be blotted out froin before thee] i.e. let its record re- 
 main for ever in the book of divine remembrance and cry for retribution. 
 Compare Ps. cix. 14, 'Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered 
 with the Lord; and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out.'' The 
 metaphor is differently applied in Ps. Ixix. 28, 'Let them be blotted 
 out of the book of life.' 
 
 for they have provoked thee to anger] The verb, which is of frequent 
 occurrence in connexion with idolatrous practices, is here used absolutely 
 as in 2 Kings xxi. 6, 22. But there is no ambiguity of meaning, if we 
 supply the pronoun 'thee' as the object. The LXX. omit the clause: 
 the Vulg. renders ' qtiia irriserunt aedificantes.^ 
 
 before the builders] Sanballat and Tobiah had publicly contemned 
 Jehovah; perhaps they sought to alienate the Jews engaged in building 
 the wall by means of their mockery and their provocation. Nehemiah 
 prays, as it were, that the same builders who had heard their utterance of 
 defiance might witness their overthrow. Compare again Rabshakeh's 
 endeavour to shake the fidelity of the people of Jerusalem, 2 Kings 
 xviii. 26 — 28. 
 
 6. So built we] R.V. So we built. No emphasis on 'we.' 
 
 iinto the half thereof] R.V. unto half the height thereof. 'All the 
 wall was joined together.' The circumvallation was complete. There 
 were no gaps or breaches. The wall had been raised to half its height all 
 the way round. The most ancient wall, the foundations of which were 
 discovered by Sir Charles Warren, must have had a height of 200 feet ! 
 
 for the people had a mind to work] The enthusiasm of the people 
 explains the rapidity of the work. Nehemiah disclaims any credit to 
 himself. 
 
 a mind] literally, ' heart.' 
 
 7. In most editions of the Hebrew Bible, this is the ist verse of the 
 ivth Chapter. 
 
 Sanballat... Ashdodites] Here we have a complete list of the foes of 
 Jerusalem. See notes on ii. ro, 19. The Ammonites were the fellow- 
 countrymen of Tobiah, the Arabians of Geshem (ii. 19). With them 
 
 NEHEMIAH 
 
 13 
 
194 NEHEMIAH, IV. [v. 8. 
 
 and the Arabians, and the Ammonites, and the Ashdodites, 
 heard that the walls of Jerusalem were made up, and that 
 the breaches began to be stopped, then they were very 
 wroth, and conspired all of them together to come and to 
 
 are classed the dwellers by the coast (the Shephelah) represented by the 
 Ashdodites or inhabitants of Ashdod (Azotus, modern Esdud). Ashdod 
 was one of the principal Philistine cities (i Sam. v.). It occupied a 
 strong position near the sea, and once seems to have commanded a sea- 
 port only 3 miles distant. The mention of Ashdod here is peculiar. It 
 was, we may suppose, the chief town on the Philistine coast, and 
 resented an undertaking which threatened to revive the power and 
 importance of Jerusalem. On the intermixture of the Ashdodite or 
 Philistine element with the Jews, see xiii. 23. 'Ashdod' was said to 
 have been captured by Uzziah (2 Chr. xxvi. 6). It commanded the 
 caravan route into Egypt. It was captured by the Assyrians in 715 
 (Is. XX. i), and by the Egyptians under Psammetichus after a long 
 siege (Herod. 11. 157). 
 
 Ashdod was captured by the Maccabees and partially destroyed 
 (cf. I Mace. V. 68, x. 84, xi. 4). It was restored by Gabinius. Philip 
 the Evangelist preached there (Acts viii. 40). 
 
 It has been objected that a hostile coalition of different races, Sama- 
 ritan, Arabian, Ammonite, Philistine, against the Jews of Jerusalem 
 would have been impossible in a district subject to Persian rule. 
 
 But it is a mistake to suppose that the internal administration of the 
 Persian Empire would be sufficient to prevent petty feuds among the 
 subject races. The satraps took little notice of the ceaseless disputes 
 between the tributary towns and nationalities on the frontier. The 
 suggestion is needless that 'the Arabians, Ammonites, Ashdodites' 
 are only names of the communities most largely represented in the 
 mixed concourse which followed Sanballat. 
 
 that the walls of J ei'tisalejn were f?tade up\ R.V. that the repairing 
 of the •walls of Jerusalem went forward. R.V. marg. ' Heb. healmg 
 went up upon the walls '. The literal rendering is given in the R.V. 
 marg., the metaphor is that of an open wound or cut to which a 
 bandage is applied, bringing relief and restoration (LXX. 6'ri oMe^-q 
 ri (pvT] TOis Teixeaiv Tep. : Vulg. ^uod obdttcta esset cicatrix nmri Jer.). 
 The same words occur in 2 Chron. xxiv. 13 'the work was perfected 
 by them,' (R.V. marg. healing went up upon the work), and in Jer. viii. 
 22, XXX. 17. 
 
 and that the breaches began to be stopped] These words explain the 
 metaphor of the previous clause. 'Breaches,' the same word that 
 occurs in ' Perez-Uzzah ' and 'Baal Perazim.' The verb derived from 
 the same root is used of a wall ' broken down ' (Neh. i. 3 ; 2 Chr. 
 xxxii. 5). LXX. diaacpayal dvacppdaa-eadai : Vulg. interrupta concludi. 
 
 to be stopped] Literally ' to be closed.' 
 
 then they were very wroth] Their anger mentioned in v. i reached 
 ?v higher i)itch on hearing of the successful progress of the work. 
 
 8. and conspired all of them] R.V. and they conspired all of them. 
 
vv. 9, TO.] NEHEMIAH, IV. 195 
 
 fight against Jerusalem, and to hinder it. Nevertheless we 9 
 made our prayer unto our God, and set a watch against 
 them day and night, because of them. And Judah said, 10 
 
 R.V. makes a stronger pause at the close of v. 7, substituting a semi- 
 colon for the comma. ' Conspired.' The word here used is the usual 
 term for secret treachery. 
 
 to co??ie and to Jight] R.V. to come and fight. Literally «to come 
 fight' without the copula. This idiom, which occurs again in ix. 15, 23 
 (cf. I Chron. xii. 31 ; 2 Chron. xx. 11), combines the thought of the 
 two infinitives, the latter being epexegetic of the former. It is equiva- 
 lent 'to come for the purpose of fighting.' 
 
 and to hinder it] R.\\ and to cause confusion therein. More lite- 
 rally 'and to cause confusion to him.' The masc. pronoun is here 
 used, referring to the dwellers in Jerusalem. ' to cause or make con- 
 fusion ', the word rendered ' confusion ' occurs only here and in 
 Isai. xxxii. 6, 'to utter error against the Lord.' The rareness of the 
 word^ occasioned difficulty to the versions. Hence LXX. iroLTjaai. avTrjV 
 d(pav7], Vulg. molirentiir insidias. 
 
 The sudden arrival of hostile forces outside Jerusalem would be 
 calculated ' to cause confusion.' It would encourage those who were 
 already disaffected, and would terrify the timid. It would impede the 
 work ; for the patriot Jews would have to abandon the building for the 
 sake of defending their walls, while the unwilling workers would gladly 
 avail themselves of the pretext. 
 
 9. Nevertheless\ R.V. But. The simple copula in the original 
 introduces the contrast betvvten the plan of the enemy and the defensive 
 measures adopted by the Jews. ' Nevertheless ' is too strong an adver- 
 sative. The thought is merely 'and on our side, we made our 
 prayer.' On the prominence of prayer in these books see Ezr. viii. 23, 
 ix. 5, X. I ; Neh. i. 4, ii. 4. Nehemiah mentions the spiritual source oif 
 aid first. 
 
 and set a %vatcJi\ i.e. posted sentinels. The human means of 
 defence are not neglected although the confidence rests in a higher 
 protection. 
 
 day and night] i.e. while the builders were at work on the wall, the 
 city was almost as defenceless against a surprise as in the dead of night. 
 
 against them... because of the in] 'against them,' i.e. 'to repel their 
 attack:' 'because of them,' literally 'from before their face,' i.e. in 
 consequence of their hostility and the fear which they had excited. 
 Others render ' over against ', i.e. so as to watch and observe the move- 
 ments of the foe. The rendering ' over against ' introduces the idea of 
 a definite mustering of defenders upon some particular quarter of the 
 city, and some have suggested that the reference is to the north side as 
 the most open for assault and nearest to the Samaritan forces. This 
 gives too precise and limited a meaning. The character of the verse 
 is indefinite and general. The recourse to prayer is mentioned in the 
 first clause, and the posting of sentinels in the second. In both cases 
 the action is due to the movement of the enemy, 'because of them.' 
 
 13—2 
 
196 NEHEMIAH, IV. [vv. 11,12. 
 
 The strength of the bearers of burdens is decayed, and there 
 
 is much rubbish ; so that we are not able to build the wall. 
 " And our adversaries said, They shall not know, neither see, 
 
 till we come in the midst among them, and slay them, and 
 12 cause the work to cease. And it came to pass, that when 
 
 the Jews which dwelt by them came, they said unto us ten 
 
 After the words ' against them ' it seems at first sight a weak conclusion 
 to the sentence. But the words ' against them ' belong to ' set a 
 watch ' and are the antithesis to ' unto our God.' The words * because 
 of them ' refer to both clauses of the verse 10 — 12. Nehemiah's trials do 
 not come upon him singly. He is confronted with {v. 10) the murmurs 
 of the Jews, {v. 11) the openly expressed confidence of his foes, (z/. 12) 
 the fears of the Jews in the rural districts. 
 
 10. And Judah said] i.e. the Jewish community speaking, by 
 their rulers or representatives, to Nehemiah. 
 
 The strength of the bearers of burdens, &c.] Literally ' the strength 
 of the bearer of burdens, &c.,' referring to the whole class of the 
 working population. The LXX. wrongly ?) i(jx\>% rdv k^Qpiav. 
 
 so that ive are not able, &c.] The complaint here described seems to 
 be introduced at this point to show the variety of obstacles to the work. 
 Besides the direct hostility of the Samaritans, the Jews themselves 
 declared their strength to be giving way before the fatigue. The task 
 of clearing away the accumulated rubbish before building the walls 
 had exhausted their patience and their powers. It is not necessary to 
 regard this declaration as mutinous. It was occasioned by the pressure 
 felt by the whole community in consequence of the continuous labour 
 upon the wall. There was no reserve to fall back upon in case of a 
 sudden alarm. To Nehemiah at such a crisis the complaint must have 
 greatly added to the difficulties of the moment. It had all the tone of 
 disaffection, and reminded him that in the face of a hostile foe he 
 could place little confidence either in the power or in the willingness of 
 the Jewish citizens to defend themselves. 
 
 11. our adve7-saries said] ' adversaries,' cf. Ezra iv. i . After mentioning 
 the source of weakness within the walls, Nehemiah describes the 
 danger from without. 'Said.' He gives, as if in their own words, their 
 secret project of a surprise attack upon Jerusalem, either reporting the 
 information brought by spies or describing by imagination what the 
 intentions of the enemy were. 
 
 in the midst a/nong them] R. V. into tlie midst of them. 
 
 12. The translation of the last clause of this verse presents a great 
 difficulty, and leaves us doubtful with what intention the Jews here 
 spoken of addressed their countrymen. 
 
 The verse stands in very loose connexion with the two previous verses. 
 It represents a fresh complication in the difficult position which con- 
 fronted Nehemiah. To discontent within, and the schemes 01 the foe 
 without, is added the panic of the Jews in the outlying districts. 
 
 the Jei.vs which dzvelt by thevi] By this expression are apparently 
 
V. 13.] NEHEMIAH, IV. 197 
 
 times, From all places whence ye shall return unto us they 
 will be upon you. Therefore set I in the lower places 13 
 
 intended the Jewish dwellers in towns and districts adjacent to the 
 territory of the Samaritans, Ammonites, Arabians and Philistines, who 
 had sent contingents to assist in the rebuilding of the walls — e.g. Jericho, 
 Tekoah, Gibeon, Mizpah, Zanoah (chap. iii. 2, 5, 7, 13). 'by them,' 
 comp. V. 3. 
 
 they said unto us ten times'] i.e. again and again, as often as occasion 
 offered — cf. Gen. xxxi. 41, 'Thou hast changed my wages ten times.' 
 
 From all places whence ye shall return unto us they will be upon you] 
 R.V. from all places, Ye must return unto us, marg. ' Or, From all 
 places whence ye shall return they will be tipon us '. The Authorised 
 Version is here unintelligible. 
 
 (i) The R.V. text is a literal translation, with the exception of the 
 omission of the relative before 'Ye must return.' This however may be 
 explained as an instance of the relative in late Hebrew idiom prefixed 
 to the 'Oratio Recta,' like oti in late Greek. 'From all places' refers 
 to the scattered Jewish communities. The foes of Jerusalem were on 
 every side; the fears of the Jewish frontier-towns on every side were 
 increased by the growing hostility of the neighbouring peoples. The 
 words of their petition to Nehemiah and his companions may be 
 explained in one of two ways. 
 
 {a) They express apprehension on their own account and for their 
 own homes. Deprived of the able-bodied men who had been sent to 
 work at the walls on Jerusalem, these little towns and villages could 
 not hope to defend themselves against the gathering foe. Wherefore 
 they address themselves through the leaders to their fellow-townsmen 
 sojourning in Jerusalem, 'Ye must return unto us.' 
 
 (p) They are alarmed for the safety of their fellow-townsmen. They 
 see the combination of foes against Jerusalem and regard her overthrow 
 as certain. They entreat their own friends and relatives to return home 
 in time to save their lives. 
 
 Of these alternatives {a) is much to be preferred. 
 
 (2) The R.V. marg. 'From all places whence ye shall return they 
 will be upon us.' This rendering is perfectly literal, but it seems 
 impossible to find a satisfactory meaning for 'whence ye shall return.' 
 The interpretation 'On every side, as soon as you leave a place, the 
 enemy occupy it and attack us,' gives a fair sense, but is hardly appli- 
 cable to the circumstances. The Jews had no moving forces in the field. 
 
 (3) Another rendering which is supplied by the reading of the 3rd pers. 
 for the 2nd pers. plur. is found in the Versions, LXX., Vulg., and 
 Peshitto Syriac. The 3rd pers. plur. then refers to the enemy; and 
 the translation will run, 'And they told it us ten times from all the 
 places where the enemy went to and fro against us.' (LXX. ava^ai- 
 vov(nv...€<p' 7]fjt.a.s. Vulg. venerant ad nos). But the alteration of the 
 text has the appearance of a correction to make the passage easier; 
 and the renderings 'told,' instead of 'said,' 'went to and fro,' instead 
 of 'return,' introduce fresh difficulties. 
 
 13. Therefore set /, &c.] Nehemiah's action recorded in this verse 
 
198 NEHEMIAH, IV. [v. 14. 
 
 behind the wall, and on the higher places, I even set the 
 people after their families with their swords, their spears, 
 14 and their bows. And I looked, and rose up, and said unto 
 the nobles, and to the rulers, and to the rest of the people, 
 Be not ye afraid of them : remember the Lord, which is 
 great and terrible, and fight for your brethren, your sons, 
 
 was intended to meet the needs of the situation generally. 'Therefore' 
 must not be limited in application to v. 12. The difficulties which 
 beset him on so many sides compelled him to suspend part of the 
 building operations, and to employ some of his available men for 
 purposes of defence. 
 
 in the lower places behind the wall, and 07i the higher places] R.V. in 
 the lowest parts of the space behind the wall, in the open places. 
 The original in this passage is very obscure. The true meaning seems 
 to be given by the R.V. Nehemiah stationed armed detachments under 
 the cover of the wall, in the open spaces, where houses and buildings 
 would not interfere with their movement. 
 
 The difficulties of the clause are occasioned by (i) the verb *I set' 
 without an object, although repeated with an object in the next clause: 
 (2) the word rendered 'the space' (lit. 'the place'); (3) the words 'in 
 the open places.' The LXX. iv Toh (TKeireivoh seems to have understood 
 'sheltered places.' Others explain of 'places where the sun shone,' 
 i.e. where the glint of the soldiers' armour would betray their presence 
 and deter attack. 
 
 According to one bold conjecture we should render, 'And I set the 
 engines (or catapults) in the space behind the wall in well-protected 
 positions.' 
 
 after their families] Probably defending the portion of the wall 
 upon which they were at work. This distribution of the defence 
 among families guaranteed the discipline and organization and energy 
 resulting from the strong clan feeling of the Semitic races. Many 
 would thus be required merely to defend their own homes : cf iii. 28. 
 
 szvords... spears... botvs] the chief offensive weapons: swords for the 
 hand-to-hand melee, spears as the enemy drew near, the bow and arrow 
 for attack from the distance. 
 
 14. And I looked, and rose up] Nehemiah's ' look ' seems to denote 
 his inspection of the guards which he had stationed. 
 
 tinto the nobles, and to the riders] R.V. marg. 'Or, depulies\ Upon 
 the difference of these two classes see note on ii. 16. 
 
 the Lord] R.V. the Lord. The sacred name here used is ' Adonai,' 
 not 'Jahveh;' see on i. 11, (iii. 5). 
 
 which is great and terrible] For these epithets, see note on i. 5, and 
 compare ix. 22, The attributes of power and awe belong to the God 
 of Israel and ensure the victory of those that trust him, cf. Deut. iii. 22, 
 XX. 31, 32. 
 
 fight for your brethren... houses] Nehemiah exhorts his men to fight 
 courageously. To the Jews the contest must be for their very existence 
 
vv. 15, ]6.J NEHEMIAH, IV. 199 
 
 and your daughters, your wives, and your houses. And it 15 
 came to pass, when our enemies heard that it was known 
 unto us, and God had brought their counsel to nought, that 
 we returned all of us to the wall, every one unto his work. 
 And it came to pass from that time forth, that the half of 16 
 my servants wrought in the work, and the other half of 
 
 as a people. Their foes are banded together to compass the extermina- 
 tion of their race and name. The brotherhood of the race (brethren), 
 the blessings of family and home (sons and daughters), the ties of per- 
 sonal affection (wives) or cherished ancestral inheritance (house) were 
 at stake. The enemy against whom they fought knew no pity. 
 
 15. Success of Nehemiah's precautions. 
 
 our enemies] a different word in the original from that rendered 
 * adversaries ' in z^. 11. 
 
 that it was knoivii unto US'] i.e. their project of a sudden attack. 
 
 God had brought their counsel to nought] i.e. through the precau- 
 tionary measures taken by Nehemiah. The words ' brought their 
 counsel to nought' are the same as those rendered 'frustrate their 
 purpose ' in Ezr. iv. 5. 
 
 we returned .. .work] This clause implies what is not definitely 
 stated. The enemy, on hearing that Nehemiah was prepared to meet 
 their attack, seem to have abandoned their intention of an immediate 
 assault. Nehemiah and his companions were able to resume the work 
 upon the wall, although precautions were still necessary. 
 
 16. the half of my servants wrought in the work] R.V. half of, &c. 
 Literally ' half of my young men.' The LXX. by a strange error rdv 
 eKTerivayiueuuw. These were probably the bodyguard attached to the 
 person of Nehemiah as the governor. They are mentioned again in 
 V. 23; V. 10, 16. We gather that only in the case of these his personal 
 attendants did Nehemiah still insist upon arms being held in readiness, 
 while the work of building went on. The rest of the Jews were 
 exempted. Nehemiah's sei-vants were kept prepared for any emergency. 
 One half of them worked on the wall : the other half were stationed 
 under arms at various points holding the weapons of their comrades. 
 
 and the other half of them held both the spears^ &c.] R.V. and half of 
 them held the spears. In the original the copula ' and' stands before 
 'the spears.' It has been suggested that this implies the falling out 
 of a word, e.g. ' the swords ' after v/hich the copula would be natural, 
 i.e. 'the swords and the spears, &c.' The interpretation which, 
 accepting the introduction of the word 'swords,' begins a new sentence 
 with 'and the spears, &c.' is harsh and improbable. But it is best 
 to suppose that the copula has been accidentally inserted from the 
 neighbouring words. The wearing of a sword was not incompatible 
 with the manual work. The weapons held by the non-working detach- 
 ment are just those which would have rendered work on the wall 
 impossible. Cf. v. 18, 
 
 the spears] The 'spear' {7'omakh) mentioned here and in vv. la 
 
200 NEHEMIAH, IV. [v. i6. 
 
 them held both the spears, the shields, and the bows, and 
 the habergeons; and the rulers were behind all the house 
 
 and 21 seems to have been the principal thrusting weapon. We do not 
 find it anywhere spoken of as a 'javelin' to be hurled. It must have 
 been more of the Greek phalanx spear than the ' pilum ' of the Roman 
 soldier. It is mentioned in i Chron. xi. 12, xiv. 8, xxv. 5, xxvi. 14, 
 in connexion with the armies of the Southern kingdom, in Jer. xlvi, 4, 
 with the forces of Pharaoh-Necho, in Ezek. xxxix. 9, with the armies 
 of Gog. The same word is used of the weapons with which the 
 prophets of Baal mutilated themselves as they offered sacrifice on 
 Mount Carmel (i Kings xviii. 28). 
 
 the shields, and the bozos'] There were two kinds of shields in the 
 armies of the East, the one small and round (* the buckler'), the other 
 large and oblong. They are mentioned together in 2 Chron. xxiii. 9 ; 
 cf. I Kings X. 16, 17. Representations of the two kinds may be seen in 
 the Assyrian sculptures. Here the shields are of the smaller kind 
 (magen), and would be used by those who carried spears. 
 
 and the bozos'] In the Assyrian bas-reliefs we constantly find 
 * bowmen ' attacking a city protected by shield-bearers, and discharging 
 their arrows behind large oblong shields. Here however shooting 
 from behind a rampart, the large shields would not be required. 
 
 and the habergeons] R.V. and the coats of mail. Cp. also 2 Chron. 
 xxvi. 14, where the R.V. makes the same alteration. It is unlikely 
 that the common soldiers mentioned in these two passages would have 
 worn heavy and elaborate ' coats of mail ' such as Saul is described as 
 offering to David (i Sam. xvii. 38) or Ahab seems to have worn at 
 Ramoth-Gilead (i Kings xxii. 34; 2 Chron. xviii. 33). The wearing 
 of ' scale ' or ' link ' armour was probably confined to the oiificers of an 
 army ; and it may be doubted whether the soldiers of a provincial 
 governor would have been so fully and expensively equipped. 
 
 We should probably understand the defensive armour here mentioned 
 to consist of suits of tough leather doublets, 'jerkins,' protecting the 
 body down to the knees and leaving the arms bare. The hard specially 
 prepared hides, of which they were made, were almost impenetrable to 
 the arrow. In some cases no doubt thin 'scales' of metal were sewn 
 into the leather, and Nehemiah's bodyguard would be better armed 
 than the ordinary Jewish citizens. For 'habergeon' = a little coat-of- 
 mail covering the head and shoulders, compare (see Bible Word-Book) 
 Latimer, Sertn.^ p. 29, 'And be ye apparalled or clothed,' saith Paul, 
 'with the habergeon or coat armour of justice.' The word is used by 
 the A.V. in Ex. xxviii. 32, xxxix. 23; 2 Chron. xxvi. 14; Job xli. 26. 
 It is derived from the French 'haubergeon' = neck covering. 
 
 and the rulers were behitid all the house ofjiidah] so R.V. text ; R.V. 
 marg., ' all the house of Judah that builded the wall. And they that &c.' 
 
 The meaning of this clause seems to be that 'the rulers' or princes 
 took up their position to the rear of those engaged in working at the 
 wall, so that at any moment, when the alarm should sound, they could 
 issue their commands and take the necessary measures to repel the 
 attack. 
 
vv. 17, 18.] NEHEMIAH, IV. 201 
 
 of Judah. They which builded on the wall, and they that 17 
 bare burdens, with those that laded, every one with one of 
 his hands wrought in the work, and with the other hand 
 held a weapon. For the builders, every one had his sword 18 
 
 17. They zuhkh builded on the wall] R. V. They that builded the 
 wall. The Hebrew preposition rendered 'on' in the A.V. occurs also 
 e.g. in V. 6, 'So we built the wall,' and merely expresses the object. 
 
 {a) These words are sometimes taken in conjunction with the con- 
 clusion of the previous verse (R.V. marg.), on account of the mention 
 of them 'that builded the wall' in connexion with them 'that bare 
 burdens;' whereas v. 18 seems to speak of 'the builders' as a dif- 
 ferent class from them 'that bare burdens.' 
 
 {b) Another explanation takes the first words of this verse as a 
 nominative absolute, standing before the two verses 17 and 18 which 
 relate respectively to the two classes into which the wall builders would 
 be distributed, i.e. 'As for them that builded the wall, as well they that 
 bare burdens, laded themselves &c. (iS) as the builders'. 
 
 {c) The R.V. renders the words quite simply. It makes v. 17 refer 
 both to the builders and to the burden bearers, v. 18 to the builders 
 only. 'They that builded on the wall' are then further defined in z/. 17 
 as 'they that bare burdens.' 'The builders' in v. 18, mentioned with- 
 out further definition, must be limited to those occupied in the con- 
 struction of the wall. 
 
 This makes very good sense. But the language is not without 
 ambiguity, for which it is probable that the text is really accountable. 
 
 and they that bare burdens'] See previous note. These words de- 
 scribe one class of workmen, distinguishing those who removed rubbish 
 and carried material, stones, &c., from those occupied in the construction. 
 If we take into account the enormous size of the stones used in the 
 building of the ancient walls, and bear in mind the Assyrian representa- 
 tions of the moving of heavy weights by rollers, pulleys, mounds, &c., 
 we may realize that the moving of the blocks and placing them in situ 
 required a distinct class of workmen from those who removed the earth 
 and the rubbish to prepare foundations, or constructed the mounds up 
 which the stones could be drawn. This latter class is here indicated. 
 
 with those that laded] R.V. laded themselves. The word in the 
 Hebrew is the predicate. It does not denote a third class of workmen. 
 
 every one... and with the other hand held a weapon] R.V. every one 
 . . .and with the other held his weapon. This clause shows that the work- 
 men here mentioned had one hand free. They were probably employed 
 in carrying baskets of rubbish over their backs or on their heads. 
 
 a weapon] The word here employed is not common. It denotes 
 •a missile,' and in this case was probably a light javelin. 
 
 18. For the builders] R.V. And the builders. Not, as A.V., a fresh 
 explanatory sentence, but a continuation of the foregoing, a description 
 of the other class of those engaged in the work. 
 
 his sword girded by his side] Both hands were occupied in the work 
 of laying the stones, which would be done chiefly by skilful mechanism 
 
202 NEHEMIAH, IV. [vv. 19—21. 
 
 girded by his side, and so builded. And he that sounded 
 
 19 the trumpet was by me. And I said unto the nobles, and 
 to the rulers, and to the rest of the people, The work is 
 great and large, and we are separated upon the wall, one 
 
 20 far from another. In what place therefore ye hear the 
 sound of the trumpet, resort ye thither unto us : our God 
 
 21 shall fight for us. So we laboured in the work : and half of 
 them held the spears from the rising of the morning till the 
 
 with pulleys and rollers. The free action of both hands would be 
 requisite. But though thus fully occupied, they were to be armed 
 against a surprise attack. The mention of the 'sword' here accounts 
 for its absence in v. 16. 
 
 And he that &c.] This is a distinct parenthetical sentence intro- 
 ducing the personal reminiscence. The men were scattered over a 
 large area, and the commands of the governor were to be given 
 by sound of trumpet, so that the alarm could be given to all at the same 
 time. 
 
 by me\ i.e. at my side, cf. v. 3. The words imply that Nehemiah 
 vi^as the life and soul of the defence, and that he was untiring in moving 
 from point to point in the wall, superintending the work and directing 
 the disposition for the defence. 
 
 19. nobles... rulers <S:c.] as in v. 14, and ii. 16, where see note. 
 large\ literally 'wide,' referring to the extensive character of the 
 
 building operations, which caused the defenders to be so scattered. 
 
 20. In what place \h^xQ.{ox€\ R.V. in what place soever. 
 
 resort ye thither'] literally ' thither shall ye collect or assemble your- 
 selves together'. 
 
 our God shall fight for us] The Jews shall fight, and even against 
 foes superior in numbers and strength shall prevail. Their God shall 
 fight for them. See also Ex. xv. 3 — 6, 'The Lord is a man of 
 war... Thy right hand, O Lord, hath dashed in pieces the enemy;' 
 xiv. 14, 'The Lord shall fight for you, and ye shall hold your 
 peace...' Cf. Deut. i. 30, iii. 22, xx. 4, xxviii. 7. 
 
 21. So we laboured] R.V. So we wrought. The word in the original 
 being the same as that rendered 'wrought' in vv. 16 and 17, it is best to 
 adhere to the same English equivalent. 'We:' the pronoun is 
 emphatic, i.e. I and my servants. The verse refers to Nehemiah and 
 his men alone, as is shown by the mention of 'half of them.' It con- 
 tinues the narrative from v. 18. vv. 19 and 20 are parenthetical. 
 
 half of them held the spears] That is to say, Nehemiah's bodyguard 
 was divided into two companies, who alternately worked at the wall 
 and mounted guard, holding the weapons of their comrades in readiness. 
 
 till the stars appea?-ed] literally ' till the going forth of the stars.' 
 The word is familiar to us from such passages as Gen. xix. 23, 'The 
 sun was risen (lit. gone forth) upon the earth when Lot came unto 
 Zoar '. Ps. xix. 6, ' His (the sun's) going forth is from the end of heaven. ' 
 The stars come forth from their ' chambers ' (Job ix. 9). 
 
vv. 22, 23.] NEHEMIAH, IV. 203 
 
 stars appeared. Likewise at the same time said I unto the 22 
 people, Let every one with his servant lodge within Jeru- 
 salem, that in the night they may be a guard to us, and 
 labour on the day. So neither I, nor my brethren, nor my 23 
 servants, nor the men of the guard which followed me, none 
 
 22. Likewise... said I unto the people\ Another prudent regulation 
 is enacted by Nehemiah. He addresses 'the people,' namely the 
 common people capable of bearing arms, as distinguished from the 
 nobles on the one hand and Nehemiah's servants on the other. The 
 object of the fresh enactment is to secure that during the nights the city 
 should be garrisoned with its full strength. 
 
 Let eveiy one with his servant lodge within yerusaleni\ From this 
 we gather that numbers of the people were employed during the day in 
 the vicinity of Jerusalem in farming and other occupations, or, being 
 employed upon the walls by day, wandered forth and slept outside the 
 gates. If they lodged (i.e. passed the night) outside the walls, they 
 were liable to be surprised in detail and murdered by the enemy. For 
 the defence of such extensive and unfinished works, Jerusalem could 
 not afford to lose a man unnecessarily. Nehemiah therefore required 
 that all, whatever their employment, should sleep in the city. At the 
 time when the exhausted builders took their rest, the greatest possible 
 number of inhabitants were in this way retained within the gates. The 
 disaffected also were deprived of opportunities for intriguing by night 
 with the enemy, 'every one with his servant,' literally 'his young 
 man.' Some would restrict this expression to the 'warriors,' each of 
 whom had his attendant, much as a Mediaeval knight had his squire. 
 But it is preferable to attach to the words a more general sense, i.e. 
 ' everyone, master and servant alike.' Those who employed labourers 
 would be responsible for seeing that their 'hands' did not disobey this 
 edict. 
 
 a guard to us'\ i.e. to Nehemiah and his bodyguard. These addi- 
 tional inmates of the city increased the strength of the defence by night. 
 
 and labour on the day\ R.V. and may labour in the day. Literally 
 'and in the day a labour.' Those who were compelled to lodge within 
 the walls would not be able to elude their employers and officers. 
 They would be better under control for the systematic work needful 
 for the building. They could not wander far from the city. Work 
 could be recommenced in the early morning without delay; v/hether 
 engaged on the walls or in other ways, all were thus placed under 
 surveillance. 
 
 23. my brethren... servants... meti of the guard which followed me] 
 Nehemiah mentions in detail those in whom he had complete confidence 
 and upon whose faithfulness the success of his project depended. 
 These shared their leader's vigilance and imitated his endurance. Not 
 one of them put off his clothes the whole time that the building went 
 on. They were prepared for an attack at any moment. 
 
 'brethren.' These would be the relatives of Nehemiah, cf. i. 2. 
 
204 NEHEMIAH, IV. [v. 23. 
 
 of us put off our clothes, saving that every one put them off 
 for washing. 
 
 The whole house or clan to which he belonged staunchly supported 
 him throughout the crisis. 
 
 'servants '...'men of the guard which followed me.' Under these 
 two heads Nehemiah seems to describe those whom he has mentioned 
 in z'. 17 as ' my servants.' He distinguishes here between his personal 
 attendants consisting of Jewish retainers, and the bodyguard consisting 
 chiefly of foreigners allotted him as governor by the Persian king. 
 
 saving that every one put them off for washing] R.V. every one 
 went with Ms weapon to the water. R.V. marg. 'The text is 
 probably faulty.' The clause has occasioned great difficulty. Literally 
 rendered the words run, ' each one his weapon the water.' The LXX. 
 omit the words, probably from inability to discover their meaning. 
 The error in the text is therefore of very early date. The Syriac seems 
 to have conjectured 'days' for 'water.' 
 
 {a) The A.V. follows the conjecture of the Vulg. 'unusquisque 
 tantum nudabatur ad baptismum,' according to which the Hebrew 
 word for * his weapon ' becomes by a change of vocalization a verb = 
 *they sent (i.e. cast off") each one his clothes for the water,' i.e. in 
 order to wash. The Hebrew however could not possibly bear this 
 very strained interpretation. 
 
 {b) Another old rendering is ' each one his weapon was (in the 
 place of, or equivalent to) water,' i.e. 'instead of washing they had 
 each to stand fast to their arms,' is equally improbable. 
 
 (r) Another rendering ' each one had (by his side) his weapon (and) 
 his (draught of) water ' gives intelligible sense, but not such as can be 
 justified by the original. 
 
 {d) Ewald's rendering, * the taking off of each man's clothes was for 
 water,' i.e. 'to satisfy his necessities, not to lie dovni to rest,' seems 
 very uncalled for. It is greatly to be questioned whether Nehemiah 
 even * in his rough and open style ' would have introduced such an 
 allusion or in such words. (Ewald, Hist, of Isr. vol. V. p. 156, note i, 
 Eng. Transl.). 
 
 (<?) Some moderns rendering ' his weapon ' (shil'kho) as if it were 
 the verb (shal'khu) translate ' they sent each one for water.' They 
 could not leave their post, and had to have the necessaries of life 
 brought to them where they stood. This use of ' send ' as equivalent 
 to 'send for,' is scarcely supported by 2 Sam. xv. 12, since here a 
 thing and not a person is the object of the verb. Others, reading 
 'shal'khii, render, 'Every one gave up the use of water,' a quite 
 inadmissible translation. 
 
 (/) The R.V. rendering which introduces the words 'went with... 
 to ' makes good sense of the clause, but follows veiy unnaturally upon 
 'none of us put oft" our clothes,' neither stating an exception nor intro- 
 ducing a cognate idea. 
 
 {g) A good conjectural emendation of the text gives the sense ' each 
 one remained with his weapon in his hand ' (or ' in his right hand'). 
 
 {h) But it is probable that the error of the text is due to the 
 
vv. I, 2.] NEHEMIAH, V. 
 
 205 
 
 And there was a great cry of the people and of their 5 
 wives against their brethren the Jews. For there were that 2 
 said, We, our sons, and our daughters, are many : therefore 
 
 accidental omission of certain words. We expect some statement of 
 the length of time during which Nehemiah and his followers continued 
 without retiring to rest. Perhaps the clause may have run ' each one 
 with his weapon in his hand for a full month of days.' The Syriac 
 version ' we will not put off our clothes during a month of days ' agrees 
 with this suggestion, and the Arabic gives a similar rendering, 'till the 
 end of a month and days.' 
 
 V. Difficulties within the Walls. 
 
 {a) 1 — 13. Nehemiah's measures to redress the wrongs of the 
 poor : [b) 14 — 19. His self-sacrificing generosity to his countrymen. 
 
 1. And there was a great cry, &c.] R.V. Then there arose a great 
 cry, &c. The R.V. rightly shows that the outbreak of the discontent- 
 ment described in these verses was connected with the rebuilding of 
 the walls. A general stoppage of trade must have resulted from the 
 national undertaking. The presence of the enemy in the neighbour- 
 hood prevented free agricultural labour. 
 
 the people and of their zvives against their brethren the yews'\ By 'the 
 people and their wives ' are denoted the poorer classes, the great bulk 
 of the nation as distinguished from the nobles and the priests. ' Their 
 brethren the Jews,' seem here to denote ' the nobles and the rulers ' 
 whom Nehemiah rebukes in v. 7. At any rate the cry proceeds from 
 the poor, the multitudes who were driven in their need to borrow, 
 against the few who could afford to lend. The actual expression 
 'their brethren the Jews,' as in v. 8, does not imply any particular 
 section of the people, but is employed to contrast the true fraternal 
 relation of fellow-citizens with the existing selfishness and oppression. 
 
 2. Iu)r there were that said] This and the two following verses describe 
 the people's complaint. Their misfortunes were brought to a climax by 
 the condition of hostilities, which put an end to trade and threatened 
 town and country with ruin. The class referred to in this verse are the 
 labourers, who depended upon wages. 
 
 IVe.s.aie ?najiy\ The number of the poorer population in com- 
 parison with the wealthy was probably disproportionately large. The 
 community since the return under Zerubbabel had never been prosperous. 
 It had suffered much from the ill-treatment of the neighbouring peoples, 
 more especially of the Samaritans. The pressure of the work on the 
 wall, coupled with the expectation of attack, brought matters to a crisis. 
 It was impossible to obtain regular employment, and prices had gone up. 
 They had no property like those mentioned in vv. 3 and 4, upon the 
 security of which they could borrow money. 
 
 therefore we take up corn for them &c.] R.V. let us get corn &c. The 
 words in the A.V. are ambiguous. The clause expresses the wish. It 
 is the utterance of the poor who have grown desperate. They demand 
 food for themselves and their families. They cannot acquiesce in 
 
2o6 NEHEMIAH, V. [v. 3. 
 
 3 we take up coxn for them, that we may eat, and live. Sojne 
 also there were that said, We have mortgaged our lands, 
 vineyards, and houses, that we might buy corn, because of 
 
 starvation, when they know that wealthy capitalists — their own fellow- 
 countrymen — have made money out of their necessities and could well 
 afford in a time of common peril to render them relief. Hence the 
 words have a ring of menace. 'If we are not given corn, let us take it'. 
 It was equivalent to a threat either to use violence or to surrender the 
 city to its enemies. 
 
 The Vulgate 'accipiamus pro pretio eorum frumentum' gives a 
 different interpretation of the words. It supposes that these poor 
 starving people offered to sell their children as slaves in order that they 
 might get money to buy food for themselves. This gives a sense ap- 
 proximating that of the conjecture to read '■'' orebhim^ for ^rabbij?i\ 'We 
 give in pledge our sons and our daughters.' In favour of this con- 
 jecture it is claimed (i) that the alteration is very slight, (2) that it 
 brings v. 2 into close parallelism with v. 3, (3) that it obviates the 
 awkwardness of the present text 'our sons and our daughters, we are 
 many,' (4) that the present text is at variance with Scripture in making 
 the size of families a subject of complaint. The conjecture is ingenious. 
 But the existing text gives a good sense (see above), and is supported 
 by the versions, which do not show any variation of reading. The 
 position of the words 'our sons and our daughters, we' &c, emphasizts 
 the thought uppermost in the people's mind. The conjecture doubt- 
 less increases the verbal parallelism between vv. 1 and 3. But this 
 parallelism does not exist between vv. 3 and 4, and the proposed 
 alteration gives an artificial appeai-ance to the language used. Lastly 
 the conjecture anticipates the statement contained in v. 5. The fact 
 that parents were on the point of giving their children in pledge as 
 slaves forms the climax of the complaint. We should not therefore 
 expect to find it mentioned in the present verse. 
 
 3. Some also] The complaint in this verse is that among the poorer 
 classes, those who had a little property were compelled to mortgage it 
 in order to obtain the bare necessaries of life. 
 
 We have 77iortgaged\ R.V. We are mortgaging. The Hebrew verb 
 expresses a state of things going on at the time. 
 
 our lands, vineyards, and hotises'] R.V. our fields, and our vineyards, 
 and our houses. 'Fields' is better than 'lands,' which is too large and 
 general a word. The three words refer to the corn-fields, vineyards, 
 and dwellings, such as the poorer householders might possess. 
 
 For the tenacity with which the possession of house or land was 
 retained in a family, cf. i Kings xxi. In the Hebrew these three words 
 stand emphatically at the head of the sentence corresponding to 'our 
 sons and our daughters' in the previous verse. 
 
 that we ?night buy corn] R.V. let us get corn. The words are the 
 same as in the previous verse. They express not the purpose of the 
 mortgage, but the resolve of the people to obtain food. By mortgaging 
 their property they had lost the little capital they had. They had not 
 the means to pay the interest on the mortgage as well as to obtain food 
 
vv. 4, 5-] NEHEMIAH, V. 207 
 
 the dearth. There were also that said, We have borrowed 4 
 money for the king's tribute, and that upon our lands and 
 vineyards. Yet now our flesh is as the flesh of our brethren, 5 
 our children as their children : and lo, we bring into 
 bondage our sons and our daughters to be servants, and 
 so?ne of our daughters are brought unto bondage already: 
 
 for their families. The prospect before them was the final loss of 
 property and starvation. 
 
 because of the deart]i\ This might be rendered 'in the famine.' But 
 the sense is hardly different. It was necessary to obtain food in the 
 time of scarcity because of the dearth. Cf. ' through the famine,' Gen. 
 xli. 36. 
 
 4. Yet a third class is mentioned, who had been compelled to 
 borrow in order to pay the taxes and, not having the means to pay their 
 creditors, sold their children as slaves. 
 
 we have borrowed... for the king's tribute'] One special cause of 
 distress seems to have been the heaviness of the royal taxes. Jews who 
 were poor to start with and impoverished by recent circumstances, found 
 themselves under the necessity of borrowing in order to pay the tribute 
 levied by the Persian king from his foreign subjects. See on 'tribute' 
 note on Ezra iv. 13, 20, vi. 8, vii. 24. On the severity of this taxation 
 in the Persian Empire see ix. 37. 
 
 and that upon our lands and vineyards] R.V. upon our fields and 
 vineyards. The poor people, in order to pay the tax, borrowed money 
 upon the security of their small holdings. In this way a considerable 
 portion of the property of the poorer classes had passed into the hands 
 of the wealthy money-lenders, who exacted high usury (^. 11), and had 
 no compunction in plying their trade, and visiting default of payment 
 with seizure of a fellow-countryman's few acres of field and vineyard. 
 At a time when distress was due to the presence of a common foe, this 
 want of generosity and patriotism excited the indignation of the working 
 classes. Even in the more favourable cases, the necessity of paying the 
 interest upon the mortgages deprived the poor Jew of any profits from 
 his holding. 
 
 5. Yet .. .children] The argument is, the rich are our brethren; how 
 is it right that our children should be made slaves by our brethren on 
 account of the calamities which ought to fall evenly upon all classes? 
 The rich should share and not make a profit out of the common trouble. 
 
 lo^ we b7'ing into bondage] i.e. we are on the point of selling as 
 slaves in order to satisfy our creditors. 
 
 are brought unto (RY. into) bondage already] A few instances of 
 daughters being thus made 'bondservants' had already occurred. It 
 was not contrary to law or custom. The complaint is that the distress 
 arises from public causes, and that the rich creditors make an unfair 
 use of the common crisis. 
 
 The Israelite laws upon this subject are not in perfect agreement. 
 The earliest code of law contemplates the case of a Hebrew selling 
 himself to be a ' bondman ; ' but he is to be released in the 7th year of 
 
2o8 NEHEMIAH, V. [v. 6. 
 
 neither is it in our power to redeem them ; for other men 
 6 have our lands and vineyards. And I was very angry when 
 
 his service. The special case of a man selling his daughter as a ' bond- 
 woman ' is dealt with and certain benevolent conditions imposed (Ex. 
 xxi. 2 — 6). The Deuteronomic law (Deut. xv. 12 — 18) is in close 
 agreement with this; it enjoins release to take place in the 7th year, 
 and extends the favourable terms granted in Exodus to the 'female 
 bondservant ' so that they should be applicable also to the male. 
 
 The Priestly Law (Lev. xxv. 39 — 41) forbids any Israelite to be 
 made ' a bondservant.' There is no mention of release in the 7th year 
 of service ; but a general release is to be granted in the year of jubile 
 {v. 41). The Priestly Law contemplates a less rigorous degree of service, 
 but is less favourable than are the other codes in the matter of release. 
 
 The present passage does not recognize the distinction between ' the 
 bondservant' and 'the hired servant.' It assumes the condition of 
 things permitted by the law of Ex. and Deut., which is also illustrated 
 by 2 Kings iv. i; Isai. 1. i ; Amos ii. 6, viii. 6; Matt, xviii. 25. The 
 grievance is not so much that children are sold as slaves to Jewish 
 creditors, as that the parents are compelled to resort to this extreme 
 measure in order to pay the high interest exacted by usurers who were 
 their own countrymen. That the extortion and not the slavery is the 
 offence which excited the popular indignation is shown by the measures 
 of relief recommended by Nehemiah in ver. 11. The slavery of country- 
 men was unworthy of the people, but was not an offence against 
 the Law (see ver. 8). 
 
 neither is it in our power'\ The Hebrew idiom here is not common 
 and deserves notice. The literal rendering of the words is sometimes 
 thought to be 'and our hand is not for {or to) God (El),' 'our hand is 
 not in the place of God, our strength is but human.' But it is more 
 probable that we ought to render 'and it is not for (i.e. within the 
 measure of) the strength of our hand,' the word 'El' not being used as 
 a Divine title. For other instances of this idiom see Gen. xxxi. 29 ; 
 Deut. xxviii. 32; Prov. iii. 27; Mic. ii. i. 
 
 to redeem them] R.V. to help it. 
 
 for other men, &c.] A general statement, describing the result 
 which seemed inevitable. The poor Jews mortgaged their property. 
 The interest on the mortgages was so high that they could not pay it or 
 were compelled to sell their children into bondage. At this rate it 
 would not be long before the mortgages were all foreclosed, and the 
 property had passed into the hands of ' other ' men. 
 
 It is clear that the Jews at this time either were not acquainted with 
 the Priestly Law enacting the reversion of property in the 'jubile' 
 year (Lev. xxv. 25 — 28) or regarded it as a Utopian measure incapable 
 of application to the actual needs of society. 
 
 6. / was very angry, &c.] Nehemiah 's indignation was excited at 
 the excessive usury, which his own brethren and servants required 
 (ver. 10), but still more at the degree to which the brotherhood of 
 Israel was forgotten in days of common peril and of which the sale of 
 
7.] NEHEMIAH, V. 209 
 
 I heard their cry and these words. Then I consulted with 7 
 myself, and I rebuked the nobles, and the rulers, and said 
 unto them, You exact usury, every one of his brother. 
 
 fellow-countrymen for debt (ver. 8) and the alienation of the poor 
 man's inheritance (ver. 11) were the worst symptoms. Cf. Ps. cxix. 53 
 ' Hot indignation hath taken hold upon me, because of the wicked that 
 forsake thy law.' 
 
 7. Then I conszilted with jnyself^ The word in the original belongs 
 to late Hebrew usage, and is only paralleled in the O. T. by the word 
 rendered 'my counsel' in Dan. iv. 27. Literally the clause runs 'then 
 my heart took counsel within me.' 
 
 and I rebuked the nobles, and the rtilers] R.V. and contendsd with 
 the nobles and the rulers (marg. ' Or, deputies''). For Nehemiah's use of 
 the expression 'contend with,' see xiii. 11, 17, 25. It denotes the 
 conflict of opinion as well as the administration of reproach. Cf. Jer. 
 ii. 9. 'The nobles and the rulers,' as in ii. 16. 
 
 You exact usury, every one of his brother'] The reader should refer to 
 the passages in the Pentateuch bearing upon usury, {a) Ex. xxii. 25. 
 This passage relates to the dealings between Israelites. The purpose 
 of lending is to assist a brother. Interest is not to be exacted but 
 pledges are permitted. The giving of pledges is regulated by principles 
 of charity. 
 
 (b) Deut. xxiii. 19, 20. The Deuteronomic law forbids interest 
 upon loans advanced to Israelites, but permits them with foreigners. 
 The principle of brotherhood is upheld in the nation. The rules regu- 
 lating 'the giving of pledges' are repeated (Deut. xxiv. 10—13). 
 
 {c) Lev. XXV. 35 — 37. Thislaw treats only of deahng with Israelites, 
 and prohibits all idea of making gain out of assistance rendered to 
 brethren in distress. 
 
 In all three passages, the law contemplates the lending of money to 
 the poor man in distress. The taking of a pledge or security is per- 
 mitted, but not the exaction of interest from a fellow-countryman. 
 Nehemiah himself exacted interest upon loans (ver. 10). We are not 
 therefore to suppose that his indignation was directed against the 
 practice of usury, but against the hard-heartedness and covetousness of 
 the usurers. Mere denunciation against them for these moral lailings 
 would have availed nothing. He wisely puts in the forefront of his ex- 
 postulation the general statement that the Jews were practising 'usury' 
 against their brethren. He implies that this was contrary to the spirit 
 of the law and to good fellowship. He himself sought to relieve his 
 brethren (ver. 8), but he and his companions had, he confessed, given 
 way to the custom of the time, and had lent on usury, although he liad 
 not been exacting in his demands. He and the wealthy professional 
 money-lenders had both done wrong. He had been merciful and they 
 had not. This was the only difference. On the general principle he 
 therefore proposed that all taking of interest from needy fellow- country- 
 men should be abandoned. Plis manner of approaching the subject 
 conciliated the rulers, as he associated himself with their wrong-doing. 
 
 NEHEMIAH 1 4 
 
2IO NEHEMIAH, V. [vv. 8, 9. 
 
 8 And I set a great assembly against them. And I said unto 
 them, We after our ability have redeemed our brethren the 
 Jews, which were sold unto the heathen ; and will you even 
 sell your brethren? or shall they be sold unto us? Then 
 
 9 held they their peace, and found nothing to answer. Also 
 
 He benefited the poor by procuring the abolition of usurious trans- 
 actions. He upheld the charitable principle of the old Israelite law. 
 The violation of it is the subject of rebuke in very different periods. 
 Amos ii. 8; Job xxii. 6, xxiv. 3; Ecclus. xiii. 22, 23. 
 
 That the strict law of Israel forbade taking upon usury is shown by a 
 comparison of such passages as Ps. xv. 5, xxxvii. 26 ; Prov. xxviii. 8 ; 
 Ezek. xviii. 8, 13, 17, xxii. 12. But that these passages as well as the 
 laws in Ex., Lev., Deut. refer primarily to usury upon charitable loans 
 seems probable. Usury as a legitimate financial transaction between 
 Jews seems to have been recognized by the Jews (cf. Matt. xxv. 27); 
 but in the Talmud it is forbidden. 
 
 And I set a great assembly^ R.V. And I held a great assembly. 
 'Assembly.' The word here used occurs elsewhere only in Deut. 
 xxxiii. 4, ' the assembly of Jacob.' Nehemiah's object probably was to 
 give a public hearing to the complaints, and by the largeness and 
 importance of the meeting to establish beyond controversy an arrange- 
 ment which was calculated to meet with disapprobation from an 
 influential class. 
 
 8. We\ ' We ' and ' ye ' in this verse are in emphatic antithesis. 
 
 after our ability\ So Vulg. 'secundum possibilitatem nostram.' LXX. 
 h €Kovcri(f} riixOv. Another rendering is ' according to the number of 
 those that were among us.' 
 
 have redeemed^ R.V. marg. *Heb. bought \ i.e. as many as were put 
 up to sale we redeemed. Nehemiah apparently refers to what had 
 been the merciful custom of himself and his countrymen when they 
 were in exile; but possibly also to his action in Jerusalem since his 
 arrival. The word for 'redeemed' here would be literally rendered 
 'acquired' or 'bought.' The word is used here presumably because 
 the stress of the clause rests not so much on the slavery from which the 
 Jews were delivered, but upon the price that Nehemiah and his com- 
 panions willingly paid for them. 
 
 unto the heathen"] Lit. 'unto the nations.' 
 
 and will you ez>en sell your brethren] R.V. and would ye, &c. 
 
 or shall they] R.V. and should they. Nehemiah's indignant question 
 contrasts the conduct of the wealthy money-lenders with his own 
 practice and that of his friends. He in a foreign land redeemed every 
 Jew he could that was being sold to the heathen, and here in Jeru- 
 salem itself he finds Jews selling their own flesh and blood, and the 
 market in which they barter their brethren is within the walls of the Holy 
 City. They not only sold Jews as slaves, but bought them as such. 
 They were ready to buy them, not to redeem but to enslave them. 
 
 Jotind nothing to answer] R.V. found never a word. There was no 
 
V. lo.] NEHEMIAH, V. 211 
 
 I said, It is not good that ye do : ought ye not to walk in 
 the fear of our God because of the reproach of the heathen 
 our enemies? I hkewise, and my brethren, and my ser- 10 
 
 justification either in law or equity for their conduct, in making money 
 out of their brethren's misfortunes at a time of national danger. 
 
 9. Also I said] 'And I said.' The C'thib in the Hebrew text 
 (which is probably due to an error of transcription) gives the meaning 
 'and it was said,' i.e. by Nehemiah. The rendering 'and I said' follows 
 the reading of the K'ri, LXX., Vulg. 
 
 // is not good that ye do] R. V. The thing that ye do is not good. The 
 R. V. rendering is in itself preferable to that of the A.V. In addition it 
 enables the English reader to recognize the exact correspondence of 
 this clause with words in Ex. xviii. 17. The sentence is so simple that 
 too much must not be made of the resemblance. But the supposition 
 that Nehemiah's words perhaps unconsciously repeated a familiar sen- 
 tence from ' the book of the law ' is not to be lightly dismissed. That 
 the words of Jethro to Moses should be used by Nehemiah to the 
 money-lenders indicates the courtesy of his expostulation. Fiercer 
 language would have only exasperated them. 
 
 ought ye not, &c.] or 'will ye, or should ye, not,' &c. 
 
 walk in the fear of our God] This precise phrase does not, apparently, 
 occur elsewhere in the O. T. It condenses the thought of Deut. x. 12, 
 ' And now, Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but to 
 fear the Lord thy God, to walk in all his ways,' (cf. viii. 6). 
 We find it in the N. T. in Acts ix. 31, 'The church... walking in the 
 fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost was multiplied.' 
 'The fear of God,' cf. ver. 15. 'The fear of the Lord'' is the usual 
 expression, espec. in Pss. and Prov. 'The fear of God,' cf Gen. xx. 
 [i; 2 Sam. xxiii. 3; 2 Chr. xxvi. 5, R.V. Marg. The fear of God's 
 hatred of oppression should be before the eyes of all. Cf. Prov. xiv. 
 31, ' He that oppresseth the poor reproacheth his Maker.' 
 
 because of the reproach of the heathen our enemies] Though the 
 general sense is obvious, there is some uncertainty as to the exact 
 shade of meaning to be attached to these words, (r) It may mean ' on 
 account of the reproach wherewith our enemies have reproached us ; 
 since, so long as we have not walked in the fear of our God, we have 
 been feeble and weak and have deserved the reproach of our enemies. 
 If we walk in His fear. He will bless us and remove the cause of their 
 reproach.' Cf. chap. iv. 4. (2) It may mean 'for fear of incurring the 
 just reproach of our enemies,' seeing that, if they hear of your cruel and 
 ungenerous action to your brethren, they will have good cause to rebuke 
 and ridicule our people. Cf. vi. 13. 
 
 ' the heathen our enemies.' On ' the heathen ' see ver. 8. The two 
 words are only here combined in these books. For ' our enemies ' cf. 
 iv. 15, vi. I, 16. For the general meaning see 2 Sam. xii. 14, 'thou 
 hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme.' 
 Cf. Isai. lii. 5. 
 
 10. / likewise, and my brethren, and my servants] R.V. And 
 I likewise, my brethren and my servants. We must conclude 
 
 14—2 
 
212- NEHEMIAH, V. [v. ii. 
 
 vants, might exact of them money and corn : I pray you, 
 II let us leave off this usury. Restore, I pray you, to them, 
 even this day, their lands, their vineyards, their oliveyards, 
 and their houses, also the hundredth part of the money, 
 and ^the corn, the wine, and the oil, that ye exact of them. 
 
 from this verse that Nehemiah himself lent *on usury' to his country- 
 men. The words are not, as A.V., ' I... and my brethren, &c.', but 'I, 
 my brethren, &c.' Nehemiah takes the reply out of the mouth of his 
 opponents. He confesses he is himself not free from blame. For 'his 
 own kinsfolk and dependants' lent 'on usury,' and he their head and 
 representative was responsible for them. They may have been gene- 
 rous and forbearing, but they had violated the principle, which he was 
 upholding : and in so far, Nehemiah accepted the blame of his house. 
 Some suppose that Nehemiah in lending did not require a pledge, and 
 thus differed from the regular money-lenders. 'Brethren,' 'servants.' 
 See note on iv. 23. 
 
 might exact of them money and cori{\ R.V. do lend them money and 
 corn on usury. The rendering of the A.V. ' might exact ' seems to be 
 dictated by the desire to save the honour of Nehemiah and of his 
 house. But the clause does not claim a privilege, but states a fact. 
 By diplomatically accepting the responsibility of a share in the general 
 guilt, he conciliates his hearers and disaims them of a retort. Never- 
 theless we gather from the clause that it was not so much 'usury' as the 
 abuse of usury, the excessive and tyrannical rate of interest exacted 
 from the poor, Avhich excited his indignation against the rich. 
 
 I pj-ay yoti] These words render a Hebrew particle adding urgency 
 to the request, without introducing the idea of supplication, cf. i. 5. It 
 might be rendered 'Come now, let us leave off, &c. ' 
 
 let us leave off this Zisury] Nehemiah invites his hearers to join with 
 him in abandoning a custom which had been productive of such evd 
 results. 'This usury,' i.e. requiring of interest or of pledges. LXX. 
 diralTTjffLv. Not the lending but the plan of making a gain out of loans 
 to the poor, whether by demanding interest upon loans or seizing the 
 pledge which had been the security for an advance, is condemned. 
 
 11. Restore, I pray you, &c.] On 'I pray you' see note on ver. 10. 
 Nehem.iah demands immediate redress for the wrongs done to fellow- 
 countrymen. He demands restoration of property and remission of 
 interest on loans. 
 
 even this day'] The same Hebrew word as is rendered in i Sam. ix. 
 13, 'at this time.' Literally = ' as if to-day,' i.e. 'immediately.' 
 
 their lands... houses'] R.V. their fields... houses. The first part of the 
 demand is the restoration to the poor of the property which had been 
 offered as security for the sums borrowed from the money-lenders. 
 
 also the hutidredth part, Oscc] This 'hundredth part' was in all pro- 
 bability reckoned by month. It corresjionded therefore to the Lathi 
 *centesima usura,' and represented interest at the rate of 12 per cent. 
 
 cor7i, the zuine, and the oil] This exorbitant rate of interest seems to 
 have been exacted in kind if cash was not forthcoming. 
 
vv. 12, 13.] NEHEMIAH, V. 213 
 
 I'hen said they, We will restore them^ and will require ^2 
 nothing of them ; so will we do as thou sayest. Then I 
 called the priests, and took an oath of them, that they 
 should do according to this promise. Also I shook my lap, 13 
 
 The second part of Nehemiah's demand refers to the exaction of 
 interest. It is impossible to suppose that he required the money- 
 lenders to i^estore the sums which had already been paid in interest. 
 The main verb 'restore' is only by 'zeugma' applicable to 'the 
 hundredth part;' and the meaning is 'do not exact,' 'remit your claim 
 to the 12 p. c. interest which you are accustomed to levy in money or 
 produce of the land.' 
 
 His twofold demand, for immediate restoration of property and for 
 future renunciation of interest, corresponds to the twofold reply of the 
 money-lenders in the following verse. It is probable that we are only 
 to understand Nehemiah's intervention to be made in the interests of 
 the poor. The transactions of the wealthy with one another are not 
 contemplated by the early Israelite or the Levitical laws, Ex. xxii. 25; 
 Levit. XXV. 36, 37. 
 
 An ingenious conjecture, which alters the text by the insertion of one 
 letter only, would read, instead of 'the hundredth part' {iiifi'ath), 'the 
 usury' {timasJi' aih). The latter part of the verse would then only 
 expand in greater detail the substance of the first. The LXX. a.-no 
 follows a different pointing of the word. 
 
 12. Nehemiah's audience comply with his request. 'We will re- 
 store' refers to the fields, vineyards, oliveyards and houses seized in 
 default of payment or as pledges; 'will require nothing' refers to the 
 usury, i.e. the interest already due upon the sums borrowed. 
 
 as t/wu sayest] R.V. even as thou sayest. 
 
 l^hen 1 called the priests^ and took an oath of theni\ Nehemiah takes 
 measures publicly to bind the money-lenders before the impression had 
 passed away. He summoned the priests to administer the oath. Thus 
 the engagement was undertaken in the presence of public witnesses. 
 The presence of the priests added to the solemnity of the transaction, 
 and was of additional importance, since the priests were entrusted with 
 judicial functions and would have to decide questions between debtor 
 and creditor. On the judicial functions of the priests and their duties 
 outside the Temple cf. xi. 16; i Chron. xxiii, 4, xxvi. 29. 
 
 took ail oath of theiii] ' Them ' refers not to the priests, but to the 
 money-lenders. Nehemiah bound them by an oath which the priest 
 solemnly administered, Ezra x. 5. 
 
 according to this promise] 'Promise,' as also in ver. 13; literally 
 'this word.' The Hebrew language has no distinct word for 'promise,' 
 cf. I Kings viii. 56, ' there hath not failed one word of all his good 
 promise' (lit. 'good word'). Ps. cv. 42, ' For he remembered his holy 
 word' (A.V. 'promise'). In Ps. Ixxvii. 8, 'Doth his promise fail for 
 evermore?' the expression used is different, and is more like our 
 ' saying ' or ' utterance. ' 
 
 13. Also I shook my lap] R.V. Also I shook out my lap. (LXX. 
 ava^oK-ffv. Vulg. 'sinum'.) The word here rendered 'lap' only occurs 
 
214 NEHEMIAH, V. [v. 14. 
 
 and said, So God shake out every man from his house, and 
 from his labour, that performeth not this promise, even thus 
 be he shaken out, and emptied. And all the congregation 
 said, Amen, and praised the Lord. And the people did 
 according to this promise. 
 14 Moreover from the time that I was appointed to be their 
 
 elsewhere in the O. T. in Isai. xlix. 2-2, R.V. 'bosom,' A.V. 'arms.' 
 Nehemiah here employs a symbolical gesture, suiting his action to his 
 metaphor. He pressed tightly to his body the loose fold of his mantle, 
 so that it hung like a bag or wallet against him; then with a vehement 
 motion of both hands he suddenly stretched it out and shook it in the 
 sight of all the people, so that anything which it might have before 
 concealed would have been jerked violently from him. Even so, he says, 
 may God cast forth from His protection and love, in home and work, 
 the man who fails to abide by the compact. Cf. Job xxxviii. 13, ' That 
 it might take hold of the ends of the earth, and the wicked be shaken 
 out of it.' Is. xxiv. I. The gesture was rhetorical. It would impress 
 itself upon the audience, and emphasize the speaker's words. For 
 instances of symbolical action comp. i Kings xi. 30, xx. 35 — 43, 
 xxii. 11; Jer. xiii. i — 14, xviii. i — 12, xix. i — 13; Matt, xxvii. 24; 
 Acts xviii. 6. 
 
 that performeth not this promise] Lit. 'that fulfilleth or establisheth 
 not this word.' The same phrase in the original as Deut. xxvii. 26, 
 ' Cursed be he that confirmeth not the words of this law to do them. ' 
 
 from his house, and from his labour'] This conjunction of words 
 sounds proverbial, but does not occur elsewhere in the O. T. ' His 
 labour ' does not mean so much 'his means of occupation ' — the modern 
 idea — as 'the exercise and even the fruits of his industry.' The word 
 used is that found in the expression 'the labour of the hands,' Gen. 
 xxxi. 42; Job x. 3; Ps. cxxviii. 2; Hag. i. 11. Cf. Deut. xxviii. 33, 
 ' The fruit of thy ground, and all thy labours, shall a nation which thou 
 knowest not eat up.' 
 
 promise, even thus] R.V. promise ; even thus. 
 
 all the congregation said, Amen, and praised the Lord] The people 
 said 'Amen,' ratifying the curse of Nehemiah and the condition of the 
 contract: they praised the Lord, because the poor had been succoured 
 and the division of the people healed. The 'Amen,' as the people's 
 assent to the ruler's proposition, occurs again viii. 6. Cf. i Kings i. 36; 
 I Chr. xvi. 36, and Deut. xxvii. 15. 
 
 And the people did, &c.] If we may press the distinction between the 
 two words employed, 'the people' in the mass carried into execution 
 the resolutions of 'the congregation,' that had approved Nehemiah's 
 measures. 
 
 14 — 19. Nehemiah recounts other measures by which as 
 governor he endeavoured to relieve the condition of 
 his brethren. 
 14. Moreover, &c.] i.e. Here is another instance. During the 
 
V. 15.] NEHEMIAH, V. 215 
 
 governor in the land of Judah, from the twentieth year even 
 unto the two and thirtieth year of Artaxerxes the king, that 
 is, twelve years, I and my brethren have not eaten the 
 bread of the governor. But the former governors that had 15 
 deejt before me were chargeable unto the people, and had 
 taken of them bread and wine, beside forty shekels of 
 
 whole tenure of his ofifice, Nehemiah provided out of his own purse for 
 the expenses of his official position. 
 
 frofii the time..., that is, tzvelve years] Nehemiah was governor or 
 Pekhah of Judah for twelve years, apparently from B.C. 445 or 4 to B.C. 
 433 or 432, of. xiii. 6 with ii. i. See however Additional Note, p. 320. 
 
 have not eaten the bread of the governor] i.e. the provisions usually 
 supplied by the province for the maintenance of its Pekhah and his 
 household. ' Bread ' of course must not be understood literally. It is 
 explained in the next verse by * bread and wine, beside forty shekels of 
 silver.' 
 
 15. the former governors that had been before me] R.V. the former 
 governors that were before me. The governors or Pekhahs here referred 
 to by Nehemiah are those of Jerusalem and the neighbouring district. 
 Zerubbabel was the first. We do not know how many there had been 
 in the interval, nor whether they like Nehemiah were Jews. 
 
 were chargeable unto] R.V. marg. ' Or, laid burdens upon \ Literally 
 the word means 'made heavy;' and we should expect here some such 
 word after it as 'their yoke' or 'burden,' as in Isai. xlvii. 6. 'Upon 
 the aged hast thou very heavily laid thy yoke.' Lam. iii. 7, 'he hath 
 made my chain heavy.' i Kings xii. 10, 'Thy father made our yoke 
 heavy,' and 14; (2 Chr. x. lo, 14); Hab. ii. 6. The object is ex- 
 pressed in the other phrases, 'harden the heart' (Ex. viii. 15, 32, 
 ix. 34, x. i) and 'make the ears heavy' (Isai. vi. 10; Zech. vii. 11) in 
 which this verb occurs. The only other instance in which this causa- 
 tive word is used absolutely appears to be 2 Chr. xxv. 19, 'to boast.* 
 
 had taken of them] R.V. took of them. 
 
 bread and wine, beside foi-ty shekels of silver] 'beside,' R.V. marg. 
 'Or, at the rate of Or, afterward.^ The expenses of the governor's 
 table were defrayed at the cost of the province or district. As may be 
 gathered from the R.V. margin, there is considerable doubt with regard 
 to the word rendered 'beside.' Literally the Hebrew runs 'bread and 
 wine, after forty shekels of silver.' 
 
 (a) The rendering ' beside ' of the A.V. and R. V. can hardly be 
 correct. There is no other instance of the use of the Hebrew preposi- 
 tion in this sense ; and the addition of the statement ' beside forty 
 shekels, &c.' conveys no meaning without the mention of the time, 
 whether by day, month, or year, at which this extra charge was 
 exacted. 
 
 {b) The rendering 'afterward,' which is maintained by Keil, is even 
 more improbable. A sentence to the effect that the governors took 
 from the people bread and wine, and afterwards took forty shekels of 
 silver, conveys no intelligible meaning. Keil thinks that it ' expresses 
 
2i6 NEHEMIAH, V. [v. i6. 
 
 silver ; yea, even their servants bare rule over the people : 
 
 16 but so did not I, because of the fear of God. Yea also I 
 
 continued in the work of this wall, neither bought we any 
 
 the thought that this money was afterwards demanded from the com- 
 munity for the expenses of the governor's table,' in other words that 
 the governor first exacted the food and then required its value in 
 money. 
 
 (c) The rendering 'at the rate of i.e. * at the price of forty shekels 
 and over,' which is certainly preferable, puts a severe strain upon the 
 simple preposition 'after.' It explains the mention of the forty shekels. 
 The sentence then means that the governor {daily, it must be pre- 
 sumed) required provisions to be supplied him by the province, the 
 cost of which was never less than forty shekels. 
 
 {d) The rendering of the LXX. iaxo-rov dpy^ptov does not help us. 
 The Vulgate 'quotidie' may imply a different reading. The Hebrew 
 for 'one' (ekhad) could very easily by a copyist's slip be read 'after' 
 (akhar). A very simple conjectural emendation would give us 'bread 
 and wine to the value of, in one day, forty shekels of silver ' 
 ( = 'v'yayin yom ekhad' instead of 'v'yayin akhar'). Forty shekels of 
 silver would amount to about p^5 : this sum shows clearly that a rate 
 'per diem' and not 'per mensem' is indicated. 
 
 yea, even their servants\ Cf. iv. 16, i.e. the governor's household. 
 
 bare riile\ R.V. marg. ' Or, lorded over.^ The word probably conveys 
 a sense of arbitrary exercise of authority. Cf. 'have rule' Esth. ix. i ; 
 Eccles. ii. 19, viii. 9. 
 
 but so did not /] Nehemiah neither exacted excessive charges from 
 his countrymen as his predecessors in office had done, nor did he pre- 
 sume upon his official position in the way that his predecessors' house- 
 holds had been apt to do. Like St Paul, Nehemiah could say, ' Never- 
 theless we did not use this right' (r Cor. ix. 12), and ' In everything I 
 kept myself from being burdensome unto you' (2 Cor. xi. 9). 
 
 because of the fear of God] See on ver. 9. Nehemiah defends him- 
 self against a false supposition. His motive was not the desire for 
 popularity with his countrymen ; but the recognition of the Divine pre- 
 sence in all things quickened his sense of duty. Prov. xvi. 6, ' By the 
 fear of the Lord men depart from evil.' 
 
 16. Yea also I continued in the work, &c.] R.V. marg. 'Heb. held 
 fast to '. It does not appear certain whether Nehemiah here refers to 
 his continuous supervision of the building or to his personal share in 
 the work of restoration at his own cost of some portion of it. The 
 word rendered 'continued' (used in its hteral sense of 'held' in iv. 16) 
 admits of either application. 
 
 neither bought we any land'\ In connexion with the previous and 
 the following clauses, these words should be taken to mean that 
 Nehemiah and his friends were too strenuously occupied to interest 
 themselves in the purchase of lands. Former governors had possibly 
 made investments in good land. Such transactions were incompatible 
 with Nehemiah's ceaseless devotion to the work. But it is necessary also 
 
V. ly.] NEHEMIAH, V. 217 
 
 land : and all my servants were gathered thither unto the 
 work. Moreover f/zere were at my table an hundred and 17 
 fifty of the Jews and rulers, besides those that came unto us 
 
 to regard the words as an allusion to the substance of ver. 10. Although 
 they had abundant opportunity to make private gain out of mortgaged 
 property, they withstood the temptation of enriching themselves out of 
 their fellow-countrymen. The word 'land' is the same as that which 
 in the Plur. the R.V. has altered to 'fields' in vv. 3, 4, 5, 11. 
 
 all my servants were gathered^ Their work at the wall and in 
 Nehemiah's employ was too incessant to permit of the inspection of 
 purchaseable land or of its proper cultivation if they had purchased 
 it. 
 
 17. Moreover\ Nehemiah mentions another proof of his generosity 
 as governor. He regularly entertained over 150 officials, and welcomed 
 Jewish strangers to his table. 
 
 an hundred and fifty of the Jews and rulers^ besides those that came 
 unto tis, &c.] The English rendering which seems here to distinguish 
 between 'the Jews' and 'rulers' (or 'deputies'), and to speak of three 
 classes (i) the Jews, (2) rulers, (3) strangers from outside Judaea, may 
 be supported by the traditional interpretation preserved in the fiebrew 
 accents. 
 
 From the position here assigned to 'the Jews,' the word, if taken to 
 express a distinct class of the community, must 1)6 used of ' the heads of 
 the great Jewish houses or families' (cf. Ezra ii.) as distinct from the 
 administrative officers (see ii. 16). According to this explanation the 
 beads of the houses and the rulers together numbered one hundred and 
 fifty. 
 
 It may be questioned whether the expression 'the Jews' would ever 
 be assigned to a section or class of the community. The word is used 
 in ver. i and ver. 8 without any such limitation of meaning. 
 
 It is perhaps better to take 'the Jews' as the subject of the whole 
 verse. 'Moreover the Jews — I regularly entertained two classes, i.e. 
 the 150 officials and those who had recently left their homes to join 
 their countrymen at Jerusalem.' This is the rendering of the Vulgate, 
 'Judsei quoque et magistratus centum quinquaginta viri et veniebant ad 
 nos de gentibus.' The repetition of the copula in the Hebrew with 
 'Jews,' 'rulers,' and 'those' admits of this rendering as in iv. ir. 
 
 The large number of the 'rulers' is not an insurmountable objection 
 to this rendering. The central organization of the administration re- 
 quired a great deal of subdivision ; and as all the officials were under 
 the governor, he extended his hospitality to all alike. 
 
 besides those that came tmto tis, &c.] By this seems to be intended the 
 somewhat numerous class of Jews, who, having resided among the 
 neighbouring nations detached themselves from time to time, and 
 came to join their brethren in or near Jerusalem. These were Jews, 
 whose forefathers had never been carried captive to Babylon, but 
 had settled in foreign lands either for purposes of trade or from fear of 
 the invader. See note on Ezr. vi. 21. 
 
2i8 NEHEMIAH, V. [vv. i8, 19. 
 
 xsfrom among the heathen that are about us. Now that 
 which was prepared for me daily was one ox and six choice 
 sheep ; also fowls were prepared for me, and once in ten 
 days store of all sorts of wine : yet for all this required not 
 I the bread of the governor, because the bondage was heavy 
 
 19 upon this people. Think upon me, my God, for good, 
 according to all that I have done for this people. 
 
 that are about us\ R.V. that were round about us. The past tense 
 is required by the narrative style, which Nehemiah employs. 
 
 18. for me daily] R.V. for one day. Compare Solomon's daily 
 provision, i Kings iv. 22, 23. 
 
 choice] i.e. picked or chosen for their fatness and good condition. 
 The word in the Hebrew is used of men chosen for a purpose, i Chr. 
 vii. 40, ix. 22, xvi. 41. In i Sam. ix. 2 Saul is called a 'choice' (R.V. 
 marg.) man. 
 
 once in ten days store of all sorts of wine] Literally • within the in- 
 terval of ten days, of every wine in abundance.' The construction is 
 peculiar. The specification of 10 days and the preposition before ' sorts 
 of wine' lead us to expect the mention of some particular quantity. 
 The conjecture is possible that this was originally expressed by a word 
 denoting a measure, unfamiliar to later copyists, who substituted a 
 general expression for the word. According to the present text, fresh 
 supplies of wine were furnished every ten days, i.e. thrice a month. LXX. 
 kv irdaiv olvos t<$ irXrjdei. Vulg. ' Vina diversa et multa alia tribuebam.' 
 
 yet for all this] Lit. 'with this,' i.e. 'in spite of this heavy outlay.' 
 
 required not I] R.V. I demanded not. The sense is 'I did not 
 demand my rights. ' At the time of the A.V. translation ' to require ' 
 was equivalent to 'to ask,' in which sense the A.V. employs it here; 
 see Ezr. viii. 22; Ps. xxxviii. 16 (P. B. V.) *I have required that they, 
 even mine enemies, should not triumph over me.' The usage of 
 'require' for 'demanding by authority,' 'making requisition for' (see 
 Wright, Bible Word-Book) is more modern. But inasmuch as ' I did not 
 require' could now be understood to mean 'I did not need,' the change 
 to the less equivocal ' demand ' is a gain in clearness and accuracy. 
 
 the bread of the governor] See ver. 14. 
 
 the bondage was heavy, &c.] i.e. the tribute exacted from the Jews by 
 the Persian Imperial government. The word rendered ' bondage ' 
 occurs twice elsewhere in this book, iii. 5, 'the work of their lord,' 
 x. 37, 'cities of our tillage.' Used of oppressive 'service' it is 
 familiar to us in Exodus (i. 14, ii. 23, v. 9, &c.). 
 
 19. Thiyik upon me, my God, for good, according to all, &c.] R.V. 
 Remember unto me. my God, for good, all, &c. * Remember ' is the 
 natural translation here and in the similar passages, vi. 14, xiii. 22, 29, 
 31. The A.V. unfortunately introduced the rendering 'think upon' as 
 a variation. For the use of ' remember ' in its application to the Deity, 
 cf. 2 Chron. vi. 42 ; Judg. xvi. 28 ; Ps. cvi. 4 ; Jer. xv. 15. Nehemiah's 
 prayer differs in a measure from the appeal for ' remembrance ' in the 
 
vv. 1, 2.] NEHEMIAH, VI. 219 
 
 Now it came to pass, when Sanballat, and Tobiah, and 6 
 Geshem the Arabian, and the rest of our enemies, heard 
 that I had builded the wall, and that there was no breach 
 left therein; (though at that time I had not set up the doors 
 upon the gates ;) that Sanballat and Geshem sent unto me, 2 
 
 last three of these passages. In these the prayer is that the speaker may 
 not be forgotten and so left in his present distress. Nehemiah prays with 
 frank simplicity that God will recognize and reward his services to the 
 people of Israel. In our ears the self-complacency of the petitions strikes 
 a jarring note. But the words must not be judged by our modern 
 standard. Their quaint candour quite disarms the charge of vanity. 
 It is the ejaculation of a practical man, keenly alive to the responsibility 
 of his position, very conscious of his loneliness, and sensible of the 
 moral effort which it costs him at every fresh endeavour to please 
 Jehovah in the service of the people. 
 
 To illustrate the thought cf Ecclus. xvii. 22, ' The alms of a man are 
 as a signet with him, and he will keep the good deeds of man as the 
 apple of the eye.' Heb. vi. 10, ' For God is not unrighteous to forget 
 your work and the love which ye showed toward his name, in that ye 
 ministered unto the saints, and still do minister.' 
 
 Ch, VI. The Wall completed (ver. 15) : Opposition from 
 
 WITHOUT (1 — 9), AND INTRIGUES WITHIN (10—19). 
 
 1 — 9. (a) 1 — 4. Sanballat and his friends try to inveigle Nehemiah 
 away from Jerusalem; 
 
 {b) 5 — 9. And failing this to play upon his fears by representing him 
 as engaged in heading a rebellious movement. 
 
 1. when S.... and the rest of our enemies^ heard} R.V. when it was 
 reported to S...., and unto the rest of our enemies. The R.V. is more 
 literal; the passive verb 'to be reported' occurs in verses 6 and 7, and 
 possibly in chap. xiii. 27. For the spread of previous rumours, cf ii. 19, 
 iv. I. 'The rest of our enemies,' probably the representatives of hostile 
 neighbouring communities, cf. iv. 7, where 'the Arabians and the 
 Ammonites and the Ashdodites' are associated with Sanballat and 
 Tobiah. 
 
 710 breach left] referring to the description in i. 3, ii. 13, iv. 7. 
 
 thotigh at that time] R V. though even unto that time. Nehemiah 
 introduces this saving clause for the sake of accuracy. The report was 
 not quite true; the walls were indeed finished, but as yet the gates were 
 not in their places. 
 
 upon the gates] R.V. in the gates, i.e. in the great fortified gateways. 
 The construction of 'the doors' is mentioned in chap. iii. 3, 6, 14, 15. 
 Why had the doors not yet been 'set in the gates?' Perhaps we are to 
 infer that in the hurry of rebuilding the wall the delicate operation of 
 swinging the heavy metal-covered city doors had been postponed. 
 Temporary barricades would be sufficient to block the approaches. 
 When the work on the wall was finished, the doors would be 'set up' 
 by skilled workmen. To have set them up before would have caused 
 
NEHEMIAH, VI. [w. 3, 4 
 
 saying, Come, let us meet together in so7ne <?;^^ ^ the villages 
 in the plain of Ono. But they thought to do me mischief. 
 
 3 And I sent messengers unto them, saying, I am doing a 
 great work, so that I cannot come down : why should the 
 
 4 work cease, whilst I leave it, and come down to you ? Yet 
 
 delay in the repair of the walls. In the Assyrian Room (Upper Floor, 
 Case A) of the British Museum are to be seen the bronze coverings of 
 gates found by Mr Rassara at Balawa in 1879, ^"^ the pivots on which 
 these gates turned. 
 
 2. Sanballat and Geshevi] It is noticeable that Tobiah's name is 
 not also mentioned. Some commentators have held that this omission 
 is to be accounted for by the fact of Tobiah being 'the mere servant of 
 Sanballat' (see ii. 10). But the explanation seems very improbable 
 when we consider the prominence of Tobiah in ii. 10, 19, iv. 7, vi. 17, 
 19, xiii. 7, 8, and the way in which his name is mentioned in vi. 12, 14. 
 It is better to suppose that Nehemiah's enemies deputed two of the 
 most crafty of their number to make these overtures for an interview. 
 An invitation to meet and discuss matters with only two of the leaders 
 would wear a friendly and innocent appearance. Perhaps Tobiah and 
 the other conspirators were intended to take advantage of Nehemiah's 
 absence and to make a surprise attack upon Jerusalem. 
 
 in some one oi the villages] R.V. in one of the villages. According 
 to this translation the invitation leaves it open to Nehemiah to select 
 the place of meeting. But literally the Hebrew gives ' in the villages 
 (Chephirim)'. It is very possible that this word gives the name of a 
 place (cf Chephirah, Ezra ii. 25), as Rashi long ago suggested. It is 
 certainly natural to expect that Sanballat and Geshem would name a 
 place for the proposed interview ; and the form of the Hebrew word 
 favours this explanation. The proposed meeting-place then would be 
 •Hacchephirim.' 
 
 in the plain of Ono] On Ono, see Ezr. ii. 33 (Neh. vii. 37, xi. 35; 
 I Chr. viii. 12). An interview in the plain of Ono would have neces- 
 sitated Nehemiah's absence from Jerusalem during three or four days. 
 The object of his enemies was doubtless to seize or assassinate him at a 
 distance from Jerusalem. 
 
 thought to do me mischief] 'thought' i.e. * considered how.' Cf. ver. 
 6, '■think to rebel.* Gen. 1. 20, 'ye thought (R.V. meant) evil against 
 me.' 'Mischief,' lit. 'evil,' by which expression Nehemiah hints that 
 his foes plotted to assassinate him. Cf i Sam. xxiii. 9, 'Saul devised 
 mischief Esth. viii. 3, 'the mischief of Haman the Agagite.' 
 
 3. cease] 'The great work' of rebuilding the walls was one for 
 which Nehemiah was responsible ; and it was no doubt literally true 
 that if he quitted the city there would at once be a cessation in the 
 prosecution of the work. The LXX. misunderstood the last clause, ws 
 a.v reXetwcrco avrb KaTaj^rjao/xat, irpbs vjxas. 
 
 4. Yet] R.V. And. The A.V. suggests the thought which the 
 copula does not express, that in spite of such a rebuff Sanballat and his 
 companions were not daunted. 
 
vv. 5, 6.1 NEHEMIAH, VI. 221 
 
 they sent unto me four times after this sort; and I answered 
 them after the same manner. Then sent Sanballat his s 
 servant unto me in hke manner the fifth time with an open 
 letter in his hand ; wherein was written, It is reported 6 
 among the heathen, and Gashmu saith //, that thou and the 
 Jews think to rebel : for which cause thou buildest the wall, 
 that thou mayest be their king, according to these words. 
 
 after this sort... after the sa?ne i?ianner'] The Hebrew phrase is the 
 same in both cases. As it occurs again in the next verse (ver. 5, ' in 
 like manner'), though the nature of the message is different, we clearly 
 must not press the words here to mean a literal repetition of the request 
 and answer. It only indicates a general similarity in the character of 
 the four applications, and in the answers which they elicited. Cf. for 
 the use of this phrase i Sam. xvii. 27, 30; 2 Sam. xv. 6. 
 
 5. his serva}it'\ Cf. iv. 22. 
 
 a7i open letter in his hand'\ 'Open,' not sealed. The object of 
 this is obvious. It was intended that the contents of the letter should 
 become public property. The servant himself and the adherents of 
 Sanballat within the walls of Jerusalem (vi. 17) would possess them- 
 selves of its contents long before it reached the hands of Nehemiah. 
 (i) The charge of treason against Nehemiah and the Jews would terrify 
 the timid from active co-operation in the work, and decide those who 
 were wavering to desist altogether (cf. ver. 9). The dissemination of 
 the contents of the letter was therefore an attempt to stay the re- 
 building of the walls at the last moment. (2) The effect upon the 
 people which the letter was calculated to produce might decide Nehe- 
 miah to concede the proposed interview. Sanballat 's challenge being 
 made public, it was hoped that Nehemiah would find himself com- 
 pelled to rebut the charges, and to meet his adversaries in the way 
 which they proposed (ver. 7). Thus the opportunity would be obtained 
 of seizing his person and of employing to their own advantage the 
 interval of his absence from the city. 
 
 6. aviong the heathen] R.V. among the nations, i.e. among the 
 nations who surrounded the Jews, and were at this time combined 
 against the Jews under Sanballat's leadership. 
 
 and Gashinn saith it] i.e. it is no mere vague rumour. It is asserted 
 by individuals of position and influence. 'Gashmu' is generally 
 assumed to be identical with Geshem (ch. ii. 19, vi. i, 2). It is very 
 probable that the difference of pronunciation preserves a variation of 
 the Arabian dialect. Compare the interchange of 'Jether' (Ex. iv. 18) 
 with 'Jethro' (Ex. iii. i). 
 
 think to rebel] Cf the charge in Ezr. iv. 12 — 16. ' Think,' cf ver. 2. 
 This is the substance of the first rumour reported ' among the nations.' 
 
 thou buildest the ivall] This is the first indication of rebellion ; and 
 it is to be noted the blame is credited to Nehemiah alone ('thou build- 
 est,' &c.), not to the people. 
 
 that thou mayest be their kin^\ R.V. and tliou wouldest be king. 
 
222- NEHEMIAH, VI. [vv. 7, 8. 
 
 7 And thou hast also appointed prophets to preach of thee at 
 Jerusalem, saying, There is a king in Judah : and now shall 
 it be reported to the king according to these words. Come 
 
 8 now therefore, and let us take counsel together. Then I 
 
 The words might be rendered ' and thou art becoming their king. " 
 The A.V. is wrong in making the words depend upon the previou'? 
 clause. They represent the second rumour reported 'among the 
 nations,' that Nehemiah, if not actually king, was on the point of 
 becoming so. 
 
 acco7-ding to these words] A peculiar and unexpected termination to 
 the sentence which recurs in the following verse. According to Rashi 
 the expression refers back to the opening words of the letter, ' It is 
 reported;' and the majority of commentators take the same view, con- 
 sidering it equivalent to 'according to the tenour of these reports.' 
 Another explanation, which is more probable, regards it as a technical 
 expression equivalent to 'and so forth,' '&c. &c.', inserted to abbreviate 
 the extract from the letter. If so, it should be compared with the 
 phrase 'and so forth' in Ezr. iv. 10, 11, 17. Accepting this explana- 
 tion, the phrase may be Nehemiah's, to save himself the transcript of a 
 long letter. But it may also have been inserted by Sanballat himself 
 in the original letter. A general '&c. &c.' would suggest that there were 
 other similar reports in the background, which he did not at present 
 choose to particularize. 
 
 7. t/ioti hast also appointed prophets to preach of thee\ There were 
 doubtless prophets in Jerusalem who supported Nehemiah as well as 
 prophets who opposed him (vers. 10 — 14). Sanballat suggests firstly 
 that Nehemiah had bribed prophets to support him, and secondly that 
 their support was of a treasonable nature. Rashi, perhaps jealous of 
 the sacred term 'prophets,' says that the word here denotes 'eloquent' 
 speakers. The prophet Malachi may well have been one of the 
 prophets referred to. 
 
 It would be a mistake to attach too much importance to Sanballat's 
 malicious words, or to suppose that they contain a popular misre- 
 presentation of such expressions as Zech. ix. 9, 'Behold, thy King 
 cometh.' 
 
 to the king\ Implying that the real king Artaxerxes would take 
 summary vengeance for this assumption of royalty by a petty governor. 
 
 acco7'ding to these words] It is natural as in the A.V. and R.V. to 
 take these words closely with ' shall it be reported.' If however, as is 
 not unlikely, the phrase occurs here, as in ver. 6, to summarize this 
 part of the letter, we must place a comma after 'king.' 'Now shall it 
 be reported to the king, and so forth,' i.e. the sentences describing the 
 results of the report and the king's vengeance need not be tran- 
 scribed at length. 
 
 let us take counsel together] As much as to say, we ofter you the 
 opportunity of an interview, in the course of which you can clear your- 
 self of these charges which are the talk of every bazaar; and we will do 
 all in our power to contradict them in your name. 
 
vv. 9, lo.] NEHEMIAH, VI. 223 
 
 sent unto him, saying, There are no such things done as 
 thou sayest, but thou feignest them out of thine own heart. 
 For they all made us afraid, saying, Their hands shall be 9 
 weakened from the work, that it be not done. Now there- 
 fore, O God, strengthen my hands. Afterward I came imto 10 
 
 8. There are no such things done] Literally, *it has not happened 
 or it has not been done according to these words.' Nehemiah contents 
 himself with curtly retorting that there is no sort of foundation for 
 Sanballat's words. The letters of Artaxerxes to * the governor beyond 
 the river' (ii. 9) were well known to all ; Nehemiah could not be a 
 rebel; he had royal and official support for his work. And the assertion 
 that he was currently rumoured to be engaged in an insurrectionary 
 movement was a mere pretence. The very rumour, he replies, is 
 of Sanballat's own making ; and such as it is, it has nothing to go 
 upon. 
 
 Nehemiah saw that the object of the letter was to damage him in the 
 eyes of the people. Compare Sennacherib's messengers, 2 Chron. 
 xxxii. 18. 
 
 thou feignest them out of thine own heart'\ i.e. your assertion that a 
 rumour of this kind is being circulated is as much your own invention 
 as the statements which you graft upon it. ' Feignest.' The Hebrew 
 word so rendered only occurs elsewhere in the O. T. in i Kings xii. 33, 
 *in the month which he had devised of his own heart.' 
 
 9. For they all made us afraid] R.V. For they all ■would have 
 made us afraid. The participle in the original does not convey more 
 than that the attempt was made. It does not assert, as the A.V. 
 rendering, that the attempt succeeded. By ' they all ' Nehemiah refers 
 to the enemies mentioned in ver. i. The present verse is his comment 
 upon the whole episode. 
 
 saying'] i.e. amongst themselves and in their own minds. 
 
 Their hajids shall be weakened] For this expression cf Job iv. 3 ; 
 Isai. XXXV. 3 ; Jer. xxxviii. 4 ; 2 Chr. xv. 7. Cf. ' fearful hearts and 
 faint hands' (Ecclus. ii. 12); 'hands that hang down' (Heb. xii. 12). 
 
 Now therefore, O God, strengthen, &c.] R.V. But now, God, 
 strengthen. Marg. *0r, I will strengthen my hands \ The adversative 
 •but' is required, since the clause is Nehemiah's reply to his enemies' 
 machinations, which are summarized in the previous sentence. The 
 construction in the Hebrew creates a difficulty in the translation. The 
 words ' O God ' are not in the original : the verb ' strengthen ' may 
 either be the imperative or the infinitive. 
 
 (i) The A.V. and R.V. and the majority of commentators accept 
 the view that the verb is in the imperative, and regard the words as a 
 prayerful soliloquy with which Nehemiah closes his description of this 
 scene. To this rendering it is an objection (i) that the name of the 
 Deity must be supplied in order to make the words intelligible; (2) that 
 even for an interjectional prayer the language is abrupt; (5) that 
 the substance as well as the form of the sentence differs from the inter- 
 jectional prayers in v. 19, vi. 14. 
 
224 NEHEMIAH, VI. [v. lo. 
 
 the house of Shemaiah the son of Delaiah the son of 
 Mehetabeel, who was shut up; and he said, Let us meet 
 
 (ii) If the verb be in the infin., the words express Nehemiah's 
 resolution in the face of his difficulties, ' I will strengthen my hands.' 
 There would be no difficulty presented by such a construction if either 
 the infinitive had been preceded by a verb in a finite form, or the 
 subject of the verb had been expressed. But as both those conditions 
 are lacking, the infinitival construction is certainly extremely harsh 
 and unusual. It is strange to find 'a note added, in the form of a 
 soliloquy, to a description of events which had happened at least 12 
 years before the final publication of these memoirs.' 
 
 Somewhat in favour of the latter view is the evidence of the Gr. and 
 Latin versions, which give, 'And I strengthened my hands.' LXX. koL 
 vvv iKparaiwa-a tcls xetpas /mov. Vulg. ' quam ob causam magis con- 
 fortavi manus meas,' and 'But I will strengthen my hands,' Syr. and 
 Arab. It may be contended that the Versions have merely aimed at 
 giving the most probable sense, without facing the grammatical diffi- 
 culty; and that, if so, their evidence is of little value. On the other 
 hand their unanimity possibly indicates a difference of text at any early 
 time. So far as they only record a traditional interpretation, they are 
 opposed to the view that the words are a prayer. On the whole the 
 rendering of the R.V. margin seems preferable. It is a harsh con- 
 struction, but with a simple meaning. The explanation of a prayer 
 escapes the difficulty of construction, but creates a greater objection in 
 the ellipse of the Sacred Name. Among the older explanations of this 
 clause there is the very strange one which suggested that Nehemiah's 
 words are addressed to Sanballat, whom he invites to strengthen his 
 hands instead of weakening them in the task of completing the walls. 
 For the phrase 'strengthen my hands,' cf. i Sam. xxiii. 16, 'strengthen- 
 ed his hands in God.' 
 
 Dangers from within : False Prophets (10 — 14). 
 
 10. Aftcrzvard I came] R.V. And I went. There is no note of 
 time expressed. 
 
 Shemaiah the son of Delaiah] Not otherwise known ; apparently a 
 priest and a prophet. The name Delaiah occurs in i Chron. xxiv. iti 
 as that of the three-and-twentieth priestly house. 
 
 Mehetabeel] R.V. Mehetabel. 
 
 who was shut tip] Concerning the meaning of this obscure phrase 
 there is much variety of opinion. (LXX. koX avrds avvexofJi-^vos. Vulg. 
 sccreto. ) 
 
 {a) According to one view, he was 'shut up' in the sense that he 
 was prevented by ceremonial pollution from mixing in the society of 
 his countrymen or from approaching the Temple. Cf Jer. xxxiii. i, 
 xxxvi. 5. Accepting this interpretation, we see in his proposal to 
 Nehemiah the extremity of his alarms real or feigned. 
 
 {b) According to another view, the expression is metaphorical, and 
 denotes that he was a 'prisoner,' in the sense of being 'possessed by' 
 the prophetic spirit. 
 
vv. II, 12.] NEHEMIAH, VI. 225 
 
 together in the house of God, within the temple, and let us 
 shut the doors of the temple : for they will come to slay 
 thee ; yea, in the night will they come to slay thee. And I " 
 said, Should such a man as I flee ? and who is there^ that, 
 being as I «;;/, would go into the temple to save his life ? I 
 will not go in. And lo, I perceived that God had not sent 12 
 
 {c) According to a third view, he had shut himself up in his house 
 in order to show by a symbolical action that Nehemiah was propheti- 
 cally warned to take refuge in some hiding-place. Cf. i Kings xxii. 1 1 ; 
 Jer. xxviii. 10; Acts xxi. ii. 
 
 within the temple... doors of the teiJiple"] Shemaiah's proposal is that 
 Nehemiah should hide himself in sacred precincts, where only priests 
 could go. He implies that this advice which he gives as a prophet 
 is sufficient sanction to absolve the act of profanation. The safety 
 of the governor, he seems to say, is of more importance than a 
 detail of ceremonial. 
 
 yea, in the night., &c. ] The repetition of the clauses has all the ring 
 of poetic parallelism. 
 
 ' They will come. ' The indefiniteness of the oracular utterance does 
 not state who the assassins are, 
 
 11. And I said'\ Nehemiah refuses to listen to Shemaiah. (i) He 
 has his duty and position as governor to remember ; it is not for him 
 to show the white feather. (2) The proposal to take refuge in the 
 Temple is monstrous ; it was forbidden by the Law, which he served, 
 and to trespass upon the domain of the priests was impious in the 
 extreme. (Cf. 2 Chron. xxvi. 16 — 20.) 
 
 Should snch a man as /] The governor and the leader of the 
 national movement. 
 
 being as I am] R.V. being such as I, i.e. not a Priest, cf. i. i, 
 ii. 3, but the Governor responsible for the protection of his countrymen. 
 
 would go into the temple to save his life} R.V. marg. 'Or, could go 
 into the temple and live'. According to the A.V. and R.V. text the 
 words 'and live' are made to depend upon the verb 'go,' and denote 
 the purpose of the action 'to save his life.' According to the rendering 
 of the R.V. marg., which is more probable, the words 'and live' (cf. 
 Deut. v. 24) are coordinate with 'go,' and represent the main thought 
 of astonished enquiry. The Law declared that the stranger, i.e. ' the 
 layman that cometh nigh shall be put to death,' Num. xviii. 7. 
 Nehemiah's words point to this prohibition, binding against the 
 governor as much as against the poorest of the Israelites. He does not 
 quote a written statute, but appeals to what was generally known and 
 recognised as law. 
 
 12. And lo, I perceived that'] R.V. And I discerned, and, lo. The 
 R.V. gives the verb the requisite sense of 'recognition' as in Gen. xxvii. 
 23, 'he discerned him not.' Not as some commentators ' I considered.' 
 Of a sudden, as it were, Nehemiah distinguishes the man's object. The 
 interjection 'and, lo,' follows after the recognition of Shemaiah's 
 character and intent. 
 
 NEHEMIAH 
 
 15 
 
226 NEHEMIAH, VI. [w. 13, 14. 
 
 him ; but that he pronounced this prophecy against me : 
 
 13 for Tobiah and Sanballat had hired him. Therefore was 
 he hired, that I should be afraid, and do so, and sin, and 
 that they might have matter for an evil report, that they 
 
 14 might reproach me. My God, think thou upon Tobiah 
 and Sanballat according to these their works, and on the 
 
 God had not sent Aim} The emphasis lies on 'God,' i.e. it was not 
 God that sent him, but Sanballat and his party. Cf. Jer. xxiii. 21, * I 
 sent not these prophets, yet they ran : I spake not unto them, yet they 
 prophesied.' Nehemiah's words probably refer to the Deuteronomic 
 law about the false prophet that 'speaketh rebellion against God' and 
 seeketh 'to draw thee away from the Lord thy God' (Deut. xiii. 5, 
 
 he pronounced \h\s prophecy against me] i.e. his prophecy was not on 
 behalf of God to declare a divine message, but to oppose Nehemiah. 
 
 for (R.V. And) Tobiah and Sanballat] The clause is not a paren- 
 thetical explanation, but gives the third point which Nehemiah 
 'discerned' in Shemaiah's action. He had 'discerned' (i) that She- 
 maiah's message was not of God, (2) that its purpose was hostile to 
 himself, (3) that it was the result of bribery on the part of Tobiah and 
 Sanballat. 
 
 This is the first statement that Tobiah and Sanballat were in communi- 
 cation with a party in Jerusalem itself hostile to Nehemiah, cf. 17 — 19, 
 xiii. 4, 28. 'Tobiah and Sanballat.' The usual order of the names is 
 inverted, it has been suggested, because 'Tobiah was the immediate 
 briber, Sanballat only finding the funds' {Pulpit Co?nm.). More pro- 
 bably, however, his name stands first in this passage because in in- 
 trigues with the Jews of Jerusalem (xiii. 4 ff.) he was the more active 
 and dangerous. 
 
 hired\ Cf. Ezra iv. 5. 
 
 13. Therefore] R.V. For tMs cause. 
 
 ajid si7i\ i.e. by transgressing 'the law,' by violating the sanctity of 
 the House of God. 
 
 matter/or «;« evil report] Literally, 'and that it might be to them 
 for an evil name.' The Vulgate gives the sense generally ' et haberent 
 malum quod exprobrarent mihi.' The LXX. goes wrong, koX "yev^ixai 
 avTois els ovojxa Trovrjpbv. The phrase ' an evil name ' occurs also in 
 Deut. xxii. 14, 19 in the sense 'an evil report.' 
 
 Nehemiah would incur 'an evil name' with the priestly class and 
 the strict Jews for consulting his personal safety rather than the sanctity 
 of the law. Such conduct would weaken his hold upon the best 
 people of the nation. Cf. Ps. xxxviii. 16, ' For I said, Lest they rejoice 
 over me: when my foot slippeth, they magnify themselves against me.' 
 
 14. My God, think thou upon] R.V. Remember, my God. 
 Tobiah's name stands before Sanballat's. Cf. ver. 12. 
 
 and on the prophetess] R.V. and also the prophetess. Noadiah's 
 name only occurs here. We know from the case of Huldah and Anna 
 that women were sometimes privileged to possess the gift of prophecy 
 
vv. 15, 16.] NEHEMIAH, VI. 227 
 
 prophetess Noadiah, and the rest of the prophets, that 
 would have put me in fear. 
 
 So the wall was finished in the twenty and fifth day of is 
 the month Elul, in fifty and two days. And it came to pass, 16 
 that when all our enemies heard thereof, and all the heathen 
 
 (2 K. xxii. 14; Luke ii. 36). Noadiah seems to have acted with 'the 
 rest of .the prophets,' who were probably bribed to intimidate Nehe- 
 miah. Sanballat had accused Nehemiah of obtaining popular influence 
 by suborning prophets to support him (ver. 7). Nehemiah's words in 
 this verse show that the religious teachers of the people were divided 
 in mind. The LXX. and possibly the Vulgate regarded 'Noadiah' as 
 masc. (r^ NwaS^a ry irpocpriTri, 'Noadioe prophetce'). 
 
 Nehemiah's prayer closes this section. Cf. ver. 14, v. 19, and xiii. 
 14, 22, 31. 
 
 15 — 19. The Completion of the Wall (ver. 15); and the 
 
 IMPRESSION produced (i6) : TREASONABLE CORRESPONDENCE 
 
 (^7— 19)- 
 
 15. Elul] This month, which is the same as the Assyrian U-lu-lu, 
 corresponds to the end of August and beginning of September. It is 
 mentioned in i Mace. xiv. 27. The 25th of Ekil would be September 
 444. Elul, the 6th of the sacred year, was the last month of the civil 
 year. 
 
 in fifty and two days] Nehemiah is evidently calling attention to 
 the remarkable rapidity with which the wall was built. But though a 
 remarkable performance, there is nothing incredible in it ; and the 
 suggestion to append to the text 'and two years' (so Ewald) would give 
 a period of time strangely at variance with the description of haste and 
 urgency in chap. v. It is true this would nearly agree with Josephus' 
 statement that the wall took two years and four months building ; but 
 Josephus's chronology is not to be preferred to our text, when the LXX. 
 and the Vulgate show no variation. We do not know the grounds 
 which Josephus had for giving ' two years and four months ; ' but even 
 this circumstantial statement disagrees with the proposed reading. 
 
 In order to account for the speed with which the wall was built, we 
 must bear in mind, (a) that large numbers of people were employed 
 upon the work, and a thorough system of distribution facilitated its 
 execution; {l>) the walls in many parts probably only required repair- 
 ing, while the materials for the most part lay all ready to hand : 
 (c) Nehemiah and his companions constantly stimulated the people to 
 persevere in the work : {d) according to a very reasonable computation, 
 the 40 lots into which the wall (cf. ch. iii.) was distributed averaged 
 about 80 yards apiece, and many lots were omitted in the list. 
 
 For another instance of the rapid erection of walls under patriotic 
 stimulus, compare the action of Themistocles and the Athenians (see 
 Grote's Hist, of Greece, vol. IV. p. 333 f.). 
 
 16. all our eneniies] Cf. iv. i, v. 9, vi. i. 
 
 that when... and all the heathen... saw these things, they, &c.] R.V. 
 
 15—2 
 
22S ' NEHEMIAH, VI. [vv. 17, 18. 
 
 that were about us saw f/iese ^/liugs, they were much cast 
 
 down in their own eyes : for they perceived that this work 
 x7 was wrought of our God. Moreover in those days the 
 
 nobles of Judah sent many letters unto Tobiah, and ^/le 
 18 letters of Tobiah came unto them. For there were many in 
 
 Judah sworn unto him, because he was the son in law of 
 
 when... that all the heathen... feared, and, &c. Marg. 'According to 
 another reading, sa'w\ There is little distinction to be drawn between 
 *the enemies' and 'the heathen.' The leaders of the hostile races 
 heard, and then the races themselves feared. The reading 'feared,' 
 which is also that of the LXX. €(po^7jd7]<xai>, and the Vulg. 'timerent,' 
 gives a preferable sense to 'saw.' The distinction in the A.V. between 
 the 'seeing' of 'the heathen' and the 'hearing' of 'the enemies' is 
 quite meaningless, and tells against that reading. The rendering of 
 the R.V. suggests that the news first reached Tobiah, Sanballat and 
 Geshem, and then spread a panic among the Moabites, Samaritans, 
 Arabians, &c. 
 
 iAey were much cast doivn in their own eyes\ A peculiar expression 
 which occurs only in this passage ; literally, ' they fell much in their 
 own eyes. ' According to the present text, two explanations have been 
 given: {^)='they were much vexed and disconcerted.' 'To fall in 
 one's eyes' is then to be compared with the 'falling' or 'lowering' of 
 the countenance. Cf. Gen. iv. 5, 6; i Sam. xvii. 32. {h) ='they had 
 fallen greatly in their own estimation,' i.e. they despised themselves. 
 In their own eyes, i.e. in their own opinion, their power had received a 
 heavy blow; they had 'fallen,' as it were, and the Jews were exalted. 
 
 A different text is followed in the three renderings : {a) the LXX. 
 'And fear fell upon their eyes exceedingly,' koX iir^Treaeu (po^os acpoBpa 
 iv 6(pda\fx6ls avTUju. {b) the Vulgate 'et conciderent inter semet ipsos' 
 ^bayneyhem for b'ay-neyhej?i). (c) ' And they caused their eyes to fall', 
 with the same meaning as that given in Jer. iii. 12, ' I will not look in 
 anger upon you ' (marg. Heb. * cause my countenance to fall upon you'). 
 
 this work was wrought of our God'\ In the completion of the wall 
 the special favour of the God of Israel must have been recognised. 
 What else could explain the unexpected commission from Artaxerxes at 
 the beginning, and the frustration of all the machinations of the enemy? 
 Cf. Ps. cxxvi. 1, 'Then said they among the nations, The Lord hath 
 done great things for them.' For the phrase, cf. Ps. cxviii. 23. 
 
 17. in those days] i.e. during the whole of this period a treasonable 
 correspondence was carried on between Tobiah and the disaffected 
 Jewish nobles. That these included the family of the High-priest is 
 rendered probable by Chap. xiii. 4. 
 
 18. sworn tinto him, because he was the son in law of, &c.] ' Sworn 
 unto him.' LXX. ^popKot....avTip. It is implied that Tobiah's con- 
 nexion by marriage ensured him the support of many leading Jews ; the 
 conjunction 'because' suggests that the members of a family on welcom- 
 ing a stranger within their circle, pledged themselves to him by an 
 oath. 
 
vv. 19; I.] NEHEMIAH, VI. VII. 229 
 
 Shechaniah the son of Arab; and his son Johanan had 
 taken the daughter of Meshullam the son of Berechiah. 
 Also they reported his good deeds before me, and uttered 19 
 my words to him. And Tobiah sent letters to put me in 
 fear. 
 
 Now it came to pass, when the wall was built, and I had 7 
 set up the doors, and the porters and the singers and the 
 
 It is possible however to give a more general interpretation : many 
 of the nobles conspired with Tobiah, and they had opportunities to 
 meet him on account of his connexion by marriage. In xiii. 4 we find 
 EUashib the High-priest described as 'allied unto Tobiah.' 'Son-in- 
 law,' or at any rate a relation by marriage. 
 
 Shechaniah the son 0/ Arah'\ R.V. Shecaniali, &c. The house of 
 Arah is mentioned in Ezr. ii. 5. Shecaniah was clearly a man of 
 eminence. 
 
 Johanan'] R.V. Jehohanan. The name of Tobiah's son is a 
 compound of which the first two syllables are derived from the 
 sacred Hebrew Name for God. Cf. note on ii. 19. 
 
 had taken the daughter of Meshullarn the son of Berechiah] R.V. had 
 taken... to wife. This Meshullam is mentioned in iii. 4, 30, from which 
 passages we conclude that he was of priestly descent. 
 
 19. reported... uttered] R.V. spoke of... reported. The Hebrew gives 
 the idea of continuous action. They endeavoured to convince Nehemiah 
 that Tobiah's professions of goodwill were sincere. Perhaps too they 
 spoke of the generous way in which he distributed money among the 
 Jews. On the other hand they communicated to Tobiah all that 
 Nehemiah said and did, with the view of supplying him with material 
 for charges against Nehemiah to be made before the Persian king, or 
 for slanders to the Jewish people. The word for ' His good deeds,' or 
 'virtues,' {tobothav) is perhaps a play on the name 'Tobiah.' 
 
 Tobiah.. .in fear] i.e. letters like that cf Sanballat quoted above 
 {vv. 5—8). 
 
 Ch. VII. 1—5. Nehemiah's dispositions for the protection 
 OF the City. 
 
 1. the doors] We saw in vi. i that this alone remained to be done 
 to complete the walls. Those who were responsible for the doors are 
 mentioned in iii. 1, 3, 6, 13, 14, 15. Nehemiah's completion of the 
 great work is celebrated by the son of Sirach, 'And among the elect 
 was Neemias whose renown is great, who raised up for us the walls that 
 were fallen, and set up the gates and the bars, and raised up our ruins 
 again' (Ecclus. xlix. 13). 
 
 the porters and the singers and the Lezntes] The ' porters' were a gudd 
 whose ordinary duty it was to guard the entrances and defences of the 
 Temple. In the unsettled state of affairs, when he was in constant 
 expectation of attacks from without, and was conscious of intrigues 
 going on within the walls, Nehemiah entrusted the protection of the 
 
236 NEHEMIAH, VII. [vv. 2, 3. 
 
 2 Levites were appointed, that I gave my brother Hanani, 
 and Hananiah the ruler of the palace, charge over Jeru- 
 salem : for he was a faithful man, and feared God above 
 
 3 many. And I said unto them, Let not the gates of Jeru- 
 salem be opened until the sun be hot ; and while they stand 
 
 whole city to this body of trained 'police,' and augmented their force by 
 other available trained bands, i.e. the musicians and the main body of 
 Levites, who assisted the priests in the Temple services. The mention 
 of 'the Levites ' generally after that of the two special classes is noticeable, 
 but in some measure they were regarded in Nehemiah's time as distinct, 
 of. xii. 47, xiii. 5 — 10. They were already a disciplined and organised 
 set of men. The great majority could apparently be relied on to support 
 the policy of Nehemiah and Ezra. Nehemiah put the keeping of the 
 vi'alls into their hand, with the duty of superintending the watch, and 
 of organising a system of sentinel-work among the citizens themselves 
 {v. 3). The fact that Nehemiah thus trusted these Levites, and Temple 
 servants, indicates that they sympathised with him in his scheme ot 
 a religious constitution for the Jews, which would completely exclude 
 the Samaritan and the foreigner. 
 
 2. my bi'other Hanani] cf. i. 2. 
 
 Hatianiah the ruler of the palace'] R. V. Hananiah the governor of the 
 castle. On the castle or 'Bira' see ii. 8. The 'governor of the castle' 
 would be an official of great importance, being probably in command of 
 troops for the purpose of keeping order in the city. 'He' refers to 
 Hananiah. Possibly Nehemiah's appointment of two officers to the 
 command of the city corresponds with the mention of the two men in 
 iii. 9, 12, who were 'rulers of half the district of Jerusalem.' 
 
 a faithful ?na?t, and feared God] cf. Ex. xviii. 21, 'able men, such as 
 fear God, men of truth, hating unjust gain.' The Hebrew is noticeable; 
 not absolutely 'a man of truth,' but 'such as only a man of truth is.' 
 
 above many] i.e. more than most. LXX. irapa woWovs. Vulg. 'plus 
 casteris.' The phrase which only occurs here in the O.T. has a very 
 lifelike ring. 
 
 3. / said unto them] The reading of the C'thib, 'He said,' is 
 clearly wrong. The K'ri is supported by the LXX. and Vulg. 'Them,' 
 Hanani and Hananiah. 
 
 until the sun be hot] Vulg. 'Usque ad calorem solis,' i.e. until the 
 sun was high in the heavens; cf. i Sam. xi. 9, 'By the time the sun is 
 hot.' The customary practice was to open the gates at sunrise. By 
 this regulation the enemy would be effectually prevented from obtaining 
 any advantage by an entry into the city before the inhabitants were 
 stirring. The LXX. (^ws a^ua t^j ivX^y) did not understand the sentence. 
 Rashi also explains 'until mid-day,' erroneously. The shutting of the 
 gates was a sign of suspicion : cf. the opposite description of security in 
 Isai. Ix. II. 
 
 stand by] R.V. stand on gnard. The meaning apparently is that the 
 gates were to be shut while the regular watch was still on guard. The 
 A.V. 'stand by' refers to Hanani and Hananiah, as if the gates were 
 
vv. 4, 5-] NEHEMIAH, VII. 231 
 
 by, let them shut the doors, and bar them: and appoint 
 watches of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, every one in his 
 watch, and every one to be over against his house. Now 4 
 the city was large and great : but the people were few 
 therein, and the houses were not builded, 
 
 And my God put into mine heart to gather together the 5 
 nobles, and the rulers, and the people, that they might be 
 
 always to be shut in the presence of the governors. But it would have 
 been an impossibility for the two officers to have been present at the 
 fastening of each gate. The emphasis rests on the word 'while.' The 
 guard of Levites are to be at their post, while the doors were being 
 secured. 
 
 shut...bar\ LXX, KXeicrdcjcrav . . .acp^vovcrdioaau, Vulg. 'claus3e...oppi- 
 latse.' The versions give the general sense. The word rendered 'shut' 
 occurs only here in the O.T. in the mood employed in this verse. The 
 word rendered 'bar' means literally 'to seize.' Hence Rashi explains, 
 'let them take hold of the doors in order to shut them;' and other 
 interpretations have been ' take hold in order to see whether they were 
 fastened,' and 'take hold of the keys.' But the marginal rendering of the 
 R.V. I Kings vi. 10, 'he fastened the house,' will illustrate its usage 
 in the present verse. 
 
 appoint watches &c.] It does not appear whether Hanani and 
 Hananiah are the subject or the Levite guards. The verb in the 
 original is in the Infin. Abs. (cf. vi. 9) and expresses the command 
 in general terms (LXX. <Trr\aov, Vulg. 'posui'). The citizens them- 
 selves were to be organised for the defence of the place. Every man 
 was to belong to a particular guardhouse, and take his turn in sentinel 
 duty; and every man also was to be responsible for the protection of his 
 own dwelling. 
 
 4. large and great] R.V. wide and large. The phrase rendered ' wide ' 
 (cf. Gen. xxxiv. 21; Judg. xviii. 10) denotes extension on every side; its 
 literal rendering would be 'wide on both hands.' 
 
 the people were/fw] The inhabitants of Jerusalem were in Nehemiah's 
 time very few in comparison with what they had been before the 
 captivity, see xi. 1, 1. The number of Jews that had returned with 
 Zerubbabel had been 42360 (Ezra ii. 64; Neh. vii. 66). With Ezra 
 there had come rather more than 1500 (Ezra viii. i — 20). Others had 
 come from time to time. But of the wliole number of 50,000 or so, a 
 very large proportion were settled in the country and towns in the 
 neighbourhood, as appears from ver. 73, xi. 25 — 36, xii. 27 — 29. 
 
 the houses were not builded] An expression that cannot be understood 
 literally. The meaning is, there were large open spaces within the 
 walls unoccupied. 
 
 5. 7ny God put into f?iine heart] R.V. my heart. For this expression 
 see note on ii. 12. 
 
 nobles... rulers (R.V. marg. deputies)... people] cf. ii. 16; iv. 14, 19. 
 that they anight be reckoned by genealogy] LXX. ets (xvvohla.'i., Vulg. 
 *ut recenserem eos.' Nehemiah's census seems to be referred to in 
 
23-2 NEHEMIAH, VII. [v. 6. 
 
 reckoned by genealogy. And I found a register of the 
 genealogy of them which came up at the first, and foimd 
 written therein, 
 6 These are the children of the province, that went up out 
 of the captivity, ^ those that had been carried away, whom 
 Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away, and 
 came again to Jerusalem and to Judah, every one unto 
 
 xi. I — 3, from which passage we gather that the census was a pre- 
 liminary to measures fur replenishing the population of Jerusalem. 
 
 5^— 73 a. The Register of those who returned with 
 ZERUBBABEL = Ezra ii. I — 70. 
 
 a register of the genealogy\ R.V. the book. 
 
 of them 2vhich ca??ie up at the first] The only natural explanation of 
 these words is that Nehemiah found in the archives of Jerusalem the 
 list of those that accompanied Zerubbabel from Babylon. This seems 
 to be conclusively proved {a) by the words in ver. 5, T found,' 'who 
 came up at the first,' 'found written therein,' and ver. 7, 'who came with 
 Zerubbabel,' {b) by the position of the parallel extract in Ezra ii. i — 70, 
 Nehemiah recognises the national importance of the register and tran- 
 scribes it into his 'Memoirs;' he had not known of its existence before. 
 
 The view that the list in this chapter contains the results of Nehemiah's 
 census which were mistakenly inserted by the Compiler into Ezra ii., 
 rests on the quite insufficient grounds of (i) the mention of the name 
 Nehemiah in ver. 7, (2) the title Tirshatha in ver. 65, (3) the relation of 
 ver. 73 to the events of chap, viii., (4) the apparent omission of Nehemiah's 
 census. But (i) the name Nehemiah (ver. 7) is not necessarily that of 
 the governor of Jerusalem; (2) there is no evidence that the title 'Tir- 
 shatha' was appropriated to Nehemiah alone; (3) only the first part of 
 ver. 73 belongs to this extract; the latter part is freely adapted by the 
 chronicler for the purpose of resuming the narrative ; (4) traces of 
 Nehemiah's own census may well be recognised in chap. xi. 
 
 This long extract illustrates in an interesting manner the method of 
 compilation adopted by Jewish chroniclers. 
 
 The double insertion of the list is probably due to its great im- 
 portance in the eyes of the stricter Jews. It stands first of all in its 
 right place, chronologically, in the narrative (Ezra ii.); it is repeated 
 here in the place which it occupied in the Memoirs of Nehemiah 
 transcribed by the Compiler. 
 
 at the first] A general expression, sometimes used in the sense of 
 'before' 'formerly,' cf. Gen. xiii. 4; i Chron. xvii. 9, sometimes in the 
 sense of 'first of all,' Num. x. 13, 14. 
 
 6 — 73. See notes on the parallel passage Ezra ii. i, &c. The 
 variations are very slight, and are for the most part such as would arise 
 from errors of transcription. 
 
 6. came again to] R.V. returned unto. Ezra ii. r has 'carried 
 away mito Babylon'' \ the words 'unto Babylon' have probably been 
 accidentally omitted in transcription. 
 
vv. 7— 3'.] NEHEMIAH, VII. 233 
 
 his city ; who came with Zembbabel, Jeshua, Nehemiah, 7 
 Azariah, Raamiah, Nahamani, Mordecai, Bilshan, Mispereth, 
 Bigvai, Nehum, Baanah. The number, / say^ of the men 
 of the people of Israel was this : 
 
 The children of Parosh, two thousand an hundred seventy 8 
 and two. The children of Shephatiah, three hundred seventy 9 
 and two. The children of Arah, six hundred fifty and two. 10 
 The children of Pahath-moab, of the children of Jeshua and n 
 Joab, two thousand and eight hundred and eighteen. The 12 
 children of Elam, a thousand two hundred fifty and four. 
 The children of Zattu, eight hundred forty and five. The 135 u 
 children of Zaccai, seven hundred and threescore. The 15 
 children of Binnui, six hundred forty and eight. The 16 
 children of Bebai, six hundred twenty and eight. The 17 
 children of Azgad, two thousand three hundred twenty and 
 two. The children of Adonikam, six hundred threescore 18 
 and seven. The children of Bigvai, two thousand three- 19 
 score and seven. The children of Adin, six hundred fifty 20 
 and five. The children of Ater of Hezekiah, ninety and 21 
 eight. The children of Hashum, three hundred twenty and 22 
 eight. The children of Bezai, three hundred twenty and 23 
 four. The children of Hariph, an hundred and twelve. 24 
 The children of Gibeon, ninety and five. The men of 25, .6 
 Beth-lehem and Netophah, an hundred fourscore and eight. 
 The men of Anathoth, an hundred twenty and eight. The 27, 28 
 men of Beth-azmaveth, forty and two. The men of Kirjath- 29 
 jearim, Chephirah, and Beeroth, seven hundred forty and 
 three. The men of Ramah and Geba, six hundred twenty 30 
 and one. The men of Midi mas, an hundred and twenty 31 
 
 7. ^zana/^] = Seraiah in Ezra. 
 
 RaamiaJil =■ Reelaiah in Ezra. 
 
 Na/m??iani] Not in Ezra. 
 
 Misperet/i] = Mizpar in Ezra. 
 
 Ne/umi] = Rehum in Ezra. 
 
 I say, ...was this] R.V. omits, 
 
 15. i5m;««'] = Bani in Ezra: cf. Neh. x. 14; i Esdr. v. 12. 
 
 21 — 23. Ater... Hashimi... Bezai... Hariph^ In Ezra the order is 
 Ater, Bezai, Jorah ( = Hariph), Hashum. For Hariph see Neh. x. 19. 
 
 25. Gibeojt] = Gibbar (probably a mistake) in Ezra. 
 
 26. the men of Beth-lelmn and NetoJ)ha/i\ = ^Vcie children of Beth- 
 lehem... the men of Netophah' in Ezra. 
 
 30. Gebal Some copies of the A.V. have 'Gaba*; but 'Geba* 
 stands in the 161 1 edition. 
 
234 NEHEMIAH, VII. [vv. 32—53. 
 
 32 and two. The men of Beth-el and Ai, an hundred twenty 
 
 33 and three. The men of the other Nebo, fifty and two. 
 
 34 The children of the other Elam, a thousand two hundred 
 
 35 fifty and four. The children of Harim, three hundred and 
 
 36 twenty. The children of Jericho, three hundred forty and 
 
 37 five. The children of Lod, Hadid, and Ono, seven hundred 
 
 38 twenty and one. The children of Senaah, three thousand 
 nine hundred and thirty. 
 
 39 Tue priests : the children of Jedaiah, of the house of 
 
 40 Jeshua, nine hundred seventy and three. The children of 
 
 41 Immer, a thousand fifty and two. The children of Pashur, 
 
 42 a thousand two hundred forty and seven. The children of 
 Harim, a thousand and seventeen, 
 
 43 The Levites : the children of Jeshua, of Kadmiel, a7id of 
 
 44 the children of Hodevah, seventy and four. The singers : 
 
 45 the children of Asaph, an hundred forty and eight. The 
 porters : the children of Shallum, the children of Ater, the 
 children of Talmon, the children of Akkub, the children 
 of Hatita, the children of Shobai, an hundred thirty and 
 eight. 
 
 46 The Nethinims : the children of Ziha, the children of 
 
 47 Hashupha, the children of Tabbaoth, the children of Keros, 
 
 48 the children of Sia, the children of Padon, the children of 
 Lebana, the children of Hagaba, the children of Shalmai, 
 
 49 the children of Hanan, the children of Giddel, the children 
 
 50 of Gahar, the children of Reaiah, the children of Rezin, the 
 
 51 children of Nekoda, the children of Gazzam, the children of 
 
 52 Uzza, the children of Phaseah, the children of Besai, the 
 
 53 children of Meunim, the children of Nephishesim, the chil- 
 dren of Bakbuk, the children of Hakupha, the children of 
 
 33. The jnen of the other Nebol = ' the children of Nebo ' in Ezra. 
 Perhaps the word 'other' has come in accidentally from ver. 34. Our 
 list omits 'the children of Magbish 156,' which in Ezra comes between 
 'Nebo' and 'Elam.' 
 
 43. and 0/ the children of Hodevah'] R.V. of the children of 
 Hodevah. Marg. ' Another reading is Hodeiah.'' See on Ezra ii. 40, 
 iii. 9. 
 
 46. The Nethinims'] R.V. The Nethinim. 
 
 Hashupha] R.V. Hasupha. 
 
 52. Nephishesim] R.V. Nephusheshim. Marg. 'Another reading 
 is Nephishesim '. See Ezra ii. =,0. 
 
vv. 54—67.] NEHEMIAH, VII. 235 
 
 Harhur, the children of Bazlith, the children of Mehida, the 54 
 children of Harsha, the children of Barkos, the children of 55 
 Sisera, the children of Tamah, the children of Neziah, the 56 
 children of Hatipha, 
 
 The children of Solomon's servants : the children of 57 
 Sotai, the children of Sophereth, the children of Perida, the 58 
 children of Jaala, the children of Darkon, the children of 
 Giddel, the children of Shephatiah, the children of Hattil, 59 
 the children of Pochereth Zebaim, the children of Amon. 
 All the Nethinims, and the children of Solomon's servants, 60 
 were three hundred ninety and two. 
 
 And these were they which went up also from Tel-melah, 61 
 Tel-haresha, Cherub, Addon, and Immer: but they could 
 not shew their fathers' house, nor their seed, whether they 
 ivere of Israel. The children of Delaiah, the children of 62 
 Tobiah, the children of Nekoda, six hundred forty and two. 
 And of the priests : the children of Habaiah, the children 63 
 of Koz, the children of Barzillai, which took 07ie of the 
 daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite to wife, and was called 
 after their name. These sought their register among those 64 
 that were reckoned by genealogy, but it was not found : 
 therefore were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood. 
 And the Tirshatha said unto them, that they should not eat 65 
 of the most holy thmgs, till there stood tip a priest with 
 Urim and Thummim. 
 
 The whole congregation together was forty ajid two thou- 66 
 sand three hundred and threescore, beside their manservants 67 
 and their maidservants, of whom there were seven thousand 
 
 55. Tamah'] R.V. Temah. 
 
 59. Pochereth Zebai?n'\ R.V. Pocheretli-hazzebaim. ' Of Zebaim ' 
 appears in some copies of the A.V. ; but 'of is not in the 1611 edition. 
 61. also] RV. omits. 
 Tel-hareshd\ R.V. Tel-harsha. 
 fathers' house'] R.V. fathers' houses. 
 
 63. Habaiah] R.V. Hobaiah. 
 Koz] R.V. Hakkoz. 
 
 one of the daughters] R.V. a wife of the daughters. 
 
 64. were they, as polhded, put from the priesthood] R.V, were they 
 deemed polluted and put, &:c. Marg. Heb. they were polhited from, &c. 
 
 65. the Tirshatha] R.V. marg. Or, ^<3Z/^r//^r. 
 
 a priest] Literally 'the priest.' 'With Urim and Thummim.' 
 LXX. 6 iepe!>s (pioriawv. Vulg. 'sacerdos doctus et eruditus. ' 
 
236 NEHEMIAH, VII. [vv. 68— 73. 
 
 three hundred thirty and seven : and they had two hundred 
 68 forty and five singing inen and singing women. Their horses, 
 
 seven hundred thirty and six : their mules, two hundred 
 ^ forty and five : their camels, four hundred thirty and five : 
 
 six thousand seven hundred and twenty asses. 
 
 70 And some of the chief of the fathers gave unto the work. 
 The Tirshatha gave to the treasure a thousand drams of 
 gold, fifty basons, five hundred and thirty priests' garments. 
 
 71 And some of the chief of the fathers gave to the treasure of 
 the work twenty thousand drams ^gold, and two thousand 
 
 72 and two hundred pound ^silver. And that which the rest 
 of the people gave was twenty thousand drams ^gold, and 
 two thousand pound of silver, and threescore and seven 
 
 73 priests' garments. So the priests, and the Levites, and the 
 porters, and the singers, and some of the people, and the 
 Nethinims, and all Israel, dwelt in their cities ; and when 
 the seventh month came, the children of Israel were in their 
 cities. 
 
 67. two Juindred fo7-ty andfve] So i Esclr. v. 41. Ezra ii. 65 'two 
 hundred. ' 
 
 68. This verse does not appear in some of the oldest Hebrew MSS., 
 and is not reckoned in the computation of 685 verses assigned to these 
 books in the Massoretic note at its close. The omission, however, is not 
 supported by the parallel passages in Ezra and i Esdr., nor by the LXX. 
 and Vulg. If therefore it be an interpolation from Ezra ii. 66, it must 
 have been inserted at a very early date. The alternative is most prob- 
 able that the omission is the result of an oversight on the part of a 
 copyist, whose eye passed from the ' five ' at the end of ver. 67 to that 
 at the end of ver. 68. 
 
 70. Andso??ie of the chief of the fathers] R.V. And some from among 
 the heads of fathers' houses. So in ver. 71. 
 
 The Tirshai/id] The contributions are here described in greater detail 
 than in Ezra. 
 
 the treaszire] R. V. the treasury. 
 
 dratns] R.V. darics. So in verses 71, 72. 
 
 fve htitidred and thirty priests^ garments] See note on Ezra ii. 69 
 for the conjecture * five hundred pound of silver and thirty priests' gar- 
 ments.' 
 
 71. to the treasure] R.V. into the treasury. 
 pound] R.V. marg. ' Heb. inaneh'. 
 
 73. some] R.V. some. The Heb. gives the partitive idea. (LXX. 
 61 dirb rod \aov. Vulg. 'reliquum vulgus.') 
 Nethinims] R.V. Nethinim. 
 
V. 73-J NEHEMIAH, VII. 237 
 
 Part II. RELIGIOUS REFORM. 
 
 Ch. vii. 73 b. — viii. 12. The Public Reading of the Law. 
 
 13—18. The Celebration of the Feast of Taber- 
 nacles. 
 ix. The National Confession, preliminary to 
 
 the Covenant. 
 X. I — 29. The Seahng of the Covenant. 
 
 30 — 39. Certain Obligations of the Covenant. 
 
 VII. 73 (^— VIII. 12. The Reading of the Law. 
 
 This verse begins a new section in the work. The style alters. The 
 use of the first pers. sing, is resumed in xii. 31. The Compiler has 
 recourse to other material for this narrative. The thread of Nehemiah's 
 Memoir, which was broken off at ver. 5, is therefore not resumed. 
 
 andzahm the seventh month came'] R. V. And when the seventh month 
 was come. The R.V. gives the right division of the verse. The second 
 clause introduces a new section. Very similar words occur in Ezra iii. 
 I after the register of names. The close of the 'register' perhaps con- 
 tained suitable words with which to resume the narrative in both pas- 
 sages. But possibly the Compiler consciously repeats himself and 
 borrows from Ezra iii. i, 'the seventh month.' The mention of this 
 date raises the question of the chronology of the following episodes. 
 
 The year is not stated. It is not therefore possible to say with cer- 
 tainty that the events described in chap. viii. followed immediately upon 
 the completion of the wall. But, although not stated, this is what is 
 clearly suggested by the compiler of the work. The mention of the 
 25th of the 6th month (vi. 15) is followed by the narrative of the ist of 
 the 7th month (vii. 73; viii. 2). As no other year is mentioned, presu- 
 mably the events are those which occurred in the same year. 
 
 The objection which has been raised against this simple view is 
 chiefly based upon the difficulty caused by the strangely sudden re- 
 appearance of Ezra. The fact that in i Esdras ix. 37 ff. the events here 
 described follow immediately upon the expulsion of 'the strange women' 
 (Ezraix.) has been by some scholars understood to supply the right order 
 of time. The public reading of the law and the sacred covenant would 
 then have to be placed in the year 457, and 'the seventh month' in the 
 second year after Ezra's arrival. An apparent confirmation of this view 
 is given by Josephus. But the chronology of Josephus in this period is 
 very untrustworthy. Undoubtedly following i Esdras, which does not 
 mention Nehemiah, he places Ezra's activity in the generation before 
 that of Nehemiah, and Ezra's death before Nehemiah's arrival at Jeru- 
 salem. His treatment of their lives seems to be based on the supposition 
 that they were not contemporaries (see Josephus, Antiquities, xi. 5) ; in 
 § I, Ezra appears as a contemporary of Joiakim the High-priest, in § 5 
 his death is mentioned as occurring at the same time as that of Joiakim 
 the High -priest, who was succeeded by Eliashib. It seems fatal to this 
 view that, in order to maintain it, it is necessary to strike out, as later 
 glosses, the mention of Nehemiah's name in viii. 9, x. 22. 
 
23B NEHEMIAH, VIII. [v. i. 
 
 8 And all the people gathered themselves together as one 
 man into the street that was before the water gate; and 
 they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the 
 
 1. into the strcef] R.V. into the broad place. The open space in 
 front of 'the water-gate' is probably the same as that mentioned in 
 Ezra X. 9, ' and all the people sat in the broad place before the house of 
 God.' Cf. Neh. iii. 26, 'the Nethinim dwelt in Ophel, unto the place 
 over against the water-gate toward the east.' It is generally supposed 
 that this broad place lay between the S.E. precincts of the Temple and 
 the Eastern wall. 
 
 the wate?' gate] Cf. iii. 26, xii. 37. 
 
 they spake tinto Ezj-a the scribe\ 'They spake;' the impersonal 
 plural implies that the whole community expressed the wish through 
 their representative leaders. 
 
 Ezra the scf'ibe'] Ezra's name occurs here for the firsV time in our 
 book of Nehemiah. It naturally calls for remark (i) that Ezra's name 
 was not mentioned by Nehemiah among his supporters in the work of 
 rebuilding the walls, (2) that Nehemiah's description of the condition 
 of the people, the oppression of the poor by the rich (ch. iv.) and the 
 intermarriage with the heathen (vi. 18; x. 30; xiii. 23 — 28) seems to 
 conflict with the idea of the authority which Ezra obtained over the 
 people, Ezra ix. x. Two explanations have been put forward, 
 
 {a) It is suggested that Ezra, after accomplishing the lefonns 
 described in Ezr. ix. x., returned to Babylon ; that after an absence of 
 12 years, he revisited Jerusalem in time to witness the completion 
 of the city walls by Nehemiah, and was requested by the people to 
 renew his former practice of expounding the Law in public. 
 
 [b) It is suggested that Ezra had never after his arrival in Jerusalem 
 left the city for any prolonged period ; but that after his protest against 
 mixed marriages, he had failed to carry his religious reformation any 
 further. The enemies of the Jews and their unpatriotic allies in Jeru- 
 salem had frustrated his attempts. The arrival of Nehemiah changed 
 the aspect of affairs. The religious policy of Ezra was once more in 
 the ascendant. The popular enthusiasm excited by the completion of 
 the walls gave the wished for opportunity of publishing the Law to 
 the people. The omission of Ezra's name in Neh. i. — vii. is still a 
 difficulty. But Nehemiah's memoirs, so far as they are excerpted, record 
 only the events and people concerned with the rebuilding of the walls. 
 If Ezra had been present while the work was in progress, we might 
 naturally have expected to find his name among the repairers of the 
 breaches in chap. iii. Perhaps Ezra, being devoted to the study 
 and teaching of the Law, was not reckoned among those most influential 
 for practical purposes. Being also of the high-priest's kindred, he 
 was very probably included among the repairers of the breach identified 
 with the name of Eliashib (iii. i). 
 
 to bring the book of the law, &c.] There is nothing in these words to 
 lead us to suppose ihat Ezra had before been in the habit of reading 
 the Law to the people. The verse does not record an annual custom 
 
vv. 2, 3.] NEHEMIAH, VIII. 239 
 
 law of Moses, which the Lord had commanded to Israel. 
 And Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation 2 
 both of men and women, and all that could hear with under- 
 standing, upon the first day of the seventh month. And 3 
 
 but an exceptional step, cf. ver. 18. The people saw that their 
 national integrity was safeguarded by city walls ; their jealousy for 
 their distinctiveness as ' a peculiar people ' was rekindled. Their re- 
 quest to Ezra marked their adoption of his policy, that of keeping 
 the people of Israel separate from the nations upon the basis of their 
 religious life. His policy was that the religious life of the people should 
 be regulated by the Law as contained in certain recognised writings, and 
 should not be dependent upon the tradition of the Priests. The demand 
 for the production of 'the book of the law' is of twofold interest; (i) it 
 testifies to a general knowledge of the existence of a book the contents 
 of which, so far as they are known, agreed substantially with our 
 Pentateuch ; (2) the voice of popular acknowledgment set the seal of 
 ' Canonicity ' upon the first portion of the Jewish Scriptures^. 
 2. Ez7-a the priest\ cf. Ezr. vii. i, 11. 
 
 the lazv\ i.e. the book of the law. Cf. •z Cor. iii. 14 'the old cove- 
 nant' for 'the book of the old covenant.' The word ' Torah ' is here 
 used in the sense, which afterwards became universal, of the written 
 ' Law.' 
 
 all that cotdd hear ivilh tinderstanding\ lit. ' every one of intelligence 
 to hear and understand,' i.e. all except quite children, cf. x. 28 'all..., 
 their wives and their sons and their daughters, every one that had 
 knowledge and understanding. ' The Vulgate * sapientium ' gives a 
 wrong idea. 
 
 tipon the first day of the seventh month'] In the Priestly Laws the 
 first day of the month Tisri was ' the Feast of Trumpets ' (see Lev. 
 xxiii. 23 — 25 ; Num. xxix. i — 6), a day of 'holy convocation,' cf. v. 9; 
 see Ezra iii. i. 
 
 Were the people assembled to celebrate this festival, or were the 
 people summoned on the first day of the month, because the new-moon 
 days were always regarded as sacred in Palestine? Considering that 
 the people were even uninstructed how to celebrate the Feast of Taber- 
 nacles according to the Law {vv. 13 — 15), it is not likely that they 
 would have been acquainted with the ' feast of trumpets ' before the 
 time of the reading of the Law. It is therefore most probable that the 
 special holiness of the day lay in its being the new-moon day of the 
 month in which occurred not only the change of year according to the 
 autumn era but also the most popular of the Israelite festivals, 'the 
 feast of tabernacles.' The observance of the new-moon seems to have 
 been universal among Oriental nations in ancient times. Among the 
 Israelites, it was at all times strictly maintained, cf. i Sam. xx. 5 ; 
 -2 Kings iv. 23 ; Isai. i. 13, Ixvi. 23 ; Ezek. xxvi. i, xlvi. i ; Hos. ii. 11 ; 
 Am. viii. 5 ; Hag. i. i ; Judith viii. 6; Col. ii. 16. 
 
 * For a more detailed treatment of this subject I may perhaps be permitted to refer 
 the reader to chap. iv. in my 'Canon of the Old Testament' (Macmillan, 1892). 
 
240 NEHEMIAH, VIII. [w. 4, 5. 
 
 he read therein before the street that was beiore the water 
 gate from the morning until midday, before the men and 
 the women, and those that could understand ; and the ears 
 of all the people wejx attentive unto the book of the law. 
 
 4 And Ezra the scribe stood upon a pulpit of wood, which 
 they had made for the purpose; and beside him stood 
 Mattithiah, and Shema, and Anaiah, and Urijah, and 
 Hilkiah, and Maaseiah, on his right hand; and on his left 
 hand, Pedaiah, and Mishael, and Malchiah, and Hashum, 
 
 s and Hashbadana, Zechariah, and Meshullam. And Ezra 
 
 3. befo7'e the streei\ R.V. before the broad place. The ' broad place' 
 was before the water-gate ; Ezra read before the broad place. In each 
 case the preposition seems to mean on the W. side, i.e. in front of 
 looking eastward. The Vulgate 'in platea.' The LXX. omits the 
 reference to the locality in this verse. 
 
 from the 7norning\ R.V. from early morning. Marg. Heb./r^;;^ the 
 light. The process of reading ' from morn till midday ' is explained 
 in the following verses (4 — 8). It was not consecutive reading for 
 seven hours. Ezra had others standing by to relieve him : the reading 
 was also interrupted by exposition. 
 
 befo7'e\ R.V. in the presence of. A different preposition from that 
 used earlier in the verse. 
 
 attentive 7into the book of the lazv] Vulgate ' erectse ad librum.' 
 
 4. a pulpit of wood'\ R.V. marg. Heb. tower. Literally 'upon a 
 tower of wood.' LXX. eVt ^rjjiiaTos ^vXivov, i Esdr. eiri rod ^vXivov 
 ftrifiaros. Vulg. ' super gradum ligneum : ' cf. ' the stairs ' on which the 
 Levites stood in ix. 4. The mention of the erection of a platform or 
 tribune which the Jews had erected ' for the purpose ' shows that the 
 incident was one of exceptional character. This is the first mention of 
 a pulpit or lectern. 
 
 for the p/(7pose] Literally ' for the word,' which not being under- 
 stood was omitted by the I^XX. The Vulg. ' quern fecerat ad loquen- 
 dum ' follows a different vocalization, Vdhahbcr for ladddbhdr. 
 
 UrijaJi] R.V. Uriah : possibly the same as is mentioned in iii. 4. 
 'Hilkiah,' possibly mentioned also xii. 7. 'Pedaiah' possibly men- 
 tioned iii. 25. 'Meshullam' possibly mentioned x. 7. 
 
 Malchiah... Hashbada7td\ R.V. ]yialchijah...Hashbaddanah. 
 
 There is a discrepancy respecting the numbers and position of the 
 individuals here mentioned. The Hebrew text and the LXX. mention 
 six names on the right hand, seven on the left : the parallel passage in 
 I Esdras gives seven on the right hand, inserting an Azariah between 
 Anaiah and Uriah, but six only on the left, omitting the last name 
 Meshullam. If we retain both Azariah and Meshullam we should have 
 seven on either side ; if we reject them both, we should have six on 
 either side. It seems probable that the names are those of Levites. 
 There would be especial appropriateness in the number twelve, sym- 
 bolizing the union of Israel in obedience to the Law. The conjecture 
 
vv. 6, 7-] NEHEMIAH, VIII. 241 
 
 opened the book in the sight of all the people ; (for he was 
 above all the people;) and when he opened //, all the 
 people stood up: and Ezra blessed the Lord, the great 
 God. And all the people answered, Amen, Amen, with 
 lifting up their hands : and they bowed their heads, and 
 worshipped the Lord with their faces to the ground. Also 
 
 of Rawlinson that they ' were probably the chief priests of the course 
 which was at the time performing the Temple service ' is improbable. 
 (i) They were clearly men who could leave the Temple precincts for 
 six or seven hours consecutively. (2) On such an impressive occasion 
 Ezra, if he were attended by priests, would probably have selected 
 either those who represented the principal houses or those who espe- 
 cially supported his religious attitude. (5) Ezra's supporters in this 
 great religious movement seem to have been Laymen and Levites, 
 not Priests. The popularizing of the knowledge of ' the Law ' struck a 
 blow at a priestly monopoly. The thirteen names are in one respect 
 of especial interest. They seem to be the names of individuals and not 
 as in V. 7 and ch. ix. 4, x. 9 the names of houses or clans, which 
 happened to be represented. The reader should take notice that the 
 high-priest's name is not mentioned on this occasion. If as some 
 critics have supposed, Ezra himself had composed the Priestly Laws, 
 and was now promulgating them for the first time, the high-priest, 
 whose position owed so much of its dignity in later days to those laws, 
 would surely have been mentioned as countenancing Ezra's action. If 
 however, as seems more probable, Ezra was for the first time publishing 
 to the people laws which had hitherto been kept in the priests' hands, 
 we have a possible explanation for the absence of the high-priest and 
 his party, who would regard his action as subversive of their authority. 
 
 5. opened] i.e. unrolled, cf. Luke iv. 17. 
 
 above all the people] i.e. raised above them in his pulpit. 
 
 all the people stood up] We need not conclude from these words that 
 they stood during the whole time that the reading went on. Rather 
 'they rose to their feet,' signifying by this gesture their reverence for 
 ' the law ' that was to be read. After Ezra's blessing and the response 
 {v. 6), they probably resumed their seats. 'Standing' was sometimes 
 the posture of prayer denoting humility, cf. 1 Sam. i. 26; i Kings viii. 
 22; Luke xviii. 11, 13. In later times it was the attitude adopted 
 during the reading of ' the Law ' in the service of the Synagogue. 
 
 6. the great God] cf. ix. 32; Ezra v. 8. In Nehemiah's own writing 
 it occurs Neh. i. 5. 
 
 Amen, Amen] The people's response: see note on v. 13; cf. 
 I Chron. xvi. 36. 
 
 with lifting up their hands] See note on Ezra ix. 5. Cf. Ps. 
 cxxxiv. 2, 'Lift up your hands to the sanctuary (Marg. Or, in holiness) 
 and bless ye the Lord.' 2 Mace. xiv. 34. 
 
 worshipped the LoRD with their faces to the ground] The phrase 
 'with the face to the earth,' occurs very generally of reverence without 
 the idea of worship; cf. Gen. xix. i, xlii. 6, xlviii. la; i Sam. xx. 41, 
 
 NEHEMIAH 1 6 
 
24.2 NEHEMIAH, VIII. [v. 
 
 Jeshua, and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, 
 Hodijah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pe- 
 laiah, and the Levites, caused the people to understand the 
 law : and the people stood in their place. So they read in 
 the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, 
 and caused them to understand the reading. 
 
 xxiv. 8; 1 Chron. xxi. 21. But it is also used of worship before 
 God, as in Num. xxii. 31; 2 Chron. vii. 3, xx. 18; and compare the 
 expression 'let us worship and bow down,' Ps. xcv. 6; Job i. 10. After 
 this united act of worship they resumed their attitude of attention i(u. 3). 
 
 7. Also Jeshzia &c.] Of the 13 names here mentioned we findy^//r, 
 i.e. Jeshua, Bani, Sherebiah, Hodiah, mentioned among the Levites in 
 chap. ix. 5, and seve7i, i.e. Jeshua, Bani, Sherebiah, Hodiah, Kelita, 
 Hanan, Pelaiah, among the Levites in chap. x. 9 — 14. Perhaps these 
 ^even were representative of Levitical houses, whose names they bore; 
 if so, the remaining six mentioned here, whose names do not occur 
 again, possibly represented branches of some other Levitical families 
 mentioned under different collective names in chaps, x. and xii. The 
 LXX. here only gives the first three names. 
 
 Hodijah\ R.V. Hodiah. 
 
 and the Levites^ So the LXX. But i Esdr. ol KoRrai, Vulg. 
 'Levitos,' omitting the copula which gives the better rendering. The 
 'copula' if the text is correct, must define the list of names just given in 
 the sense of 'even.' The writer adds that they were Levites. The 
 rendering 'And the Levites' in the sense of 'And all the rest of the 
 Levites' would give a scene of confusion. For the use of the copula = 
 'even,' cf. e^. 13. But very possibly the words have been interpolated. 
 
 caused the people .. .the law] i.e. they expounded what Ezra read. We 
 must suppose that only short passages were read at a time. 
 
 stood iu their place] Literally, ' And the people ivere upon their 
 standing.' LXX. /cat 6 Xaos h ry ardaec avroO. Cf. 2 Chron. xxx. 16, 
 'And they stood in their place,' xxxv. 10. It will be noticed that in 
 this passage the Levites share with the priests the duty of instructing 
 the people out of the Law; and we are led to infer that this was 
 customary from the Chronicler's statements in 2 Chron. xv. 3, xvii. 8, 
 9, xxxv. 3. In the Levitical law we only find the priests entrusted 
 with this duty (Lev. x. 10, 11). 
 
 8. So they read] R.V. And they read. The account does not make 
 it clear, whether the Levites were reading at the same time as Ezra, 
 groups being gathered round the different readers, or whether, as we 
 should rather infer, there was one reader who at the first was Ezra 
 himself, and afterward chosen Levites who in succession took his place 
 and relieved him. 
 
 distinctly] R.V. marg. ' Or, with an interpretation '. On the word see 
 note on Ezra iv. 18. The rendering of the R.V. marg. is sometimes 
 based on the erroneous supposition that the Jews had returned from 
 Babylon speaking Chaldee or Aramaic, and that in consequence the 
 Hebrew of 'the Law' had to be 'interpreted ' in the sense of 'translated.' 
 
V. 9-] NEHEMIAH, VIII. 243 
 
 And Nehemiah, which is the Tirshatha, and Ezra the 9 
 priest the scribe, and the Levites that taught the people, 
 
 This would have been necessary in much later times. But in the time 
 of Nehemiah, if we may judge from the writings of Nehemiah and 
 Malachi, the people's dialect had not yet undergone the change, which 
 may have begun very soon afterwards. The common misapprehen- 
 sion of our verse arises from the erroneous impression that Chaldee was 
 the language of the 'Chaldeans' spoken in Babylon and there acquired 
 by the Jews. But in Babylon and Babylonia the spoken language was 
 'Assyrian,' another branch of the Semitic family. The 'Chaldee' of 
 the Bible is the Aramaic or North Semitic dialect. See Introduction, 
 and cf. note on xiii. 24. 
 
 The word in the original occurs in Num. xv. 34, *it had not 
 been dcclai-ed (i.e. made clear) what should be done unto him.' The 
 rendering 'distinctly' means with clearness and precision, for which 
 careful study was required. Some understand 'with an interpretation' 
 in the sense of 'with exposition;' while the possibility of this explana- 
 tion may be admitted, it is open to the objection that it anticipates the 
 substance of the clause which immediately follows. 
 
 distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand^ R.V, dis- 
 tinctly; and they gave the sense, so that they understood. Marg. as 
 A. V. and caused, &c. The R.V. gives the right idea of the verse, which 
 consists of two clauses, the one describing the clearness of the public 
 reading, the other the parenthetic comment introduced for the sake of 
 explaining the text. 
 
 'gave the sense:' a phrase occurring only here in the O.T. The 
 clause 'so that they understood' is subordinate to, denoting the result 
 of, the previous words 'gave the sense.' 
 
 'so that they understood the reading,' so that they understood what 
 was being read. The word for 'the reading' 'hammiq'ra' here used of 
 the public reading, became in later times a technical Rabbinic word for 
 'Scripture.' 
 
 The ancient versions treat the words as an independent clause, ' And 
 the people understood the reading,' (LXX. /cai avprJKev 6 Xaos iv rrj 
 avayvibaa. Vulg. 'et intellexerunt cum legeretur,') which gives a good 
 sense, but misses the interdependence of the two sentences. It is a 
 mistake to suppose that the R.V. rendering of the two clauses is tauto- 
 logical. The Levites 'gave the sense,' not mechanically, but so that 
 the people grasped its meaning. 
 
 9. Nehemiah, which is the Tirshathd\ R.V. N. which was &c. On 
 the title here used see note on Ezra ii. 63. Nehemiah in his own 
 'Memoirs' speaks of himself as 'Pekhah' (cf. v. 14, 15, 18); and in con- 
 sequence some (e.g. Smend) suggest that the title applied here and in 
 X. 2 to Nehemiah, is a gloss. Others also (see note ow v. i) who refer 
 the events described in this chapter to the year 457, consider Nehemiah's 
 name to be an interpolation. But the occurrence of the title is only 
 evidence that we are no longer dealing with the writings of Nehemiah, 
 who would have styled himself 'Pekhah.' The LXX. omits the 
 title: the Vulg. gives Athersatha. The supposition that Nehemiah 
 
 16 2 
 
244 NEHEMIAH, VIII. [v. lo. 
 
 said unto all the people, This day is holy unto the Lord 
 your God ; mourn not, nor weep. For all the people wept, 
 lo when they heard the words of the law. Then he said unto 
 them, Go your way, eat the fat, and drink the sweet, and 
 send portions unto them for whom nothing is prepared : for 
 this day is holy unto our. Lord : neither be ye sorry ; for 
 
 purposely eschews the honorific title 'Tirshatha,' and prefers a more 
 lowly term 'pekhah' is based on an imaginary distinction between the 
 words. 
 
 This day is holy\ Both as a new-moon day and as the day on which 
 the Law was read. See note on v. 2. It may be doubted whether 
 Ezra could here be referring to ' the Holy Convocation ' prescribed for 
 the ist of Tisri in Lev. xxiii. 24. There is no mention in this context 
 either of the Feast of Trumpets on the ist, or of the Day of Atonement 
 on the 9th of Tisri. 
 
 mourn not, nor weep] The people had broken out into demonstrations 
 of grief. As they listened to the words of the Law, they perceived in 
 how many ways they had violated it. Compare the effect of liearing ' the 
 words of the book of the law' upon Josiah, 2 Kings xxii. 11. It is clear 
 the people generally were ignorant of the requirements of the Law. May 
 we not infer that the priests had kept to themselves the contents of the 
 collections of laws ? 
 
 10. Theji he said] Who issued the command, we are not told. 
 Clearly either Nehemiah or Ezra. Some think Nehemiah because as 
 governor he would be the person to issue authoritative directions. But 
 more probably Ezra is intended; for (i) Ezra's name is most conspicuous 
 throughout this whole episode; cf. vv. 5, 6; {2) the language used is 
 that of the teacher of the Law rather than that of the practical governor. 
 
 eat the fat, and drink the sweet] A proverbial expi-ession, meaning 
 that the occasion was not one of fasting and grief. LXX. (pdyere 
 Xi7rdcr/xara Koi Trt'ere yKvKciafJiaTa. Vulg. 'comedite pinguia et bibite 
 mulsum.' 
 
 send portions &c.] Doubtless with the thought of remembering the 
 poor and needy more especially, as according to the law of Deut. xvi. 14, 
 where the Feast of Tabernacles is described, 'And thou shalt rejoice in 
 thy feast, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy manservant, 
 and the Levite, and the stranger, and the fatherless and the widow that 
 are within thy gates.' But the allusion seems primarily to be to the 
 custom of interchanging 'portions' on festal occasions, e.g. Esth. ix. 19, 
 ' a day of gladness and feasting, and a good day, and of sending portions 
 to one another,' v. 22, 'days of feasting and gladness, and of sending 
 portions one to another and gifts to the poor.' Nabal's churlishness 
 was the violation of an almost sacred rule, i Sam, xxv., cf R. Smith, 
 Relig. of Sefnites. For this custom of open-handed distribution on the 
 occasion of great sacrificial feasts, cf i Sam. ix. 13; 2 Sam. vi. 19; 
 Ezek. xxxix. 17 — 20. 
 
 neither be ye sorry] R.V. grieved. UX.X.. fir) biairiarp-e. Vulg. 'no- 
 lite contristari '. The R.V. gives the same rendering as in v. 11. 
 
vv. II— 13-] NEHEMIAH, VIII. 245 
 
 the joy of the Lord is your strength. So the Levites stilled n 
 all the people, saying, Hold your peace, for the day ts holy; 
 neither be ye grieved. And all the people went their way " 
 to eat, and to drink, and to send portions, and to make 
 great mirth, because they had understood the words that 
 were declared unto them. And on the second day were 13 
 gathered together the chief of the fathers of all the people, 
 
 for the joy of the Lord is your strength'\ R.V. marg. ' Or, stronghold'. 
 This joy of the LORD is not the joy of the Lord over Israel ; but Israel's joy 
 in her Lord. Israel's joy at her great festivals is based on her confidence 
 that the Lord ever protects her. Gladness in Him is in proportion to 
 the faith in the protection which He gives. The English version is 
 that of the Vulgate, 'gaudium etenim Domini est fortitudo nostra.' The 
 LXX. ort earl Kvpio% iax^^ i]/j.(2u omitted to render the somewhat un- 
 usual word for 'joy,' which elsewhere occurs in i Chr. xvi. 27, Ezra 
 vi. 16. The rendering 'stronghold' in the R.V. marg. gives the more 
 common meaning, cf. Ps. xxxvii. 39, 'He is their stronghold in the 
 time of trouble.' He that rejoices in Jehovah has a strong fortress from 
 which he can repel all adversaries. 
 
 11. //oM your peace] This expression has been compared with the 
 Latin 'Favete linguis.' It was ill-omened to make use of words or 
 signs of lamentation on a holy day, cf. Hab. ii. 20, 'The Lord is in his 
 holy temple: let all the earth keep silence before him;' Zeph. i. 7, 
 'Hold thy peace at the presence of the Lord GoD:...for the Lord hath 
 prepared a sacrifice, he hath sanctified his guests ; ' Zech. ii. 13. 
 
 12. send portions] Cf. ver. 10. 
 
 because they had understood the words that were declared unto them] 
 Literally, 'the words which they had declared unto them.' The LXX. 
 eyvupiaev, Vulg. 'docuerat' make it probable that there was a reading 
 'Which he had declared unto them.' What are 'the words' here re- 
 ferred to? Some think that we should understand by them the 
 command of Ezra and the Levites that the people should be joyful 
 (vers. 9 — 11). But this gives a very limited application, and we should 
 then have expected some other verb like 'obeyed ' or 'gave heed to' rather 
 than 'understood.' It will be noticed that the word 'understood' is 
 the same as that used in ver. 8. This supplies the probable interpreta- 
 tion. The people sorrowed (ver. 9) because they had not kept the 
 Law: they' now rejoiced because they were able to understand it. 
 
 13 — 18. The Feast of Tabernacles. 
 
 13. the second day] i.e. of the month Tisri, cf. ver. 2. 
 
 the chief of the fathers] R.V. the heads of the fathers' houses. The 
 leading men of the nation apply to Ezra for further instruction in 'the 
 law.' It will be observed that 'the priests and the Levites' join in 
 this application with the laymen. Are we to suppose that they too 
 were ignorant of the full contents of 'the law'? This is possible, 
 if the contents of 'the law' had hitherto been chiefly known by oral 
 
246 NEHEMIAH, VIIL [v- H- 
 
 the priests, and the Levites, unto Ezra the scribe, even to 
 
 14 understand the words of the law. And they found written 
 
 in the law which the Lord had commanded by Moses, that 
 
 the children of Israel should dwell in booths in the feast of 
 
 tradition or by disconnected writings. If this had been the case and 
 Ezra had made himself master of the complete continuous 'law,' we 
 shall be able to understand the action of 'the priests and Levites.' 
 From the subsequent verses (vers. 14, 15) it appears that Ezra supplied 
 them not so much with profound interpretations of the Law as with 
 statements relative to its contents and positive enactments. 
 
 eve)i to U7idcrstand'\ R.V. even to give attention to. The Hebrew 
 word {rhaskil) denotes intelligent consideration, as in Ps. xli. i, 'Blessed 
 is he that considereth the poor;' ci. 2, ' I will behave myself wisely in 
 a perfect way' (marg. 'give heed unto'); Dan. ix. 13, 'have discern- 
 ment in thy trath.' The copula, rendered 'even,' with the infinitive 
 defines the action of the main verb, as in Isai. xliv. 28, 'shall perform 
 all my pleasure: even saying (lit. and to say) of Jerusalem, She shall be 
 built.' This is better than supposing the infinitive to be used for the 
 finite verb = 'and they gave attention.' 
 
 14. Ajid they found iurittcfi\ The passages in the Pentateuch re- 
 lating to the Feast of Tabernacles are Ex. xxiii. 16; Lev, xxiii. 39 — 43; 
 Num. xxix. 12 — 38; Dt. xvi. 13, 15. The reference here is to Lev. 
 xxiii. and Dt. xvi. For 'found,' cf. xiii. i; Luke iv. 17. 
 
 which the Lord had commanded'\ R.V. how that the LORD had com- 
 manded. The A.V. along with the LXX. {j^ euereiXaTo) understood 
 this first relative clause to be descriptive of 'the law,' as in ix. 14, x. 30; 
 and to this there would be no objection, if it were not followed by a 
 second relative clause. The R.V. is probably right in making the second 
 of the two relative clauses dependent upon the first, and the first depend- 
 ent upon the main verb 'they found' (so also the Hebrew accents and 
 the Vulgate). 
 
 that the children of Israel should dwell in booths in the feast of the 
 sruenth month'\ Of the four passages in the Pentateuch quoted above, 
 which refer to the Feast of Tabernacles, Ex. xxiii. 16 calls it 'the feast 
 of ingathering' and speaks indefinitely of its occurring 'at the end of 
 the year when thou gatherest in thy labours out of the field;' Dt. xvi. 13 
 calls it 'the feast of tabernacles' (Heb. booths) and enjoins its being kept 
 'after that thou hast gathered in from thy threshing-floor and from thy 
 winepress,' but makes no mention of 'dwelling in booths;' Lev. xxiii. 
 speaks of 'the feast of tabernacles' (Heb. booths) being on the 15th day 
 of the 7th month (ver. 34), 'when ye have gathered in the fruits of the 
 land' (ver. 39), calls it 'the feast of the Lord' (ver, 39) and gives the 
 command 'ye shall dwell in booths seven days; all that are homebom 
 in Israel shall dwell in booths' (ver. 42); Num. xxix. 12 enjoins the 
 keeping of 'a feast unto the Lord' on the 15th day of the 7th month, 
 but does not refer to the dwelling in booths. 
 
 The .reference therefore here is to Lev. xxiii. The 'feast of taber- 
 nacles' was emphatically M^ feast of the 7th month: cf. Judg. xxi. 19, 
 
vv. 15, 16.] NEHEMIAH, VIII. 247 
 
 the seventh month : and that they should pubhsh and is 
 proclaim in all their cities, and in Jerusalem, saying. Go 
 forth unto the mount, and fetch olive branches, and pine 
 branches, and myrtle branches, and palm branches, and 
 branches of thick trees, to make booths, as it is written. 
 So the people went forth, and brought them, and made 16 
 themselves booths, every one upon the roof of his house, 
 and in their courts, and in the courts of the house of God, 
 
 21; (? I Sam. i. 7, 21); i Kings viii. 2, 65, (xii. 32, 33); Is xxx. 29; 
 Hos. xii. 9; Zech. xiv. 16; Ezr. iii. 4. In the present passage the 
 literal rendering would be *on the feast in the seventh month.' 
 
 15. a7id that they should publish and proclaim... saying\ In Lev. 
 xxiii. I, 4 the children of Israel are commanded to 'proclaim the set 
 feasts of the Lord.' The actual words of this verse are nowhere to be 
 found in the Pentateuch. But there is no reason on that account to 
 suppose a corruption in the text, and to read as Houbigant, whom 
 Rawlinson follows, 'And when they heard it, they proclaimed &c.,' a 
 text for which only a slight emendation is necessary. The LXX. puts a 
 full stop at 'Jerusalem,' and begins a new sentence, 'And Ezra said, 
 Go forth.' The fact is that the writer only refers in a general way to 
 the substance of the passage in Lev. xxiii. relating to 'the feast of 
 tabernacles.' The mention of 'Jerusalem' is alone sufficient to show 
 the spirit of free adaptation in which the reference to 'the law' is 
 made. Possibly Jerusalem is mentioned as embodying the Deuterono- 
 mic phrase 'the place which the Lord shall choose' in Dt. xvi. 15. 
 
 the momif] i.e. the mountain region or hill country of Judah. Not 
 to be restricted to the Mt of Olives. 
 
 pine branches'X R.V. branclies of wild olive. Cf. Isai. xii. 19, 'the 
 oil tree' (Marg. Or, oleaster). Both the olive (eXala) and the wild olive 
 {dypi4\aios) were conspicuous for their thick foliage; cf. Rom. xi. 17. 
 For 'palms' near Jerusalem cf. Mk. xi. 8, and Jericho 'the city of 
 palms' (Jud. i. 16, iii. 13; 2 Chron. xxviii. 15). 
 
 as it is written'] The reference is evidently to Lev. xxiii. 40, ' And 
 ye shall take you on the first day the fruit of goodly trees, branches 
 of palm trees, and boughs of thick trees, and willows of the brook.' 
 But the quotation only agrees in the general sense. The only words 
 which are found in both passages are 'palm' and 'thick trees' (Ezek. 
 XX. 28). The 'goodly trees' {'ec hadar) possibly include 'the branches 
 of myrtle' {'eley hedas). The myrtle (cf. Isai. Iv. 13; Zech. i. 8, 10, 11) 
 is mentioned with 'the wild olive' in Isai. xii. 19. 
 
 16. 15"^ the people went forth] There were 1 3 days before the feast, 
 in which to make preparations. 
 
 upon the roof of his house] For the use put to the flat roofs of houses 
 in the East cf. Jos. ii. 6; i Sam. ix. 25 (Deut. xxii. 8). 
 
 in their courts] Eastern houses were generally built in the form of a 
 quadrangle. 
 
 in the courts of the house of God] This does not refer only to booths 
 
248 NEHEMIAH, Vlll. [vv. 17, 18. 
 
 and in the street of the water gate, and in the street of the 
 
 17 gate of Ephraim. And all the congregation of them that 
 were come again out of the captivity made booths, and sat 
 under the booths : for since the days of Jeshua the son of 
 Nun unto that day had not the children of Israel done so. 
 
 18 And there was very great gladness. Also day by day, 
 from the first day unto the last day, he read in the book 
 
 erected by priests and Levites ; of. 2 Chron. xxiii. 5. See Ps. xcii. 13, 
 cxvi. 19, cxxxv. 2. A possible allusion to the celebration of this feast 
 'in the courts of the house of God' is to be found in Isai. Ixii. 9. 
 
 tk€ sti'eei'[ R.V. the broad place. In the 'broad places' Jews from 
 the country could erect their booths. 
 
 the zoater gate] See note on ver. 3. 
 
 the gate of Ephraij/i] Cf. xii. 39; 2 Kings xiv. 13; 2 Chron. xxv. 23. 
 The gateway probably took its name from the road passing through it 
 which led to Ephraimite territory. It is not mentioned in eh. iii., but 
 see notes on iii. 6 — 8. 
 
 17. that were come again out of the captivity] Compare for this expres- 
 sion Ezra vi. 21, 'the children of Israel, which were come again out of 
 the captivity' {haggolah). Here the word for 'captivity' is sh'hhi with a 
 possible play on the word for 'that were come again ' {Jiasshdbim). The 
 fullest description is given in the wording of Ezra viii, 35. 
 
 since the days of Jeshua done so] It is quite clear that the writer 
 
 does not mean that the Feast of Tabernacles had never been celebrated 
 * since the days of Jeshua the son of Nun ' ; but that the strict observance 
 had not been carried out during all that long period. The emphasis 
 therefore rests on 'done so.' See notes on Ezra iii. 4, &c., where the 
 celebration of this feast by Zerubbabel and Jeshua is described. We 
 gather from Hos. xii. 9, '1 will yet again make thee to dwell in tents, 
 as in the days of the solemn feast,' that tents had been commonly sub- 
 stituted for booths. The character of this sentence may be illustrated 
 by the very similar description of Josiah's Passover, 2 Kings xxiii. 22, 
 'Surely there was not kept such a passover from the days of the judges 
 that judged Israel, nor in all the days of the kings of Israel, nor of the 
 kings of Judah,' 2 Chron. xxxv. 18. 
 
 'Jeshua.' The only passage in the O.T. where Joshua's name is so 
 spelt; except in the Pentateuch and the book of Joshua, his name is 
 only mentioned in the O.T. in Judges i. i, ii. 6, 7, 8, 21, 23; i Kings 
 xvi. 34. 
 
 gi-eat gladness] This corresponds to the commands in Lev. xxiii. 40, 
 ' And ye shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days.' Deut. 
 xvi. 14, 'Thou shalt rejoice in thy feast;' 15, 'And thou shalt be 
 altogether 'joyful.' 
 
 18. he read] i.e. Ezra. This is the usual explanation, so also LXX. 
 aviyvij}. Vulg. 'legit.' According to another interpretation the 3rd pers. 
 sing, is impersonal = 'and one read,' 'there was reading.' 
 
 in the book of the law of God] The command to read at the Feast of 
 
i8.] NEHEMIAH, VIII. 
 
 249 
 
 of the law of God. And they kept the feast seven days; 
 and on the eighth day was a solemn assembly, according 
 unto the manner. 
 
 Tabernacles only applied to the special usage of the Sabbatic year 
 (Deut. xxxi. 10, 11), and it is clear from the context in that passage that 
 Moses in using the words 'thou shalt read this law' (ver. 11) is speaking 
 especially of the Deuteronomic law which he is described as having 
 written and committed to the priests in ver. 9 and 26. It is a mistake 
 therefore to connect this reading of ' the law ' by Ezra with any special 
 obedience to Deut. xxxi. 10, 11, unless it be assumed that it was the 
 SabbatJc year, and that the law read was the Deuteronomic law. For 
 neither assumption is there any sufficient warrant. The fact that the 
 reading went on for seven days makes it probable that the whole, or at 
 any rate by far the greater portion, of the Torah was read. 
 
 the eighth day\ This eighth day was not originally part of the feast, 
 but an extra day commanded by the Priestly Law to be observed as 'an 
 holy convocation' (Lev. xxiii. 36, 39). Its celebration closed, as it 
 were, the festival calendar of the Jewish sacred year. We do not hear 
 of its observance in early times. As we might expect, it is not men- 
 tioned in the brief festival notice of Ex. xxiii. 16. In Deut. xvi. 13 — 17 
 it is not spoken of, it is only said 'Seven days shalt thou keep a feast.' 
 In I Kings viii. 65, 66, we are told that after the Feast of Tabernacles 
 Solomon sent the people away on the 8th day. In the Priestly Law, 
 however, the observance of this 8th day is insisted upon as 'a holy con- 
 vocation,' 'a solemn assembly,' on which 'no servile work' is to be done, 
 'the eighth day shall be a solemn rest' (Lev. xxiii. 36, 39). It is 
 interesting, therefore, to take notice that in 2 Chron. vii. 8, 9 the ob- 
 servance of this 8th day is recorded, although not mentioned in the 
 parallel passage, i Kings viii. 65, ()6. The Chronicler recounts the 
 celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles in accordance with his know- 
 ledge of the Priestly Law. Our passage agrees with the later obser- 
 vance and with the Priestly Law. The complete disappearance of the 
 originally distinct character of ' the eighth day ' is shown in 2 Mace. 
 X. 6 'eight days. ..as in the feast of tabernacles.' 
 
 a solemn assembly ( Heb. a restrain assef/ibly)'] R. V. Marg. ' Or, closing 
 festival'. LXX. e^o'Stoj'. Vulg. 'collectam.' The Hebrew word /f^rtvl 
 is used technically here and in Lev. xxiii. 36; Num. xxix. 35; 2 Chron. 
 vii. 9, for the day after the Feast of Tabernacles, and in Deut. xvi. 8, 
 for the 7th and last day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. With an 
 original sense of 'shutting,' 'packing together,' it is used of 'public 
 gatherings' (Jer. ix. 2), and sacred festivals (2 Kings x. 20; Is. i. 13; 
 Joel i. 14 ; Am. v. 21), and, in post-Biblical Hebrew, especially of the 
 Feast of Weeks. 
 
 the manner'X R.V. the ordinance. According to the ordinance 
 [fnishpdt. LXX. Kplfia. Vulg. 'ritum') of the Priestly Law (Lev. 
 xxiii. 36). The emphasis of this appeal to authority is perhaps to be 
 explained by the fact that in early times the 8th day had not been 
 observed. 
 
250 NEHEMIAH, IX. [vv. i, 2. 
 
 9 Now in the twenty and fourth day of this month the 
 children of Israel were assembled with fasting, and with 
 
 2 sackclothes, and earth upon them. And the seed of Israel 
 separated themselves from all strangers, and stood and con- 
 
 Chs. IX. X. The Solemn Covenant. 
 IX. After the celebration of the 'solemn assembly' on the 22nd of 
 the month Tisri one day's interval is allowed, and on the 24th a special 
 religious function is performed by the whole people, consisting (i) of a 
 humble confession of national sin, (2) of a national covenant to obey the 
 Law. Thus Ezra and Nehemiah availed themselves of the revival of 
 religious enthusiasm to bind the people by a public declaration. 
 
 1 — 5 a. The Day of National Humiliation, and its religious 
 
 SERVICES. 
 
 It must be admitted that, if the Great Day of Atonement were observed 
 at this time, it is strange that its occurrence in this month was not made 
 use of for the solemn service of confession. Perhaps this was one of the 
 commands of ' the law,' of which the stricter observance as of the Feast 
 of Tabernacles (viii. 17), was now first publicly made known to the people. 
 
 1. in the twenty and fourth day of this month'\ i.e. on the second 
 day after the 8th day of the Feast of Tabernacles. 
 
 fasting] Cf. Ezra viii. 21, x. 6. 
 
 sackclothes] R.V. sackclotli. The symbol of sorrow, often of the 
 sorrow of penitence, as in Dan. ix. 3; Jon. iii. 5, 8; i Chron. xxi. 16. 
 
 earth upon them] For the sign of mourning, earth or dust upon the 
 head, cf. i Sam. iv. 12 ; 2 Sam. i. 2, xv. 32; Job ii. 12. 
 
 2. the seed of Israel] A more formal and poetical expression than 
 'the children of Israel.' It does not occur again in these books; but 
 we find it in 2 Kings xvii. 20; i Chron. xvi. 13; Ps. xxii. 23, and in Is. 
 Jer. The phrase to be compared with it is 'the holy seed' in Ezra ix. 2 
 (Esth. x. 3). 
 
 separated themselves] See on x. 28; Ezra ix. 2, 3. No stranger 
 was to take part in this national act of humiliation and confession. The 
 'strangers,' i.e. the heathen who had not joined themselves to the 'holy 
 seed,' and yet resided in Jerusalem, were not permitted to take part in 
 the ceremony about to be described. Some commentators regard the 
 words as describing in anticipation the result of the action taken by the 
 Israelites on this day, as if by their penitence and confession they finally 
 severed themselves from 'the strangers.' But from the position of the 
 verse it is more natural to understand it of a solemn act of separation 
 preliminary to the ratification of the Covenant. 
 
 from all strangers] 'b'ney nikar,' i.e. 'children of the foreigner,' LXX. 
 airb iravTos vlov dWorpiov. Vulg. 'ab omni filio alienigena,' as in Ps. xviii. 
 45, cxliv. 7, II ; Isai. Ix. 10, Ixi. 5, Ixii. 8; Ez. xliv. 7. 
 
 confessed their sins] So in chap. i. 6 ; and compare a possibly parallel 
 instance of national 'confession,' 2 Chron. xxx. 22, where however there 
 is some doubt whether 'confession' or 'thanksgiving' is intended: cf 
 Ezra x. II. 
 
vv. 3, 4.] NEHEMIAH, IX. 251 
 
 fessed their sins, and the iniquities of their fathers. And 3 
 they stood up in their place, and read in the book of the 
 law of the Lord their God one fourth part of the day ; and 
 another fourth part they confessed, and worshipped the 
 Lord their God. Then stood up upon the stairs of the 4 
 Levites, Jeshua, and Bani, Kadmiel, Shebaniah, Bunni, 
 
 sinSi and the iniquities] ' Sin ' (JiattdtJi) denoting ' failure ' generally from 
 the right way; 'iniquity' {'avon), carrying also the sense of 'guilt,' but 
 denoting especially 'crookedness' and ' perverseness ' (2 Sam. vii. 14). 
 Both words occur with the verb 'confess ;' 'sins,' Lev. v. 5; Num. v. 7 ; 
 Dan. ix. 20; 'iniquities,' Lev. xvi. 21, xxvi. 40. 
 
 3. stood up\ Literally, 'arose.' 
 
 in their place\ cf. viii. 7. The people appear to have continued 
 standing where they were for six hours, listening for three hours and 
 worshipping three hours. 
 
 and read] the people read. By this we should understand that the 
 people's religious representatives, the Levites, read while the people 
 listened. For 'the book of the law,' cf viii. 3. 
 
 onQ fourth part] R.V. a fourtli part, i.e. a quarter of the day as 
 opposed to the night; i.e. 3 hours. The time of day is not told us. 
 We may conjecture 9.0 A.M. — 12.0, and 12.0 — 3.0 p.m. to have been 
 the two quarters. 
 
 the Lord their God] Characteristic of this section, cf. vers. 4, 5, 7, 
 X. 29, 34. 
 
 4. tipon the stairs (Marg. Or, scaffold) of the Levites] R.V. upon the 
 stairs of the Levites. According to a common but inaccurate punctua- 
 tion of the A. v., of the Levites is applied to the list of names which 
 follows. It refers to the pulpit or stage erected for the Levites, that 
 they might read the Law and conduct the service standing in view of the 
 people. Cf. viii. 4. For the word rendered 'stairs' (LXX. ava^aais. 
 Vulg. 'gradus') compare xii. 37. It more generally appears as 'ascent,' 
 e.g. Jos. X. 10; 2 Sam. xv. 30; Isai. xv. 5. 
 
 Jeshua, &c.] See note on viii. 7; cf x. 9. 
 
 Kadfuiel] cf. x. 9. 
 
 Ba7ii...Bzinni...Ban{] The repetition of Bani's name is probably 
 due to an error of copyists. The Syriac version for the second 'Bani' 
 reads 'Binnui'; but as in x. 9, xii. 8, Binnui's name comes, as here, 
 between those of Jeshua and Kadmiel, we should here substitute Binnui 
 for the first Bani. The LXX. renders all three names as if the Hebrew 
 in each case had been ' B'ney ' = 'sons of,' reducing the number of proper 
 names in the verse to five {'Irjcrovs /cat ol viol Kad/xirjX, "Lex^via vlos 2apa- 
 /Sta, viol Xwj/ej/t). For 'Bunni,' cf x. 15; for 'Shebaniah,' ' Sherebiah,' 
 cf. X. 12. The names probably represent the chief Levitical houses and 
 not individuals; cf. the mention of Jeshua, Binnui, and Kadmiel in 
 Ezra ii. 40, iii. 9, and of Sherebiah in Ezra viii. 18. But whether the 
 whole house is in each case intended, or a single representative of each 
 house mentioned, we are not told. 
 
252 NEHEMIAH, IX. [v. 5. 
 
 Sherebiah, Bani, tvul Ciienaiii, and cried with a loud voice 
 5 unto the Lord their God. Then the Levites, Jeshua and 
 Kadmiel, Bani, Hashabniah, Sherebiah, Hodijah, Shebaniah, 
 a7id Pethahiah, said, 
 
 Stand up and bless the Lord your God for ever and 
 
 cried zuith a loud voice] If the names represent houses or families, 
 we can picture to ourselves the platform crowded with the members of 
 eight Levite houses, who burst forth into some well-known Psalm of 
 adoration to the God of Israel. If they are names of individual repre- 
 sentatives, we must suppose them to have been deputed to recite or 
 chant a specially prepared form of prayer, in order to direct the worship 
 of the people. 
 
 5. T/ieii] As in ver. 4, the 'copula'; no very exact sequence of 
 time is implied. 
 
 Hashabniah . . . Hodijah] R. V. Hashabneiah. . .Hodiah. The Levitical 
 names of the previous verse appear here with some variations. Bunni, 
 the second Bani, Chenani disappear; and the names of Hashabneiah, 
 Hodiah, Pethahiah are introduced afresh. The remaining five names 
 are the same in both lists ; and this adds to the difficulty in accounting 
 for the variation, for there seems to be no reason for a partial change of 
 personnel at this juncture. Very possibly the Hebrew text is in fault. 
 
 The LXX. gives only two names, Jeshua and Kadmiel, but its ten- 
 dency to shorten lists of names (cf. viii. 7) diminishes the value of its 
 testimony in the present instance. 
 
 The best way of accounting for the variation is to suppose that the 
 compiler turns at this point to a different source of information, in 
 which there was a slight disagreement in the list of names. The com- 
 piler transcribes : he neither corrects nor explains ; and the variation is 
 evidence both of his candour and of the general honesty of subsequent 
 copyists. 
 
 Stand up] It may be questioned whether these words should be un- 
 derstood literally. Some commentators suppose that the Levites enjoin 
 the people to exchange the kneeling position of prayer for the standing 
 posture of praise. In ver. 1 we are told the people 'stood and confessed 
 their sins,' and in ver. 3 they 'confessed and worshipped the Lord.' 
 Now 'worshipping' is not necessarily 'kneeling.' Prayer and confession 
 are quite consistent with a 'standing position,' cf. viii. 5 and note. 
 
 If not taken literally, it must be understood in its common meta- 
 phorical sense 'arise,' 'up!' prefacing an appeal to the laity to join in 
 praise with the Levites. 
 
 for ever and ever] R.V. from everlasting to everlasting. Cf. Ps. 
 xli. 13, 'Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel, from everlasting and to 
 everlasting,' xc. 2, 'even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God,' 
 ciii. 17. The words are connected more appropriately with 'the Lord 
 your God' than with the verb 'bless.' This ascription to the Eternal 
 Jehovah is possibly taken from a familiar doxology in Jewish worship 
 (cf. Ps. xli. 13). 
 
vv. 6, 7.] NEHEMIAH, IX. 253 
 
 ever : and blessed be thy glorious name, which zs exalted 
 above all blessing and praise. Thou, even thou, ar^ Lord 6 
 alone ; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with 
 all their host, the earth, and all ^/imgs that are therein, the 
 seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all ; 
 and the host of heaven worshippeth thee. Thou art the 7 
 
 blessed be\ R.V. marg. 'Or, let them bless \ The rendering 'let them 
 bless' is more literal. The third Pers. Plur. will refer either to the 
 Israelites or, by a more comprehensive thought, to the dwellers of the 
 earth. But the change of person is abrupt and not without, awkward- 
 ness. It is perhaps due to a quotation from a Doxology; compare a 
 somewhat similar clause introduced in Ps. cvi. 48. 
 
 The LXX. rendering introduces the words 'and Ezra said' as a 
 prefix to this clause, as if the whole of the ensuing address were his 
 utterance. No other evidence, however, supports this reading ; but it 
 seems to preserve a very probable tradition based on the similarity of 
 this confession to that of Ezra in Ezr. ix. 
 
 thy glorious naine\ Literally, ' the name of thy glory ' {kdbod) as in 
 Ps. Ixxii. 19, 'blessed be his glorious name for ever.' The expression 
 differs very slightly from that in i Chron. xxix. 13, 'Now therefore, 
 our God, we thank thee, and praise thy glorious name ' (lit. the name 
 of thy glory ' tiphereth '). The Name is the Being of God made known 
 to man ; the glory {kdbod) of it is its manifestation (Ex. xxxiii. 18, 22), 
 of which splendour {tiphereth) is an accompaniment. 
 
 exalted above all blessing and praise^ i.e. man can add nothing 
 thereto by the highest blessings or by the noblest praises. He dwelleth 
 in the 'light unapproachable,' cf. i Tim. vi. 16. The Hebrew has 'and 
 (or, even) exalted : ' the LXX. /cat v\pu}aovaiu i-rrl: Vulg. ' excelso in.' 
 
 6. Thou, even thou, art Lord alone] R.V. Thou art the LORD, 
 even thou alone. The confession opens with a declaration of the unity 
 of the God of Israel. Jehovah alone is : He alone made the worlds 
 and led Israel. Cf. Ps. Ixxxiii. 18, 'That they may know that thou 
 alone, whose name is Jehovah (marg. thou whose name alone is 
 Jehovah) art the Most High above all the earth,' Isai. xliv. 6. 
 
 f?iade] 'fecisti' not 'creasti,' 'asah' not *bara;' no reference to 
 Gen. i. i, ii. i. 
 
 heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host] For ' the heaven ' 
 and 'the heaven of heavens,' cf. Deut. x. 14; i Kings viii. 27 ; 2 Chr. 
 ii. 6, vi. 18 ; Ps. cxlviii. 4. It denotes 'the heavens ' in their plenitude, 
 the clouds, and the wonders of the sky, the stars and the whole sidereal 
 world. 
 
 therein] R.V. thereon. 
 
 therein] R.V. in them, giving emphasis to the use of the plural. 
 
 preservest] literally, ' givest life to,' ' quickenest ; ' LXX. fwoTrotets. 
 Vulg. 'vivificas,' an allusion to the continuity of Divine operation in 
 relation to the Universe. Cf. Job xxxiii. 4 ; John v. 17. 
 
 the host of heaven] Does this refer to the stars and the powers of the 
 sky, or to the angelic beings? The words, being separated from the 
 
254 NEHEMIAH, IX. [v. 8. 
 
 Lord the God, who didst choose Abram, and broughtest 
 him forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and gavest him the 
 name of Abraham ; and foundest his heart faithful before 
 
 phrase, ' all their host ' and following upon the mention of the seas and 
 the earth, most probably mean the created spirits, a distinct group of 
 created things, i Kings xxii. 19; Ps. ciii. 21. 
 
 7, 8. The Patriarch Abraham ; the choice, the call, the 
 name, and the character of the man, and the covenant 
 made with him. 
 
 T/ioti art ^/le Lord the God\ R. V. marg. ' Or, Lord ', i.e. Thou, 
 O Jahveh (Jehovah), art the God, as in i Kings xviii. 37. 
 
 didst choose Abra??i\ The Divine 'choice' is only mentioned here in 
 reference to the calling of Abraham. The selection of the 'chosen 
 people ' was the free act of God's love. This thought lay at the root of 
 the covenant relation between Him and Israel; cf. Deut. iv. 37, 'and 
 because he loved thy fathers, therefore he chose their seed after them,' 
 vii. 7, ix. 4 — 6. 
 
 and broughtest him forth out of Ur of the Chaldees] Ur of the 
 Chaldees is only mentioned here and Gen. xi. 28, 31, xv. 7, and from 
 these passages the present allusion is almost certainly drawn. Accord- 
 ing to some scholars, ' Ur of the Chaldees' is to be found in S. 
 Babylonia, on the right bank of the Euphrates, and to be identified 
 either with Warka ( = Erech, Gen. x. 10) or Mugheir=Uru, one of 
 the oldest Babylonian cities. According to others, it was situate in 
 Northern Assyria, with which would agree the descent of Terah from 
 Aram (Gen. x. 23) and the home of Abraham's kinsfolk being Padan- 
 Aram (Gen. xxv. 20). The latter view is perhaps most favoured 
 by Israelite tradition, cf. Deut. xxvi. 5 ; Isai. xli. 9. It was Terah 
 who moved from Ur of the Chaldees to Haran; but Jewish tradition 
 always regarded this as the expression of a Divine call to Abraham. 
 Compare Acts vii. 4 with Gen. xi. 31. The Vulgate 'de igne Chal- 
 daeorum ' treats ' Ur ' as if it were the Hebrew word (spelt with the 
 same consonants) meaning 'light.' 
 
 the na?7ie of Abraham] The change of the patriarch's name from 
 Abram to Abraham is recorded in Gen. xvii. 5, to which the reference 
 is probably made. That Abram means ' lofty father ' and Abraham 
 'the father of a multitude' is probably only an instance of popular 
 Israelite etymology. 'Abu-ra-mu' is found as the proper name of a 
 man in Assyrian inscriptions; and the change from the shorter to 
 the longer form, is perhaps a return to an older and more venerated 
 form of the name. The precise meaning of the name is of slight 
 moment. The important point to notice is, that the change of name 
 corresponds with the institution of the covenant sign of circumcision. 
 The change of the name was a pledge of the new relation, into 
 which Abraham and his seed passed ; cf. ' Jacob ' and ' Israel ' (Gen. 
 XXXV. 10). 
 
 8. his heart faithful] The word ' faitlifid ' is of the same root as 
 
vv. 9, lo.] NEHEMIAH, IX. 255 
 
 thee, and madest a covenant with him to give the land of 
 the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, and the Perizzites, 
 and the Jebusites, and the Girgashites, to give //, I say, to 
 his seed, and hast performed thy words ; for thou art 
 righteous : and didst see the affliction of our fathers in 9 
 Egypt, and heardest their cry by the Red sea; and shewedst 10 
 signs and wonders upon Pharaoh, and on all his servants, 
 and on all the people of his land : for thou knewest that 
 
 that rendered ' believed' in Gen. xv. 6, * And he believed in the Lord ; 
 and he counted it to him for righteousness ; ' and the phrase here used 
 is derived from that passage, since the same chapter in Genesis also 
 contains a list of the peoples of the land {vv. 19 — 2\), that were to be 
 dispossessed by the seed of Abraham according to the Covenant. For 
 the use of this adjective applied to Abraham, cf. Gal. iii. 9, 'they which 
 be of faith are blessed with the faithful Abraham.' 
 
 the land of the Canaanites'\ R.V. the land of the Canaanite,,.. 
 Hittite, &c. The six nations here referred to, are all Palestinian. 
 From the list in Gen. xv. 18 — 21, there are here omitted 'the Kenite, 
 the Kenizzite, the Kadmonite, and the Rephaim.' Perhaps only those 
 nations are recorded of which the names were still in use. 
 
 to give it, I say, to his seed] R.V. even to give it unto his seed. 
 
 hast performed thy words'] Cf. Jos. xxiii. 14, 'Not one thing hath 
 failed of all the good things, which the Lord your God spake con- 
 cerning you ; all are come to pass unto you, not one thing hath failed 
 thereof.' 
 
 for thou art righteous] The same epithet in the Hebrew is used in 
 ver. 33, ' thou art just,' where the Divinely ordered discipline of the 
 Exile is alluded to. The root idea of ' righteousness ' is ' straight- 
 ness,' that which will not swerve from truth and justice. Jehovah is 
 called 'righteous,' because His rule of the world and of His people 
 Israel is in agreement with the most perfect imaginable standard of 
 justice and truth. Cf. Deut. xxxii. 4; Ps. Ixxxv. 13, cxlv. 17; Zeph. 
 iii. 5- 
 
 9—11. The Deliverance from Egypt. 
 
 9. didst see] R.V. thou sawest. The words are probably based on 
 Ex. iii. 7, 'And the Lord said, I have surely seen the affliction of 
 my people.' 
 
 heardest their cry by the Red sea] Cf. Ex. xiv. 10, 'And, behold, the 
 Egyptians marched after them... and the children of Israel cried out 
 unto the LORD.' 15, 'And the Lord said unto Moses, Wherefore criest 
 thou unto me.' In both cases the verb 'cry' is the same root as the 
 substantive here used. 
 
 10. and shewedst signs and wonders, &c.] This epitome of the 
 history of the Plagues shows acquaintance with Deut. vi. 22, 'And the 
 Lord shewed signs and wonders, great and sore, upon Egypt, upon 
 Pharaoh, and upon all his house.' Cf. Ps. cv. 27, cvi. 7, cxxxv. 9. 
 
256 NEHEMIAH, IX. [w. ii— 13. 
 
 they dealt proudly against them. So didst thou get thee a 
 
 11 name, as // is this day. And thou didst divide the sea 
 before them, so that they went through the midst of the sea 
 on the dry la?id ; and their persecutors thou threwest into 
 
 12 the deeps, as a stone into the mighty waters. Moreover 
 thou leddest them in the day by a cloudy pillar ; and in the 
 night by a pillar of fire, to give them light in the way 
 
 13 wherein they should go. Thou camest down also upon 
 mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and 
 gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes 
 
 dealt proudly'] Perhaps an echo of the use of the same verb in 
 Ex. xviii. II, 'yea, in the thing wherein they dealt proudly against 
 them.' 
 
 So didst thou get, &c.] R.V. and didst get. Not a recapitulation, 
 but the continuance of the description. The Divine visitation upon 
 Egypt is referred to in similar language, Ex. ix. 16, ' And that my 
 name may be declared throughout all the earth;' xiv. 17, 18. 
 
 The words of our verse are best illustrated by Isai. Ixiii. 12, 'that 
 divided the water before them, to make himself an everlasting name.' 
 14, 'so didst thou lead thy people, to make thyself a glorious name.' 
 
 as it is this day] The vivid impression of the deliverance from 
 Egypt is indestructible. The recollection of the nation's sin is re- 
 ferred to in the same way, Ezr. ix. 7. 
 
 11. divide... the d}y land] The description is based on Ex, xiv. 21, 
 22, XV. 19. The verbal correspondence is striking. 
 
 thei7- persecutors thou threivcst into the deeps'] R.V. their pursuers 
 thou didst cast into the depths. The poetical language of the latter 
 part of the verse is drawn from Ex. xv. 4, 5, 'Pharaoh's chariots and 
 his host hath he cast into the sea;... they went down into the depths 
 like a stone.' 
 
 as a stone into the mighty waters] Cf. Ex. xv. 5, 'like a stone.' 
 10, 'as lead in the mighty waters.' For the last wonls cf. Isai. xliii. 
 16, ' a path in the mighty waters.' 
 
 12 — 21. The Wilderness. 
 
 12. in the day by a cloudy pillar] R.V. in a pillar of cloud by day. 
 in the night by a pillar of fire] R.V. in a pillar of fire toy night. 
 
 See for these words Ex. xiii. 21, 22; Num. xiv. 14. And compare the 
 poetical description in very similar words of Ps. Ixxviii. 14, cv. 39. 
 
 13. The Sinaitic Legislation. 
 
 13. mount Sinai] It will be observed that Sinai, not Horeb, is refer- 
 red to. The reference is taken from Ex. xix. 18, 'And mount Sinai... the 
 Lord descended upon it.... 19. Moses spake, and God answered him 
 by a voice.' Deut. iv. 36, 'Out of heaven he made thee to hear his 
 voice.' For other references to Sinai cf. Deut. xxxiii. 2; Judg. v. 5. 
 
 judgments] R.V. judgements. For 'judgements,' 'laws,' 'statutes,' 
 
vv. 14—16.] NEHEMIAH, IX. 257 
 
 and commandments : and madest known unto them thy h 
 holy sabbath, and commandedst them precepts, statutes, 
 and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant: and gavest 15 
 them bread from heaven for their hunger, and broughtest 
 forth water for them out of the rock for their thirst, and 
 promisedst them that they should go in to possess the land 
 which thou hadst sworn to give them. But they and our 16 
 
 'commandments,' cf. Deut. iv. 44, 45, xi. i, xii. r, and Ps. cxix. 
 
 passim. 'Right judgements' or 'equitable decisions' {KpLfxara evBia, 
 'judicia recta') opposed to the perversions of justice by partiality or 
 bribery; 'true laws' or 'teachings of truth' (Plur. not as Vulg. 'legem 
 veritatis'), to erroneous teachings. 'Good statutes and command- 
 ments' relate, the one to positive enactments upon religious matters, the 
 other to legislation generally. 
 
 14. and madest known... sabbath'] Cf. Ezek. xx. 12. Apparently 
 referring to the fourth Commandment (Ex. xx. 8 — 11. Cf. xxxi. 16). 
 But it is to be noticed that the observance of the Sabbath is prescribed 
 if not presupposed at the giving of the Manna (Ex. xvi. 23 — 30) before 
 the arrival at Sinai. The stricter observance of the Sabbath of Jehovah 
 {thy sabbath) was a special feature of religious purity, required by the 
 teaching of Ezra and the Scribes, cf. Neh. xiii. 15 (Isai. Ivi. 2, Iviii. 13). 
 An observance of the Sabbath was perhaps common among Semitic 
 races. It was certainly kept in Assyria. The command to keep the 
 Sabbath holy set the stamp of Divine approval upon the native custom. 
 
 precepts, statutes, and /azvs] R.V. commandments, and statutes, 
 and a, law. 'A law,' i.e. religious instruction as distinguished from 
 positive rules. 
 
 Moses thy servant] Cf. i. 7. 
 
 15. bread frofn heaven] See Ex. xvi. 4, *I will rain bread from 
 heaven for you.' Cf. Ps. Ixxviii. 24, 'and gave them of the corn of 
 heaven.' Ps. cv. 40, 'and satisfied them with the bread of heaven.' 
 
 -ivaterfor them out of the rock] Cf. Ex, xvii. 6. But a closer resem- 
 blance is afforded by Num. xx. 8, 'And thou shalt bring forth to them 
 water out of the rock.' See Ps. cv. 41, 'He opened the rock, and waters 
 gushed out.' 
 
 promisedst] R.V. commandedst. Heb. 'didst say.' Cf. ver. 24. 
 
 sworn] R.V. lifted up thine hand. Cf. Num. xiv. 30, 'the land, 
 concerning which I lifted up my hand that I would make you dwell 
 therein.' 
 
 16. But they and our fathers] The 'and' here seems not to be 
 necessary. It is found, however, in all the MSS., and is represented in 
 all the Versions, and must clearly be retained in the text. As the 
 following verses 17 — 22 continue to refer to the Mosaic generation, no 
 distinction of meaning can be drawn between 'they' and 'our fathers.' 
 It seems best therefore to regard the 'and' as an instance of the 
 explanatory or exegetical copula. 'They and ( = that is to say) our 
 fathers.' Cf. ver. 22. 
 
 NEH EMI AH 
 
 17 
 
258 NEHEMIAH, IX. [vv. 17—19. 
 
 fathers dealt proudly, and hardened their necks, and heark- 
 
 17 ened not to thy commandments, and refused to obey, 
 neither were mindful of thy wonders that thou didst among 
 them ; but hardened their necks, and in their rebellion 
 appointed a captain to return to their bondage : but thou 
 art a God ready to pardon, gracious and merciful, slow to 
 anger, and of great kindness, and forsookest them not. 
 
 18 Yea, when they had made them a molten calf, and said, 
 This is thy God that brought thee up out of Egypt, and 
 
 19 had wrought great provocations ; yet thou in thy manifold 
 mercies forsookest them not in the wilderness : the pillar of 
 
 dealt pTOudly] Cf. ver. 10. In this verse and in ver. 29 the word is 
 used with reference to the children of Israel, as in Deut. i. 43, 'ye 
 rebelled... and were prestwiptuotis.' xvii. 13, 'all the people shall hear, 
 and fear, and do no more pi-estimptzwusly.'' 
 
 hardened their necks] R.V. neck. Cf. ver. 17 and 29. For the 
 phrase 'a stiff-necked people' cf. Ex. xxxii. 9, xxxiii. 3, xxxiv. 9; Deut. 
 ix. 6, 13. 'To stiffen' or 'harden the neck' is found in Deut. x. 16, 
 'Be no more stiff-necked,' 2 Kings xvii, 14, 'they would not hear, but 
 hardened their neck, like to the neck of their fathers.' Cf. Job ix. 4. 
 
 17. in their rebellion appointed a captain, &c.] Based on Num. xiv. 4, 
 and perhaps representing a tradition that the words ' And they said one 
 to another. Let us make a captain, and let us return into Egypt ' were 
 partially carried into effect. 
 
 The R.V, marg. runs, 'The Sept. has, And appointed a captain to 
 return to their bondage in Egypt.'' See Num. xiv. 4. The Sept. [ev 
 AiyvTTTip) read b'mizraim for b'miryam. Another proposed rendering 
 instead of 'appointed a captain' is 'turned their attention,' or ' directed 
 their thoughts, ' literally ' set their head. ' 
 
 a God ready to pardon] R.V. marg. ' Heb. a God of forgivenesses '. 
 The word for ' forgivenesses ' is found only in Dan. ix. 9 ; Ps. cxxx. 4. 
 
 merciful] R.V. full of compassion. 
 
 and of great kindness] R.V. plenteous in mercy. 
 
 For these descriptive epithets of Divine mercy cf. z^. 31 ; Ex. xxxiii. 
 19, xxxiv. 6, 7 ; Ps. Ixxxvi. 15, ciii. 8, cxi. 4, cxlv. 8 ; 2 Chron. xxx. 9; 
 Joel ii. 13 ; Jon. iv. 2 ; Nah. i. 3. 
 
 forsookest them not] Cf. ver. 31 ; Ezr. ix. 9. 
 
 18—20. The Golden Calf and God's Mercy. 
 
 18. molten calf ...Egypt.] The language is based on Ex. xxxii. 4, 
 * ...made it a molten calf, and they said, These be thy gods (marg. This 
 is thy god), O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land oi Egypt.' 
 
 wrought great provocations] Cf. ver. 26. The same word is rendered 
 'blasphemies' in Ezek. xxxv. 12. 
 
 19. the pillar of the cloud] R.V. the pillar of cloud. In the original 
 the construction is ' As for the pillar of cloud, it departed not, &c.' 
 
w. 20— 22.] NEHEMIAH, IX. 259 
 
 the cloud departed not from them by day, to lead them in 
 the way ; neither the pillar of fire by night, to shew them 
 light, and the way wherein they should go. Thou gavest 20 
 also thy good spirit to instruct them, and withheldest not 
 thy manna from their mouth, and gavest them water for 
 their thirst. Yea, forty years didst thou sustain them in the 21 
 wilderness, so that they lacked nothing ; their clothes waxed 
 not old, and their feet swelled not. Moreover thou gavest 22 
 them kingdoms and nations, and didst divide them into 
 
 from them'\ R.V. from over them. More literally. 
 
 and the tuay'] The LXX. and Vulg. omit the 'and,' as if the clause 
 stood in apposition to the one preceding ; even retaining the copula, 
 that is a possible explanation of the words. 
 
 According to the Eng. translation 'and the way' is an accusative, 
 having a verb to govern it, supplied by Zeugma from the clause 'to 
 shew them light.' 
 
 20. thy good spirit'] Referring possibly to Num. xi. 17 'And I will 
 take of the spirit which is upon thee and will put it upon them,' 23 — 29, 
 but mainly to the general Divine teaching of the people, cf Isai. Ixiii. 
 II, ' Where is he that brought them out of the sea with the shepherds 
 of his flock? Where is he that put his holy spirit in the midst of them?' 
 For the expression 'thy good spirit' cf Ps. cxliii. 10, Marg. ' Let thy 
 good spirit lead me, ' 
 
 to instruct] i.e. to make them understand. For the use of the verb 
 'sakal,' see note on viii. 12 ; cf Ps. xxxii. 8, ' I will instruct thee and 
 lead thee in the way which thou shalt go.' 
 
 thy manna] The reference here seems to be to Num. xi. 6 — 9 ; that 
 in ver. 15 had been to Ex. xvi. 14 — 36. 
 
 Similarly 'water for their thirst' refers to the second miraculous gift 
 of water described in Num. xx. 2 — 8 (not to Ex. xvii. 3 — 6). 
 
 21. The Forty Years in the Wilderness: Preservation. 
 forty years... ?,o that] R.V. forty years... and. The mention of the 40 
 
 years and of the fact that 'they laclced nothing' shows that the origin 
 of the clause is to be sought in Deut. ii. 7 'these forty years the Lord 
 thy God hath been with thee ; thou hast lacked nothing. ' 
 
 their clothes waxed not old., and their feet szvelled not] From Deut. 
 viii. 4, 'Thy raiment waxed not old upon thee, neither did thy foot 
 swell, these forty years.' Cf xxix. 5, 'And I have led you forty years 
 in the wilderness : your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy 
 shoe is not waxen old upon thy foot.' The language of the Deuterono- 
 mist is doubtless hyperbolical. But his words were employed as a 
 proverbial description of Jehovah's protection of His people in the 
 wanderings. 
 
 22 — 25. The Conquest of Palestine : Victory. 
 
 22. The Conquest of the Transjordanic territory. 
 
 nations] R.V. peoples. 
 
 17—2 
 
26o NEHEMIAH, IX. [vv. 23, 24. 
 
 comers : so they possessed the land of Sihon, and the land 
 of the king of Heshbon, and the land of Og king of Bashan. 
 
 23 Their children also multiphedst thou as the stars of heaven, 
 and broughtest them into the land, concerning which thou 
 hadst promised to their fathers, that they should go in to 
 
 24 possess //. So the children went in and possessed the land, 
 and thou subduedst before them the inhabitants of the land, 
 the Canaanites, and gavest them into their hands, with their 
 kings, and the people of the land, that they might do with 
 
 and didst divide them into corners\ R. V. which thou didst allot after 
 their portions. Marg. ' Or, And didst distribute thetn into every corner '. 
 The difficulty of rendering arises from the word 'peah' = 'a corner,' 
 or 'edge,' which the LXX. and Vulg. do not attempt to translate. Used 
 of 'a corner' in such passages as Lev. xix. 9, -27; Am. iii. 12; it is 
 found with a territorial signification, in Num. xxiv. 17 'the corners of 
 Moab,' Jos. XV. 5, xviii. 14, 15, 'the north quarter,' 'the west quarter,' 
 'the south quarter,' Jer. xlviii. 45 'the corner of Moab.' It does not 
 seem to occur anywhere in a technical sense for ' a lot ' or ' an appointed 
 portion.' 'To allot according to corner,' in the sense of ' after their 
 portions' (as the R.V.), may give the meaning of the obscure phrase ; 
 but no satisfactory parallel to this use of 'peak ' occurs in the O. T. 
 This being the case, it is probable that preference should be given to 
 the R.V. marg. ' into every corner,' a translation which renders ' peah ' 
 literally, and explains the Hebrew idiom by the insertion of the word 
 ' every. ' 
 
 Sihon... Og] The victoiy ovei these kings at the battles of Jahaz and 
 Edrei is described in Num. xxi. 2x — 35. It made the children of Israel 
 masters of the E. bank of the Jordan. Reference to the conquest of 
 these two kings is frequent, e.g. Num. xxxii. 33 ; Deut. i. 4, iii. r, &c. ; 
 Jos. ii. 10; Ps. cxxxv. 1 1, cxxxvi. 19, 20. The territory of the two Amorite 
 kings stretched from the river Jabbok in the S. to the Hauran Mts. in 
 the N., and included the district of Argob. In later days it was divided 
 into Iturea, Gaulanitis, Batanea, Trachonitis and Auranitis. 
 
 and the laitd of the king of Heshbon] R.V. even the land, &c. The 
 'copula ' is used to define the previous words, cf. ver. 16 ' they and our 
 fathers.' viii. 7. The LXX. omit 'and the land' (Stjwj/ /3acri\^ws 
 
 23. multipliedst] See Deut. i. 10, vii. 3. 
 
 as the stars of heaven] The use of this simile may very probably be 
 a reminiscence of the promise in Gen. xv. 5 and xxii. 17. Cf. Jer. 
 xxxiii. 22. 
 
 hadst promised] R.V. didst say. 
 
 24, 25. Possession and Prosperity. 
 
 24. people] R.V. peoples, i.e. the heathen nations (cf. ver. 8). 
 with their kings] Compare the list of ' the kings of the land whom 
 
vv. 25, 26.] NEHEMIAH, IX. 261 
 
 them as they would. And they took strong cities, and a fat 25 
 land, and possessed houses full of all goods, wells digged, 
 vineyards, and oliveyards, and fruit trees in abundance : so 
 they did eat, and were filled, and became fat, and delighted 
 themselves in thy great goodness. Nevertheless they were 26 
 disobedient, and rebelled against thee, and cast thy law 
 behind their backs, and slew thy prophets which testified 
 against them to turn them to thee, and they wrought great 
 
 Joshua and the children of Israel smote beyond Jordan westward ' 
 (Jos. xii. 7 — 24). 
 
 25. strong cities] R.V. fenced cities. Cf. Deut. ix. i; Jos. xiv. 12, 
 e.g. Jericho, Ai, and Hebron, but it was a long time before all the cities 
 were reduced. Thus Jerusalem held out until David's reign. (Cf. 
 Jud. i. 8, 21.) 
 
 a fat land] i.e. fat soil, 'adamah.' In Num. xiii. 20 the country 
 (' erec ') is spoken of as ' fat ' or ' lean.' Cf. Deut. viii. 7 — 9 for a fuller 
 description of the land's fatness. 
 
 full of all goods] R.V. fuU of all good things. 
 
 wells digged] R.V. cisterns hewn out. 
 
 The description is almost literally borrowed from Deut. vi. 10, 11, 
 'great and goodly cities, which thou buildedst not, and houses full of all 
 good things, which thou tilledst not, and cisterns hewn out, which thou 
 hewedst not, vineyards and olive-yards, which thou plantedst not, and 
 thou shalt eat and be full ; then beware lest thou forget the Lord.' A 
 poetical description of the material blessings, into the inheritance of 
 which the Israelites passed, is given in Deut. xxxii. 13, 14. 
 
 became fat] Cf. Deut. xxxii. 15, 'Jeshurun waxed fat and kicked,' 
 of the ill effects of luxury and prosperity. 
 
 delighted themselves] The Hebrew word occurs only here in the 
 O. T. = 'they luxuriated.' It is from the same root as ' Eden.' LXX. 
 
 26. Israel's Disobedience. 
 
 26. castthylaiv behind their backs] R.V. back. ' Thy law,' cf. ver. 14. 
 For this phrase cf. i Kings xiv. 9 ; Ez. xxiii. 35, ' Cast me behind thy 
 back,' where the Lord is the speaker. The 'law' of God, which 
 Israel rejected, is not here the ceremonial or even the written law, but 
 the moral and spiritual ' teaching' of Jehovah, of which ' the prophets ' 
 were the Apostles from Moses to Malachi. 
 
 slew thy prophets] 'Jezebel cut off the prophets of the Lord,' 
 I Kings xviii. 4. Not many instances are recorded. But cf. Zechariah 
 (2 Chron. xxiv. 20 — 22), Uriah the son of Shemaiah (Jer. xxvi. 20 — 23). 
 The martyrdoms of Isaiah and Jeremiah belong to Jewish tradition. 
 The deaths of the prophets who laid down their lives for their testimony 
 are referred to in the New Test., cf. Matt. v. T2, xxiii. 29; Acts vii. 52 
 (i Thess. ii. 15) ; Heb. xi. 32fif. 
 
 to turn them to thee^ R.V. to turn them again unto thee, i.e. to turn 
 
262 NEHEMIAH, IX. [w. 27—29. 
 
 27 provocations. Therefore thou deliveredst them into the 
 hand of their enemies, who vexed them : and in the time of 
 their trouble, when they cried unto thee, thou heardest the7n 
 from heaven ; and according to thy manifold mercies thou 
 gavest them saviours, who saved them out of the hand of 
 
 28 their enemies. But after they had rest, they did evil again 
 before thee : therefore leftest thou them in the hand of their 
 enemies, so that they had the dominion over them : yet 
 when they returned, and cried unto thee, thou heardest 
 them from heaven ; and many times didst thou deliver them 
 
 29 according to thy mercies ; and testifiedst against them, that 
 thou mightest bring them again unto thy law : yet they 
 dealt proudly, and hearkened not unto thy commandments, 
 but sinned against thy judgments, (which if a man do, he 
 shall live in them ;) and withdrew the shoulder, and hard- 
 
 them back from following after other gods, and to lead them in 'the 
 way wherein they should go ' (ver. 19). Not as Vulg. ' ut reverterentur 
 ad te,' (LXX. eVto-rpei/'ai auroi>s Trpos (re). The rebellion of Israel was 
 ' a turning back ' from Jehovah. Cf. Ps. Ixxviii. 57. 
 ivrought great provocations] Cf. ver. 18. 
 
 27, 28. The Period of the Judges. 
 This is narrated without any attempt at detailed treatment. 
 
 27. e?iemies...c'exed] R.V. adversaries... distressed. The English 
 version cannot reproduce the alliteration of the Hebrew, where ' ad- 
 versaries,' 'distressed' and ' trouble' have a common root. 
 
 thou heardest them] R.V. omit them. So in ver. 2d,. Cf. 'Hear 
 thou in heaven thy dwelling place,' i Kings viii. 30. 
 
 savioicrs] LXX. crcjT-rjpias. Vulg. ' salvatores. ' By this title the 
 judges are spoken of in Jud. ii. 16, iii. 9, 15. Cf. 2 Kings xiii. 5, 
 'And the Lord gave Israel a saviour.' 
 
 28. after they had rest] Cf. 'the land had rest,' Jud. iii. 11, 30, 
 v. 31, viii. 28. 
 
 many times] A probable reference to the numerous deliverances 
 effected by the judges as described in the Book of Judges. The LXX. 
 fails to reproduce the thought accurately by h oUTip/xols aov TroWoh. 
 
 29. The Stubbornness of Israel. 
 
 29. testifiedst] Cf 1 Kings xvii. 13, 'Yet the Lord testified unto 
 Israel and unto Judah, by the hand of every prophet, and of every seer.' 
 
 dealt pro2idly] Cf. ver. 16. 
 
 xvhich if a man do, he shall live in thet/i] Quoted from Levit. xviii. 
 5, as also in Ezek. xx. 11. Cf. Luke x. 28, 'This do and thou shalt 
 live.' 
 
 ivithdrew the shoulder] R.V. marg. ' Heb. they gave a stubborn 
 shoulder\ The metaphor of an ox refusing to submit to the yoke, as 
 
vv. 30—32.] NEHEMIAH, IX. 263 
 
 ened their neck, and would not hear. Yet many years 30 
 didst thou forbear them, and testifiedst against them by thy 
 spirit in thy prophets : yet would they not give ear : there- 
 fore gavest thou them into the hand of the people of the 
 lands. Nevertheless for thy great mercies' sake thou didst 31 
 not utterly consume them, nor forsake them ; for thou 
 art a gracious and merciful God. Now therefore, our God, 32 
 the great, the mighty, and the terrible God, who keep est 
 
 applied to Israel, who rejected the service of Jehovah, is famiUar to us 
 from Hos. iv. 16; Zech. vii. 11. 
 hardened theirneck'\ Cf. ver. 17. 
 
 30, 31. The long-suffering of Jehovah. 
 
 30. forbear them] R.V. bear witli them. The 'many years' here 
 spoken of contain the brief reference to the earlier monarchic period. 
 'Bear \vith;' literally 'protract,' 'extend' (LXX. rjXKvaas. Vulg. 
 'protraxisti'), as perhaps Jer. xxxi. 3, marg. 'Have I continued loving- 
 kindness unto thee.' 
 
 dj/ thy spirit in thy prophets] Cf. Zech, vii. 12, 'The words 
 which the Lord of hosts had sent by his spirit by the hand of the 
 former prophets.' The words do not affirm the Personality of the 
 Divine Spirit, but the Divine revelation to the mind of man, which was 
 spiritual. The Spirit is the agent, the prophets are the channels of 
 Divine communication. Cf. i Kings xxii. 24; i Pet. i. 10, 11; 2 Pet. 
 i. 21. 
 
 the people of the lands'] R.V. the peoples of the lands, i.e. the heathen, 
 Ezr. ix. I. 
 
 31. for thy great mejxies' sake] R.V. in thy manifold mercies. The 
 emphasis on the variety of the mercy even more than on its magnitude. 
 Cf. Lam. iii. 22, 23, 'It is of the Lord's mercies that we are not con- 
 sumed, because his compassions fail not. They are new every morning.' 
 
 thou didst not utterly constune them] R.V. thou didst not make a 
 full end of them (LXX. ovk eTroirjcras avroi/s avuriXeiav. Vulg. ' non 
 fecisti eos in consumptionem.' For the phrase see Jer. iv. 27, v. 10, 18, 
 xlvi. 28; Ezek. xx. 17. The promise that though grievously humbled, 
 Israel should not be utterly consumed, ever animated the courage of the 
 prophets, cf Lev. xxvi. 44, 'And yet for all that, when they be in the 
 land of their enemies, I will not reject them, neither will I abhor them, 
 to destroy them utterly, and to break my covenant with them;' Isai. vi. 
 13, 'As a terebinth, and as an oak, whose stock remaineth, when they 
 are felled.' 
 
 gracious and merciful] The same words in Heb. as ver. 17 'gracious 
 and full of compassion.' 
 
 32 — 35. Israel's sufferings in the past a just punishment 
 FROM God. 
 
 32. our God, the great, the mighty, and the terrible God] Cf. note on i. 
 
264 NEHEMIAH, IX. [vv. 33, 34. 
 
 covenant and mercy, let not all the trouble seem little 
 before thee, that hath come upon us, on our kings, on our 
 princes, and on our priests, and on our prophets, and on 
 our fathers, and on all thy people, since the time of the 
 
 33 kings of Assyria unto this day. Hovvbeit thou art just in 
 all that is brought upon us; for thou hast done right, but 
 
 34 we have done wickedly: neither have our kings, our princes, 
 our priests, nor our fathers, kept thy law, nor hearkened 
 
 5. See Deut. x. 17, 'the great God, the mighty and the terrible.' 
 Dan. ix. 4. 
 
 who keepest covoiant and mercy] Cf. i. 5. 
 
 trouble] R.V. travail. The Hebrew word if'ldah) here used is only 
 found in the O. T., Ex. xviii. 8; Num. xx. 14; Lam. iii. 5; Mai. i. 13 
 (= 'weariness'). 
 
 seem little before thee] A humble way of entreating for gracious con- 
 sideration. The construction is like that of ver. 19 (see note), 'As for 
 all the travail, let it not seem little, &c.' 
 
 7ipon us, on our kings, &c.] The nation is here described under a 
 threefold division, (i) the aristocracy, the king and the nobles, (2) the 
 religious castes, the priestly officials and the prophetic schools, (3) the 
 laity generally, the heads of the houses or fathers and the mass of the 
 nation. 
 
 siiice the ti7ne of the kings of Assyria] i.e. since the kings of Assyria 
 first made Israel tributary. When this took place is not known. The 
 first recorded instance in Scripture is that of Menahem and Pekah 
 (2 Kings XV. 19, 24), who submitted to Pul or Tiglath-Pileser II. (745 — 
 727 B.C.). But it is evident from the famous 'Black obelisk' that Jehu 
 was among the vassal kings who brought tribute to Shalmaneser II. 
 (842 B.C.). The kings of Babylon, of Egypt and of Persia had 
 exercised the same dominion. Assyria was the typical oppressor ; 
 Assyria first carried away Israel into captivity (2 Kings xv. 29, xvii. 
 
 33. just] The same epithet as that rendered ' righteous ' (caddiq) in 
 ver. 8. See also Ezr. ix. 15. 
 
 brought] R.V. come. 
 
 done right] R.V. dealt truly. Literally 'truth' (LXX. dXrjeetav. 
 Vulg. 'veritatem'), i.e. Thou hast fulfilled thy word both in blessing 
 and punishment: but we have been unfaithful to the covenant. Cf. 
 Dan. ix. 14, 'For the Lord our God is righteous in all his works which 
 he doeth, and we have not obeyed his voice.' The pronoun 'we' is 
 emphatic ; the speakers pass from reference to their forefathers, in 
 order to accept for themselves the responsibility of association with the 
 nation's guilt. 
 
 34. neither have our kings] The construction is the same as in 
 vv. 19, 32, 'As for our kings,.., they have not.' 
 
 kept thy law] Literally 'done thy law,' i.e. carried into practice the 
 Divine teaching. Cf. vv. 14, 29. 
 
vv. 35— 37-] NEHEMIAH, IX. 265 
 
 unto thy commandments and thy testimonies, wherez£////^ 
 thou didst testify against them. For they have not served 35 
 thee in their kingdom, and in thy great goodness that thou 
 gavest them, and in the large and fat land which thou 
 gavest before them, neither turned they from their wicked 
 works. Beliold, we are servants this day, and for the land 36 
 that thou gavest unto our fathers to eat the fruit thereof and 
 the good thereof, behold, we are servants in it : and it 37 
 yieldeth much increase unto the kings whom thou hast set 
 over us because of our sins : also they have dominion over 
 
 nor hearkened'] Cf. Zech. i. 4, 'But they (your fathers) did not 
 hear nor hearken unto me, saith the Lord.' 
 
 didst testify against t/ient] Probably with special reference to Lev. 
 xxvi. and Deut. xxviii. — xxx. 
 
 35. they] emphatic, i.e. the kings and princes; as distinguished 
 from 'thou' and 'we,' used emphatically in ver. 33. 
 
 in their kingdom] Perhaps with a slight touch of irony, since 'their 
 kingdom' was itself God's gift to Israel. The use of the word shows 
 that the 'kings' and 'princes' of ver. 34 are especially referred to. 
 
 goodness] Material blessings generally as in ver. 25. 
 fat land] Cf. ver. 25. 
 
 wicked works] The word so translated is used with especial reference 
 to idolatry. Cf. Jer. xxxv. 15, 'Amend your doings,' Zech. i. 6, 'Ac- 
 cording to our doings, so hath he dealt with us.' 
 
 36, 37. Israel's present humiliation : her children slaves, 
 
 HER land subject TO FOREIGN KINGS, WHO OPPRESS IT. 
 
 _ 36. servants] i.e. subject to Persian supremacy. Cf. Ezra's very 
 similar words in his confession, Ezr. ix. 9. 
 
 for the land] R.V. as for tlie land. 
 
 behold, we are servatits] Repeated for emphasis. Israel who should 
 have been mistress of the promised land is a bondservant in it. 
 
 37. yieldeth much increase] Literally 'its produce it maketh in 
 abundance.' The allusion is to the pressure of the tribute exacted for 
 the Persian revenue. Cf. v. 4. See Rawlinson's Ancient Monarchies, 
 vol. III., pp. 421 — 423. 
 
 'Besides' money payments 'a payment. ..had to be made in kind, 
 each province being required to furnish that commodity, or those com- 
 modities, for which it was most celebrated.... While the claims of the 
 crown upon its subjects were definite and could not be exceeded, the 
 satrap was at liberty to make any exactions that he pleased beyond 
 them.... Like a Roman proconsul, he was to pay himself out of the 
 pockets of his subjects; and, like that class of persons, he took care to 
 pay himself highly.' 
 
 doDiinion] R.V. authority. Cf. Deut. xxviii. 33, 'The fruit of thy 
 ground, and all thy labours shall a nation which tliou knowest not eat 
 
266 NEHEMIAH, IX. [v. 38. 
 
 our bodies, and over our cattle, at their pleasure, and we 
 are in great distress. And because of all this we make a 
 sure covenant, and write it ; and our princes, Levites, and 
 priests, seal unto it. 
 
 up.' Isai. xxvi. 13, *0 Lord our God, other lords beside thee have 
 had dominion over us.' 
 
 ■we are in great distress] We must remember that this language of 
 complaint at the severity of the foreign rule and exactions is not the 
 utterance of Nehemiah the king's minister. This portion of the book is 
 not Nehemiah's writing. The words are spoken not by Nehemiah but 
 by Ezra, or by the Levites. The contents of chap. v. show that the 
 effects of the foreign taxation upon the condition of the middle and 
 lower classes were felt very acutely. 
 
 38. Chap. x. I in Heb. ; so Luther. The A.V. and R.V. follow the 
 division of the Vulg. and LXX. 
 
 And becatise of all this'] R.V. And yet for all this. R.V. marg. 
 *0r, because o/\ The relation of this sentence to the preceding con- 
 fession is not certain. This uncertainty has given rise to the doubt 
 whether chap. ix. should not have closed at ver. 37. The English 
 translation treats the verse as the concluding sentence of the Confes- 
 sion. The A.V. rendering 'And because of all this' refers back to the 
 whole summary of Israelite history (7 — 37), i.e. 'because of Jehovah's 
 mercy in spite of our disobedience.' The R.V. rendering ' And yet for 
 all this' refers especially to the concluding words, describing the 
 sorrows and afflictions which had come upon the people, i.e. 'And yet 
 in spite of all this oppression our faith in God's mercy is unshaken, and 
 in proof thereof we sign the covenant.' This explanation, which is 
 preferable, seems to derive support from other passages where the same 
 prep, and pron. occur. Cf. Is. v. 25, ix. 12, 'For all this his anger is 
 not turned away.' Job i. 22, 'In all this Job sinned not.' 
 
 The view that the verse resumes the narrative of ix. i — 5 is very 
 improbable on account of the use of the ist pers. plur., which has not 
 been employed in this section (chaps, viii. and ix.). 
 
 The Massoretic division into chapters, which begins chap. x. with this 
 verse, severs the connexion with the previous verses. It was perhaps 
 considered that a more considerable break should be introduced be- 
 tween the conclusion of the Confession and the signing of the Covenant. 
 The Massoretes regarded the present verse as Nehemiah's preface to 
 the new section. 
 
 sii7-e] R.V. marg. ' Or, faithfuP. The words 'a sure covenant' render 
 the Hebrew "emanah,' which elsewhere in the O. T. is only found in 
 Neh. xi. 23, 'a settled provision' (marg. 'a sure ordinance'). The 
 regular phrase for 'making' (lit. 'cutting') a covenant (cf. ix. 8) occurs; 
 and there can be no doubt of its meaning here. LXX. diarid^/xeda 
 Trl<TTLv. Vulg. 'percutimus foedus.' The Covenant is not between 
 Ezra and the people, but between the people and Jehovah. 
 
 our princes y Levites, and priests] R.V. our princes, our Levites, and 
 our priests. The position ot the Levites between the 'princes' and the 
 
vv. I, 2.] NEHEMIAH, X. 26; 
 
 Now those that sealed were, Nehemiah, the Tirshatha, 10 
 the son of Hachaliah, and Zidkijah, Seraiah, Azariah, Jere- 2 
 
 'priests' deserves notice, as it illustrates the prominence of the Levites 
 in the movement. 
 
 seal unto it] R. V. marg. ' Or, are at the sealing '. The A. V. rendering 
 suggests the idea of a seal being affixed by each of the chief repre- 
 sentatives. But the meaning is rather that the document having been 
 prepared and rendered official by the addition of the seal, the leaders of 
 the people were 'upon' the sealed writing, viz. they either appended 
 signatures as witnesses, or made marks to endorse the document and to 
 testify to their approval. In many of the Assyrian tablets, recording 
 business transactions, the marks of the thumb-nails of the witnesses still 
 attest the fact of their presence and approbation. 
 
 The National confession (^v. 5 — 38) is thus brought to a conclusion in 
 ver. 38 as abruptly as it was begun in ver. 5. It consists of four por- 
 tions, (i) ver. 5, the opening ascription; (2) 6 — 31, the summary of 
 Israel's religious history; (3) 32 — 37, the prayer of deprecation and 
 submission; (4) 38, the announcement of the national covenant. This 
 strikingly practical termination of the Confession is very characteristic 
 of the movement headed by Ezra and Nehemiah. Repentance is to 
 take shape in immediate action. 
 
 The summary of past history should be compared with that in Pss. cv., 
 cvi., cxxxv., cxxxvi. It is expressed for the most part in general terms. 
 The only individuals of the chosen people mentioned by name are 
 Abram (ver. 7), and Moses (ver. 14); but the events recorded in the 
 Pentateuch which are here alluded to are numerous — (i) the call of 
 Abram from Ur; (2) the change of name to Abraham; (3) the covenant 
 with Abraham ; (4) the overthrow of Pharaoh and the crossing of the 
 Red Sea; (5) the pillar of cloud and fire; (6) the giving of the law on 
 Mt Sinai; (7) manna; (8) water from the rock; (9) the golden calf; 
 (10) the defeat of Sihon and Og. The possession of the land {vv. 24, 
 25) and the sending of the judges (ver. 27) are mentioned, but with 
 much less definiteness. 
 
 It is strange that we have no mention of Joshua, Samuel, David or 
 Solomon. But very probably the reason of the omission is that the 
 contents of the Pentateuch in the age of Nehemiah were alone regarded 
 as sacred Scripture. Reference to subsequent events and later names 
 would not carry the same weight. These would not be so familiar to 
 the people, and would not carry with them the authority of Divine 
 teaching which already belonged to the ' Law. ' 
 
 X. 1 — 29. The List of 'those that sealed': 30 — 39 Special 
 Obligations of the Covenant. 
 
 1. those that sealed] Literally 'at the sealings,' the plur. of the 
 word used in ix. 38. As in Jer. xxxii. 14, the singular and plural are 
 used apparently of the same documents. 
 
 Some commentators are inclined to follow the LXX. eTrt twv a(ppayi- 
 ^ovTuv, as if the words could be rendered ' among those that sealed or 
 subscribed:' so apparently the Vulg. 'signatores.' But the Hebrew 
 
268. NEHEMIAH, X. [vv. 3-6. 
 
 3,4miah, Pashur, Amariah, Malchijah, Hattush, Shebaniah, 
 5, 6 Malluch, Harim, Meremoth, Obadiah, Daniel, Ginnethon, 
 
 word does not mean the man who affixes his seal, but the thing or 
 document to which it is affixed. Others explain the plur. as indicating 
 the numerous 'lists' prepared for signature, as if the different obligations 
 would require different lists. This explanation cannot be pressed. It 
 is sufficient to bear in mind that ' the sealings ' were very probably 
 'parchments' or 'tablets,' and that several would be required for the 
 signature of so large a number. 
 
 Nehemiah, the Tirshathd\ Cf. vii. 65, viii. 9. Nehemiah's name 
 comes first as that of the governor. 
 
 Hachaliak] R.V. Hacaliali. 
 
 Zidkijah\ R.V. Zedekiah. Who this Zedekiah is who receives this 
 honourable place next to the governor we are not told. As his name 
 precedes the priests, we must suppose that he is either an official under 
 the Persian rule ranking next to Nehemiah, or one of royal line (e.g. of 
 the house of Zerubbabel). 
 
 The conjecture that he is the same as Zadok 'the scribe' in xiii. 13, 
 and that, having drawn up the document of the Covenant, he therefore 
 signed next after Nehemiah, rests partly on the assumption that 
 'Zadok' and 'Zedekiah' are interchangeable names, and partly on the 
 fact that in Ezra iv. 8, 9, 17 a scribe's signature follows that of the 
 chief officer. But the identification is not very probable. 
 
 3—8, Priests: 9 — 13, Levites: 14—28, Chiefs of the people. 
 
 The 21 names here given are those of the priestly houses. The list of 
 xii. I — 3 agrees with it in 16 names. The number 21 is peculiar; in 
 chap, xii, the number is larger by one. In Ezra ii., Neh. vii., only four 
 priestly houses are recorded, viz. Jedaiah, Immer, Pashur and Harim, 
 as having returned with Zerubbabel. Pashur is mentioned in ver. 3 ; 
 Harim in ver. 5. The other priestly families had either developed 
 themselves out of these first four, or had arrived from time to time 
 from Babylon. 
 
 That 21 and not 24 are recorded, is noteworthy. Various conjectures 
 have been hazarded, e.g. that names have dropped out from the text, or 
 that three of the priestly tribes refused to sign the document, or that 
 the complete list of priestly houses has not yet been reorganised. 
 
 Seraiah's name is given first. To his family belonged both Eliashib 
 the high-priest and Ezra the scribe. The absence of their names does 
 not therefore deserve the importance which some commentators have 
 given to it. A single signature for the whole house may have been 
 affixed by Eliashib or by Ezra or by some other distinguished person of 
 the same house. We have no reason to look for the names of individual 
 priests among the names of the priestly houses. 
 
 5. Obadiah^ It has been suggested that Iddo's name has accidentally 
 dropped out after Obadiah 's. (Cf. xii, 4, r6.) If this were the case, the 
 number of houses mentioned in this passage would agree with that in 
 chap. xii. 
 
vv. 7, 15] NEHEMIAH, X. 269 
 
 Baruch, Meshullam, Abijah, Mijamin, Maaziah, Bilgai, She- 7,8 
 maiah : these were the priests. And the Levites : both 9 
 Jeshua the son of Azaniah, Binnui of the sons of Henadad, 
 Kadmiel ; and their brethren, Shebaniah, Hodijah, KeHta, 10 
 Pelaiah, Hanan, Micha, Rehob, Hashabiah, Zaccur, Shere- ", 12 
 biah, Shebaniah, Hodijah, Bani, Beninu. The chief of the 13, m 
 people; Parosh, Pahath-moab, Elam, Zatthii, Bani, Bunni, is 
 
 8. these were the priests] The names of Seraiah, Jeremiah, Amariah 
 are found in both lists (a) xii, 1—7 and {b) xii. 12 — 22. Shebaniah is 
 found in {b) xii. 14 but appears as Shechaniah in {a) xii. 3. Malluch is 
 found in [a) xii. 2, but appears as Malluchi (MeUcu) in {b) xii. 14 : 
 Harim is found in {b) xii. 15 but appears probably as Rehum in {a) xii. 
 3 : Meremoth is found in {a) xii. 3, but appears as Meraioth in {b) xii. 15 : 
 Ginnetho is found in {b) xii. 16, but appears as Ginnethoi in {a) xii. 4: 
 Mijamin is found in {a) xii. 5 but appears as Miniamin in {b) xii. 17. 
 Bilgai is clearly the same as Bilgah {a) xii. 5 and {b) xii. 18. Hattush 
 in found in [a) xii. 2 but has dropped out of {b). Azariah has some- 
 times been identified with the Ezra of {a) xii. i and {b) xii. 13. 
 
 It thus appears that, out of the 21 'priests' or 'priestly houses' men- 
 tioned here, nine (i.e. Pashur, Malchijah, Obadiah, Daniel, Baruch, Me- 
 shullam, Abijah, Maaziah, Shemaiah) do not occur in the two lists of 
 chap. xii. 
 
 9 — 13. The Levites. 
 
 9. both yeshtid\ R.V. namely, Jeshua. The 'copula' is used 
 definitively as in ix. 16—22. But some of the best MSS. omit it 
 altogether. 
 
 10. Hodijah] R.V. Hodiah and in ver. 13. 
 
 11. Micha] R.V. Mica. 
 
 There are 17 names of 'Levites' or 'Levitical houses' : of these 17, 
 we find four, i.e. Jeshua, Binnui, Kadmiel and Sherebiah, mentioned in 
 xii. 8 among ' those that went up with Zerubbabel ' ; and seven (i.e. Jeshua, 
 Bani, Sherebiah, Hodiah, Kelita, Hanan and Pelaiah) in viii. 7; and eight 
 (i.e. Jeshua, Bani, Kadmiel, Shebaniah, Sherebiah, Chenani = Hanan, 
 Hashabneiah= Hashabiah, Hodiah) in ix. 4, 5. It is to be observed 
 that (a) besides Binnui, we have also Bani and Beninu (see note on ix. 
 4) ; {b) the names Hodiah and Shebaniah occur twice in the present list; 
 {c) only four names, i.e. Mica, Rehob, Zaccur and Beninu, fail to appear in 
 the other lists, and of these Mica and Rehob do not occur elsewhere, 
 while Beninu is possibly a wrong reading for Bani or Binnui, and 
 Zaccur's name may be the same as 'the son of Asaph' (xii. 35) or 'the 
 father of Hanan' (xiii. 13) or ' the son of Imri' (iii. 2) ; {d) as in the case 
 of the priests, the names represent divisions or houses of the Levites, 
 not individuals. 
 
 14. The chief of the people] R.V. The chiefs of the people. A 
 comparison with Ezr. ii. Neh. vii. puts it beyond doubt that here 
 again we have to do with the names of houses, not of individuals. 
 
 Zaithtt] R.V. Zattu. 
 
270 NEHEMIAH, X. [vv. 16—28 
 
 16, 17 Azgad, Bebai, Adonijah, Bigvai, Adin, Ater, Hizkijah, 
 18, 19 Azzur, Hodijah, Hashum, Bezai, Hariph, Anathoth, Ne 
 20, 21 bai, Magpiash, Meshullam, Hezir, Meshezabeel, Zadok, 
 22, 23 Jaddua, Pelatiah, Hanan, Anaiah, Hoshea, Hananiah, 
 24, 25 Hashub, Hallohesh, Pileha, Shobek, Rehum, Hashabnah, 
 26,27 Maaseiah, and Ahijah, Hanan, Anan, Malluch, Harim, 
 Baanah. 
 28 And the rest of the people, the priests, the Levites, the 
 
 17. Hizkijah^ R.V. Hezekiali. 
 
 18. HodijahX R.V. Hodiah. 
 
 19. Nebai\ R.V. Nobai. Marg. 'Another reading is i\''cf(5'a:2'. 
 21. Meshezabeel] R.V. Meshezabel. 
 
 23. Hashub^ R.V. Hasshub. 
 
 24. Pileha] R.V. PilHa. 
 26. Ahijah] R.V. Aniah. 
 
 We have here 44 names: or, if Bunni (ver. 15) be the accidental 
 repetition of Bani, and if 'Ater, Hezekiah' stand for 'Ater, of Hezekiah' 
 (Ezr. ii. 16, vii. 21), no more than 42. This figure is considerably in 
 excess of the number of names under the same head in Ezr. ii. Neh, vii. 
 
 {a) 14 names at least (i.e. Parosh, Pahath-moab, Elam, Zattu, Bani, 
 Azgad, Bebai, Bigvai, Adin, Ater, Hariph {=Jorah Ezr. ii.), Hashum, 
 Bezai, Anathoth) are found, as they occur here, in the lists of Ezr. ii. 
 and Neh. vii. 
 
 Adonijah (ver. 16) is doubtless the same as Adonikam (Ezr. ii. 13, 
 Neh. vii. 18), Magpiash (ver. 20), as Magbish (Ezr. ii. 30). 
 
 {b) The names of certain houses mentioned in the lists of Ezr. ii. 
 and Neh. vii. e.g. Shephatiah, Arah, Zaccai do not appear here; these 
 houses had either died out, or left the city, or refused to sign. 
 
 {c) The addition of names may be explained by the gradual acces- 
 sion of families since the age of Zerubbabel. But the variety of docu- 
 ments employed by the compiler is quite sufficient to account for con- 
 siderable discrepancy in the names, since the work of compilation must 
 have taken place long after the lists were drawn up. 
 
 28. And the rest of the people] This may be understood in two 
 different ways : (a) according to some it denotes the mass of the laity, as 
 distinguished from their princes and elders, like 'the people' (ver. 35), 
 'the residue of Israel' (xi. 20), and ' Israel' (i Chron. ix. 2) ; {b) accord- 
 ing to others under this head are included the various classes of the 
 community mentioned in the present verse, but distinct from the repre- 
 sentative names which have occupied the previous lists. It is not 
 another group, but stands at the head of the verse in apposition to the 
 groups to be mentioned. 'The priests ' are the individual members of the 
 great houses whose representatives had taken part ' in the sealing.' So 
 also the subordinate religious orders, who are here divided into their 
 classes of (12) Levites proper, {b) porters, [c] singers, id) Nethinim. With 
 the last name we should also probably associate ' the servants of Solo- 
 mon,' vii. 57; Ezra ii. 43—54- 
 
vv. 29, 30.] NEHEMIAH, X. 271 
 
 porters, the singers, the Nethinims, and all they that had 
 separated themselves from the people of the lands unto the 
 law of God, their wives, their sons, and their daughters, 
 every one having knowledge, and having understanding- 
 they clave to their brethren, their nobles, and entered into 29 
 a curse, and into an oath, to walk in God's law, which was 
 given by Moses the servant of God, and to observe and do 
 all the commandments of the Lord our Lord, and his 
 judgments and his statutes ; and that we would not give 30 
 our daughters unto the people of the land, nor take their 
 
 Nethinims\ R.V. NetMnlm. 
 
 all they that had separated themselves'] See note on Ezra vi. 21. By 
 this class are probably intended Jews who had not gone into exile, but, 
 having either in foreign lands or in Palestine been faithless to their 
 religion, had since separated themselves from idolatry. Another expla- 
 nation, which has some support from the words 'from the peoples of the 
 lands,' understands by this expression 'proselytes who had attached them- 
 selves to the Jewish faith.' 
 
 frofn the people (R. V. peoples) of the lands tinto the law of God] 
 The antithesis is striking. Not ' from the peoples of the lands to the 
 people of Israel,' but 'from the peoples of the land,' who were identified 
 with abomination and filthiness (Ezra vi. 21), to 'the law of God,' which 
 was the one standard of the claim to be a true Israelite. 
 
 having knowledge, and having understanding] R.V. that had 
 knowledge and understanding. See note on viii. 2, 3; i.e. all of age 
 and intelligence to know and understand the law. Vulg. 'omnes qui 
 poterant sapere.' 
 
 their brethren, their nobles] i.e. the representatives of the great 
 families who subscribed to the sealing of the Covenant. The people 
 warmly supported them. 
 
 a curse. ..an oath] The 'curse' is the penalty which they invoked if 
 they were faithless to the Covenant; the 'oath' is the solemn obligation 
 of a duty which they vowed to perform. 
 
 For the phrase 'enter into an oath,' cf. Deut. xxix. 12 'that thou 
 shouldest enter into the Covenant of the Lord thy God and into his 
 oath.' 
 
 to walk in God's law, &c.] Compare the similar terms of the Covenant 
 in Josiah's reign, 2 Kings xxiii. 3. 
 
 the Lord our Lord] i.e. Jahveh (= Jehovah) our Lord. 
 
 30. Prohibition of Intermarriage with the Heathen. 
 
 we] Observe the first person plural here introduced and maintained 
 to ver. 39 throughout the rest of the Covenant details. 
 
 people] R.V. peoples. 
 
 This prohibition of intermarriage with the people of the land had 
 been strenuously upheld by Ezra ix. 2. (See note.) The difficulty of 
 
272 NEHEMIAH, X. [v. 31. 
 
 31 daughters for our sons : and //the people of the land bring 
 ware or any victuals on the sabbath day to sell, that we 
 would not buy it of them on the sabbath, or on the holy 
 day : and that we would leave the seventh year, and the 
 
 enforcing it appears from Neh. xiii. 23 — 28. The words of the prohibi- 
 tion seem to be based on Deut. vii. 3 'Neither shalt thou make marriages 
 with them ; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his 
 daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.' Cf. Ex. xxxiv. 16; Jos. xxiii. 
 12; Jud. iii. 6. 
 
 It is to be noticed that the so-called Priestly Code gives no such pro- 
 hibition unless it is implied in Gen. xxvi. 35 ; nor is it found in the 
 central legislative portion of Deut. (xii. — xxvi.). 
 
 The Covenant introduces no new enactment, but affirms the Deute- 
 ronomic teaching which itself appears to be an expansion of the oldest 
 law in Ex. xxiii. 32, 33, 'Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor 
 with their gods. They shall not dwell in thy land, lest they make thee 
 sin against me.' 
 
 31. Prohibition of Traffic on the Sabbath ; and Observance 
 OF Sabbatic Year. 
 
 " people] R.V. peoples. 'The peoples of the land i^ammey hadrec) 
 are the heathen dwellers in the land. The title ' the people of the land' 
 ('am haarec) was used in later days of the unlearned multitude 'which 
 knoweth not the law' (John vii. 49). 
 
 ware] The Hebrew word occurs only here in the O. T. (LXX. ar^o- 
 pa(TiJLOv%, Vulg. 'venalia'). 
 
 071 the sabbath day] The prohibition is not found in so many words 
 in the Pentateuch. But it represents the natural expansion of the com- 
 mand to keep the Sabbath holy. Pollution would most easily be con- 
 tracted by the interchange of wares with the heathen. 
 
 Complete abstention from such occupation was the only safeguard for 
 the purity of the people, as well as for the observance of the Sabbath as 
 a day of rest, cf. xiii. 15. This abstention was practised in the kingly 
 period in respect of the sabbath and the new-moon days. Amos viii. 5, 
 'When will the new moon be gone that we may sell corn? and the 
 sabbath, that we may set forth wheat?' 
 
 on the holy day] R.V. on a holy day. The days set apart to be 
 observed as 'holy-days' are described in Num. xxviii., xxxi. 
 
 That these were to be observed as 'days of rest, 'and were thus on the 
 same footing with the Sabbath-days argues the acquaintance of the 
 writer with the Levitical Law of the Priestly Code. 
 
 leave] R.V. forgo. The same word that is used in Ex. xxiii. 11 
 for 'let lie fallow.' LXX. durjao/j-ev. 
 
 the sez'e7ith year] See Ex. xxiii. 10, 11, 'And six years thou shalt 
 sow thy land, and shalt gather in the increase thereof; but the seventh 
 year thou shalt let it rest (marg. 'release it') and lie fallow.' This 
 observance of the Sabbatic year is not referred to in the Deuteronomic 
 Law which only speaks of it as the year of release from debt (Deut. xv.). 
 
V. 32.] NEHEMIAH, X. 273 
 
 exaction of every debt. Also we made ordinances for us, 32 
 to charge ourselves yearly with the third part of a shekel 
 
 But the Priestly Law in Lev. xxv. 2 — 7 enters with some minuteness 
 into the agricultural 'rest' of the seventh year. This regulation was not, 
 for practical reasons, scrupulously carried out; its neglect is the subject 
 of rebuke, Lev. xxvi. 34, 35, 43; 2 Chron. xxxvi. 21. It seems to have 
 been observed in later times, cf. i Mace. vi. 49, 53; Jos. Ant. xi. 8. 6, 
 xiii. 8. I, &c. Tacitus, who is prejudiced against the Jews, attributes 
 the custom to national laziness, Hist. v. 4. 
 
 ajid the exaction of every debt'l This is a technical expression taken 
 from Deut. xv. 2, and constitutes the expansion, for the requirements 
 of a more developed time, of the principle laid down in the agri- 
 cultural Law of the Sabbatic Year (Ex. xxiii.). By a common error 
 it has been supposed that debts were on this year altogether remitted. 
 The analogy of the 'fallow' land shows that the debts remained, but 
 were not exacted; payment was 'hung up' for a whole year. Some 
 render 'the exaction of every man's pledge.' The versions are literal, 
 LXX. dTraiTr]aiv iracrrjs x^'po^- Vulg. 'exactionem universae manus.' 
 The remission of ' the exaction of debt ' on the seventh or Sabbatic 
 year is found in the Deuteronomic, but not in the Levitical Laws. The 
 covenant to which the Israelites were now subscribing did not rest on a 
 Levitical code alone, but recognised the authority of other portions of 
 the Pentateuch. 
 
 This is one indication among others that the Law, which Ezra ad- 
 ministered, contained substantially all the component parts of our Pen- 
 tateuch, though not necessarily every item, as we now have it, in each 
 component part. 
 
 32. A POLL-TAX OF J OF A SHEKEL IMPOSED FOR THE MAINTE- 
 NANCE OF THE SERVICE OF THE TeMPLE. 
 
 32. zve made ordinances for us'X The verse shows that Ezra and his 
 colleagues, although establishing the authority of the written law, were 
 ready to expand or modify it according to the requirements of the time — 
 a significant indication of the way in which the numerous instances of 
 minor variation in the laws of the Pentateuch may reflect changes and 
 qualifications required at different epochs. 'Ordinances.' The plural 
 shows that the reference is not to be limited to the Temple tax. 
 
 the third part of a shekel^ See Ex. xxx. u — 16; in which passage 
 every Israelite, 'from twenty years old and upward,' is required to 
 give 'the offering of the Lord,' i.e. ^halfa-shekel after the shekel of the 
 sanctuary:' 'the rich shall not give more and the poor shall not give 
 less than the half shekel, when they give the offering of the Lord, to 
 make atonement for your souls.' The sum of 'half a shekel,' or two 
 drachmas, is mentioned as the regulation tax in Matt. xvii. 24, 'Doth 
 not your master pay the half-shekel?' {didrachma). Cf. Josephus B. y. 
 vii. 6. 6, 'The emperor commanded every Jew to pay the two drachmae 
 annually to the Capitol which they had before been accustomed to pay 
 to the Temple at Jerusalem.' 
 
 NEHEMIAH 1 8 
 
274 NEHEMIAH, X. [v. 33. 
 
 33 for the service of the house of our God ; for the shewbread, 
 and for the continual meat offering, and for the continual 
 
 A poll-tax of \ shekel for the services of the Temple differs both from 
 the regulation of Exodus xxx. and from the later Jewish custom. In 
 Ex. xxx. II — 16 a tribute of \ shekel is to be levied, not annually, but 
 on the occasions when the census of the people was taken. Erom 
 Josephus we learn that the contribution of \ shekel was annually levied 
 from every Jew. Here the Jews charge themselves with an annual 
 tribute of \ shekel. 
 
 In order to explain this apparent discrepancy, some scholars maintain 
 that the tax mentioned in tLxodus, being only occasional, has no con- 
 nexion with the annual poll-tax, and that the \ shekel w^as in later days 
 raised to \ shekel when the Jews were wealthier, in order to assimilate 
 the annual tax to the sum of the occasional ransom tax mentioned in the 
 Pentateuch. It is an objection to this view that (r) there is no reference 
 here to the occasional tax, (2) we have no mention anywhere of the 
 coexistence of two taxes, one occasional and the other annual, for the 
 maintenance of the Temple, (3) the reference in 2 Chron. xxiv. 5 — 9 to 
 the Mosaic law seems to contemplate a regular and not an occasional 
 tax. 
 
 Others have conjectured that the requirement of the \ shekel in 
 Exodus xxx. is an interpolation later than the time of Nehemiah, made 
 in the interest of the priests. To this it may be replied that, if such an 
 interpolation had been made, it would surely also have been directed 
 towards securing an annual tribute, instead of a payment to be made 
 only at the time when the people were numbered. 
 
 . It is more probable that the discrepancies reflect the gradual growth 
 of the custom. The law in Ex. xxx. 11 — 16 goes back to the days 
 when to number the people was associated with human presumption, for 
 Avhich expiation was to be made. Cf 1 Sam. xxiv. The necessities of 
 the Temple service caused this occasional tax to become a regular one 
 under kings favourable to the priests (2 Chr. xxiv.). After the Return 
 the poverty of the Jews made it difficult to maintain the Temple services. 
 The regular contributions promised by the Persian king (Ezr. vii. 2 — 23) 
 ceased, or were only for a short period. The imposition of an annual 
 poll-tax of \ shekel would be cheerfully accepted at the time of religious 
 reformation under Ezra. In later times, when the power of the High- 
 priest became more absolute and the prosperity of the Jews grew, the 
 tax was raised from i to ^ shekel, in imitation of the occasional 'census' 
 tax which had become obsolete, but whose memorial existed in Ex. xxx.^ 
 
 1 An interesting explanation has recently been suggested : " In Exodus each male 
 Israelite contributed a bekah, or half a shekel (of the Sanctuary) to defray the cost of 
 the Tabernacle: this half-shekel was a drachm of about 65 grs. Troy. ...The Babylonian 
 silver stater of [the age of Nehemiah] weighed about i72'8 grs. This formed the 
 standard of the Empire, and doubtless the Jews of the Captivity employed it like the 
 rest of the subjects of the Great King. The third part of this stater or shekel weighed 
 about 58 grains ; so that practically the third part of the Babylonian silver shekel was 
 the same as the half of the ancient light shekel, or shekel of the Sanctuary." (Ridge- 
 way's Origin o/Currency afid Weight Measures, p. 281.) 
 
V. 33.] NEHEMIAH, X. 275 
 
 burnt offering, of the sabbaths, of the new moons, for the 
 set feasts, and for the holy thi7igs^ and for the sin offerings 
 to make an atonement for Israel, and for all the work of 
 
 33. This verse gives in detail 'the service of the house of God.' 
 
 (v^f- 31)- .. ^ , 
 
 tJie shewhread^ See Ex. xxv. 23—30, xxxvii. 10—16; Lev. xxiv. 
 5 — 9. The shewbread consisted of 12 vinleavened cakes of fine meal, 
 which were laid fresh every Sabbatli in two rows of six upon the table in 
 the Holy Place. Their preparation fell to the duty of the Kohathite 
 Levites (i Chron. ix, 32). The antiquity of this rite is shown by the 
 story of David, i vSam. xxi. 2 — 7. The name by which 'the shew- 
 bread' is here designated is 'bread of arrangement,' ' lekhem hammaa- 
 reketh' (Vulg. 'panes propositionis). The LXX. renders et's dprovs tou 
 Trpoaioirov, 'bread of the face,' which is the translation of the other 
 Hebrew name by which it was known, 'lekhem happanim :' we should 
 have expected ets dprovs irpodeaeoos. 
 
 for tAe continual meat (R.V. meal) offering, and for the continual 
 Imrjit ofering\ We have mention of 'the continual meal offering' or 
 '■minkhah,'' which was offered every evening, in i Kings xviii. 29, 36; 
 2 Kings xvi. 15; Ezr. ix. 4; Dan. ix. 21. In 2 Kings xvi. 15 we find 
 'the morning burnt offering {olah),' as well as ' the evening meal offering,' 
 spoken of. Now in the Priestly Laws (Ex. xxix. 38 — 42; Num. xxviii. 
 3 — 8) we find the regulations for a burnt offering, with a meal offering, 
 morning and evening. This is what is probably intended in the present 
 passage, in Ezra iii. 3, 5, and in the Books of Chronicles, e.g. 2 Chron. 
 xxxi. 3. We need not expect to find so full a ritual in practice before, 
 as there was after, the influence of Ezra's work made itself felt: nor 
 can we hope to find in the historical narrative full illustration of all 
 the details of worship required by the ideal of the Priestly Law. 
 
 Sacrifices were 'continual' {tamidh) in the sense of being regular and 
 at stated times, as distinct from occasional, voluntary, and irregular 
 offerings. Thus the 'shew-bread' is 'continual bread,' ^lekhem hat- 
 tajjiidh" (Num. iv. 7). 
 
 of the sabbaths, of the new moons'] i.e. for the 'continual offering' of 
 the sabbath and of the new moon, and for the special offerings required 
 for those days, as recorded in Num. xxviii. 9 — 10 (Sabbath), 11 — 15 
 (new moon), from which the rule in Ezek. xlvi. 4, 6 differs considerably. 
 
 for the set feasts'] A description of these 'days of holy convocation* 
 is found in Num. xxviii. t6 — xxix. 38. 
 
 for the holy things] Such, for instance, as 'the thankofferings ' of the 
 community. Cf. 2 Chron. xxix. 33, 'And the consecrated things were 
 six hundred oxen and three thousand sheep,' xxxv. 13, 'the holy offer- 
 ings.' 
 
 the sin offerings] i.e. Those offered for the community, (a) regularly, 
 along with the burnt offerings. Num. xxviii. xxix., (b) on exceptional 
 occasions of national transgression. Lev. iv. 13. 
 
 for all the ivork, &c.] The preposition 'for' is carried on from the 
 beginning of the verse. This general expression ' all the work ' com- 
 
 18—2 
 
276 NEHEMIAH, X. [v. 34. 
 
 34 the house of our God. And we cast the lots among the 
 priests, the Levites, and the people, for the wood offering, 
 to bring it into the house of our God, after the houses of 
 our fathers, at times appointed year by year, to burn upon 
 the altar of the Lord our God, as it is written in the law : 
 
 pletes the list of objects upon which the \ shekel tax was expended. 
 LXX. ei's ep7a. Vulg. 'in omnem usum.' 
 
 34. And we cast the lots'] R. V. And we cast lots. The use of the article 
 in the Heb. does not here call attention to the use of any peculiarly 
 sacred 'lots,' but generally to the means employed for ascertaining the 
 Divine will. For decision by the casting of lots, cf. the choosing of the 
 goat on the day of Atonement (Lev. xvi. 8 — 10), the distribution of 
 the Promised Land (Jos. xiv. 2, xviii. 10), the selection of the first king 
 (i Sam. X. 19), the distribution of offices among the 24 priestly houses 
 (i Chron. xxiv. 5, xxv. 8, xxvi. 13), and of the priestly duties 
 among the individual members (Luke i. 9). Here the lot was to decide 
 the succession of the houses, which took it in turn to supply the wood 
 for the sacrifices of the Temple. 
 
 for the wood offering] Cf. xiii. 31. The supply of wood for the 
 enormous number of sacrifices offered at the Temple of Jerusalem must 
 have represented a large annual sum. The difficulty of procuring wood 
 must have been very great: (i) the area of territory occupied by the 
 Jewish community was small, (2) the trees in the neighbourhood must 
 have suffered during the Chaldean invasion and siege. 
 
 after the houses of our fathers] R.V. according to our fathers' houses. 
 Another translation, 'even into the house of our fathers,' i.e. 'into the 
 Temple ' would certainly be possible according to the Hebrew, but is 
 not to be accepted, as its use occurs nowhere else, and after the mention 
 of 'the house of our God' there would be no special appropriateness for 
 the employment of another name. 
 
 at times appointed] Cf. xiii. 31; Ezr. x. 14. According to the Tal- 
 mud on nine days in the year. 
 
 as it is written in the law] There is no statute in the Levitical 
 code regulating the supply of firewood for the sacrifices. The only 
 reference to the wood of the offering in 'the Law' is contained in Lev. 
 vi. 12, 13, 'And the fire upon the altar shall be kept burning thereon, 
 it shall not go out; and the priest shall burn wood on it every morning; 
 and he shall lay the burnt offering in order upon it, and shall burn 
 thereon the fat of the peace offerings. Fire shall be kept burning upon 
 the altar continually; it shall not go out.' If the words 'as it is written 
 in the law' contain a reference to a passage in the Pentateuch, it must 
 be looked for in connexion with 'the burning on the altar' (e.g. Lev. 
 vi. 12, 13), not with 'the wood-offering.' Against this it may fairly be 
 urged that 'the wood offering,' being the principal subject of the verse, 
 is also the most probable subject for this quotation from Scripture. 
 But if 'as it is written in the law' alludes to 'the wood ofiering,' 
 'the law' must be understood in a general sense of the traditional 
 regulations of the priests, which apparently were not all embodied in 
 
vv. 35—37.] NEHEMIAH, X. 277 
 
 and to bring the firstfruits of our ground, and the firstfruits 35 
 of all fruit of all trees, year by year, unto the house of the 
 Lord : also the firstborn of our sons, and of our cattle, 36 
 as it is written in the law, and the firstlings of our herds 
 and of our flocks, to bring to the house of our God, unto 
 the priests that minister in the house of our God : and 37 
 that we should bring the firstfruits of our dough, and our 
 
 our Pentateuch. New circumstances necessitated new regulations ; 
 and we have to suppose that among the new written regulations of 
 the priests was one relating to 'the wood offering.' We may con- 
 jecture that after the return from the exile the scarcity and expensive- 
 ness of fuel for the sacrifices made it necessary to draw up special regu- 
 lations by which ' the houses ' took it in turn to supply the wood. The 
 burden was thus distributed over the community. The new regulation 
 had been committed to writing; but, as appears from our Pentateuch, 
 it was never incorporated in the canonical 'Thora,' perhaps from the 
 reason that its history was known to be recent. Josephus {Bell. yud. ii. 
 17. 6) mentions that on the 14th day of the 5th month Loos (Ab) was 
 the Festival of Wood-bringing {ZvXo<p6pia), at which every Jew used to 
 bring wood for the altar of burnt offering, that there never might be 
 wanting a supply of fuel for the sacred fire. 
 
 35—39. First-fruits and tithe. 
 
 35. the firstfruits of our groicnd\ Cf. Ex. xxiii. 19, xxxiv. 26. 'The 
 first of the firstfruits of the ground thou shalt bring into the house of the 
 Lord thy God;' so also in greater detail Deut. xxvi. 1 — 10. Cf. Prov. 
 iii. 9; Ezek. xliv. 30. 
 
 of all trees'] R. V. of all manner Of trees. See Num. xviii. 12,13, 
 'all the best of the oil and all the best of the vintage, and of the corn, 
 the firstfruits of them which they give unto the Lord, to thee have I 
 given them. The first ripe fruits of all that is in their land, which they 
 bring unto the Lord shall be thine,' cf. 2 Chron. xxxi. 5. Lev. xix. 
 
 23- 
 
 36. the firstborn of our sons'] The firstborn of the children of Israel 
 'from a month old' were redeemed 'for the money of five shekels, after 
 the shekel of the sanctuary,' Num. xviii. 16; cf. Ex. xiii. 13, xxxiv. 20. 
 
 of our cattle, as it is zvritten in the law] The firstlings of oxen, sheep 
 and goats were not redeemed; they were holy; their fat was offered as 
 a burnt offering ; the flesh was the portion of the priests. See Num. 
 xviii. 17 — 19. But the firstborn of all unclean beasts were redeemed 
 for a price. Cf. Ex. xxiii. 19; Num. xviii. 15. 
 
 herds., fiocks] i.e. the goats and sheep mentioned in Num. xviii. 17. 
 
 37. and that we should bring] The change of construction (cf. the 
 infinitive 'to bring' in vv. 35, 36) somewhat favours the suggestion that 
 this and the next two verses are a later insertion, introduced for the pur- 
 pose of recording in detail the Jewish practice of paying firstfruits and 
 tithes, 
 
278 NEHEMIAH, X. [v. 37. 
 
 offerings, and the fruit of all manjier of trees, of wine and of 
 oil, unto the priests, to the chambers of the house of our 
 God; and the tithes of our ground unto the Levites, that 
 the same Levites might have the tithes in all the cities of 
 
 the Jirstfrtiits of ozir dough] R. V. marg. 'Or, coarse tneal.^ See Num. 
 XV. 21, 'Of the first of your dough (marg. Or, coarse meal) ye shall offer 
 up a cake for an heave offering.' The firstfruits or 'the first' (reshith) 
 is equivalent to 'the best.' Cf. Lev. xxiii. 17. 
 
 and our offerings] R. V. and our heave offerings. Before this expres- 
 sion we have also to understand 'the firstfruits of.' The priests did not 
 receive the whole 'heave offerings' (terunioth), but 'the firstfruits' or 
 'first' of them. This is also the teaching of Ezek. xliv. 30, 'And the 
 first of all the firstfruits of everything, and every oblation (marg. Or, 
 heave offering) of everything, of all your oblations, shall be for the 
 priests.' The portion thus assigned to the priests was called 'the heave 
 offering for the priests' (Neh. xiii. 5). The word rendered 'heave offer- 
 ing' was used in a general sense to denote 'a gift' (Prov. xxix. 4), but 
 was applied in a special sense to gifts or offerings for a sacred purpose, 
 e.g. contributions to the tabernacle, Ex. xxv. 2 sq., or the portions of 
 sacrifices set apart for the priests. Lev. vii. 32. In 2 Sam. i. 21, 'fields 
 of offerings' are fields from whose rich pasture the firstlings of the flock 
 would be taken. 
 
 and the fruit of all manner of trees] See on ver. 35. We should 
 understand these words to depend upon 'the firstfruits of.' The struc- 
 ture of the verse is certainly in favour of this interpretation. ' The first- 
 fruits,' devoted to the priests, are distinguished from the 'tithes' which 
 are given to the Levites. 
 
 wine] R.V. marg. 'Or, the vintage.^ 'The wine and the oil,' not 
 in apposition to 'the fruit of all manner of trees,' but separately men- 
 tioned on account of their peculiar value. Cf. Num. xviii. 12. 
 
 to the chani-bers of the house of our God] See on ver. 39, xii. 44, xiii. 
 4; LXX. ets t6 ya^o(pv\dKLOv o'Ckov tov deou. 
 
 the tithes of our ground] According to Lev. xxvii. 30. On the 
 omission of reference to tithe of 'herd and flock' mentioned in Lev. 
 xxvii. 32, see note at end of chapter. Passages in the O.T. dealing with 
 tithe are Gen. xiv. 20, xxviii. 22; Lev. xxvii. 30 — 33; Num. xviii. 21 — 
 32; Deut. xiv. 22 — 29, xxvi. 12 — 15; Amos iv. 4; Mai. iii. 8 — 10; 
 2 Chron. xxxi. 5, 6, and Neh. x. 37 — 39, xii. 44, xiii. 5. 
 
 that the same Levites might have the tithes] R. V. for they, the Levites, 
 take the tithes. LXX. Se/faroOj^res. Vulg. 'accipient decimas.' The 
 word in the Hebrew which generally denotes ' to pay tithe of some- 
 thing,' is here used in a special sense of collecting tithe, in which it is 
 found in the later Hebrew of the Mishnah. It occurs here in the sense 
 of d,7ro5e/vaT6w in Hebr. vii. 5 'to take tithes of the people.' 
 
 in all the cities of our tillage] LXX. h Trdcrats trbXeoLv dovXeias rjfidv. 
 Vulg. 'ex omnibus civitatibus operum nostrorum.' Cf. i Chron. xxvii. 
 26, 'over them that did the work of the field for tillage of the ground.' 
 The translation of '■abodah'' by 'tillage' gives the only probable sense. 
 
vv. 38, 39.] NEHEMIAH, X. 279 
 
 our tillage. And the priest the son of Aaron shall be with 3s 
 the Levites, when the Levites take tithes : and the Levites 
 shall bring up the tithe of the tithes unto the house of our 
 God, to the chambers, into the treasure house. For the 39 
 children of Israel and the children of Levi shall bring the 
 offering of the corn, of the new wine, and the oil, unto the 
 
 The alternative, 'cities of our service' would be meaningless. The 
 words are important as determining the agricultural character of the 
 area from which this tithe was collected. It is implied, though not 
 stated, that the tithe thus collected by the Levites was of ' the fruits of 
 the field' (cf. Deut. xiv. 22 — 29, xxvi. 12 — 15) and did not include the 
 tithe of 'the herd or the flock.' See note on ver. 39. The word 
 '• Abodah^ was in later times technically used for 'worship.' Cf. the 
 saying of Simon the Just in the Pirqe Aboth, 'On three things the world 
 is stayed; on the Thorah, and on the Worship (Aboda/i), and on the 
 bestowal of kindnesses' [Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, Taylor, p. 26). 
 
 38. the p7'iest the son of Aaronl This is not the high-priest; but in 
 every 'city of their tillage' one of priestly descent was to superintend 
 the paying in of the tithe which had been collected by the Levites, so 
 that the interests of the priesthood should not suffer. 
 
 the tithe of the tithes} This was paid by the Levites to the priests, 
 according to Num. xviii. 25 — 28. The law of 'tithe' in Deut. xiv. 
 22 — 29, xxvi. 12 — 15 differs very widely from that in Numbers, except 
 in the point that it was to be derived from the produce of the soil. The 
 characteristic features of the Deuteronomic law of tithe are (i) the 
 annual social feast (xiv. 22 — 26), (2) charity to the Levite (xiv. 27), and 
 (3) a special tithing every third year on behalf of the Levite (xiv. 28, 
 xxvi. 12 — 15). But of these regulations we find no trace in the present 
 passage. 
 
 to the chambers, i?ito the treasure house'] i.e. those chambers which 
 were set apart as a treasure house for contributions paid in kind. Cf. 
 xiii. 5. Other chambers were employed for other purposes. The 
 LXX. for ' into the treasure house ' has et's oIkov tov deov by an accidental 
 repetition. 
 
 39. For] Explaining the mention of 'the chambers' as the recep- 
 tacles of all these offerings. 
 
 the children of Israel] i.e. the laity as distinguished from the priests 
 and the Levites. 
 
 the offerijzg] R.V. heave offering. This 'heave offering' includes 
 both 'the firstfruits' of the children of Israel [vv. 36, 37) and 'the tithe 
 of the tithe' paid by the Levite to the priests (37). It is the special 
 designation of the tithe paid both by Israel and by the house of Levi in 
 Num. xviii. 24 — 28. 
 
 the new wine] R.V. the wine. Marg. ' Or, the vintage.'' The word 
 in the Hebrew is the same as that used in ver. 37. 
 
 and the oil] R.V. and of the oil. 
 
 On 'the chambers' see especially xiii. 4 — 12. 
 
28o NEHEMIAH, X. [v. 39. 
 
 chambers, where are the vessels of the sanctuary, and the 
 priests that minister, and the porters, and the singers : and 
 we will not forsake the house of our God. 
 
 the vessels of the sancttiary\ In xiii. 9 it is again mentioned that 'the 
 vessels of the sanctuary' were stored in these chambers. What they 
 were, we are not told ; but that they comprised instruments for sacrifice, 
 vessels for libations and lustrations, and plate for sacred feasts, would 
 appear from the short inventory in Ezr. i. 9, 10. 
 
 priests... portej's... singers'] i.e. the Aaronic house and those of the 
 Levites whose work was especially connected with the maintenance of 
 the Temple and the Temple worship. From this combination we might 
 conclude (i) that the Levitical community, with the exception of the 
 'porters' and 'singers,' were for the most part in Nehemiah's time not 
 resident at Jerusalem, but quartered in the country districts, cf. xi. 20, 
 xii. 27; (2) that the porters and singers participated with the priests in 
 the offerings of the people. 
 
 we will not forsake] The object of the new regulations is to maintain 
 the efficiency of the Temple worship and to provide for the welfare of 
 those that ministered in it; 'we will not forsake' is equivalent to ' we 
 will not neglect or diminish the contributions to the Temple, which we 
 have publicly undertaken.' 
 
 Note on 'the Tithe.' It must be noticed that ' the tithe ' spoken of 
 in this context is described as 'tithes of our ground,' 'tithes in all the 
 cities of our tillage,' and is probably here (ver. 39) represented along 
 with 'the heave offering,' as consisting of corn, wine and oil, as indeed 
 it is spoken of in xiii. 5, 12. In other words 'the tithe' is a vegetable 
 one; and this is also the impression which we gather from the descrip- 
 tion of 'tithe' in Num. xviii. and Mai. iii. 8 — 11. 
 
 Now in Lev. xxvii. 32, 33 'a tithe of the herd or the flock' is called 
 'holy to the Lord,' and with this agrees the mention of 'the tithe of 
 oxen and sheep' in 2 Chron. xxxi. 6. It is needless to point out what 
 an enormous addition this ' tithe of the herd or the flock' would make 
 to the wealth of the Priesthood and the treasury of the Temple. How 
 then does it come to pass that neither in the regulations contained in 
 Num. xviii. and Deut. xiv., nor inNeh.x., xii., xiii. is any allusion made 
 to the tithe of herd and flock ? Two explanations are forthcoming : 
 
 (i) It is possible that Lev. xxvii. 32 embodies a primitive pastoral 
 law of tithing, which having fallen into desuetude was omitted at the 
 time of the codification of the laws in Num. xviii. and Deut. xiv. In 
 support of this view it should be remembered that Jacob's vow to dedi- 
 cate a tenth (Gen. xxviii. 22) certainly referred to the tithe of property 
 in herds and flocks, while the possibility of exacting a 'tenth' of the 
 flocks even for civil purposes is contemplated in i Sam. viii. 17. Ac- 
 cording to this view, Hezekiah would have revived a religious custom, 
 which was inherited from the time when the nation was more pastoral 
 than agricultural. It is natural to suppose that the Jewish community 
 at Jerusalem in Nehemiah's days was too poor to maintain this addi- 
 tional burden. The objection to this explanation is that the appearance 
 
V. I.] NEHEMIAH, XI. 281 
 
 And the rulers of the people dwelt at Jerusalem : the rest 11 
 of the people also cast lots, to bring one of ten to dwell in 
 
 of Lev. xxvii. 32 in relation to its immediate context is not that of a 
 survival from an earlier legislation; while the children of Israel could 
 never have so far abandoned the pastoral in favour of agriculturul life as 
 to make it worth while to surrender the claim to so important a source 
 of revenue for the service of the Temple. 
 
 (-2) It is possible, as is maintained in some quarters, that 'the animal 
 tithe-law' of Lev. xxvii. 32 may be an interpolation later than Nehe- 
 miah's time, made in the interest of the Priesthood. There is more to 
 be said for this startling supposition than might perhaps be expected. 
 A close inspection of Lev. xxvii. 30 — 33 shows that ver. 32 is strangely 
 and abruptly introduced between ver. 31 and ver. 33, which deal with 
 the subject of the redemption of the vegetable-tithe mentioned in ver. 30. 
 Again, in 2 Chron. xxxi. we find that, after the mention in ver. 5 of 
 * tithe of all things' being given by 'the children of Israel', another sen- 
 tence (ver. 6) tells us that ' the children of Israel and Judah that dwelt 
 in the cities of Judah, they also brought in the tithe of oxen and sheep 
 and the tithe of consecrated things, &c.' which is not improbably a later 
 expansion of the previous words. It is obviously an objection to this 
 view that the insertion of a clause making so large a claim upon the 
 property of the Jews could rarely at any time have been secretly foisted 
 into the text of the Pentateuch; and that, supposing it to have been 
 possible, such an interpolation made in the interest of the Priestly 
 families would have had the smallest chance of success at a time when 
 the Scribes controlled the transcription of the text. 
 
 The solution of the problem has not yet been reached. The diffi- 
 culty illustrates the variations in Israelite law, in which are reflected 
 the altered circumstances of different centuries. It must be admitted 
 that Lev. xxvii. 32 wears an appearance not altogether free from- sus- 
 picion; and an interpolation in an age, when, as we know from the 
 LXX. version, the text of the Pentateuch was not yet fully settled, is 
 not outside the range of probability. 
 
 Ch. xi. 
 
 I- 
 
 — xii. 
 
 26. 
 
 Lists. 
 
 xii. 
 
 27- 
 
 -43- 
 
 
 Dedication of the City Walls. 
 
 
 44- 
 
 -47- 
 
 
 Levitical Organization. 
 
 xiii. 
 
 I- 
 
 -3- 
 
 
 Relations with Heathen. 
 
 XI. 1 — XII. 26. Extracts from Registers and Public Lists. 
 
 1, 2. Measures taken to increase the number of dwellers in Jeru- 
 salem. 
 
 This passage seems to take up the thread which had been dropped 
 at vii. 4. Nehemiah had been rendered anxious by the fewness of the 
 inhabitants in proportion to the size of the area of the city. The census 
 which he undertook reminded him of the old register which had come 
 to his notice (vii. 6 — 73) ; the memoirs of Nehemiah were then inter- 
 
382 NEHEMIAH, XI. [v. 2. 
 
 Jerusalem the holy city, and nine parts to dwell in other 
 3 cities. And the people blessed all the men, that willingly 
 
 rupted by a description of the celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles, 
 and the Solemn Covenant (viii. — x). The Compiler returning to the 
 subject of the paucity of dwellers in Jerusalem, briefly describes the 
 method adopted of increasing their number, probably epitomizing the 
 account which Nehemiah's own Memoirs contained. 
 
 1. And\ The copula has no connexion with the preceding chapter, 
 and probably marks the compilatory character of the passage. 
 
 rtders\ R.V. princes. 
 
 dweli at (R.V. in) Jerusale7ti\ It has been suggested that this clause 
 refers only to 'the princes,' who, before Nehemiah took the matter in 
 hand, had resided in the country : in deference to his wishes or yielding 
 to his entreaties these princes now dwelt in Jerusalem. But the diffi- 
 culty remained how to secure the presence in greater numbers of those 
 who, from lack of means or by reason of trade and occupation, could 
 not so easily change their quarters. This explanation which treats the 
 word 'dwelt' as equivalent to 'came to dwell,' derives considerable 
 support from the word ' also ' in the following clause. 
 
 Others find the explanation of the verse in the contrast between * the 
 princes of the people' and 'the rest of the people.' The former 
 naturally had dwellings in Jerusalem ; they lived there because con- 
 cerned in the government of the community and able to afford a 
 dwelling in the city. The latter, however, for the most part the middle 
 and lower classes, lived in the country ; and they, being no less eager 
 than their superiors in rank for the defence of the Holy City, deter- 
 mined to recruit its numbers by a contingent of ten per cent. 
 
 cast lots] Cf. on x. 34. 
 
 the holy city\ Jerusalem is so-called also in v. 18. The occurrence 
 of this title in Scripture may be illustrated by Isai. xlviii. 2, ' For they 
 call themselves of the holy city,' lii. i, * O Jerusalem, the holy city,' 
 cf. Dan. ix. 24; Joel iii. 17. In the N.T. it occurs in Matt. iv. 5, 
 xxvii. 53 ; cf. Rev. xi. 2, xxi. 2, 10, xxii. 19. 
 
 nine parts to dwell in other cities] R.V. nine paxts in the other 
 cities. 
 
 ' In the cities, ' as the Hebrew has it, must denote the towns and 
 villages of the country occupied by the Jewish community ; cf. v. 20. 
 
 2. that willingly offered themselves] Another group is here dis- 
 tinguished, i.e. those who volunteered to go and dwell in Jerusalem. 
 They are not to be confused with those who were sent there, being 
 chosen ' by lot.' They went of their own accord, moved by public 
 spirit. The blessing of their countrymen shows the enthusiasm aroused 
 by their patriotic action; at the same time, it may denote that residence 
 in Jerusalem was recognised to be fraught with danger. To dwell in 
 the 'holy city' was also to defend it from its many enemies, see 
 chap. vii. 4. It is not stated that they were accepted as substitutes 
 for those chosen by lot. 
 
 According to this explanation we are told in these two verses of 
 three classes of dwellers in Jerusalem : (a) the princes, {b) ten per cent. 
 
V. 3-] NEHEMIAH, XI. 283 
 
 offered themselves to dwell at Jerusalem. Now these are 3 
 the chief of the province that dwelt in Jerusalem : but in 
 the cities of Judah dwelt every one in his possession in 
 
 of the inhabitants of the other towns selected by lot and forcibly trans- 
 ferred, and [c] those who voluntarily migrated to the capital. 
 
 3 — 10. From this verse to xii. 26 we have a succession of lists : 
 (i) the chiefs of the provinces that dwelt in Jerusalem, 4 — 26; (2) the 
 towns and villages occupied by the Jews, 25 — 36 ; (3) the priests 
 and Levites that went up with Zerubbabel from Babylon, xii. i — 9 ; 
 
 (4) the genealogy of the high-priests beginning at Jeshua, xii. 10 — 11 ; 
 
 (5) the heads of the priestly houses in the days of Joiakim, xii. 12 — 21 ; 
 
 (6) of the Levitical houses at the same period, xii. 72 — 26. 
 
 The origin of the lists is not recorded. That some of them may 
 have been included in the ' Memoirs ' of Nehemiah is very possible. 
 But all doubtless bear traces of the Compiler's work either by abridge- 
 ment or by necessary adaptation from official records. 
 
 The first of the lists presents a close resemblance to a list contained 
 in the Book of Chronicles : compare Neh. xi. 3 — 19 with i Chron. ix. 
 1 — 17. The two lists are clearly the same although they differ in 
 certain details. The best way of accounting for the presence of this 
 duplicate list is to suppose that both were copied from the same official 
 document, but by different hands and for different purposes. The 
 Compiler found both copies extant, the one in connexion with the 
 genealogies of the tribes (i Chron. ix.), the other either embodied in, 
 or preserved along with, the official documents of Nehemiah's govern- 
 ment. 
 
 3. Ncnv these are the chief, &c.] The heading of our list differs from 
 that in i Chron. ix. 2, which runs, 'Now the first inhabitants that 
 dwelt in their possessions in their cities were, Israel, the priests, the 
 Levites, and the Nethinim.' The purpose of the list in i Chron. ix. is 
 apparently to give the names of the families who had either remained in 
 Judea at the time when the mass of the people were transported to 
 Babylon, or had returned to their own country either from exile or from 
 voluntary flight in Egypt and the neighbouring nations. The purpose 
 of the list in our passage is apparently to state the number of the inhabit- 
 ants either before or after (Rawlinson) the measures taken to augment 
 them in Nehemiah's time. 
 
 The mention of 'the king' in ver. 23 and ver. 24 is apparently a 
 reference to Artaxerxes ; a conclusive proof that the list belongs to the 
 age of Nehemiah. 
 
 According to some commentators, the list is intended to give the 
 names of 'the princes of the people' mentioned in ver. i. But the ex- 
 pression 'the chiefs of the province' (see on Ezra ii. i) suggests that the 
 list and its superscription have no original connexion with verses i 
 and 2. It is more probable that the Compiler having access to this list 
 belonging to the age of Nehemiah, in which the classification is that of 
 'the dwellers in Jerusalem' (4 — 19) and 'the residue of Israel' (20 — 36) 
 has inserted it here in terms as nearly as possible corresponding to the 
 division of the people in ver. i. 
 
284 NEHEMIAH, XL [vv. 4— 7. 
 
 their cities, to wit, Israel, the priests, and the Levites, and 
 the Nethinims, and the children of Solomon's servants. 
 
 4 And at Jerusalem dwelt certain of the children of Judah, 
 and of the children of Benjamin. Of the children of Judah; 
 Athaiah the son of Uzziah, the son of Zechariah, the son of 
 Amariah, the son of Shephatiah, the son of Mahalaleel, of 
 
 5 the children of Perez ; and Maaseiah the son of Baruch, the 
 son of Col-hozeh, the son of Ha/aiah, the son of Adaiah, 
 the son of Joiarib, the son of Zechariah, the son of Shiloni. 
 
 6 All the sons of Perez that dwelt at Jerusalem 7vere four 
 
 7 hundred threescore and eight valiant men. And these are 
 
 Nethinims] R.V. Nethinim. 
 
 and the children of Solomo)i' s sej'vants] See on Ezra ii. 58; Neh. vii. 
 57. These are not mentioned in the parallel passage, i Chron. ix. 2. 
 
 4. And at y erusaleju'l R.V. And in Jerusalem. In the Chronicles 
 list after ' the children of Benjamin' are mentioned 'and of the children 
 of Ephraim and Manasseh.' 
 
 Athaiah the son of Uzziah, &c.] In i Chron. ix. 4 the house of Perez 
 is represented by 'Uthai the son of Ammihud.' The suggestion that 
 'Athaiah' and 'Uthai' are identical appears plausible at first sight. But 
 the names of their respective ancestors are different ; and it is possible 
 that two different men are intended. If the great similarity of the names 
 forbids us to believe that two separate personages can be referred to, 
 we must conclude that the two lists are epitomes and have preserved 
 different representative names from the completer genealogy in the 
 original document. 
 
 Mahalaleel^ R.V. Mahalalel. 
 
 Perez'\ or Pharez. Cf. Gen. xxxviii. 29; i Chron. iv. i. 
 
 5. MaaseiaK\ In i Chron. ix. 5, 'And of the Shilonites; Asaiah 
 the firstborn, and his sons.' 
 
 the son of Shiloni] R.V. the son of the Shilonite. The word for 'son 
 of [ben) has probably been inserted by copyists who mistook the patro- 
 nymic ' Shilonite' for a proper name. The word ' Shilonite' has nothing 
 to do with the tow^n Shiloh ; but is the patronymic foim denoting a 
 descendant of Shelah, son of Judah (Num. xxvi. 20). The Chronicles 
 list mentions also the name of Jeuel, son of Zerah, Judah's third son; 
 but in this passage the Zerahites have disappeared. Their line may 
 have become extinct, or been merged in one of the brother's houses ; or 
 is it omitted here, because 'the children of Zerah, the son of Judah' are 
 represented in ver. 24 by Pethahiah ? 
 
 Col-hozeh] This name has occurred in chap. iii. 15. 
 
 6. at J erusalem] R.V. in. 
 
 four hundred threescoi'e and eight valiant men\ Our list gives the 
 number of the sons of Perez, 468 ; the Chronicles list gives the number 
 of the sons of Zerah, 690. It is clear, therefore, that neither list is com- 
 plete, but that each is drawn from some fuller document. 
 
vv. 8, 9.] NEHEMIAH, XI. 285 
 
 the sons of Benjamin; Sallu the son of Meshullam, the 
 son of Joed, the son of Pedaiah, the son of Kolaiah, the 
 son of Maaseiah, the son of Ithiel, the son of Jesaiah. And 8 
 after him Gabbai, Sallai, nine hundred twenty and eight. 
 And Joel the son of Zichri ivas their overseer : and Judah 9 
 the son of Senuah was second over the city. 
 
 valiant men] i.e. men capable of bearing arms, able-bodied men. 
 
 7. SaHu the son of Meshullam'] This name stands at the head of the 
 Benjamites in 1 Chron. ix. 7 — 9. But otherwise the lists here vary from 
 one another. 
 
 8. Gabbai, Sallai] The occurrence of these names, not separated by 
 the copula, is peculiar. No connexion can be traced between the 
 'Gabbai, Sallai,... Joel, ...Judah,' of our list with the 'Ibneiah, Elah and 
 Meshullam' in i Chron. ix. 8. But there are certain peculiarities in the 
 two lists at this point which make us suspect that the text of the original 
 document was here at fault. Thus in our text we may remark on (i) 
 the abruptness of 'after him Gabbai, Sallai,' (2) the number 928 differing 
 from, but yet sufficiently close to, that of 956 in i Chron. Sallai, it has 
 been conjectured, is the name Sallu repeated, which has crept into the 
 text from a gloss on the word 'after him.' In i Chronicles we remark 
 upon Meshullam occurring twice, and Ibneiah by the side of Ibnijah. 
 The number 928, if we may argue from the analogy of ver. 6, relates 
 only to the house of Sallai or Gabbai Sallai. In i Chron. ix, 9, the 
 number 956 represents the sons of Benjamin. 
 
 9. A7id Joel, &c.] There is nothing in the i Chron. list correspond- 
 ing with this verse. 
 
 ovei-seer] Apparently the members of the same tribe or house formed 
 a distinct organization within the city walls, and were under a respon- 
 sible head or 'overseer,' 'paqid.' LXX. eTr/cr/coTros. Vulg. 'prae- 
 positus.' 
 
 Jtidah the son of Semiah (R.V. Hassenuali)] In i Chron. ix. 7 
 Sallu is spoken of as a descendant of ' Hodaviah the son of Hassenuah.' 
 Remembering the confusion between 'Judah ' and 'Hodaviah' in Ezra 
 ii. 40 and iii. 9, it is possible that we have here another trace of textual 
 corruption. 'Elah... the son of Michri' is also confused with *Joel the 
 son of Zichri,' i Chron. ix. 8. 
 
 second over the cityi] From the context it is evident that the expres- 
 sion refers only to the overseership over the Benjamites, or, at the most, 
 the men of Judah and Benjamin in the city. He was 'deputy overseer,' 
 or second in command to Joel. Cf. 'brethren of the second degree' 
 I Chron. xv. 18, 'second to him' xvi. 5. It is not, however, quite 
 certain that the traditional translation adopted in the English version is 
 correct. In the opinion 'of some scholars the word rendered 'second' 
 qualifies 'the city,' which in the Hebrew it immediately follows. It 
 will not then denote the rank of Judah the son of Hassenuah, but the 
 quarter of the capital over which he was overseer. Cf. 1 Kings xxii. 14, 
 'She (Huldah) dwelt in Jerusalem, in the second quarter.' 2 Chron. 
 
286 NEHEMIAH, XI. [w. 10—12. 
 
 10, II Of the priests: Jedaiah the son of Joiarib, Jachin, Seraiah 
 the son of Hilkiah, the son of Meshullam, the son of Zadok, 
 the son of Meraioth, the son of Ahitub, was the ruler of the 
 12 house of God. And their brethren that did the work of the 
 house we7'e eight hundred twenty and two : and Adaiah 
 the son of Jeroham, the son of Pelaliah, the son of Amzi, 
 the son of Zechariah, the son of Pashur, the son of Malchiah, 
 
 xxxiv. 22; Zepli. i. 10. On the division of Jerusalem into two districts, 
 for purposes of administration, see Neh. iii. 9, 12. We know from 
 Neh. vii. 2 that Nehemiah had constituted Hanani and Hananiah 
 'overseers' over Jerusalem. Perhaps Joel and Judah presided over a 
 special community in each district. 
 
 10. Jedaiah the son of Joiarib^ Jachin^ The parallel passage in 
 
 1 Chron. ix. 10 has 'Jedaiah, and Jehoiarib, Jachin.' As these three 
 ai^e the names of well-known priestly houses (cf. i Chron. xxiv. 7, 
 Jehoiarib the first, Jedaiah the second, Jachin the one and twentieth in 
 the twenty-four), 'the son of may possibly be an interpolation. If the 
 text is correct, 'Jedaiah' must here represent a branch of the house of 
 Joiarib. 
 
 11. Seraiah'] i Chron. ix. ri, 'Azariah the son of Meshullam.' 
 The same person may be intended, as the same genealogy is given in 
 both lists. If so, the names have possibly been accidentally confused, 
 either through similarity of sound or through corruption in the original 
 text from which the lists were taken. Very probably they were father 
 and son; and the two lists have selected different names to represent 
 the priestly house. Cf. i Chron. vii. 13, 'Hilkiah begat Azariah; and 
 Azariah begat Jeraiah.' 
 
 Meraioth] In i Chron. vi. 7, Meraioth is the grandfather of Ahitub, 
 in Ezra vii. 3 the great-grandfather. But in these genealogies names 
 were freely left out for brevity, and the exact relationship by succession 
 cannot be determined. Names also are repeated in the same family. 
 Meraioth probably occurred often in the line of Seraiah. 
 
 was the ruler of the house of God] R.V. omits was. The same title 
 occurs in connexion curiously enough with the same proper name in 
 
 2 Chron. xxxi. 13, 'And Azariah the ruler of the house of God.' It is 
 tempting to suggest that Azariah's name has been substituted for that of 
 Seraiah from a gloss on ' the ruler of the house of God. ' If the title is 
 equivalent to that of the High- priest, then Seraiah is the well-known High- 
 priest, the ancestor of Ezra, put to death by Nebuchadnezzar (see Ezra 
 vii. i; 2 Kings xxv. 18). For the use of the title 'n'gid' (Vulg. *prin- 
 ceps'), cf. I Chron. xii. 27, 'Jehoiada... leader of the house of Aaron.' 
 But it may denote only a special officer of the Temple. The LXX. 
 renders airivavn. oikov tov deov (reading ^ neged'' for 'n^gtd''). 
 
 12. eight hundred twenty and two] These numbers are not given in 
 I Chron. 
 
 Adaiah] A fuller genealogy is given for this name than in i Chron. 
 
vv. 13—15.] NEHEMIAH, XI. 287 
 
 and his brethren, chief of the fathers, two hundred forty 13 
 and two : and Amashai the son of Azareel, the son of 
 Ahasai, the son of Meshillemoth, the son of Immer, and 14 
 their brethren, mighty men of valour, an hundred twenty 
 and eight : and their overseer was Zabdiel, the son of one of 
 the great men. 
 
 Also of the Levites : Shemaiah the son of Hashub, the 15 
 son of Azrikam, the son of Hashabiah, the son of Bunni ; 
 
 13. chief of the fathers] R.V. chiefs of fathers' houses. From the 
 technical use of the term 'chiefs of fathers' houses,' it is obvious that the 
 figure 242 denotes the mimber of the retainers of Adaiah and 'his 
 brethren,' who were 'chiefs of fathers' houses.' 
 
 Ajfiashai (R.V. Amashsai) the son of Azareel {M.Y . Azarel), the son 
 of Ahasai (R.V. Ahzai), the son of Meshillemoth] In i Chron. ix. 12, 
 ' Maasai the son of Adiel, the son of Jahzerah, the son of Meshullam, 
 the son of Meshillemith ' is clearly the same person. A comparison of 
 the names here will illustrate the way in which proper names were liable 
 to be confused and altered in the process of copying; it will also show 
 how in one list some names are omitted from the full genealogy. 
 
 Immer] Cf. vii. 40 ; Ezra ii. 37. 
 
 14. mighty men of valour] Cf. i Chron. ix. 13 'Very able men (lit. 
 mighty men of valour) for the work of the service of the house of God.' 
 
 their brethre7t...an htmdrcd twenty and eight] Query: 'their' an 
 error for 'his '? 
 
 In our list of the priests, vv. 10 — 14 we have the following figures: 
 
 Jedaiah, Jachin, Seraiah, &c. = 822 
 
 Adaiah, &c. = 242 
 
 Amashsai =128 
 
 1 192 
 
 It is noticeable that these figures do not correspond with the number 
 1760 mentioned in i Chron. ix. 13. 
 
 overseer] Cf. ver. 9. 
 
 the son of one of the great men] so R.V. marg. R.V. text the son of 
 Haggedolim. It is a disputed point whether ' Haggedolim ' is a proper 
 name. The literal translation would be ' the son of the great ones,' so 
 the LXX. renders BaSt^X mos rwv ixeyaXwv. But who are ' the great 
 ones' ? The explanation which has been given that they are the priests 
 mentioned in this section, vv. 10 — 14, is merely a conjecture, which has 
 no other evidence in its favour. Some (e.g. Neteler) think it means 
 ' the high-priests ; ' and suppose Zabdiel to have been the Sagan or 
 deputy high-priest. On the other hand, if ' Haggedolim ' be a proper 
 name, it is a very peculiar one ; but cf. ver. 35, ' Gehaharashim.' 
 
 15. Also] R.V. And. 
 Hashtib] R.V. Hasshub. 
 
 the son of Bunni] Instead of this termination to Shemaiah's genea- 
 logy, we find 'of the sons of Merari' in i Chron. ix. 14. 
 
288 NEHEMIAH, XI. [vv. 16—19. 
 
 16 and Shabbethai and Jozabad, of the chief of the Levites, 
 had the oversight of the outward business of the house of 
 
 17 God. And Mattaniah the son of Micha, the son of Zabdi, 
 the son of Asaph, was the principal to begin the thanks- 
 giving in prayer : and Bakbukiah the second among his 
 brethren, and Abda the son of Shammua, the son of Galal, 
 
 18 the son of Jeduthun. All the Levites in the holy city were 
 
 19 two hundred fourscore and four. Moreover the porters, 
 
 16. Shabbethai... Jozabad'X See these names in viii. 7. They do 
 not occur in the parallel list of i Chron. ix. 15, 16, where however 
 three other names, Heresh, Galal, and Berechiah are inserted. 
 
 chief\ R.V. chiefs. 
 
 had the oversight] R.V. who had the oversight. 
 
 the outzvard business of the house of God] For the use of the adjective 
 ' outward ' here, cf. i Chron. xxvi. 29, ' of the Izharites, Chenaniah and 
 his sons were for the outward business over Israel, for officers and 
 judges.' 
 
 Whatever ' the outward business of the house of God ' was, it is 
 clearly meant to be contrasted with ' the business, or work, of the house 
 of God' (cf. ver. 12 and i Chron. xxiii. 4) consisting in the worship 
 and its ritual. It must not be limited in application to the main- 
 tenance of the fabric of the Temple and its courts. The significance of 
 the expression appears from a comparison of the two passages quoted 
 above. The Levites had duties as 'officers and judges,' see i Chron. 
 xxiii. 4; xxvi. 29; 2 Chron. xix. 8, 11 ; and this section formed one- 
 sixth of their whole number (i Chron. xxiii. 4). 
 
 17. Micha] R.V. Mica. 
 
 was the principal] R.V. who was the Chief. The expression 'the 
 chief to begin the thanksgiving in prayer ' is not very intelligible. The 
 Hebrew for ' the chief to begin ' is literally ' the head of the beginning 
 {fkhillah) who used to give thanks to the prayer' i.e. after it. The 
 LXX. and Vulg. Vss. follow a text, which differs in one letter, 
 'the head of the praise' [fhillah)^ and gives a good sense, viz. 'the 
 head or leader of praise, one who gave thanks in the time of prayer,' 
 (LXX. apx^v Tov aivov Kal 'lovdas rrjs Trpoaevxv^', Vulg. 'princeps ad 
 laudandum et ad confitendum in oratione.') But the obscurity of the 
 Hebrew phrase probably arises from its having been a technical title 
 of the leader of the Temple choir, a choregus. 
 
 Bakbukiah the secojid among his brethren] i.e. second to Mattaniah. 
 Bakbukiah probably coiTesponds to Bakbakkar in i Chron. ix. 15, or 
 to Berechiah in i Chron. ix. 16. 
 
 Abda\ This name appears with the same genealogy as Obadiah in 
 I Chi-on. ix. 16. 
 
 From the mention of ' Asaph' and 'Jeduthun' we evidently have in 
 these verses (as in i Chron. ix. 14, 15) the class of Levites, who, e.g. in 
 Ezra ii. 41, stand before 'the porters,' i.e. ' the singers.' 
 
 18. the holy city] Cf. note on ver. i. 
 
vv. 20—22.] NEHEMIAH, XL 289 
 
 Akkub, Talmon, and their brethren that kept the gates, 
 were an hundred seventy and two. 
 
 And the residue of Israel, of the priests, and the Levites, 20 
 7vere in all the cities of Judah, every one in his inheritance. 
 But the Nethinims dwelt in Ophel : and Ziha and Gispa 21 
 were over the Nethinims. The overseer also of the Levites 22 
 at Jerusalem was Uzzi the son of Bani, the son of Hasha- 
 biah, the son of Mattaniah, the son of Micha. Of the sons 
 of Asaph, the singers were over the business of the house of 
 
 19. Akkub, Talmoti] In i Chron. ix. 17, 'And the porters ; Shallum, 
 and Akkub, and Talmon, and Ahiman, and their brethren : Shalhim 
 was the chief.' 
 
 thai kept the gates] R.V. that kept watch at the gate. 
 
 a7i hundred seventy and two] i Chron. ix. 22, 'two hundred and 
 twelve ; ' the discrepancy may be another instance of error in transcrip- 
 tion. 
 
 20. This verse is clearly out of place, interrupting the register of 
 * the porters ' and * the Nethinim.' It would be more appropriate 
 before z'. 25. 
 
 the residue of Israel] Cf. ver. i, 'the rest of the people,' where the 
 same word is used in the Hebrew. 
 
 ' Israel' as in ver. 3 (cf. Ezra ii. 70), denoting all the laity irrespective 
 of their tribes. 
 
 of the priests, and the Levites] R.V. the priests, the Levites. The 
 A.V., by inserting 'and,' and the R.V., by preserving the comma be- 
 tween the words, agree in not regarding this as an instance of the 
 technical term ' the priests the Levites ' which is found so often in 
 Deuteronomy, and occurs elsewhere, e.g. 2 Chron. v. 5, xxiii. 18, xxx. 27. 
 
 The words are coordinate although the copula is wanting. As in 
 V. 3, and in chap. x. 28 and 34, Israel (or 'the people') with the priests 
 and the Levites make up the whole sum of the nation. 
 
 21. the Nethifiitns] R.V. the Nethinim. 
 
 in Ophel] See iii. 26. Their quarters were on the summit of the 
 Hill or Mound, S. of the Temple height. 
 
 Ziha and Gispa (R.V. Gishpa)] Ziha's name occurs at the head of 
 the Nethinim in Ezra ii. 43 ; Neh. vii. 46 ; and there can be little doubt 
 that 'Gishpa' is to be identified with 'Hasupha' in the same list. 
 
 22. Uzzi] Uzzi's position as overseer of the Levites 'over the 
 business of the house of God' is parallel to that of Shabbethai and 
 Jozabad (ver. 16). 
 
 Micha] R.V. Mica. Cf. ver. 17. 
 
 Of the sons of Asaph, the singers were over &c.] R.V. of the sons 
 of Asaph, the singers, over &c. The R.V. rightly takes the whole 
 verse to be one sentence, defining firstly the descent and then the duties 
 of Uzzi. The word 'overseer' must be joined with 'over the business' : 
 while 'the singers' is in apposition to 'the sons of Asaph.' 
 
 The A.V. in dividing the sentence probably followed the LXX. and 
 
 NEHEMIAH IQ 
 
290 NEHEMIAH, XL [v v. 23, 24. 
 
 23 God. For it was the king's commandment concerning 
 them, that a certain portion should be for the singers, due 
 
 24 for every day. And Pethahiah the son of Meshezabeel, of 
 the children of Zerah the son of Judah, was at the king's 
 hand in all matters concerning the people. 
 
 Vulg. (' De filiis Asaph cantores in ministerio domus Dei '). The purpose 
 of the division may have been to secure to 'the singers' a separate 
 mention of their office. But (i) they were tacitly included in ver. 17, 
 (2) ' the singers' would not be over 'the business of the house of God.' 
 
 the business of the house of God} See note on ver. 16. The 'business' 
 is that of the liturgical worship and the organization necessary for the 
 regular rotation of Levitical service. 
 
 23. For it was] R.V. For there was, 
 
 the king's conwiandmenfl R.V. a commandment from the Mng. 
 
 That this was the Persian king Artaxerxes is shown by the reference 
 to 'the king' in ver. 24, and by the similar instances of favour to the 
 Temple at Jerusalem on the part of Artaxerxes. Cf. ii. 8; Ezra vii. 
 20 — 24. 
 
 concerning thetti] Who are spoken of? the singers, the Levites, or 
 their officers and overseers? 
 
 The context seems in favour of the Levites. The name of Uzzi 
 who was at once 'overseer' of the Levites and by descent of the family 
 of Asaph, suggested the parenthetical statement, that there was a royal 
 edict in favour of the Levitical community, and a special provision made 
 for the singers. 
 
 that a certain portion should he for] R.V. and a settled provision for. 
 Marg. ' Or, a sure ordinance concerni7ig\ The clause is not dependent 
 on (as A.V.), but co-ordinate with its predecessor. The word rendered 
 'settled provision' {emanah) is that rendered 'a sure covenant' in 
 ix. 38. An abstract word, it perhaps denotes i\\e fixity of the arrange- 
 ment on behalf of the singers rather than the nature of its provisions. 
 'Sure ordinance' is therefore to be preferred as a rendering; and this 
 rendering presents a closer parallel to 'commandment.' 
 
 due for every day] R.V. as every day required. Cf. xii. 47. Lite- 
 rally, 'the thing of a day on its day,' as LXX. \6yos €Kd(jT7]s rifxepai 
 ev ry rifjiipq. avTov. A common Hebrew phrase, e.g. Ex. v. 13, 19, xvi. 4; 
 Lev. xxiii. 37; i Kings viii. 59; 2 Kings xxv. 30; i Chron. xvi. 37; 
 1 Chron. viii. 14, xxxi. 16; Ezra iii. 4; Jer. lii. 34; Dan. i. 5. 
 
 24. Pethahiah the son of Meshezabeel (R.V. Meshezabel)...Z£'/-<z/^] On 
 'Zerah the son of Judah' see note on vv. 4 — 6. 
 
 at the king's hand] What this exactly meant we are left to con- 
 jecture. Pethahiah was in some sort of way an official representative of 
 Jewish interests in connexion with the Persian court. The suggestion 
 (of Reuss) that he resided at Jerusalem, and was the official recipient of 
 the provincial tribute might derive support from the mention of 'the 
 house of the king' in ii. 25. But it is hard to see how any Jewish 
 official of the Persian court, if he resided in Jerusalem, could be said to 
 be 'at the king's hand in q,ll matters concerning the people' in any sense 
 
vv. 25, 26.] NEHEMIAH, XI. 291 
 
 And for the villages, with their fields, so7ne of the children 25 
 of Judah dwelt at Kirjath-arba, and i7i the villages thereof, 
 and at Dibon, and in the villages thereof, and at Jekabzeel, 
 and ill the villages thereof, and at Jeshua, and at Moladah, 26 
 
 which would not much rather be appHcable to Nehemiah himself. In- 
 deed, if this official was a resident in Jerusalem, it is not easy to believe 
 that the time of Nehemiah's governorship can be referred to. 
 
 If he was the Jewish representative at Susa it constitutes an isolated 
 reference in this chapter to a person dwelling outside the borders of Judea. 
 
 In spite of this objection it seems more probable that 'at the king's 
 hand ' denotes personal residence at the Persian court. 
 
 The mention of the fact is parenthetically added in connexion with 
 the royal mandate favourable to the Levites and the singers; and is not 
 therefore, strictly speaking, relevant to the list. The phrase 'at the 
 hand of seems to denote personal attendance, of. xiii. 13 'next to 
 them,' I Chron. xviii. 17 'And the sons of David were chief about (lit. 
 'at the hand of,' Vulg. *ad manum') the king,' xxiii. 28 'their office was 
 to wait on (lit. 'at the hand of,' LXX. evri X"P«> Vulg. 'sub manu') the 
 sons of Aaron.' In our verse the LXX. renders tt/jos xeipa, the Vulg. 
 *in manu.' 
 
 25. And for the villages, -with their field s\ The preposition 'for* 
 = 'with respect to.' The verse takes up the thread which had been 
 interrupted by the parenthesis (21 — 24). 
 
 at Kirjath-arba, and in the villages thereof \ R.V. in Kirjath-arba 
 and the towns (Marg. Heb. daughters thereof). 
 
 Kirjath-arba, the old name of Hebron (Gen. xxiii. 2; Jos. xiv. 15), 
 the capital of the tribe of Judah (cf. 2 Sam. ii. i — 4). Rawlinson con- 
 jectures that 'during the captivity the old name had reasserted itself.' 
 Its employment here is certainly peculiar. But it is more probable that 
 the ancient name reproduces the formal language of the official register. 
 It is noticeable that in Joshua, which contains so many of the towns 
 mentioned in this passage, Hebron is called by its archaic name (Jos. 
 XV. 54). Kirjath-arba, or the city of Arba, was traditionally so called 
 after Arba, one of the Anakim or pre-Canaanite princes. According to 
 others it means 'the city of four quarters,' 'a Tetrapolis.' Its modern 
 name El-Khalil, 'the Friend (of God),' preserves the memory of the 
 patriarch Abraham, who dwelt there (Gen. xiii. xiv. xviii. xxiii.). 
 
 It should be observed that hitherto we have had no mention of the 
 Jews after the exile re-occupying Hebron. 
 
 'the towns (Heb. daughters) thereof.' By this expression is denoted 
 the hamlets and villages adjacent to a principal town, which were de- 
 pendent on it in some degree for supplies and for protection, and were 
 originally offshoots. Cf. Num. xxi. 25, 32 ; Jos. xv. 45; Judg. xi. 26. 
 
 Dibon... Jekabzeel] Probably the same as Dimonah and Kabzeel, 
 which occur in connexion with Moladah in Jos. xv. 21, 22, 26. 
 
 26. feshua'] Not mentioned elsewhere. Some suppose that the 
 name is a corruption of Shema (Jos. xv. 26.) 
 
 Moladah] Cf. Jos. xv. 26. 
 
 19—2 
 
292 NEHEMIAH, XI. [vv. 27—33. 
 
 27 and at Beth-phelet, and at Hazar-shual, and at Beer-sheba, 
 
 28 and in the villages thereof, and at Ziklag, and at Mekonah, 
 2y and in the villages thereof, and at En-rimmon, and at 
 
 30 Zareah, and at Jarmuth, Zanoah, Adullam, and in their 
 villages, at Lachish, and the fields thereof, at Azekah, and 
 in the villages thereof. And they dwelt from Beer-sheba 
 
 31 unto the valley of Hinnom. The children also of Benjamin 
 from Geba divelt at Michmash, and Aija, and Beth-el, and 
 
 35> 33 i7i their villages, a7id at Anathoth, Nob, Ananiah, Hazor, 
 
 Beth-phelet\ R.V. Beth-pelet. Cf. Jos. xv. 27. 
 
 27. Hazar-s]mal'\ 'Fox-town.' Cf. Jos. xv. -28. 
 Beer-sheba^ The well-known southern limit of Palestine. 
 
 28. Ziklag] Cf. Jos. xv. 31 ; i Sam. xxx. i. 
 
 29. En-rii)inion\ In Jos. xv, 32 we find this as two places, *Ain, 
 and Rimmon;' so also in Jos. xix. 7 ; i Chron. iv. 32. 
 
 Zareah] R.V. Zorah. Cf. Jos. xv. 33, 'in the lowland... Zorah.' 
 yarmutJi] Cf. Jos. xv. 35 ; cf. iii. 5. 
 
 30. Zatwah] Cf. Jos. xv. 34; cf. iii. 13. 
 AdtiUavi] Cf. Jos. xv. 35. 
 
 Lachish] Cf. Jos. xv. 39. 
 
 Azekah] Cf Jos. xv. 35. 
 
 And they dwelt] R.V. So they encamped. 
 
 from Beer-sheba unto the valley of Hinnom] i.e. from the extreme 
 southern point of Israel to the northern boundary of the tribe of Judah, 
 the ravine or valley of Hinnom (Gay-Hinnom = Gehenna). See Jos. 
 XV. 8. On the * valley of Hinnom,' see note on ii. 13. That this list is 
 of later date than the days of Nehemiah, is a probable inference from a 
 comparison of the numerous towns described in this chapter as being 
 occupied by the men of Judah, with the few names of towns, which, if 
 we may so understand the allusions in chap, iii., were occupied by 
 Jews, at the time of the rebuilding of the walls, i.e. Jericho, Tekoa, 
 Gibeon, Mizpah, Zanoah, Beth-haccerem, Beth-zur, Keilah. 
 
 31. The children also of Benjamiti from Geba dwelt at Michmash] 
 R.V. The children of Benjamin also dwelt from Geba onward, at 
 Michmash. The list of Benjamite towns starts from Geba, about 10 
 or 12 miles N. of Jerusalem, the modern Djibia. It is strange that the 
 R.V. having altered the preposition from 'at' to 'in' in vv. 25 — 29 
 should leave 'at' unaltered in vv. 31, 32. 
 
 Aija] Probably the same as Ai, which is mentioned along with 
 'Michmas' and 'Beth-el' in Ezra ii. 28, where see note. 
 
 32. Anathoth] See on Ezra ii. 23. 
 Nob] Cf. I Sam. xxii. 11. 
 
 Ananiah] Only mentioned here. It has been by some identified 
 with 'beit-Hannina,' a village two miles N. of Jerusalem. 
 
 33. Hazor] Not elsewhere mentioned, unless it be the same as 
 •Baal-hazor, which is beside Ephraim' (2 Sam. xiii. 23). 
 
vv. 34—36; I.] 
 
 NEHEMIAH, XII. 
 
 293 
 
 Ramah, Gittaim, Hadid, Zeboim, Neballat, Lod, and Ono, 34, 35 
 the valley of craftsmen. And of the Levites were divisions 36 
 iji Judah, and in Benjamin. 
 
 Now these are the priests and the Levites that went up 12 
 with Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua : Seraiah, 
 
 Ramahl See on Ezra ii. 26. 
 Gittaini] Cf. 2 Sam. iv. 3. 
 
 34. Hadid] In Ezra ii. 33, with Lod and Ono. 
 Zeboim] Cf. i Sam. xiii. 18. 
 
 Neballat] Only mentioned here, = beit-Nebala, N.W. of Lydda, six 
 miles. 
 
 35. Lod, and Ono] Cf. vi. 2 ; Ezra ii. 33; i Chron. viii. 12. 
 
 the valley of crafts7nen] R.V. marg. 'Or, Gchaharashini\ See i Chr. 
 iv. 14, ' Joab the father of Gehaharashim (marg. Or, the valley of crafts- 
 vien) ; for they were craftsmen.' The R.V. treats the expression in that 
 passage as a proper name, in the present as a term descriptive of a 
 locality. The LXX. transliterates 7^ dpaaeifi: the Vulg. gives 'valle 
 artificum.' 
 
 36. were divisions in Judah and in Benjamin] R.V. certain courses 
 in Judah were joined to Benjamin. The A.V., which gives quite a 
 wrong view of the passage, perhaps followed the Vulg., 'de Levitis 
 portiones Judae et Benjamin.' The LXX. is very literal, dTro tG^v 
 AeuircDf /j-epides 'lovda rep BeuLafieiv. The meaning is quite unmistake- 
 able. 'Divisions' or 'sections' of the Levitical community who in 
 former times had been attached to the territory of Judah, were now 
 settled in Benjamin. 
 
 Chapter XII. 
 
 1. Nozv these... Jeshtia] Cf. Ezra ii. i. 
 
 For the list beginning with Seraiah, see the parallel list of names in 
 X. 3 — 9 and xii. 12 — 21. The Ezra mentioned in this verse and ver. 13 
 must not be confounded with 'the Scribe :' he appears in x. 3 as Azariah. 
 
 The following table gives a comparison of the three lists: 
 
 
 X. 3—9. 
 
 xu. 1—7. 
 
 xu. 12 — 21. 
 
 (0 
 
 Seraiah 
 
 Seraiah 
 
 Seraiah 
 
 (^) 
 
 Azariah 
 
 Jeremiah 
 
 Teremiah 
 
 13) 
 
 Jeremiah 
 
 Ezra 
 
 Ezra 
 
 (4) 
 
 Pashhur 
 
 Amariah 
 
 Amariah 
 
 (5) 
 
 Amariah 
 
 Malluch 
 
 Malluchi 
 
 (6) 
 
 Malchijah 
 
 Hattush 
 
 (wanting) 
 
 (7) 
 
 Hattush 
 
 Shecaniah 
 
 Shebaniah 
 
 (S) 
 
 Shebaniah 
 
 Rehum 
 
 Harim 
 
 (9) 
 
 Malluch 
 
 Meremoth 
 
 Meraioth 
 
 (10) 
 
 Harim 
 
 Iddo 
 
 Iddo 
 
 ('I) 
 
 Meremoth 
 
 Ginnethoi 
 
 Ginnethon 
 
 (12) 
 
 Obadiah 
 
 Abijah 
 
 Abijah 
 
 (13 
 
 Daniel 
 
 Mijamin 
 
 Miniamin 
 
•294 NEHEMIAH, XII. [vv. 2— 8. 
 
 2,3 Jeremiah, Ezra, Amariah, Malluch, Hattush, Shechaniah, 
 
 4,5 Rehum, Meremoth, Iddo, Ginnetho, Abijah, Miamin, Maa- 
 
 6,7 diah, Bilgah, Shemaiah, and Joiarib, Jedaiah, Sallu, Amok, 
 
 Hilkiah, Jedaiah. These were the chief of the priests and 
 
 8 of their brethren in the days of Jeshua. Moreover the 
 
 Levites : Jeshua, Binnui, Kadmiel, Sherebiah, Judah, a7id 
 
 
 X. 3—9. 
 
 xii. 1—7. 
 
 xii. 12 — 21. 
 
 (14) 
 
 Ginnethon 
 
 Maadiah 
 
 Moadiah 
 
 (16) 
 
 Baruch 
 Meshullam 
 
 Bilgah 
 Shemaiah 
 
 Bilgah 
 Shemaiah 
 
 (17) 
 
 (18) 
 
 (19 
 
 Abijah 
 
 Mijamin 
 
 Maaziah 
 
 and Joiarib 
 Jedaiah 
 Sallu 
 
 Joiarib 
 
 Jedaiah 
 
 Sallai 
 
 (4 
 
 Bilgai 
 
 Amok 
 
 Amok 
 
 (21) 
 
 Shemaiah 
 
 Hilkiah 
 
 Hilkiah 
 
 (22) 
 
 
 Jedaiah 
 
 Jedaiah 
 
 We have, therefore, 22 priestly houses recorded, and there can be 
 little doubt that the number 24 had been restored, but that two of the 
 names have dropped out either in the course of transcription or in con- 
 sequence of the defectiveness of the original lists. Of the four priestly 
 houses who are mentioned in the lists of Ezra ii. and Neh. vii. as having 
 gone up out of the captivity with Zerubbabel, i.e. Jedaiah, Immer, 
 I'ashhur, Harim, we find here the names of (22) Jedaiah and (8) Rehum 
 = Harim. Immer may possibly be concealed in the name of {4) Ama- 
 riah. Pashhur has dropped out entirely. The opinion of some is that 
 the similarity of names in these lists is accidental, and that the three 
 lists give us the names of individuals living at three different periods, 
 xii. I — 7 in the days of Zerubbabel, x. i — 8 in the days of Eliashib, 
 xii. 12 — 21 in the days of Joiakim, which happen very often to resemble 
 one another. But the improbability of this needs no demonstration. 
 
 7. chief \ R.V. cMefs. 
 
 in the days of Jeshiia\ Cf. Ezra ii. 2, iii. 1. 
 
 8. Moreover the Levites] This list of Levite houses which returned 
 along with Zerubbabel consists of eight names, Jeshua, Binnui, Kadmiel, 
 Sherebiah, Judah, Mattaniah, Bakbukiah, Unni. In Ezra ii. 40 — 42, 
 the list of the Levites and singers that returned consists of Jeshua, Kad- 
 iiiiei, Hodaviah (?), and the children of Asaph. Other Levitical lists 
 occur in x. 9 — 14, xii. 24 — 26. Jeshua and Kadmiel occur in all the lists. 
 Binnui represents 'the sons of Henadad ', cf. Ezra iii. 9 with Neh. iii. 24, 
 X. 10, who probably returned to Jerusalem in the year after Zerub- 
 babel. Sherebiah's name occurs in viii. 7, ix. 4, x. 13. Judah is prob- 
 ably to be identified with Hodijah in x. 10. Mattaniah is mentioned in 
 xi. 17 as an Asaphite chief. It is probable therefore that he represents 
 'the children of Asaph' in Ezra ii. 41, while other families of 'the 
 singers' are represented by Bakbukiah (? = Bukkiah of the sons of 
 Heman, i Chron, xxv. 4), who is mentioned in xi. 17, and by Unno = 
 Unni (i Chron. xv. 18, 20). 
 
vv. 9— II.] NEHEMIAH, XII. 295 
 
 Mattaniah, which was over the thanksgiving, he and his 
 brethren. Also Bakbukiah and Unni, their brethren, were 9 
 over against them in the watches. 
 
 And Jeshua begat Joiakim, Joiakim also begat Eliashib, ic 
 and Eliashib begat Joiada, and Joiada begat Jonathan, and " 
 Jonathan begat Jaddua. 
 
 tAg thaiiksgiving\ R.V. marg. ' Or, the choirs '. The Hebrew word 
 only occurs here ; and the LXX. not understanding it renders tirl rQv 
 X^i-P^v. The Vulgate gives ' super hymnos. ' Compare the description 
 of Mattaniah, the Asaphite, in xi. 17, 'the chief to begin the thanks- 
 giving in prayer. ' 
 
 9. and Unni] R.V. and Unno. The K'ri reads 'and Unni,' the 
 C'thib 'and Unno.' The C'thib reading might, however, be rendered 
 as the verb which occurs in Ezra iii. 11, 'And they sang one to another' 
 (cf. Deut. xxi. 7, xxvii. 14), with the sense of 'And their brethren re- 
 sponded to them in choral antiphon.' This suggestion, however, apart 
 from grammatical objections, requires us to suppose that Bakbukiah's 
 name has been interpolated. For this there is no evidence; and so far 
 as the sense is concerned, the idea of antiphonal singing is sufficiently 
 expressed in our own text. The confusion between 'Unno' and 'Unni' 
 arises from the commonest source of variation in the Hebrew text, the 
 similarity of Yod and Vav C and 1). But the original reading was very 
 probably 'Also Bakbukiah and Unni [and] their brethren;' Yod, the 
 last letter of Unni, having fallen out before the Vav, the Vav became, 
 instead of the copula, the last letter of 'Unno.' Another conjectural 
 and less probable emendation of the text is to read 'Obadiah' instead 
 of 'Unni,' in order to bring the verse in closer correspondence with 
 ver. 25. 
 
 over against the?}i\ The same expression as in 2 Chron. vii. 6, ' The 
 priests sounded trumpets before them,' where probably the meaning is 
 'over against, i.e. in answer to, the Levites.' See also ver. 24. 
 
 in the watches] R.V. in wards. LXX. els ras ecpvf^epias. Vulg. 'in 
 officio suo.' The Hebrew could equally well be rendered 'as watches, 
 i.e. for the purpose of keeping watch.' But the sense required is more 
 probably 'according to wards,' 'in wards by rotation.' Cf. xiii. 14. 
 
 10, 11. The lists of the high-priests in i Chron. vi. 3 — 15 concluded 
 with Jehozadak, who ' went into captivity when the Lord carried away 
 Judah and Jerusalem by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar.' Jehozadak's 
 son was Jeshua (see Ezra iii. i), who returned from the captivity with 
 Zembbabel. The present list of the high-priesthood follows directly 
 upon that given in i Chron. vi. 
 
 Joiakim] From the special mention of this high-priest in vv. 12 and 
 26, we may conjecture that during his tenure of office the houses of the 
 priests and Levites were registered or reconstituted. 
 
 Eliashib] The high-priest in Nehemiah's period of governorship 
 (iii. I ; xiii. 4, 7, 28). His son Joiada, who is called Juda by Josephus 
 {Ant. xi. 7. i), is mentioned again in xiii. 28. A slight difficulty is 
 presented by the name Jonathan. In ver. 22, we find 'Johanan' stands 
 
296 NEHEMIAH, XII. [vv. 12—23. 
 
 12 And in the days of Joiakim were priests, the chief of the 
 
 13 fathers : of Seraiah, Meraiah ; of Jeremiah, Hananiah ; of 
 
 14 Ezra, Meshullam ; of Amariah, Jehohanan ; of Melicu, 
 
 15 Jonathan ; of Shebaniah, Joseph ; of Harim, Adna ; of 
 
 16 Meraioth, Helkai ; of Iddo, Zechariah ; of Ginnethon, Me- 
 
 17 shuUam ; of Abijah, Zichri ; of Miniamin, of Moadiah, 
 
 18 Piltai ; of Bilgah, Shammua; of Shemaiah, Jehonathan; 
 19, 20 and of Joiarib, Mattenai ; of Jedaiah, Uzzi ; of Sallai, 
 
 21 Kallai; of Amok, Eber; of Hilkiah, Hashabiah; of Jedaiah, 
 Nethaneel. 
 
 22 The Levites in the days of EUashib, Joiada, and Johanan, 
 and Jaddua, were recorded chief of the fathers : also the 
 
 23 priests, to the reign of Darius the Persian. The sons of 
 
 between 'Joiada' and 'Jaddua;' and in ver. 23, this Johanan is called 
 the son of Eliashib. We must either suppose that Jonathan is here a 
 mistake for Johanan, or that ' Jonathan ' was high-priest for a short 
 period, and was succeeded by his better known brother Johanan. 
 
 Jaddua] There is no reason to doubt that this is the same Jaddua, 
 who was high-priest at the time that Alexander passed along the borders 
 of Palestine on his march into Egypt. The probably legendary account 
 of Alexander's visit to Jerusalem, and his meeting with the high-priest 
 Jaddua, attended by the priests in their most splendid robes, is narrated 
 by Josephus {Ant. xi. 8. 5). 
 
 The occurrence of Jaddua's name shows that the compilation of these 
 books must be later than 340 — 333 B.C. 
 
 Between Eliashib (xiii. 28) who was high-priest in 432 B.C. and 
 Jaddua who was high-priest in 333 B.C. there are thus only two names, 
 or at the most three, recorded in this list, i.e. Joiada, Johanan or ( ? and) 
 Jonathan. 
 
 12. And in the days of yoiakim] See note on ver. to. 
 
 the chief of the fathers'] R.V. heads of fa'iliers' houses. 
 
 On the list contained in these verses, see note on ver. i. 
 
 14. Meliai] R.V. Malluchi. Marg. 'Another reading is, i^/(?//V«'. 
 The K'thib gives Malluchi ; the Q'ri Melicu. The LXX. reads MaXoux, 
 the Vulgate 'Milico.' 
 
 17. of Miniamin^ of Moadiah] The representative of the house of 
 Miniamin has been omitted. 
 
 22. v^exe recorded chief of the fathers] R.V. were recorded heads of 
 fathers' houses. The language is obscure on account of the abruptness 
 with which the statement is introduced. The meaning seems to be that 
 during the four high-priesthoods mentioned, a full register of the heads 
 of fathers' houses among the Levites was kept. 
 
 to the reign of Darius the Persian] R.V. in (marg. Or, to) the reign. 
 The preposition (literally ' upon ') concerning which the doubt is ex- 
 pressed in the alternative rendering of the R.V. is rendered in the 
 LXX. kv ^aa-iXeiq. and the Vulg. * in regno.' It may be considered 
 
V. 24.] NEHEMIAH, Xll. 297 
 
 Levi, the chief of the fathers, were written in the book of 
 the chronicles, even until the days of Johanan the son of 
 Eliashib. And the chief of the Levites : Hashabiah, Shere- 24 
 biah, and Jeshua the son of Kadmiel, with their brethren 
 over against them, to praise and to give thanks, according 
 
 very questionable whether the rendering *to' is admissible; 'in' is 
 certainly preferable. 
 
 Darius the Fersiati] That this Darius is Darius III. Codomannus 
 (336 — 331) is the most obvious explanation. And if the Jaddua men- 
 tioned in this verse be, as there is really no reason to doubt, the high- 
 priest of Alexander's time, the mention of Darius III. Codomannus, the 
 contemporary Persian king, presents no difficulty. On the title 'the 
 Persian, ' see the Introduction. 
 
 The alternative preferred by some commentators, viz. that Darius 
 Nothus (424 — 404 B.C.), the successor of Artaxerxes, is intended, is 
 improbable after the mention of Jaddua's enrolment, unless it be 
 maintained that this Jaddua is not the high-priest of Alexander's time. 
 But it must also be evident that the reference to Jaddua is to his tenure 
 of the high-priesthood. The attempt to reconcile the mention of 
 Jaddua with the allusion to Darius Nothus, by the suggestion that 
 Darius Nothus was king when Jaddua was born, only arises from the 
 presupposition that none but Nehemiah could have written this chapter. 
 
 23. The sons of Levi] Here we have the heading or title of another 
 enrolment. The expression ' the sons of Levi ' is to be noted, and 
 compared with the mention of 'the Levites' in vv. 8 and 22. The 
 whole house of Levi is probably intended, priests and Levites together. 
 
 in the book of the chronicles] Clearly not the same as our ' Chronicles,' 
 although the title is the same ; ' the words of the days ' was the regular 
 Hebrew term for annals of any kind. The book here referred to seems 
 to have been an official document, and to have been brought down to 
 the days of Johanan the son of Eliashib, hence presumably down to the 
 close of the fifth century B.C. 
 
 even until the days... Eliashib] Some connect with the following 
 verse. 
 
 24. And the chief of the Levites] Once more a brief list is given of 
 the chief Levite families. 
 
 Hashabiah] This name occurs in x. 12, and Ezra viii. 19, but not 
 in Neh. xii. 8, 9. Probably the same as Hashabneiah (ix. 5). 
 
 Sherebiah] Cf. vei\ 8, ix. 5, x. 13; Ezr. viii. 18. 
 
 Jeshzia the son of Kad??iiel] We have here an almost certain error 
 in the text 'Jeshua ben-Kadmiel' instead of 'Jeshua, Bani, (or Binnui), 
 Kadmiel.' Cf. ver. 8, x. 9. In favour of this emendation is to be cited 
 the reading of the LXX. viol (b'ne) KaS^nyX. 
 
 over against them] Cf. ver. 9. LXX. Korrevavriov aurwj/, Vulg. ' per 
 vices suas.' 
 
 to praise and (R.V. to) give thanks] The reference is to the anti- 
 phonal singing of the Levites in the Temple worship. 
 
 according to the commandment of David the man of God] The re- 
 
NEHEMIAH, XII. [w. 25— 27. 
 
 to the commandment of David the man of God, ward over 
 
 25 against ward ; Mattaniah, and Bakbukiah, Obadiah, Me- 
 shullam, Talmon, Akkub, were porters keeping the ward 
 
 26 at the thresholds of the gates. These were in the days 
 of Joiakim the son of Jeshua, the son of Jozadak, and in 
 the days of Nehemiah the governor, and of Ezra the priest, 
 the scribe. 
 
 27 And at the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem they 
 
 ference is to the organization of the Levitical singers by David mentioned 
 in I Chron. xvi. 4, xxiii. 30. 
 
 On the title 'the man of God' applied to David cf. 2 Chron. viii. 14. 
 
 ivard crver (R.V. omit) against ward] The same phrase occurs in 
 I Chron, xxvi. 16. 
 
 25. Mattania/i] Cf. ver. 8, xi. 17. Mattaniah representing Asaphites. 
 Bakbukiah] Cf. ver. 9, xi. 17, representing the Hemanites, cf. i Chr. 
 
 XXV. 4. 
 
 Obadiah] Probably the same as Abda of the family of Jeduthun, xi. 17. 
 
 These three names ax^e the names of singers who were also porters, 
 and should probably be separated from the next three, who were only 
 porters. 
 
 Meshullam] Probably the same as Shallum (i Chr. ix. 17 ; Ezra ii. 42). 
 
 Tabtion, Akkub] Cf. xi. 19; i Chr. ix. 17. 
 
 at the thresholds of the gates] R.V. at the storehouses of the gates. 
 The A.V. gives the rendering which is favoured by the Vulgate 'vestibu- 
 lorum ante portas,' and by the chief Hebrew commentators, e.g. Rashi 
 and Aben Ezra. The R.V. however is undoubtedly right. The Hebrew 
 only occurs elsewhere in the O.T. in i Chron. xxvi. 15, 17, 'storehouse.' 
 The temple was a treasury as well as a sanctuary. 
 
 26. These were in the days of Joiakim &c.] As verses 22 and 23 
 refer to a later period than that here mentioned, this summary probably 
 refers to the list contained in vv. 12 — 21. Whether it also refers to 
 24 — 25 is a doubtful point. But the awkwardness of the verse in its 
 present position, lends some colour to the view that verses 22 and 23 
 are an interpolation by the compiler. 
 
 It will be observed that two periods are mentioned, the period of 
 Joiakim (circ. 500 B.C.), and that of Nehemiah and Ezra (460 — 430 B.C.). 
 The verse was clearly written at a date considerably later than Nehe- 
 miah's lifetime. 
 
 27 — 43. The Dedication of the Walls. 
 
 In the description of this solemn event, there is a return to the use of 
 the I St Pers. Sing. {zn;. 31, 38, 40). The compiler returns to the 
 Memoirs of Nehemiah, from which he makes extracts, while he no 
 doubt exercises a full liberty of abridgement and revision. 
 
 27. at the dedication of the wall] It is only natural to suppose that 
 the dedication of the walls took place at no long interval after their com- 
 pletion. The walls were finished on the 25th of the month Elul (vi. 15) 
 
V. 28.] NEHEMIAH, XII. 299 
 
 sought the Levites out of all their places, to bring them to 
 Jerusalem, to keep the dedication with gladness, both with 
 thanksgivings, and with singing, with cymbals, psalteries, 
 and with harps. And the sons of the singers gathered 28 
 themselves together, both out of the plain country round 
 
 or September. According to 2 Mace. i. 18 Nehemiah on the 25th of 
 Chislev (December) celebrated the restoration of the altar. If this date 
 may be relied upon as representing a true tradition of the solemn 
 dedication described in these verses, exactly three months elapsed be- 
 tween the completion and the dedication of the walls. It has been by 
 some considered improbable that the Feast of Tabernacles and the 
 Sealing of the Covenant (viii. — x.) would have taken place before the 
 Dedication described in these verses; and accordingly the events nar- 
 rated in those chapters have been ascribed to the following year. 
 
 Rawlinson is of opinion that 'the nexus of the remainder of this 
 chapter with the next and the date given in chap. xiii. 6, make it certain 
 that the ceremony was deferred for the space of nearly twelve years. 
 Perhaps Nehemiah required an express permission from the Persian 
 king before he could venture on a solemnity which might have been 
 liable to misrepresentation.' 
 
 But the unlikelihood of this hypothesis cannot be thus disposed of. 
 (i) Is it probable that 12 years should have been permitted to elapse 
 between the triumphant accomplishment of Nehemiah's work and its 
 religious consecration? (2) The nexus of the remainder of this chapter 
 with xiii. i — 3 is very close, but a completely new section, with marked 
 difference of style, opens at xiii. 4 and denotes the resumption of the 
 more colloquial extracts from the Memoirs of Nehemiah. (3) The 
 mention of the date, twelve years later, in xiii. 6 refers to the events 
 described in the immediate context ; and there is no probability that it 
 would also be applicable to the preceding section xii. 27 — 43. If xiii. 6 
 were, as has been supposed, so closely connected with xii. 27 — 43, this 
 mention of the date would surely have been placed in chap. xii. 
 
 out of all their places'] Explained in the two next verses. Cf. xi. 3, 20. 
 
 to keep the dedication with gladness] literally 'to make dedication 
 and gladness' (LXX. Troirjaai eyKalvia koI eixppoavvqv). 'Dedication.' 
 Heb. Khayitikkah. The Jewish Feast of Dedication to commemorate 
 the purification of the Temple by Judas the Maccabee (165 B.C.) was 
 held in mid-winter (Adar 25). See John x. 22 ; i Mace. iv. 60. 
 
 with thanksgivings'] The LXX. transliterates h 6u}8a9q,. Among 
 the Psalms appropriate to be sung on such an occasion some have 
 suggested Pss. cxxii. cxlvii. 
 
 cymbals, psalteries, and ivith harps] Cf, i Chron. xiii. 8. 'Psaltery' 
 — nebel, a harp : ' harp' = y^2««cir, a kind of guitar. 
 
 28. the plain country] R.V. the plain. Marg. * Or, circuit'. The 
 word here used, 'the kikkar,' is technically applied to the Jordan valley, 
 e.g. Gen. xiii. 10 — 12, xix. 1752 Sam. xviii. 23. Here, however, as in 
 iii. 22, it seems very doubtful whether this application is at all possible 
 at a time when the territory occupied by the Jews was of so limited an 
 
300 NEHEMIAH, XIl. [w. 29—31. 
 
 29 about Jerusalem, and from the villages of Netophathi ; also 
 from the house of Gilgal, and out of the fields of Geba and 
 Azmaveth : for the singers had builded them villages round 
 
 30 about Jerusalem. And the priests and the Levites purified 
 themselves, and purified the people, and the gates, and the 
 
 31 wall. Then I brought up the princes of Judah upon the 
 
 area. If the special signification be here retained, only the southern- 
 most portion of the Jordan valley, the district of Jericho, can be in- 
 tended. The other and more probable alternative is to give the word 
 its strict meaning of 'the circle,' and to suppose that it is here used to 
 denote the countiy 'round about Jerusalem.' This is not improbable; 
 for (i) the word does not necessarily mean a level surface, but some- 
 thing circular; (2) the country villages occupied by the singers (ver. 29) 
 were in the vicinity of Jerusalem. In confirmation of this, it should be 
 remembered that, even in its special application, it is generally found 
 with a qualifying substantive, e.g. 'the plain, or kikkar = circuit, of the 
 Jordan.' (Gen. xiii. 10, 11; 1 Kings vii. 46. Cf. Matt. iii. 5, i] nepi- 
 Xf^pos Tov ^lopddvov). 
 
 of Netophathi\ R.V. of the Netophathites. See note on Ezra ii. 22. 
 
 29. frovi the house of Gilgal] R.V. from Beth-gilgal. Possibly to 
 be identified with the Gilgal of 2 Kings ii. i, iv. 38, and if so it was 
 about 14 miles N. of Jerusalem. 
 
 Gebal Cf. xi. 31. 
 
 Azmaveth] See note on Ezra ii. 24. 
 
 30. puHfied themselves] Cf. Ezra vi. 20. The description of the 
 sacrifices offered by Hezekiah on the occasion of a national purification 
 should be compared, 2 Chron. xxix. 20 — 24. 
 
 the people .. .the gates .. .the walls] i.e. the people were purified in order 
 that they might engage in the solemn dedication of their city walls 
 without violation of the laws of purity. 'The gates and walls' were 
 probably sprinkled, both as a sign of the dedication and to remove 
 defilement from the path of the sacred procession. 
 
 31 — 42. Nehemiah's description of the dedication of the 
 
 WALLS. 
 
 Two processions headed by the priests and Levites started from near 
 the Valley or Jaffa Gate, and proceeded, the one by the northern, the 
 other by the southern wall, together accomplishing the complete circuit, 
 and meeting one another in the open space on the eastern side of 
 the Temple. 
 
 31. the princes of Judah] i.e. all the nobles of the nation. 
 
 upon the ivall] Much turns upon the meaning of the preposition 
 here used. The words in the Hebrew, 'from above, with respect to the 
 wall ' have been considered by some to mean ' beyond, at a little distance 
 from the wall;' by others 'over against the wall.' But a comparison 
 with its use in 2 Chron. xiii. 4 (='upon'), Jonah iv. 6 (=■- 'over') 
 shows that the rendering of the English version may very well be 
 defended. 
 
w. 32—36.] NEHEMIAH, XII. 301 
 
 wall, and appointed two great companies of them that gave 
 thanks, whereof one went on the right hand upon the wall 
 toward the dung gate : and after them went Hoshaiah, and 32 
 half of the princes of Judah, and Azariah, Ezra, and Me- 33 
 shullam, Judah, and Benjamin, and Shemaiah, and Jeremiah, 34 
 and certain of the priests' sons with trumpets ; na7?iely^ 35 
 Zechariah the son of Jonathan, the son of Shemaiah, the 
 son of Mattaniah, the son of Michaiah, the son of Zaccur, 
 the son of Asaph : and his brethren, Shemaiah, and Azarael, 36 
 
 two great companies of them that gave t}ianks\ R.V. two great com- 
 panies that gave thanks and went in procession. Literally 'And I ap- 
 pointed two great thanksgivings and processions.' The LXX. rendered 
 /cat earrjaav 5vo irepl alvecrews /xeydXovs. The Vulg. 'statui duos magnos 
 choros laudantium' is clearly the origin of the A.V. rendering. The 
 Hebrew word for 'procession' occurs only here in the O.T. 
 
 whereof oxio. rvent on the right hand... dung gate'\ We have here to 
 supply the words 'whereof one went,' which seem to have slipped out of 
 the text. They are needed in order to correspond with ' the other com- 
 pany' in ver. 38, 'the right hand;' facing towards the Temple, the pro- 
 cession moving to the right marched along the southern wall. The 
 starting point seems to have been 'the valley gate ' of ii. 13. 'Towards 
 the dung gate.' Cf. iii. 14. 
 
 32. and after theful i.e. behind this procession of singers and 
 musicians came the company consisting of one-half of the princes, headed 
 by Hoshaiah, of whose official position we are not told. 
 
 33. Azariah, Ezra'l From a comparison of xii. i and 13 with x. -2, 
 we might suppose that these were the names of the same priestly house. 
 
 Meshullani\ Cf. x. 8. 
 
 34. Judah, atid Benjamin'] The occurrence of the two names to- 
 gether favours the view that the two tribes contributed to each wing 
 of the procession one half of their numbers. Cf. Ezra i. 5, iv. 1, 
 X. 9. Others, however, prefer to think that they are names of certain 
 princes. 
 
 Shemaiah] Cf. xii. 6. 
 Jeremiah] Cf. x. 3, xii. i, 13. 
 
 35. cQvi^m of the pj'iests' sons with trut?ipets] Apparently a special 
 company following the heads of the priestly houses, and preceding the 
 conclusion of the procession which consisted of the trained musicians. 
 Their names have apparently for brevity's sake been omitted ; they 
 were undoubtedly recorded like the names of the priestly trumpeters 
 in the other procession {v. 41). 
 
 namely, Zechariah] R.V. omits namely. Zechariah, of the family of 
 Mattaniah, seems to have led the house of Asaph. His company was 
 quite distinct from that of the young trumpeters. This was the company 
 of singers corresponding to that in v. 42. 
 
 36. Azarael... Nethaneel] R.V. Azarel...Nethanel. These two names 
 recall 'Nethaniah and Asharelah, the sons of Asaph,' in i Chron.xxv. 2. 
 
302 NEHEMIAH, XII. [w. 37— 39. 
 
 Milalai, Gilalai, Maai, Nethaneel, and Judah, Hanani, with 
 the musical instruments of David the man of God, and 
 
 37 Ezra the scribe before them. And at the fountain gate, 
 which was over against them, they went up by the stairs 
 of the city of David, at the going up of the wall, above the 
 
 38 house of David, even unto the water gate ^d^sXward. And 
 the other company of them that gave thanks went over against 
 them^ and I after them, and the half of the people upon the 
 wall, from beyond the tower of the furnaces even unto the 
 
 39 broad wall ; and from above the gate of Ephraim, and 
 
 David the man of God] Cf. ver. 24. 
 
 Ezra... before them] The mention of Ezra's name here seems to indi- 
 cate that he held in respect of the 'right hand' procession the same 
 position occupied by Nehemiah in the other. If so, the words 'before 
 them' will mean, not at the head of the professional musicians (which 
 was Zechariah's place), but at the head of the whole civil and religious 
 procession. His place in the procession would then be before Hoshaiah 
 and half of 'the princes of Judah' (z/z/. 31, 32). 
 
 37. at (R. V. by) the fountain gate] For the position of this gate, 
 see note on iii. 15. 
 
 which was over against them] R. V. and straight before them. Ap- 
 parently at this point, instead of following the wall round the spurs of 
 the Ophel, the procession went straight on up the steps ascending the 
 brow of the hill. 
 
 the stairs of the city of David] Cf. iii. 26. 
 
 above the house of David] This traditional site seems to have been 
 on the S.E. angle of Ophel. The procession keeping to the ridge above 
 it, moved along in a direction due north, 'even unto the water gate, 
 eastward,' i.e. E. of the Temple. 
 
 38. over agaittst them] R.V. to meet them. The line of march of the 
 other procession was by the northern wall. By an ingenious conjecture, 
 Reuss, altering the Hebrew word (= to meet them) by the addition of 
 one consonant, proposes to read 'on the left hand,' balancing the words 
 in V. ^i. 
 
 and I after them] Nehemiah, following the thanksgiving company of 
 Levites and singers and musicians, marched, like Ezra, at the head of 
 the other half of the princes and the people. 
 
 and the half &c.] R.V. with the half, &c. The other half of the 
 princes, priests, men of Judah and Benjamin, and musicians. 
 
 from beyond] R.V. above. This seems to mean at a little distance 
 from, i.e. to the north of (see, however, note on v. 31). 
 
 the tower of the furnaces] Cf. iii. 11. 
 
 even unto the broad wall] Cf. iii. 8. 
 
 39. from above] R.V. above. 
 
 the gate of Ephraim] This gate is not mentioned in chap. iii. It 
 was situated probably at about the centre of the northern wall, and was 
 so called because through it passed the main road to Ephraim. 
 
vv. 40—43.] NEHEMIAH, XII. 303 
 
 above the old gate, and above the fish gate, and the tower 
 of Hananeel, and the tower of Meah, even unto the sheep 
 gate : and they stood still in the prison gate. So stood the 40 
 two companies of ihe??i that gave thanks in the house of God, 
 and I, and the half of the rulers with me : and the priests ; 41 
 Eliakim, Maaseiah, Miniamin, Michaiah, Elioenai, Zecha- 
 riah, and Hananiah, with trumpets ; and Maaseiah, and 42 
 Shemaiah, and Eleazar, and Uzzi, and Jehohanan, and 
 Malchijah, and Elam, and Ezer. And the singers sang 
 loud, with Jezrahiah their overseer. Also that day they 43 
 offered great sacrifices, and rejoiced : for God had made 
 
 above the old gate] R.V. by the old gate. Cf. iii. 6. 
 above (R.V. by) the fish gate] Cf. iii. 3. 
 
 39. Cf. iii. 2. 
 Hananeel] R.V. Hananel. 
 
 Meah] R.V. Hammeali. Marg. Or, The hundred. 
 
 the sheep gate] Cf. iii. r. 
 
 the prison gate] R.V. the gate of the guard. In iii. 25, we have 
 mention of 'the court of the guard.' The gate here mentioned we 
 should expect to be one of the gates of the Temple precincts, leading 
 from the north side into the open space to the east of the Temple. It 
 is an objection that from the mention of ' the court of the guard ' 
 (iii. 25) we should infer that it lay on the south side of the Temple ; 
 and if so (which is very unlikely), that the procession led by Nehemiah 
 would have marched past the halting-place of the other company. 
 
 It is noticeable that the concluding clause is not found in the best 
 text of the LXX. It may possibly represent a later insertion on the 
 part of a scribe who wished to assign a halting-place to this company. 
 
 40. rulers] R.V. marg. 'Or, deputies'. In v. 31, 'the princes.' 
 and I, and the half of the rulers -with me] We have here rather fuller 
 
 details of Nehemiah's company to correspond with the description of 
 the other in w. 32 — 36. 
 
 41. and the priests] These seven names correspond to the ' certain 
 of the priests' sons with trumpets' in v. 35, where the names have 
 dropped out. 
 
 42. And Maaseiah] The divisions or courses of the Levitical 
 musicians, eight in number, corresponding to what we find in vv. 
 
 35' 3^' 
 
 the singers sang loud] Lit. 'caused to hear,' cf. i Chron. xv. 19. The 
 
 LXX. 'r\Ko\)(sQ'r]<sav. Vulg. ' clare cecinerunt.' 
 
 Jezrahiah their overseer] Jezrahiah as leader of the musicians cor- 
 responds to Zechariah in the other company (jj. 35). 
 
 43. A Iso that day] R.V. And . . . that day. 
 great saci'ifices] Cf. Ezra vi. 17. 
 
 God had made them rejoice, &c.] 2 Chron. xx. 27, 'for the Lord 
 had made them to rejoice over their enemies.' 
 
304 NEHEMIAH, XII. [v. 44. 
 
 them rejoice with great joy: the wives also and the chil- 
 dren rejoiced : so that the joy of Jerusalem was heard even 
 afar off. 
 44 And at that time were some appointed over the chambers 
 for the treasures, for the offerings, for the firstfruits, and for 
 the tithes, to gather into them out of the fields of the cities 
 
 the wives als6\ R.V. and the women also. The women and 
 children who were present on the occasion of national gatherings (e.g. 
 viii. 2) would participate in the festivities. 
 
 was heard even afar off'\ Cf. the very similar statement in Ezr. iii. 
 13, ' for the people shouted with a loud shout, and the noise was heard 
 afar off.' 
 
 4r4 — XIII. 4. This section, in which the Memoirs of Nehemiah 
 probably only form the outline of the Compiler's work, falls into 
 two groups, (a) 44 — 47, dealing with Levitical organization, and {h) 
 xiii. I — 4, relations with foreign peoples. The ist person sing, is 
 dropped. 
 
 44. at that time\ R.V. on that day. This is not an allusion to the 
 day of rejoicing in the previous verse ('that day' v. 43), but a general 
 definition of time which the Compiler uses again in xiii. i. It is only a 
 little less indefinite than ' in those days,' xiii. 15, 23. 
 
 so77ie\ R.V. men. 
 
 the chambers'l The Hebrew word here used occurs elsewhere only in 
 iii. 30, and xiii. 7. 
 
 for the treasures'] As in xiii. 13, Nehemiah records his special 
 appointment of ' treasurers over the treasuries ' whose business it was 
 ' to distribute unto their brethren.' The appointments mentioned in 
 this verse are probably of a somewhat different nature. The men 
 'appointed over the chambers' were the regular receivers and custo- 
 dians of the treasure, i.e. the firstfruits and tithes, &c. ; the four 
 appointed by Nehemiah were commissioners for the purpose of securing 
 an honest distribution. 
 
 for the ti-easures'] Either a general term denoting ' stores ' and 
 * provisions, ' of which ' the heave-ofterings ' are items, or a specific 
 term, standing at the head of the list, and denoting special dedications 
 and wealthy gifts. The former is the more probable alternative. 
 
 the offerings] R.V. the heave offerings. 
 
 the firstfrtdts] The use of this word seems here to include ' the 
 firstfruits' and ' firstlings ' mentioned in x. 35 — 37. 
 
 the tithes] See on x. 37, 38. 
 
 It will be observed that there is no reference here to any tithe of 
 cattle. The chambers are only intended for receiving the produce of 
 the field (xiii. 12). As this passage is clearly based upon Nehemiah's 
 own Memoirs, it has afforded support to the theory that the cattle 
 tithe was introduced into the text of Lev. xxvii. 30, 32, after the time 
 of Nehemiah. See note at the end of chap. x. 
 
 out of the fields of the cities] R.V. according to the fields of the cities. 
 
 The point of this clause is rather obscure. It probably refers to the 
 
vv. 45, 46.] NEHEMIAH, XII. 305 
 
 the portions of the law for the priests and Levites : for 
 Judah rejoiced for the priests and for the Levites that 
 waited. And both the singers and the porters kept the 4S 
 ward of their God, and the ward of the purification, ac- 
 cording to the commandment of David, and of Solomon 
 his son. For in the days of David and Asaph of old there 46 
 
 method of storing, rather than to the size of the fields or to the suc- 
 cession in which the offerings were received and the tithe exacted. 
 
 An account was taken of the contributions from the fiekls of each city. 
 
 the portions of the law] R. V. tlie portions appointed by the law. 
 Marg. 'Heb. of the law\ A unique phrase in the O.T. denoting the 
 special requirements of the Levitical law. 
 
 Jtidah rejoiced &c.] The readiness of the people generally ('Judah ') 
 to support the priests and Levites according to ' the law ' was due to 
 their appreciation of their religious services. In proportion to their 
 zeal for the priests and Levites it was necessary to provide officers to 
 receive and regulate the contribution. 
 
 that waited] R.V. Marg. ' Heb. stood\ 
 
 In Deuteronomy the phrase ' to stand before the Lord ' is the 
 technical term for the ministrations of the priests. Here we find 
 it used of the offices of 'priests and Levites.' In i Chron. vi. 32, 33 
 'And they waited on their office according to their order. And these 
 are they that waited, ' it is applied to the Levites. 
 
 45. And both the singers and the porters kept] R. V. And they kept. . . 
 and so did the singers and the porters. The verse, according to the 
 rendering of the R.V. states first that the priests and Levites performed 
 the due ceremonial obligations, and then that the same strict conformity 
 to rule was practised by the singers and porters. The verb 'kept' has 
 to be supplied in the second clause. 
 
 This is preferable to the suggestion that the second clause is one of a 
 different character, = ' and the singers and the porters were at their post 
 according to the commandment of David' &c. The ground for this 
 alternative rendering is the supposition that the singers and porters 
 would not be subject to the same laws of purification. 
 
 kept the zvard of their God, and the %vard of the purification] The 
 word rendered 'ward' means here 'that which has to be observed,' 'a 
 charge,' in the same sense in which it occurs in Num. ix. 23 'they kept 
 the charge of the Lord;' 2 Chron. xiii, 11 'For we keep the charge of 
 the Lord our God.' Cf. Gen. xxvi. 5. 
 
 It is therefore to be distinguished from its more concrete use in Neh. 
 xii. 9, -24, xiii. 30, where it refers to the 'posts' of the Levites. 
 
 according to the comi7iandment...2CCi^ of Solomon his son] The re- 
 ference is one of a general character to the regulations of the Temple 
 services ascribed by the Chronicler to David (i Chron. xxiii. — xxvi.) 
 and Solomon (2 Chron. viii. 14). 
 
 'And of Solomon.' The word 'and' must have accidentally dropped 
 out of the Hebrew text, and must be restored. 
 
 46. in the days of David and Asaph of old] This combination of 
 
 NEHEMIAH 20 
 
3o6 NEHEMIAH, XII. [v. 47. 
 
 lucre chief of the singers, and songs of praise and thanks- 
 47 giving unto God. And all Israel in the days of Zeriibbabel, 
 and in the days of Nehemiah, gave the portions of the 
 singers and the porters, every day his portion : and they 
 sanctified holy things unto the Levites; and the Levites 
 sanctified them unto the children of Aaron. 
 
 names may be illustrated by other examples in the writings of the 
 Chronicler (2 Chr. xxix. 30, xxxv. 15). 
 
 The LXX. omits the copula between the names, h rj/xepaLs Aavld 'Aaa(f> 
 (xtt' dpxv^ TrpQros tQu adovruu. This may represent the original reading. 
 If so, it is the mention of David in the previous verse which occasions 
 here the parenthetical statement that in those days the great Asaph was 
 'overseer' of the singers. We should then render 'in the days of David 
 Asaph was of old chief. ' 
 
 there were c/it'ef] R.V. Marg. 'Another i-eading is t/iere were chiefs'' . 
 The plural 'chiefs' is the reading of the K'ri, which is also found in 
 the Vulgate 'erant principes constituti cantorum.' If the reading of the 
 first clause 'in the days of David and Asaph' be retained, the plural 
 'chiefs' with the allusion to a general custom, instead of to a particular 
 example, is probably to be preferred. For the position of 'chief of the 
 singers associated with Asaph, see 1 Chron. xvi. 5, 7, xxv. i, ^j 9. 
 
 songs of praise and thanksgiving] In the EngHsh versions the punc- 
 tuation gives the meaning as of a new clause 'And there were songs of 
 praise' &c. Others make these words also dependent on 'chief or 
 'chiefs.' 
 
 There is no corresponding archaeological reference to the position of 
 the porters. The Chronicler throughout his work shows a marked pre- 
 fei'ence for the interests of 'the singers' as compared with 'the porters.' 
 
 47. in the days ofZerubhahel, and in the days ofiVeheiiuah'] The mention 
 of Nehemiah in the 3rd person along with Zerubbabel is an almost con- 
 vincing proof that the sentence was not from the hand of Nehemiah; 
 but that it was written (probably by the Chronicler) at a considerable 
 interval of time since Nehemiah's death. The two men are here 
 mentioned as the two heroes of their generation, under whom Israel 
 was loyal to their Temple. 
 
 gave... sanctified'] The participles in the Heb. show the continuous 
 habit. 
 
 every day his portion] R.V. as every day required. In xi. 23, we are 
 told a daily provision for the singers was one of the commands of the 
 Persian king : but there was also doubtless a regular daily payment on 
 their behalf made by the people. 
 
 sanctified holy things unto the Levites] R.V. sanctified for the Levites. 
 'They sanctified,' i.e. all Israel (not 'the singers and the porters') set 
 apart for the use of those who served God. The word 'sanctify' is 
 therefore equivalent to 'devote' or dedicate in this connexion: cf. Lev. 
 xxvii. 14, 16 sqq. 'sanctify a house. ..a field:' i Chron. xxvi. 27 'Out 
 of the spoil won in battles did they dedicate to repair the house of the 
 Lord.' There is no idea of a succession of ritual acts of consecration. 
 
vv. I, 2.J NEHEMIAH, XIII. 307 
 
 On that day they read in the book of Moses in the audi- 13 
 ence of the people; and therein was found written, that the 
 Ammonite and the Moabite should not come into the 
 congregation of God for ever ; because they met not the 2 
 children of Israel with bread and with water, but hired 
 Balaam against them, that he should curse them : howbeit 
 
 the children of Aaron] This expression only occurs in our books here 
 and X. 38. In neither passage have we the words of Nehemiah himself 
 but of the Compiler, who was probably also the Chronicler, with whom 
 the term is a favourite one for 'the priesthood,' e.g. 2 Chr. xiii. 9, 10, 
 xxxi. 19, xxxv. 14. 
 
 The sanctifying of Israel for the Levites consisted in the payment of 
 the tithes to the house of Levi; the sanctifying on the part of the 
 Levites for the priests, in the payment of 'the tithe of the tithes' (see 
 Neh. x. 38) in accordance with Num. xviii. 26. 
 
 1 — 3. Separation from the mixed multitude. 
 
 1. On that day\ See note on xii. 44. 
 
 they read] Literally 'it was read,' without any intimation that the 
 Levites were the readers. 
 
 the book of AIoscs] A short form for that which is found in viii. i, 
 * the book of the law of Moses.' 
 
 that the Ammonite and the Moabite] The passage which had excited 
 attention was doubtless Deut. xxiii. 3—6, which opens with the 
 following prohibition, ''An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into 
 the assevibly of the Lord ; even to the tenth generation shall none 
 belonging to them enter into the assembly of the LoRoy^r ever.'' 
 
 come into the congregation] R.V. enter into the assembly. It is 
 important that the words of Deuteronomy should be adhered to in the 
 quotation : and ' assembly ' (qahal) not ' congregation ' (edah) is the 
 word generally used by the Deuteronomist. 
 
 2. because they met not, &c.] Cf. Deut. xxiii. 4, '•Because they 
 tnet^ you not with bread and with tvater in the way when ye came forth 
 out of Egypt ; and because they (Heb. he) hi7'ed against thee Balaam 
 the son of Beor from Pethor of Mesopotamia to czirse thee.' 
 
 Balaam is referred to by the Deuteronomist as the prophet whose 
 curse would be fatal ; the Deuteronomist writer, like the prophet 
 Micah (vi. 5) follows the Jehovist account in Num. xxii. — xxiv., and 
 shows no sign of acquaintaince with the Elohist's description of Balaam 
 (Num. xxx. 8, 16) as an instigator of the Midianite plot to corrupt the 
 children of Israel. 
 
 but hired] The verb in the Hebrew is in the singular 'he hired ', as in 
 Deut. xxiii. 4, referring possibly to Balak the son of Zippor in Num. xxii. 2. 
 
 against them] Literally 'against him', i.e. Israel, corresponding to 
 the singular 'against thee' in Deut. xxiii. 4. 
 
 that he should cta-se them] R.V. to curse them. 
 
 hozvbeit our God] The remainder of the verse gives in general terms 
 the substance of Deut. xxiii. 5, 6. 
 
 20 — 2 
 
3o8 NEHEMIAH, XIII. [v. 3, 4- 
 
 3 our God turned the curse into a blessing. Now it came to 
 pass, when they had heard the law, that they separated from 
 Israel all the mixed multitude. 
 
 4 And before this, Eliashib the priest, having the oversight 
 
 3. Nozu] R.V. And. The A.V. begins a new paragraph with this 
 verse ; which however continues the preceding verses, giving the result 
 of the action taken. 
 
 i/uy separated] 'They,' impersonal, but evidently the leaders of the 
 people are referred to. It does not appear whether the words 'they 
 separated from Israel' denote merely ceremonial exclusion from par- 
 ticipation in the worship and festivals of the holy people, or the 
 forcible ejectment from their borders. The practical impossibility of 
 so summaiy a policy is an objection to the latter interpretation. The 
 parallel in ix. 2 gives some support to the former alternative ; and the 
 instance recorded by Nehemiah in the following verses, 4 — 14, shows 
 that Nehemiah's anger was kindled not at the presence of a stranger 
 but at his connexion with the high-priest, and at the fact of his not 
 being ' separated from ' the Temple. 
 
 all ike mixed multitude] The use of the Hebrew word ' 'ereb ' here 
 without an article may be illustrated by Ex. xii. 38. There, as here, 
 the word denotes the large body of strangers, members of other races, 
 attached by ties of marriage or by commercial interests to the people of 
 Israel. Their proneness to lead the Israelites astray was proverbial, 
 cf. Num. xi. 4. 
 
 Part IV. NEHEMIAH'S SECOND VISIT. 
 
 His Vindication of the Sanctity of the Temple. 
 His Provision for the Maintenance of the Levites. 
 His Measures to uphold the Observance of the 
 
 Sabbath. 
 His Action against Mixed Marriages. 
 His Concluding Words. 
 
 4—31. Nehemiah's memoirs resumed. ' 
 
 4—9. An incident twelve years later : Eliashib's concession of a 
 chamber in the Temple to Tobiah, and its purification by Nehemiah. 
 For Nehemiah's action and the necessity for it, cf Malachi ii. i — 9. 
 
 4. And before this] R.V. Now before tMs. Clearly the date referred 
 to is that of Nehemiah's return to Jerusalem after his residence at the 
 court described in vv. 6, 7. We may assume that Nehemiah's Memoirs 
 embraced the whole interval of twelve years. The Compiler, however, 
 makes no extract from the intervening portion. The words 'before 
 this ' have therefore no reference to the events of the preceding verses ; 
 their retention only shows the exactness with which the extract is 
 reproduced. 
 
 Eliashib the priest] There is scarcely any reason to doubt that this 
 is the same as 'Eliashib the high-priest' mentioned in v. 28, and in 
 iii. I, 20, whose name occurs in the priestly lists (xii. 10, 22). That 
 
 4- 
 
 -9- 
 
 10- 
 
 -14. 
 
 15- 
 
 -22. 
 
 23- 
 
 -29. 
 
 3o> 
 
 31- 
 
V. 5-] NEHEMIAH, XIII. 309 
 
 of the chamber of the house of our God, tvas alHed unto 
 Tobiah : and he had prepared for him a great chamber, 5 
 
 he is here called 'the priest,' and in v. 28, *the high-priest,' constitutes 
 a certain objection against the identification. On the other hand the 
 incident which here connects ' Eliashib the priest' with Tobiah is of 
 so similar a character to that which associates ' Eliashib the high-priest ' 
 in alliance with Sanballat {v. 28), that it is most natural to suppose the 
 same person is denoted. 
 
 The full title is not, as some fancifully suggest, withheld out of 
 respect for the office which was so degraded. It is more probable 
 that Nehemiah is recording the fact that 'the priest who was ap- 
 pointed over the chambers of the house of God ' happened in this 
 instance to be the high-priest himself : perhaps having been appointed 
 to this duty before his succession to the high-priestly office, he still 
 retained the charge. Again, it may be remembered that in old times 
 • the priest ' was the customary title of the high-priest. 
 
 If the same as the high-priest, it has been remarked that his name 
 does not appear in chap. x. among those that signed the covenant. 
 It is however somewhat hazardous to conclude, as commentators have 
 generally done, that he must therefore have refused his signature and 
 have openly opposed the policy of Nehemiah. The names in chap. x. 
 are most of them the names of houses, and the high-priest's name is 
 probably represented in the mention of ' Seraiah.' 
 
 having the oversight of] R.V. who was appointed over. 
 
 the chamber\ R.V. the chambers. Vi.z.xg. ""^^Xi. the cha7nber\ The 
 singular does not give the right meaning. Eliashib in order to 
 dispose of * a great chamber ' to Tobiah, must have had all the 
 Temple chambers under his charge. The proposal to read the plural 
 'chambers' {lishkdth) instead of the singular 'chamber' {lishkath) is 
 probably right. See ver. 9. 
 
 The versions give quite an erroneous turn to the passage ; LXX. 
 o'lkQiv iu ya^ocpyXadij}, Vulg. * prgepositus in gazophylacio.' 
 
 was a/iied] R.V. being allied. A relationship by marriage is in- 
 tended by this expression, which is the same as that rendered in Ruth 
 ii. 20, 'The man is nigh of kin to us.' 
 
 In the LXX. iyyiuv and Vulg. 'proximus,' the idea of local vicinity 
 misapprehends the original. We are not told the exact relationship of 
 Tobiah to Eliashib. But in vi. 17, it appears that he had married a 
 daughter of Shecaniah ; and that his son Jehohanan had married a 
 daughter of Meshullam the son of Berechiah. Both Shecaniah and 
 Meshullam are names mentioned in iii. 2q, 30; and the probability is 
 that they were priests of high rank. It is natural to derive Tobiah's 
 alliance to Eliashib from his connexion with one or both of these 
 families. 
 
 5. aftd he had prepared^ R.V. had prepared. Literally, 'had 
 made.' It is possible that we are to understand by this expression that 
 Eliashib had made a large chamber for Tobiah by knocking together 
 two or three smaller ones. But it is better to understand by it ' had 
 fitted up ' or ' mrnished,' 
 
■310 NEHEMIAH, XIII. [v. 6. 
 
 where aforetime they laid the meat offerings, the frank- 
 incense, and the vessels, and the tithes of the corn, the new 
 wine, and the oil, which was commanded to be given to the 
 Levites, and the singers, and the porters ; and the offerings 
 6 of the priests. But in all this ti7ne was not I at Jerusalem : 
 for in the two and thirtieth year of Artaxerxes king of 
 Babylon came I unto the king, and after certain days 
 
 chamber\ One of the rooms on the side of the Temple or in the 
 buildings connected with the Temple. The suggestion that Tobiah 
 was a Jew and that the high-priest's action may have technically been 
 defensible does not agree with the general impression to be gathered 
 from Nehemiah's narrative, cf ii. 10. 
 
 the meat offerings^ R.V. the meal offerings. For the law of the 
 meal offering, cf. Lev. ii. 6. 
 
 the frankincense'] For the use of frankincense in offerings, cf. Ex. 
 XXX. 34; Lev. ii. i, 15; vi. 15; xxiv. 7; i Chron. ix. 29. 
 
 the vessels'] Probably the various instruments for measuring the 
 quantities contributed and for conveying them to the altar, cf. x. 39. 
 
 the tithes] The tithe here referred to is of the produce of the field, 
 cf. X. 37. 
 
 the new 7vme] R.V. the wine. 
 
 which tvas comftianded to be given] R.V. which were given by com- 
 mandment. Literally, 'the commandment of,' i.e. ' the statutable right 
 of,' 'the due of,' cf. Deut. xviii. 3. 
 
 Levites. . .singers. . .porters] 
 
 and the offerings of the priests] R.V. and the heave ofiferings for the 
 priests. These were the priests' tithe of the Levites' tithe as mentioned 
 inx. 39, 40, xii. 47. 
 
 6. was not I] R.V. I was not. 
 
 the two and thirtieth year of Artaxerxes] i.e. B.C. 433, twelve years 
 since his appointment to be governor of Judea (ii. 6). 
 
 king of Babylon] For this title applied to Artaxerxes king of Persia, 
 cf. Ezra vi. 22, 'the king of Assyria.' Babylon being by far the largest 
 and most important city in the western portion of the Persian dominion, 
 the expression was a natural one in the lips of a Jew. It hardly affords 
 sufficient foundation for the assumption that king Artaxerxes happened 
 to be residing at Babylon at the time of Nehemiah's application for 
 leave of absence. 
 
 came /] R.V. I went. We are left to suppose that Nehemiah had 
 some time previously returned from Jerusalem to his post at Susa. 
 That his governorship of Judea was only for a limited period is plainly 
 hinted at by the king's question in ii. 6, 'And when wilt thou return?' 
 How long it lasted we are not told with any definiteness. From v. 14 
 we may assume that he was governor for the greater part of 12 years. 
 
 after certain days] Literally, 'at the end of days.' A general ex- 
 pression, denoting a considerable interval. To restrict its meaning to 
 'a year' on the strength of certain passages (e.g. Ex. xiii. 10; Lev. 
 
vv. 7— lo.] NEHEMIAH, XIII. 311 
 
 obtained 1 leave of the king : and I came to Jerusalem, and 7 
 understood of the evil that Eliashib did for Tobiah, in 
 preparing him a chamber in the courts of the house of God. 
 And it grieved me sore: therefore I cast forth all the house- 8 
 hold stuff of Tobiah out of the chamber. Then I com- 9 
 manded, and they cleansed the chambers : and thither 
 brought I again the vessels of the house of God, with the 
 meat offering and the frankincense. 
 
 And I perceived that the portions of the Levites had not ic 
 
 XXV. 29; Num. ix. 2-2; Jud. xvii. 10) gives a very improbable explana- 
 tion of the phrase, which is often used of a much more considerable 
 period, e.g. 'in process of time' Gen. iv. 3, 'after a while' i Kings xvii. 7. 
 obtained I leave] R.V. I asked leave. Perhaps in consequence of 
 disquieting information which had reached him. 
 
 7. understood of the evil] i.e. 'gave attention to,' 'perceived its 
 significance.' 'The evil' inflicted by the pernicious example of the 
 high-priest lay in the disregard of all the measures I'ecently taken to 
 separate the people from 'the heathen nations.' 
 
 did] R.V. had done, i.e. not so much by continual alliance, but by 
 this notorious instance, combining sacrilege towards the Temple and 
 complaisance towards the idolater. 
 
 8. it grieved me sore] Cf. ii. 10, 'it grieved them exceedingly.' 
 
 all the household stuff] Literally, 'all the vessels of the house.' 
 * Stuff = the furniture, an old English word. For 'stuff' in this sense 
 cf. Gen. xxxi. 37, xlv. 20; i Sam. x. 22. Aldis Wright {Bible Word- 
 Book, ed. I, p. 463) cites, in illustration of this word, Hall {Hen. IV. 
 fol. 26 b), ' Sir Thomas I^ampston knight the kynges vice-chamberlain 
 with all his chamber stiiffe. And apparell;' and Shakespeare {Com. of 
 Errors I v. 4), 'Therefore away to get our stiiffe aboard.' 
 
 9. they cleansed the chambers] 'they,' impersonal. 'The chambers,' 
 more than one had been desecrated for the purpose of supplying Tobiah 
 with 'a great chamber.' 
 
 the vessels... meat (R.V. meal-) offering. . .frankincense] Perhaps the 
 typical items only are mentioned. But a comparison with the list, 
 V. 5, suggests the jDossibility that the withholding of the tithe from the 
 Levites, which called for the fresh regulations in vv. 10 — 14, will 
 account for the omission of the Levitical and priestly portions in this list. 
 
 10—14. The failure of the people to furnish the due 
 SUPPLIES TO the Levites; and Nehemiah's reform. 
 
 10. the portions of the Levites] The portion which the people had 
 covenanted to contribute to the Levites (cf. x. 37, ff.) had not been 
 paid. The Levites to escape starvation had dispersed into the country. 
 The Temple services were therefore crippled. Compare the similar re- 
 buke in Mai. iii. 7 — 12. 'The Levites' here used for the whole class. 
 
312 NEHEMIAH, XIII. [vv. ii— 13. 
 
 been given them : for the Levites and the singers, that did 
 
 11 the work, were fled every one to his field. Then contended 
 I with the rulers, and said, Why is the house of God for- 
 saken? And I gathered them together, and set them in 
 
 12 their place. Then brought all Judah the tithe of the corn 
 
 13 and the new wine and the oil unto the treasuries. And I 
 made treasurers over the treasuries, Shelemiah the priest, 
 and Zadok the scribe, and of the Levites, Pedaiah : and 
 
 for\ R.V. so that. Their dispersion was the result, not the occasion 
 of non-payment. 
 
 the singers] Under this head, the porters (v. 5) would be in- 
 cluded. 
 
 eveiy one to his field] For mention of the country villages 'round 
 about Jerusalem,' to which *the Levites and the singers' resorted, cf. 
 xii. 27 — 29. 
 
 11. contended r\ Cf. verses 17 — 25, v. 7. 
 the nilers] R.V. marg. 'Or, deputies \ 
 
 forsaken] Neglected by the Jews and deserted by the Levites. 
 
 / gathered them together] Nehemiah caused a muster of the 
 Levites. 
 
 in their place] i.e. in their proper positions. See notes viii. 7, ix. 3. 
 LXX. eTTi araoeL avruv. Vulg. 'in stationibus suis.' 
 
 12. Then drought all JudahJ] Nehemiah's expostulation produced 
 an immediate result. For the expression 'all Judah' = ' the whole 
 nation,' cf. xii. 34 — 44. 
 
 the tithe... co7n...nezv wijie (R.V. wine)...^z7] This is the tithe spoken 
 of in ver. 5 and in x. 37, the contribution of which was described in 
 xii. 44—47- 
 
 tmto the treasuries] The same word in the Hebrew as that rendered 
 'treasures' in xii. 44; and it might here be rendered 'for (or, as) trea- 
 sures,' i.e. to be stored. But the sense in the English version is prefer- 
 able, so also LXX. et's toi>s drjaavpovs, Vulg. 'in horrea:' and it occurs 
 with the same meaning in Mai. iii. 10, which aptly illustrates the present 
 passage. 
 
 13. Shelemiah the priest and Zadok the scribe] It is natural to con- 
 jecture from the fact that these names are followed by 'and of the Levites,' 
 that Shelemiah and Zadok were priests, and that the treasurers consisted 
 of two priests and two Levites. 
 
 'Shelemiah the priest' is perhaps the same as the Shelemiah of iii. 30; 
 and if so, 'Zadok the scribe' may be identified with 'Zadok the son of 
 Immer' whose name occurs in iii. 29, and who was undoubtedly of 
 priestly descent (cf. Immer, vii. 40). The title of 'scribe' given to him 
 and Ezra, though both of priestly origin, shows that the work of 'the 
 scribe' was obtaining increasing importance. Whether it implies that 
 Ezra was dead and that Zadok had succeeded to his office, is an interest- 
 ing question, but one which we have no means of deciding. 
 
 Pedaiah] Possibly the same wlio is mentioned in viii. 4. 
 
V. 14.] NEHEMIAH, XIII. 313 
 
 next to them was Hanan the son of Zaccur, the son of 
 Mattaniah : for they were counted faithful, and their office 
 was to distribute unto their brethren. Remember me, O 14 
 my God, concerning this, and wipe not out my good deeds 
 
 next to tlmfi] Literally 'upon their hand,' i.e. attending and assist- 
 ing, cf. xi. 24, 'at the king's hand. 
 
 Hanan the son of Zaccur^ the son of Mattaniah'\ We have had mention 
 of Mattaniah as a Levitical house representing the sons of Asaph (xi. 17, 
 xii. 8, 25—35). 
 
 We may conjecture that Shelemiah represented the Temple priests, 
 Zadok the 'judicial' section of the priests; Pedaiah the Leviles proper, 
 and Hanan the singers and porters. 
 
 their office was] R. V. their duty was. The construction is the same 
 as in Ezr. x. 12, but proved too difficult for the versions. The LXX. 
 combines the two clauses, oVi Triaroi eXoyicdrja-av eir avrovs fiepii^eiv 
 rots ddeX^ols avTwv, Vulg. 'et ipsis creditae sunt partes patrum 
 suorum.' 
 
 to distribute unto their brethren'\ i.e. to distribute fairly among the 
 various houses, and to decide upon the Levites' tenth paid to the priests. 
 
 14. Reviember me] For this ejaculation see note on v. 19, and cf. 
 vv. 22, 31; Ps. cvi. 4. 
 
 7vij>e not out 7ny good deeds] R.V. marg. ' Heb. kindnesses '. The actual 
 phrase is not found elsewhere in the O.T. The metaphor, which is that 
 of sponging off from the leathern roll of record, is familiar to us from 
 Exod. xvii. 14, xxxii. 32, 33. 
 
 my good deeds] Literally, *my mercies or kindnesses' (LXX. ^Xeos, 
 Vulg. 'miserationes'). At first sight the word seems scarcely ap- 
 propriate. Does it signify Nehemiah's acts of khidness on behalf of 
 the Levites? or his acts of love and reverence, 'good deeds,' towards 
 his God? The word in the Hebrew 'khesed' is the one commonly used 
 of God's mercy towards mankind and of the loving-kindness of man 
 towards man. It occurs however also, though more rarely, of man's 
 love responding to the Divine mercy. In this sense probably it is found, 
 as here, in the plural in 2 Chron. xxxii. 32 'the rest of the acts of 
 Hezekiah, and his good deeds,' xxxv. 26 'the rest of the acts of Josiah 
 and his good deeds.' These 'good deeds' (the plur. of ^khesed') are 
 clearly the efforts of these two kings to live in more thorough com- 
 pliance with the ceremonial of the Law. We may remember too that 
 the 'pious' Israelite was the 'khasid,' and in the 2nd cent. B.C. 
 ' Asideans ' {khasidim) was the name given to the most fanatical of the 
 forerunners of the Pharisees. 
 
 It is not likely that Hosea's use of the word in the singular (vi. 4 
 'your goodness is as a morning cloud,' 6 'I desire mercy and not 
 sacrifice') throws any light upon its usage in the present verse beyond 
 showing that it was possibly applied in his time to man's attitude towards 
 God; but this interpretation is very doubtful. The Rabbinical teaching 
 on the subject of khasadim made 'the bestowal of kindness' equivalent 
 to 'man's duty to his neighbour.' Compare the saying 01 Simon the 
 
314 NEHEMIAH, XIII. [vv. 15, i6. 
 
 that I have done for the house of my God, and for the 
 offices thereof. 
 
 15 In those days saw I in Judah soine treading wine presses 
 on the sabbath, and bringing in sheaves, and lading asses ; 
 as also wine, grapes, and figs, and all 7na?mer of burdens, 
 which they brought i7iio Jerusalem on the sabbath day : 
 and I testified against them in the day wherein they sold 
 
 i6 victuals. There dwelt men of Tyre also therein, which 
 
 Just quoted in the note on x. 37, and see Taylor's note in Sayings of the 
 Jewish Fathers, pp. 26, 27. 
 
 the house of niy God] See on ii. 8, 12. As compared with 'the 
 house of our God' in ver. 4, the phrase is appropriate to the writer's 
 change from narrative to soliloquy. 
 
 the offices] R.V. the observances. The word means literally 'that 
 which is or is to be kept,' cf. ver. 30 and xii. 9, 24 (='ward'). Its 
 meaning here is probably quite general, denoting ' observances, ' ' customs,' 
 and 'usages,' and not any particular functions as Vulg. 'ccerimoniis.' 
 LXX. omit. 
 
 15 — 22. Nehemiah's vindication of the Sabbath. 
 
 15. Jewish Labour on the Sabbath. 
 
 saw 1 171 fjidah] i.e. while Nehemiah was residing in the country. 
 
 treading wine presses] For the phrase cf. Is. Ixiii. 2; Lam. i. 15. 
 
 The word here used for 'winepress' {gath) is different from that used 
 e.g. in Isai. v. 2; Joel ii. 24, iii. 13 {yeqeb). The 'winepress' or gath 
 is the place in which the grapes are trodden; the 'winefat' ox yeqeb 
 is the receptacle into which the juice is made to flow from the winepress. 
 
 sheaves] R.V. marg. ' Or, heaps of corn '. The time of treading the 
 grapes would be later than that of carrying the corn. Perhaps the corn 
 \\as being brought in on asses from the country to be threshed in the 
 city: or sheaves of straw are intended. 
 
 ladifig asses] R.V. adds therewith. 
 
 on the sabbath day] The observance of the Sabbath was always the 
 stumbling-block in the way of free relations between the pious Jew and 
 the Gentile. The temptation to desecrate the Sabbath in order to 
 maintain amicable relations with Gentile traders was a constant source 
 of religious degeneracy among the Jews. Hence the strictness with 
 which its observance was inculcated during the Exile, Isai. Ivi. 2, Iviii. 13; 
 Jer. xvii. 21; Ezek. xx. 16, xxii. 26. 
 
 in the day wherein they sold victuals] It appears that the wares 
 having been brought into the city on the Sabbath, Nehemiah raised his 
 protest on the next or some following day, when they were being sold. 
 
 It can hardly mean that they were sold on the Sabbath; lor in that 
 case Nehemiah would have laid the chief emphasis on a Sabbath traffic, 
 as in the next verse, rather than on the act of conveyance. 
 
 16. Traffic on the Sabbath. 
 therein] i.e. in the city. 
 
vv. 17— 19.1 NEHEMIAH, XTII. 315 
 
 brought fish, and all maimer of ware, and sold on the 
 sabbath unto the children of Judah, and in Jerusalem. 
 Then I contended with the nobles of Judah, and said unto 17 
 them, What evil thing is this that ye do, and profane the 
 sabbath day ? Did not your fathers thus, and did ttot our 18 
 God bring all this evil upon us, and upon this city ? yet ye 
 bring more wrath upon Israel by profaning the sabbath. 
 And it came to pass, that when the gates of Jerusalem i > 
 began to be dark before the sabbath, I commanded that 
 the gates should be shut, and charged that they should not 
 be opened till after the sabbath : and so?ne of my servants 
 
 7vhich brought fish'\ R.V. which brought in fish. These would be 
 the salted and dried fish from the Mediterranean, cf. iii. 3. 
 
 ware^ i.e. anything offered for sale. 
 
 sold on the sabbath tinto the children of Jtcdah'] The fault lay with 
 the buyers, as is shown in the next verse. 
 
 and in Jerusalem^ The words are added emphatically, as if Nehemiah 
 had said 'to think of such a thing being possible in the holy city.' 
 
 17. Then I contended^ of. ver. 11. 
 
 the nobles ofJudah'\ A different word {horitn) from that used for the 
 rulers in ver. 11. 
 
 18. did ttot your fathers thus'] Cf. Jer. xvii. 12, 23, 27, 'but hallow 
 ye the sabbath day, as I commanded your fathers ; but they hearkened 
 not, neither inclined their ear, but made their neck stiff, that they 
 might not hear, and might not receive instruction.... But if ye will not 
 hearken unto me to hallow the sabbath day, and not to bear a burden 
 and enter in at the gates of Jerusalem on the sabbath day ; then will I 
 kindle a fire in the gates thereof, and it shall devour the palaces of 
 Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenched.' 
 
 our God] Note the change from ^your fathers' to 'our God' and 
 'upon ns' 
 
 all this evil] i.e. subjection to a foreign power. 
 
 ye bring more wrath upon Israel] Cf. Ezra x. 10, 'have married 
 strange women, to increase the guilt of Israel.' 
 
 19. the gates of Jerusalem began to be dark] The rare word for 
 'began to be dark' gives rise to the renderings LXX. 7]vlko. KaTi(yTf\<ja.v 
 irvXai, Vulg. 'cum quievissent portae.' Another suggested rendering is 
 'had their bells rung,' is very ludicrous, deriving the word from the 
 same root as the word for ' cymbals. ' 
 
 before the sabbath] From this we should gather that the Sabbath 
 began as soon as it was dark; not absolutely at sunset, but at the 
 termination of the brief twilight. 
 
 gates] R.V. doors. 
 
 charged] R.V. commanded. Same word as in the previous clause. 
 
 servants] Literally 'youths,' iraides, i.e. personal attendants, cf. iv. 
 10, 
 
3i6 NEHEMIAH, XIII. [vv. 20-22. 
 
 set I at the gates, that there should no burden be brought 
 
 20 in on the sabbath day. So the merchants and sellers of all 
 kind of ware lodged without Jerusalem once or twice. 
 
 21 Then I testified against them, and said unto them. Why 
 lodge ye about the wall ? if ye do so again, I will lay hands 
 on you. From that time forth came they no more on the 
 
 22 sabbath. And I commanded the Levites that they should 
 cleanse themselves, and that they should come and keep 
 the gates, to sanctify the sabbath day.' Remember me, O 
 
 at the gates'] R.V. over tlie gates, i.e. to superintend the watch. 
 
 that there should no burden^ &c.] The object of the watch was not to 
 bar the free passage in and out, but only to prevent the introduction of 
 merchandise on that day. 
 
 20. So the juerchants, &c.] The device only partially succeeded; 
 and various merchants, who had been compelled for 24 hours to remain 
 without the walls, seem to have carried on their trade with such of the 
 inhabitants as came outside to deal with them. We gather from the 
 verse that the chief market was held on the first day of the week. 
 
 lodged] i.e. passed the night, as in Gen. xix. 2, xxiv. 25. 
 
 21. Why lodge ye about the wall?] R.V. marg. ' Heb. before \ LXX. 
 dw^vavTi, Vulg. *ex adverso.' Nehemiah, in his capacity of governor, 
 was able to put his foot down upon this evasion of his law. He 
 threatened the traders that, if they hung about on the outskirts of the 
 walls on the Sabbath, he would treat them as public enemies. 
 
 22. A fid I conwiajided the Levites] The verse contains an additional 
 precaution taken by Nehemiah to secure the observance of the Sabbath. 
 Its exact character however is somewhat obscure. 
 
 Nehemiah delivers to the Levites a special commission to take 
 over the watch of the city gates on the Sabbaths. For this purpose 
 they are to cleanse themselves ; the duty was a sacred one, since upon 
 it depended the nation's fidelity to the Sabbath. We are not told 
 whether these Levites were appointed to serve in addition to, or as 
 substitutes for, the regular watchmen; or whether they were intended 
 to continue the duties temporarily entrusted by Nehemiah to his servants 
 (jjer. 19). 
 
 come and keep the gates] The copula is wanting in the Hebrew ; and 
 thus has given occasion to a proposal for the rendering, 'And that they 
 should come to the keepers of the gates' &c. i.e. that the Levites should 
 on the Sabbath eve go the rounds to the various gates for the purpose 
 of solemnly announcing the advent of the holy day. Even if the gram- 
 matical construction, which this translation supposes, be admissible, the 
 sense does not carry with it the ring of probability. 
 
 The versions supply the copula. LXX. elTra rots AewVau ot ■^aav 
 Kadapi^dfieyoL Kal epx^fJ-^voi (pvXdaaoi'Tei rds Tri^Xas dytd^eiu tt]U Tjfxepav. 
 Vulg. 'ut mundarentur et venirent ad custodiendas portas.' 
 
 Remember w^... concerning this also] R.V. Reraemtoer unto me... this 
 also. Cf. ver. 13. 
 
vv. 23—25.] NEHEMIAH, XIII. 317 
 
 my God, concerning this also, and spare me according to the 
 greatness of thy mercy. 
 
 In those days also saw I Jews that had married wives of 23 
 Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab : and their children spake 24 
 half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the 
 Jews' language, but according to the language of each 
 people. And I contended with them, and cursed them, 25 
 and smote certain of them, and pluckt off their hair, and 
 
 23 — 29. Nehemiah's protest against mixed marriages, cf. ix. 2, x. 28, 
 30; Ezr. ix. I ff., X. iff. 
 
 23. saw I ynvs\ R.V. saw I the Jews. The article which the 
 R.V. rightly renders shows that Nehemiah is not making a general 
 charge against the Jewish nation, but reports what he had seen in the 
 instance of a certain set of Jews. It has been suggested that Nehemiah 
 came across them in the course of a journey (cf. v. 15) through the 
 southern districts of the Judean territory. 
 
 that had 7nar7'ied wives (R.V. women)] R.V. marg. ' Heb. had made 
 to dwell with them '. LXX. ol eKadiaav yvvdiKas. Cf. Ezra x. 2, 10, 14, 
 17, 18. 
 
 24. sj>a^e half in the speech of Ashdod'\ LXX. 01 viol airdv ijfxicru 
 'KaXovaiv 'A^wrio-Tt. Vulg. ' filii eorum ex media parte loquebantur 
 Azotice,' half their words were framed in the dialect of Philistia. 
 This dialect would be very similar to Hebrew, but from accent and 
 the use of peculiar words almost unintelligible to the Jews. 
 
 On the relations of the Jews with Ashdod, see on iv. 7, and com- 
 pare Zech. ix. 6. 
 
 i/i the Jeivs language] i.e. Hebrew ('Yehudith') LXX. Toi^SaVo-rt. 
 Vulg. ' Judaice' as in 1 Kings xviii. 26, 28; Is. xxxvi. 11, 13; 1 Chron. 
 xxxii. 18. The language of Hezekiah's reign was still spoken by the 
 Jews after the Return, as indeed would be abundantly shown by these 
 memorials of Ezra and Nehemiah and by the writings of Haggai, 
 Zechariah and Malachi. 
 
 On the mistaken idea that during the Captivity the Jews had ex- 
 changed Hebrew for Chaldee, i.e. Aramaic, see Introd. § 8. 
 
 but according to the language of each people\ Referring to the Am- 
 monites and Moabites, who represented dialectical varieties. 
 
 25. I contended'] Cf. vv. 11, 17. 
 
 cztrsed] R.V. marg. *0r, reviled\ For the word 'to curse' (qalal) 
 cf. V. 2 ; Mai. iii. 9, iv. 6. 
 
 smote... pluckt off their hair] Nehemiah's frantic excitement against 
 these countrymen was accompanied with gestures and blows such as 
 may be witnessed in Syria but are almost incredible to our western 
 ideas. 
 
 pluckt off their hair] LXX. i/xaddpcaaa avrovs. Vulg. ' decalvavi 
 eos.' Commentators suggest that this was done at Nehemiah's com- 
 mand, and not by his own hand ; further that it was a judicial sentence 
 of 'depilatio.' But the context quite supports the idea that he per- 
 
3i8 NEHEMIAH, XIII. [\-v. 26, 27. 
 
 made them swear by God, saying, Ye shall not give your 
 daughters unto their sons, nor take their daughters unto 
 
 26 your sons, or for yourselves. Did not Solomon king of 
 Israel sin by these thi?tgs ? yet among many nations was 
 there no king like him, who was beloved of his God, and 
 God made him king over all Israel : nevertheless even him 
 
 27 did outlandish women cause to sin. Shall we then hearken 
 unto you to do all this great evil, to transgress against our 
 
 sonally ill-treated them ; so frantic was his indignation. He did not 
 intend, as some suggest, by pulling out their hair to compel them 
 to assume the appearance of penitents. For the action of pulling out 
 the hair cf. Ezr. ix. 3. 
 
 7nade them nvear by God, saying] i.e. he made them swear an oath 
 in God's name, the words of the oath being given in the clause 
 following. 
 
 This is better than the alternative rendering, * I adjured them by 
 God' (cf. I Kings xviii. 10; Cant. ii. 7). 
 
 Ye shall not\ The oath which Nehemiah administered in the -znd 
 plur. was repeated by the Jews in the first pers. 
 
 tinlo your sons] R.V. for your sons. 
 
 26. Solovion king of Israel] An argument from the greater to the 
 less. If Solomon, the beloved of God, fell through this snare, how 
 much more likely to sin were these ignorant Jews ? 
 
 by these things] i.e. on account of wives taken from idolatrous 
 people. 
 
 ainong many nations] Cf. Mich. iv. 3, 'he shall judge between many 
 peoples.' 
 
 was there no king like him] Cf. i Kings iii. 12, 13; 2 Chron. 
 i. 12. 
 
 who (R.V. and he) was beloved of his God] Perhaps referring espe- 
 cially to the privilege of Solomon to receive the task of building the 
 Temple and ordering the sacred worship ; but the expression calls to 
 mind 2 Sam. xii. 25, 'And the Lord loved him;. ..and he called his 
 name Jedidiah for the Lord's sake.' 
 
 outlandish women] R.V. strange women. See i Kings xi. 3 ff. 
 
 27. Shall we then hearken unto you] The rendering is disputed. 
 According to the English Version, the sense is, ' are we to listen to 
 
 your expostulations and entreaties, and permit this evil to go on un- 
 checked, when even the saintly Solomon fell because of it?' This 
 is the rendering of the LXX. koX v/xlov /ultj dKovaw/xeda, and is reproduced 
 by the Vulg. 'Numquid et nos inobedientes faciemus.' The alternative 
 translation throws greater emphasis on the contrast between Solomon 
 and the Jews. ' And as for you, should it be heard of (i.e. surely if 
 Solomon thus fell, it should be an unheard of thing), that ye should go 
 on the same fatal course of conduct ? ' In favour of this rendering is the 
 prominent position of the 2nd plur. pron. at the head of v. 27. 
 transgress] R.V. trespass. 
 
vv. 28, 29.] NEHEMIAH, XIII. 319 
 
 God in marrying strange wives? And one of the sons of 28 
 Joiada, the son of EHashib the high priest, ivas son in law 
 to Sanballat the Horonite : therefore I chased him from 
 me. Remember them, O my God, because they have 29 
 defiled the priesthood, and the covenant of the priesthood, 
 
 wives] R.V. women. Nehemiah apparently renewed the policy of 
 Ezra (Ezr. x.) and urged the Jews to put away from them their Gentile 
 wives. 
 
 28. oTiQofthe sonso/yoiada] We should gather that Eliashib the 
 grandfather was still alive, since the emphasis lies on the relationship of 
 the offender to the high-priest. 'Joiada.' Cf. xii. 10. On Eliashib 
 see note on ver. 4. 
 
 soil in law to Sanballat the Horonite\ For Sanballat, cf ii. 10, iii. 33, 
 iv. I, vi. I. The marriage of the high-priest's grandson with San- 
 ballat's daughter was an offence in eveiy way. (i) It showed treason- 
 able alliance with Israel's bitterest foe, (2) it violated the rule laid down 
 in Ezra's time against mixed marriages, (3) it compromised the purity of 
 the high-priestly house (Lev. xxi. 6ff.). 
 
 therefore I chased him from me] LXX. e^e/Spacra. Obviously because 
 he was contumacious, and i-efused to put away his wife. Rashi's explana- 
 tion that Nehemiah chased him away for fear of his playing the spy and 
 reporting the means of entering and leaving the city, is strangely in- 
 adequate. Josephus relates a story so similar to this that it should prob- 
 ably be referred to the same events, although he must have obtained it 
 from some other source. According to Josephus {Ant. xi. 7. 8) a certain 
 Manasse, the son of Jaddua (and therefore grandson not son of Joiada) 
 took to wife Nikaso, the daughter of the Cuthaean Sanballat. Refusing 
 to put her away, he was expelled from Jerusalem by the Jewish nobles, 
 and took refuge with the Samaritans, among whom, as a member of the 
 high-priestly family, he set up upon Mt Gerizim a rival temple and 
 priesthood. It will be seen that Josephus assigns this to the period of 
 Alexander the Great. But there it is probable that Josephus is at fault; 
 for he completely fails to realize the interval of time between the Return 
 from the Exile and the Age of Alexander; and it is to this chronological 
 confusion rather than to a mistake of 'Jaddua' for 'Joiada' that we 
 should ascribe the cause of his principal variation from the Memoirs of 
 Nehemiah. For (i) in Alexander's time the organization of the Samari- 
 tan worship had long been fully established, (2) it is very improbable 
 that a repetition of such a striking incident should occur just a century 
 after Nehemiah's time. 
 
 29. Remember them] Here in a bad sense. 
 
 because they have defiled] R.V. marg. ' Heb. for the defilings of. 
 The word so rendered occurs only here. It is from the same root as 
 the word 'Goel,' which explains the confusion of the LXX. eTrt dy- 
 Xicreiq, rrjs iepareias. 
 
 the priesthood. . .the covenant of the pi-iesthood , and of the Leviies] Joi- 
 ada's son, not being high-priest, did not himself fall under the marriage 
 law of the high-priest. Lev. xxi. 13 — 15. But as a possible successor 
 
■320 NEHEMIAH, XIII. [w. 30, 31. 
 
 30 and of the Levites. Thus cleansed I them from all 
 strangers, and appointed the wards of the priests and the 
 
 31 Levites, every one in his business; and for the wood 
 offering, at times appointed, and for the firstfruits. Re- 
 member me, O my God, for good. 
 
 to the office, his marriage with Sanballat's daugliter violated the spirit 
 of the Law. 'The covenant of the priesthood, and of the Levites' seems 
 to mean the peculiar relation of the priests and the Levites as holy, set 
 apart for the special service of God, and as representatives of the whole 
 people. It is possible that Nehemiah's words relate not to the offence 
 of an individual, but to the shame accruing to the whole priesthood in 
 the fact that renegade priests had founded a rival Jehovah worship on 
 j\It Gerizim, among the hated Samaritans. The expression is very 
 similar to that in Mai. ii. 8, ' But ye are turned aside out of the way; 
 ye have caused many to stumble in the law; ye have corrupted the 
 covenant of Levi, saith the Lord of hosts.' For 'the covenant of 
 the priesthood,' cf. Deut. xxxiii. 8 — 11. Mai. ii. i — 8 will form an 
 excellent commentary upon Nehemiah's earnest denunciation. 
 
 30. Nehemiah Summarizes his Work under the heads of 
 
 PURIFICATION and ORGANIZATION. 
 
 cleansed I theniX i.e. the people of Israel. 
 
 all sb'aiigers\ R.V. marg. ' Or, every strange thing\ LXX. hro irdo-qs 
 dWorpLUjaeus ; the foreign element, which threatened to encroach upon 
 the separateness of Israel and become the renewed source of idolatry. 
 Vulg. 'ab omnibus alienigenis.' 
 
 lAe wards 0/] R.V. wards for. Nehemiah did not originate the 
 duties of the priests and Levites ; he only set on foot a more systematic dis- 
 tribution of their work. The word Svards' may here indicate the succes- 
 sive relays or 'watches' of priests and Levites (LXX. ecprj/jiepLas. Vulg. 
 'ordines'); or, in a more general sense, their 'duties' and 'observances,' 
 as in ver. 13, which seems to agree best with the following clause: 'each 
 one in his work.' 
 
 in his business^ R.V. in his work, ver. 10, x. 33, xi. 12. As gener- 
 ally in these books, except xi. 16, 22, where 'business' is retained. Cf. 
 Prov. xxii. 29, 'Seest thou a man diligent in his business?' 
 
 31. and for the wood offering'] Cf. x. 35. 
 
 the fijstfrnits'] Cf. x. 36 — 40. 
 
 The special mention of these practical measures of reorganization per- 
 haps implies that they remedied two principal causes of discontent and 
 points most liable to abuse from negligence. 
 
 Retnember t>ie, my God, for good'\ Cf. 14, 22. v. 19. 
 
 Additional Note on xiii. 6. Prof. Kirkpatrick suggests that Nehemiah's first 
 Mission lasted 'perhaps for not r.iore than a year,' and that he then returned to Susa. 
 The words '1 went to the king' he explains of Nehemiah's going to serve his turn as 
 cupbearer; and 'at the end of certain days' he would refer to the close of his term of 
 office. This explanation has the merit of allowing an interval of 12 years between 
 Nehemiah's two visits to Jerusalem. The objection arising from the date in v. 14 
 he meets by the conjecture that the Compiler has inserted it from a misunderstanding 
 of ch. xiii. 6, or 'that Nehemiah continued to be nominal governor. ..though not 
 resident in Judaea.' (' Doctrine of the Prophets,' London, 1892, pp. 508, 509.) 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Aaron, Ezra's descent from, 87, 89 ; chil- 
 dren of, 279, 307 
 
 Ab, the month, 91 
 
 'abominations of the heathen,' 114, 123 
 
 Abraham, 254 
 
 Achaemenidae, dynasty of, xlvi 
 
 Achmetha, xlvi, 75 
 
 Adar, the month, 82 
 
 Adonai (Lord), 127, 156, 19S 
 
 Adonikam, sons of, 21, 102 
 
 Aeschylus, referred to, 65 
 
 Ahasuerus, 53, 64 
 
 Ahava, camp at, xxxix, 102, iii 
 
 Ai, 24, 292 
 
 nkhnsJuiarpan, = S3itx&'P, lix 
 
 Alexander the Great, 75, 296 
 
 Alexandrinus, Codex, xi, xiv 
 
 Altar, building of, 39, 40 
 
 Ammonites, 115, 307 
 
 Amorites, 115 
 
 analysis of Ez. and Neh., xvi 
 
 Ananiah, a village, 292 
 
 Anathoth, town of, 22, 292 
 
 Antiochus Epiphanes, 82, 131 
 
 Antonia, castle of, 163 
 
 Anzan, a province, 3 
 
 Apharsathchites, 56, 71 
 
 Apharsachites, 71 
 
 Apocryphal Books of Esdras, xiii, xv 
 
 'apothecary,' 177 
 
 Aramaic dialect, lix, Ix, 55 
 
 Aramaic writings in Ezra, xviii, xx ; first 
 section, 55 — 84 ; second section, 93 — 
 9S 
 
 archaic Hebrew characters, Ixii — Ixiv 
 
 Archevites, 56 
 
 archives, house of, 75 
 
 armour, 200 
 
 army of Samaria, 190 
 
 Arses, king of Persia, xlvi 
 
 EZRA AND NEH. 
 
 Artaxerxes I. (Longimanus), xlvi, 53, 
 148, 158, 310 ; gifts to Temple, xxxviii ; 
 Samaritans' leuer to, 53 — 61; decree 
 of, 61, 62, 81 ; theory as to name, 65 — 
 66 ; his commissions, xxxviii, 93, 162 
 
 Artaxerxes II., xxvi, xlvi 
 
 Artaxerxes III., xlvi 
 
 Asaph (the psalmist), 27 
 
 Asaph (keeper of forests), 162 
 
 Ashdod, 194, 317 
 
 Asnapper, 56 
 
 asses, 35, 166 
 
 Assur, 50 
 
 Assyria, kings of, 86, 264 
 
 Assur-bani pal, xxxiv, 57, 75. 148 
 
 'astonied,' 117 
 
 Athaiah, 284 
 
 Azariah, 233, 301 
 
 Azgad, children of, 21 
 
 Azmaveth, 22, 300 
 
 Babylon, date of fall, xxix, 3 ; policy of 
 kings, xxix ; return of Jews from, 
 xxxi, xxxviii, 102 ; 'king of,' xlv, 310 
 
 Balaam, 307 
 
 Bakbukiah, liv, 288, 298 
 
 Bani, 251 
 
 Baruch, 184 
 
 Barzillai, 31, 235 
 
 basons, 13, 36, 109 
 
 bath of wine, 96 
 
 Bavai, 184 
 
 Beeroth, 22 
 
 Bel, 5 
 
 Benjamin, men of, 49, 131, 301 
 
 Bethel, 23, 131 
 
 Beth-haccerem, 181 
 
 Beth-horon, 164 
 
 Bethlehem, 22 
 
 Beth-zur, 183 
 
32: 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Bevan's Da7iiel, quoted, Ix 
 
 Binnui, 112, 185, 233, 251 
 
 bibliography of Ezra and Neh., Ixxi 
 
 bif-ah= fortress, lix, 163 
 
 Bishlam, 54 
 
 Bishops' Bible, xv 
 
 Bomberg's Hebrew Bible, xi 
 
 bondservant, laws as to, 207 
 
 booths, 246 
 
 British ^Iuseum, inscriptions, 143 
 
 burnt offerings, 41 
 
 'by the hand of,' 12, 109, in 
 
 Cambyses, xxxvi, xlvi, 5, 52, 6^ 
 
 camels, 35 
 
 Canaanites, 115, 255 
 
 Canon of Scripture, Ixv 
 
 captivity, the, 15, 16; children of. 49. £4. 
 112, 130, 137 
 
 Carchemish, ii, 15, 91 
 
 Casiphia, xxxix, 105 
 
 ceremonial purification, 84 
 
 Chaldee, Ixi 
 
 chamber of Johanan, 129 
 
 chambers of Temple, no, 188, 279, 309, 
 310 
 
 chancellor, 55 
 
 chargers, meaning of, 13 
 
 Chephirah, 22 
 
 'chief of the fathers,' 9 
 
 chief priests, 129 
 
 Chislev, the month, 131, 146, 299 
 
 Chronicles, books of, connexion with 
 Ezra and Nehemiah, xxvi; parallels 
 with Ezra and Neh., xxvii, xxviii, 2, 
 283 ; position in Canon, Ixv 
 
 chronicles (official documents), 297 
 
 chronology, table of, Ixxii ; question of, in 
 Nehemiah, 237 
 
 Choaspes, the river, 148 
 
 command by ' the hand of,' 122 
 
 commissions of Artaxerxes, 92 — 98, 113, 
 162 ; of princes and elders, 134, 137 
 
 Compiler of Ezra and Nehemiah, xviii, 
 xxii, XXV ; date of his work, xxvi, 129, 
 296 ; probability of identity with com- 
 piler of books of Chronicles, xxii, 
 xxvi, 2 
 
 Conder's Palestine, quoted, 187 
 
 confession of Ezra, 118; of the people, 
 127 ;=praise, 132 
 
 Contemporary Chronicle, extracts from, 
 in Ezra and Nehemiah, xviii, xxi 
 
 copula, examples of, 242, 246, 257, 316 
 
 cor (a measure), 96 
 
 corn, dearth of, 206 
 
 counsellers, 94, 109 
 
 Covenant, the Solemn, 250 
 
 Coverdale's Bible, xiv 
 
 Croesus, 3, 37 
 
 crucifixion, a form of, 80 
 
 custom levied, 59 
 
 cup-bearers, xlviii, 157 
 
 cymbals, 47 
 
 Cyrus, capturer of Babylon, xxix, xlvi, 
 73; his decree, xxix, i, 4 — 6; policy 
 towards captives, xxx, 2 ; obligations 
 to Jewish prophecy, xxxi ; dates of 
 birth, conquests and death, 3 ; deriva- 
 tion and pronunciation of name, 3 ; 
 descent, 3; extent of kingdom, 4; 
 polytheist, 5 ; gives back the vessels of 
 
 - the Temple, 10 
 
 Damascus, 164 
 
 Damaspia, queen, 162 
 
 Daniel, 99 » 
 
 daric of gold, li, lix, 36, 37, no -WL 
 
 Darius I., Hystaspes, xxxvi, xlv, xlvi, fl 
 
 148; consolidated Persia, 52 ; his decree, " 
 
 77 — 79 ; king of Assyria, 86 
 Darius II., Nothus, xlvi, 297 
 Darius III., Codomannus, xxiv, xlvi, 297 
 David, the line of, 99; city of, 182; 
 
 house of, 302 
 'days of our fathers,' 119 ^j 
 
 debt, exaction of, 273 
 Decree of Cyrus, xv, xxix, i — ^; its 
 
 terms, xxx ; its character xxxi, 4'; dis- 
 covered by Darius, 75 
 Decree of Darius, 77 — 79 ; executed 
 
 promptly, 81 
 dedication of Temple, 82, 131 ; of walls, 
 
 298—303 
 Dehavites, 56 
 Dinaites, 56 
 
 doors of Jerusalem, 219, 229 
 Douay Bible, xv 
 dragon well, 167 
 drams, 37 
 dung gate, 167, 181 
 
 east gate, i83 
 
 ' eat the fat,' 244 
 
 Ecbatana, xxxvi, xlvi, 3, 75 
 
 Ecclesiasticus, Ixv 
 
 Egypt, deliverance from, 255 
 
 Elam, children of, 21, 126 
 
 Elam, kingdom of, xxxiv, 3, 148 ; dwel- 
 lers in, 56, 57 
 
 Elam (town ?), 24 
 
 Eleazar, line of, liii 
 
 elders, 70, 131 
 
 Eliashib, the High-priest, xxiii, xliv, 
 xlix, 129, 172, 295, 308 
 
 Elohim, 7 ; rendering of, 11 
 
 Elul, the month, 227, 299 
 
 'e>nanak, 266, 290 
 
 encampment of Ezra, 103, in 
 
 Ephrath, 22 
 
 Esar-haddon, xxxiv, 50 
 
 Esdras, books of, Ixvi, 14; account of the 
 'return,' 15 ; list of families, 19, 100 
 
 evening sacrifice, 117 
 
 Ewald, referred to, 13, 14, 102, 204 
 
 excommunication, 131 
 
 Ezekiel, testimony as to priests and Le- 
 vites, Iv, 31 
 
INDEX. 
 
 323 
 
 Ezra, extracts from memoirs, xvii, xviii, 
 xl, 98 — 112, 113 — 125; characteristics 
 of writing, xviii ; share of work in book 
 of Ezra, xxiv ; descent, xxxviii, 87 ; 
 his mission, xxxviii, xlviii ; severity of 
 reforms, xl, 143 ; absence accounted 
 for, xU ; the scribe, Iviii, 89, 93; tradi- 
 tions respecting, Ixviii ; the priest, 93, 
 132; journey to Jerusalem, 91, iii; 
 his religious purpose, 92 ; receives Ar. 
 taxerxes' commission, 93; power to 
 appoint judges, 97 : his thanksgiving, 
 gS ; camps at Ahava, 102 ; his grief 
 and confession, 116, 117, 126; prayer, 
 118 — 125 ; policy, 129 ; note on his 
 reforms, 143 ; address to the people, 
 132 ; selects the commission, 138; name 
 omitted in first part of Nehemiah, 238 ; 
 at dedication of walls, 302 
 
 Ezra and Nehemiah— Books of— origin- 
 ally one work, ix — xiii ; name, xiii — 
 XV : contents, xv — xvii ; structure, 
 xvii — xxiii ; extracts from Memoirs, 
 xviii ; official lists in, xix, 16, 232, 283 ; 
 extracts from contemporary chronicle 
 in, xxi ; compiler's own composition, 
 xxii ; date, xxiii, 296, 298 ; authorship, 
 xxiv — xxvi ; points of resemblance to 
 books of Chronicles, xxvi — xxviii, 2, 
 283 ; outline of history, xxix — xlv ; 
 antiquities,, xlv — lix ; place in the 
 Canon, Ixv ; relation to other literature, 
 Ixvi — Ixix; compared with Josephus, 
 Ixvii ; importance in the Scriptures, Ixix 
 
 Ezra, Book of, Aramaic writings in, xx, 
 lix; Parti. Return under Zerubbabel, 
 1 ; Part II. Return under Ezra, 86; 
 corruptions, etc. in text, 14, 24, 34, 50, 
 70, 105, 127, 130, 136, 142 
 
 families, in returns from Babylon, 19, 100, 
 
 232 
 'fear was upon them,' 39 
 feasts of the Jews, 42 ; custom at, 244 
 firstborn of sons, 277 ; of cattle, 277 
 first-fruits, offering of, 277 — 8, 304 
 fi<h gate, T74 
 
 freewill offerings, 9, 42, 94 
 forests of king, 162 
 fountain gate, 168, 181 
 fox, 192 
 furnaces, tower of, 180, 302 
 
 Gaba, 23, 233 
 
 garments, rending of, 116, 117 
 
 gates of Jerusalem, 150, 174, 219 ; valley, 
 
 166, 181, 300 ; dung, 167, 180, 301 ; 
 
 fountain, 168, 181, 302 ; sheep, 172, 
 
 190; fish, 174; old, 176; water, 187; 
 
 horse, 188; east, 188; Miphkad, 1S9; 
 
 Ephraim, 248, 302 
 ^(Z2^ = treasure, 12 
 Geba, 292 
 genealogy, 31, 99 ; of Ezra, 87 — 89 
 
 Geneva Bible, xv 
 
 Gershom, 99 
 
 Geshem, the Arabian, 170, 220; called 
 
 Gashmu, 221 
 Gibbar=:Gibeon, 21,233 
 Gibeonites, 176 
 
 gifts for the Temple, 36, 109, 112 
 gizbar, lix, 12 
 golden calf, 258 
 goldsmiths, 177, 190 
 'good deeds,' 313 
 goods, 9 
 
 ' governor beyond the river,' 69 
 grace, 120 
 grief, signs of, 116 
 
 ' habergeons,' 200 
 
 Hachaliah, 146 
 
 Hadid, 25, 293 
 
 ' hadst consumed,' 124 
 
 ha-Elohim, 7, 9 
 
 Haggai, Ixvi ; reference to building of 
 Temple, xxxiii, xxxvi, 67, 81 
 
 Haggedolim, 287 
 
 hag-golah, = cz^iWity, 16, 112, 130 
 
 Hamath, 164 
 
 Hammeah, tower of, 173 
 
 Hananeel, tower of, 173, 303 
 
 Hananiah, 177 
 
 Hananiah, ruler of the palace, 230 
 
 Hanani, 149, 230 
 
 hanging, punishment of, 80 
 
 ' hand of the Lord,' 90, 99, 105, in 
 
 hair plucked, 317 ; as sign of grief, 116 
 
 Harim, children of, 24 
 
 Harim, priestly house of, 26, 140 
 
 harp, 299 
 
 Hashabiah, 106, 108, 297 
 
 Hashabniah, 252 
 
 Hattush, 99, 179 
 
 ' heads of fathers' houses,' 1, 36, 48, 99, 
 no, 138, 245, 296 
 
 heave offering, 279 
 
 heaven, God of, 151 ; host of, 253 
 
 ' heaviness ' = hun".iliation, 117 
 
 Hebrew, Canon of Scripture, ix, xiii, Ixv, 
 239; MSS. of Ez. and Neh., x ; tradi- 
 tion respecting Minor Prophets, xii ; 
 language supplanted by Aramaic, Ixi ; 
 alphabet, Ixii, Ixiii 
 
 Hebrew text, errors and various readings 
 in, 14, 24, 34, 50, 70, 103, 104, 105, 108, 
 130, 139, 142, 191, 197, 201, 204, 295, 297 
 
 Hebron, 291 
 
 help, 8 
 
 Henadad, sons of, 45, 46 
 
 Herodotus, referred to, li, 43, 65, 75 
 
 High-priests, list and office of, xlix ; title 
 Iii, 89, 172 
 
 Hilkiah, 89 
 
 Hinnom, valley of, 166, 292 
 
 Hittites, 115 
 
 Hodaviah, children of, 27, 45, 285 
 
 21 2 
 
324 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 holy, things. 32, 275 ; seed, 115 ; place, 
 
 120; days, 272; city, 2S2 
 Horeph, 21 
 horitn, 1 
 Horonite, 164 
 horses, 35 
 horse gate, iS3 
 house of God, 125, 126 
 households in return from Babylon, 20 
 
 Iddo, 67, 104, 142 
 
 iggereth = \^X.X.&x, lix 
 
 Immer, priestly house of, 26, 140, 188 
 
 Immer, village of, 30 
 
 iniquity, meaning of, 251 
 
 inscriptions, Hebrew, Ixii— iii ; Assyrian, 
 
 Ixiv, 148 
 Isaiah's prophecies and Cyrus, xxx, 5, 6 
 Israel, children of, 18, 82, 140, 153, 279; 
 
 seed of, 250; at Passover, 85; tlieir 
 
 disobedience, 261 ; stubbornness, 262 ; 
 
 humiliation, 250, 265 
 Ithamar, line of, liii 
 
 Jaddua, the High-priest, xxiii, xxiv, 
 xxvi, xlix, 296 
 
 Jassau, 142 
 
 Jebusites, 115 
 
 Jedaiah, 25, 286 
 
 Jehiel, 126, 141 
 
 Jehoiachin, 11 
 
 Jehoiakim, 11 
 
 Jehovah, 5, 7, 271; long-suffering of, 
 263 
 
 Jehozadak, the High-priest, 295 
 
 Jeremiah, prophecy of the "70 years," 3 
 
 Jericho, 25, 131 
 
 Jerome, quoted, xi, xiii 
 
 Jerusalem, walls destroyed, xli, 150; 
 walls restored, xlii, 172—189; trade 
 at, li; 'God which is in,' 7; taken by 
 Nebuchadnezzar, 11; 'mighty kings' 
 of, 63; Ezra's journey to, 91, iii; in- 
 spection of walls by Nehemiah, 166 — 9 ; 
 population, 231, 282; the 'holy city,' 
 282. See also gates 
 
 Jeshua, the High-priest, xxxvii, xlix, 17, 
 39, 139, 295 
 
 Jeshua, the children of, 21 ; priests, 26 ; 
 Levites, 27 
 
 Jeshua, the Levite, 45, 242 
 
 Jeshua=Joshua, 248 
 
 Jewish, tradition as to Ez. and Neh. 
 Ixviii; households mentioned in the 
 'Return,' 17 — 31, 232 — 6; religious 
 feasts, 42 
 
 Jews, return under Zerubbabel, xxxi, 
 xxxii, 15, 18 ; return under Ezra, xxxix, 
 90 — I, 99, III ; reject help of Samari- 
 tans, XXXV, 51; complete the Temple, 
 xxxvi, 81; their indifference, xxxviii, 
 xlv; community of, xlviii, 1, 129, 169; 
 social condition, li; religious organi- 
 zation, Iii; dates of deportations, 17; 
 
 name, 58; sin of intermarriage, 114; 
 confession of guilt, 126 ; oath as to 
 strange wives, 127; general assembly, 
 131 ; appoint a commission, 134 ; list 
 of intermarried, 139; rebuild the walls, 
 172 — 189, 196; opposed by Samari- 
 tans, 190 — 5 ; oppression of the poor, 
 205 — 8 ; their confession, 250 — 265 ; 
 solemn covenant, 266 — 280; dedicate 
 the walls, 298 — 303 
 
 Johanan, the High-priest, xxiii, xlix, 
 296 ; the chamber of, 129 
 
 Johanan, son of Tobiah, 229 
 
 ioiakim, the High-priest, xlix, 295 
 oiada, the High-priest, xxiii, xlix, 295 
 onathan, High-priest, j^^ Johanan 
 Joppa, 43 
 Jorah, 21 
 
 Josephus, ix, xxiii, xlix, Ixiv, Ixvi. 65, 
 
 162, 164, 227, 237, 277, 296; narrati%-e 
 
 compared with Ezra and Neh., Ixvii; 
 
 reference to son of Joiada, 319 
 
 journey, of Zerubbabel, 15; of Ezra, 91, 
 
 III ; of Nehemiah, 164 
 Jozabad, 112 
 Judah, province of, 6, 16, 53, 71, 130; 
 
 tribe of, 9, 49 ; sons of, 45 
 judgements, 256 
 
 Kadmiel, children of, 27, 45 
 
 Kedron, brook of, 167, 169 
 
 Keil referred to, 14, 26, 215 
 
 Keilah, 1S3 
 
 iT^rt«7</^iiA = dedication, 82, 131 
 
 khesed, 313 
 
 kikka7; 96, 299 
 
 kings and priests, 119; king of Persia, 
 xxiv, xlv, 3 ; king of Babylon, xlv, 
 310; king of Assyria, xlvi, 86, 264; 
 'king's hand,' 290 
 
 Kirjath-arba, 291 
 
 Kirjath-arim, 22 
 
 kneeling, 118 
 
 knives, 13 
 
 Koz, children of, 31, 235 
 
 ' lands ' = fields, 206 
 
 law, reading of, xliv, 241 — 2 ; its obliga- 
 tions, xliv ; book of, 238 ; rules of, modi- 
 fied for practical purposes, 44, 85, 273 
 
 Lebanon, cedars of, 43 
 
 Levites, xxxix ; prominence of, in Ez. 
 and Neh., xxvii; tithes paid to, xliv; 
 number of, liii: singers identified with, 
 liv; descendants of priests of high 
 places, Iv; reasons why few returned 
 from the captivity, Ivi, 103 ; duties, 
 Ivi ; register of in the 'return,' 26, 294 ; 
 assist in rebuilding Temple, 44, 45 ; 
 purification of, 84; slay the Paschal 
 lamb, 85 ; put away strange wives, 
 140; watch the city walls and gates, 
 230, 316; support Ezra, Ivi, 240; dis- 
 persion of 311 
 
INDEX. 
 
 J-3 
 
 lieutenants, 113 
 
 Id ( = 'unto him"), various readings, 50 
 
 locks, 174 
 
 Lod, 25, 131, 293 
 
 lots, casting of, 276, 282 
 
 love to God, 152 
 
 Luther's Bible, quoted, 60 
 
 Lydia, 3 
 
 Magbish, 24 
 
 magistrates, 97 
 
 Malachi, lix, Ixvi 
 
 mantle, rending of, 116, 117 
 
 marriage with heathen, xxxviii, xxxix, 
 xliv, 114, 122, 127; Nehemiah's pro- 
 test against, 317 
 
 masons, 42 
 
 Massoretes, x 
 
 Mattaniah, liv, 288, 298 
 
 Matthew's Bible, xiv 
 
 Meah, tower of, 173 
 
 measure of wheat, 96 
 
 meat, 42 ; offering, 275 
 
 Media, 3, 75 
 
 Mehunim, children of, 29 
 
 Melito, reference to, x 
 
 Meraioth, 286 
 
 merchants, 189, 190 
 
 Merodach, 5, 11 
 
 MeshuUam, 137, 174, 188, 229, 240, 285, 
 301 
 
 Messianic hope, not referred to in Ez. 
 and Neh. , Ixx 
 
 metaphors, ' salt of the palace,' 59 ; 
 'king's dishonour,' 60; 'house made a 
 dunghill,' 80; 'gone over mine head,' 
 119; 'reached unto heaven,' 119; 'nail 
 fastened,' 120; 'sin blotted out,' 193; 
 ox and yoke, 262 ; sponging a leathern 
 roll, 313 
 
 Michmas, 23 
 
 Miphkad, gate of, 189 
 
 Miniamin, 296 
 
 ministers, 95, 97, 105 
 
 Minkhah, 117, 275 
 
 Minor Prophets, collected in one book, 
 xi, xii 
 
 Mispereth, 233 
 
 mission of Ezra, xxxviii — xlii 
 
 Mithredath, derivation of, 12, 54 
 
 Mizpah, 18 
 
 Mizpah, town of, 176; district of, 181 
 
 Moabites, 115, 307 
 
 money, li, 37, 109 
 
 months, Jewish, 38, 91, 131, 138 
 
 Mordecai, 18 
 
 mortgage of lands, 206, 208 
 
 Moses, 153 
 
 'most holy things,' 32 
 
 mules, 35, 166 
 
 Nabonidus, xxix, i 
 Nahamani, 18, 233 
 nasi, a. title, 13 
 
 Neballat, 293 
 
 Nebo, the god, 5, 7, 24 
 
 Nebo, a town, 24, 234 
 
 Nebuchadnezzar, capturer of Jerusalem, 
 11; his worship of Merodach, 11; 
 name, 17; his temple at Babylon, 12, 
 73 
 
 Nebuzaradan, 11 
 
 negid, 286 
 
 Nehemiah, extracts from memoirs, xvii, 
 xix, XXV, xl, xlii, 145—236, 298—304, 
 308 — 320; styleof writing, xix; charac- 
 ter, xlii ; restores the walls of Jeru- 
 salem, xlii, 191 — 204; first journey to 
 Jerusalem, xlii, 164 ; his social and 
 religious reforms, xliii, 210 — 213 ; tradi- 
 tions respecting, Ixviii; his prayers, 
 151 — 7, 161, 192, 218; the king's cup- 
 bearer, 157; request to the king, 162; 
 inspects Jerusalem, 166 — 9; condemns 
 usury, 210 — 212 ; his symbolic act, 214 ; 
 appointed Pekhah, 215: his generosity, 
 217; dedicates the walls, 300; second 
 journey to Jerusalem, xliv, 308; his 
 care for the Temple, 309 ; provision for 
 Levites, 311; measures for Sabbath 
 observance, 314 ; protests against mixed 
 marriages, 317; concluding words, 320 
 
 Nehemiah, book of. Part I, rebuilding of 
 walls, 145; Part II, religious reform, 
 237; Part III, miscellaneous, 281; 
 Part IV, Nehemiah's second visit, 
 308; various readings in text, 147, 178, 
 184, 187, 191, 197, 198, 201, 204, 215, 
 217, 224, 228, 251, 253, 260, 318 
 
 Nehemiah and Ezra, see Ezra and Nehe- 
 miah 
 
 Nehemiah (not the reformer), 17 
 
 Nekoda, children of, 29, 30 
 
 Nephusim, children of, 29, 234 
 
 Nethinim, xxviii, xxxix, liv, 90; the 
 office and duties of, Ivii, Iviii ; register 
 of, in the 'return,' 28; theory as to, 
 28, 106; plural form, 28; houses of, 
 187, 189 
 
 Netophah, town of, 22, 233, 300 
 
 new moons, feast of, 41, 42, 239, 275 
 
 Nisan, the month, 91, iii, 158 
 
 Noadiah, son of Binnui, 112; the pro- 
 phetess, 227 
 
 nobles, Jewish, 1 
 
 Notes, special, Persian kings, 64 — 66; 
 Ezra's reform, 143 — 4; the tithe, 280 
 
 Obadiah, 298 
 
 official lists in Ez. and Neh., xviii, xix 
 
 Og, king of Bashan, 260 
 
 oil, 43 
 
 olah, 275 
 
 Ono, 25, 220, 293 
 
 Ophel, mount, Iviii, 161, 187, 289 
 
 Origen, reference to, xi 
 
 overseer, 285 
 
;26 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Pahath-Moab, children of, 20 
 
 palace = castle, 148, 163 
 
 pardes, 163 
 
 Parosh, children of, 20, 186 
 
 Paschal lamb, 85 
 
 Pashur, priestly house of, 26, 140 
 
 Passover, feast of, 84, 85 
 
 'peace or their wealth,' 123 
 
 peah = z. corner, 260 
 
 Pedaiah, 186, 312 
 
 pekhah, xlvii, xlviii, lix, 13, 32, 215 
 
 'people of the land," 51, 85, 115, 127, 133, 
 263, 272 
 
 Pentateuch, parallel passage, 154 
 
 Perez, 284 
 
 Perizzites, 115 
 
 Persepolis, xlvi 
 
 Persian government — king, xlv ; council, 
 xlvi, 94 ; satraps, xlvii ; governors, 
 xlvii 
 
 Persian empire— extent and capitals, 
 xlvi ; book of records, 60 ; kings of, 64 
 
 Phinehas, 89, 99 
 
 Phoenician merchants, li 
 
 pine branches, 247 
 
 'plainly,' meaning of, 62, 242 
 
 plain country, see kikkar 
 
 Pochereth, children of, 30, 235 
 
 poor, oppression of, 206, 207 
 
 population of Jerusalem, 231 ; measures 
 to increase, 281 — 2 
 
 'port = gate,' 167 
 
 porters of the Temple, xxviii, liv, Ivii, 
 280, 305; register of, in the 'return,' 
 27; put away strange wives, 140; 
 duties of, 229 
 
 pound, 37 
 
 prayer, for Gentile rulers, 79: posture 
 of, 118; of Ezra, 118; of Nehemiah, 
 151, 161, 192, 218 
 
 princes, 114, 115, 129 
 
 precious things, 10 
 
 priestly monopoly, xliii, 241 
 
 priests, laxity of, xxxviii, xliv; title of, 
 lii ; return from captivity, liii ; of high 
 places, Iv; register of, in the 'return,' 
 25, 30, 293 — 4; ceremonial rules as to 
 eating, 32; garments, 37; purification 
 of, 84; chief, 129; put away strange 
 wives, 139; administer oath of usurers, 
 213 ; absence of, at reading of law, 241 
 
 priesthood, claims by genealogy, 31 
 
 prison gate, 333 
 
 proclamation, to make, 4, 130 
 
 promise = word, 213 
 
 prophetic teaching, 122 
 
 prophets, false, 222, 227 
 
 province, children of, 16 
 
 psaltery, 299 
 
 Pseudo-Smerdis, xxxvi, xlvi, 52, 65 ; his 
 reign, 66 
 
 pulpit of wood, 240 
 
 purification, ceremony of, 84, 300 
 
 rain, the great, 132 
 
 Ramah, 23, 293 
 
 Ramoth, 141 
 
 Rawlinson, referred to, 158, 265 
 
 records, Persian book of, 60 
 
 redeem, 155, 210 
 
 Reelaiah, 18 
 
 register of the 'Return,' in Ezra, 16 — 
 
 38; in Nehemiah, 232 — 236 
 Rehum, 18, 183 
 
 Rehum, the chancellor, xlvii, 55, 61 
 rending of clothes, 116 
 Rephaiah, 179 
 revenue, 59 
 Ridgeway's Origin of Cui-rency referred 
 
 to, lii, 274 
 righteous=just, 125, 255 
 rolls, 74 
 rulers, Jewish, 1; =deputies, 115, 169, 
 
 209, 217 
 
 Sabbatic year, xliv, 272 
 
 Sabbath, observance neglected, xxxviii, 
 xlv; observance enforced, xliv, 257, 
 272; temptation to desecrate, 314 
 
 sackclothes, 250 
 
 sacred vessels, see vessels 
 
 sacrifices, 41, 275; of the dedication, 83; 
 at the presentation of gifts, 112 
 
 salary, 60 
 
 salt, of the palace, 59 ; of sacrifice, 96 
 
 Samaritan Pentateuch, Ixiv 
 
 Samaritans, origin of, xxxiv; religion of, 
 XXXV ; help rejected by Jews, xxxv, 
 51 ; hostility to Jews, xxxvi, xxxvii, 
 li, 52; opposition to Nehemiah, xlii, 
 165, 170, 190 — 5 ; claim to assist in build- 
 ing Temple, xxxv, 49 ; letters of accusa- 
 tion against Jews, 53 — 61 : intrigue 
 against Nehemiah, 219 
 
 Sanballat, xliv, 164, 170, 190, 193, 220, 
 
 319 
 sanctify = devote, 306 
 Sargon, xxxiv, 6 
 sarim, 1 
 satraps, their office, xjvii; exact tribute, 
 
 265 
 scribe, 55 ; the office of, Iviii, 89 
 sealing of the Covenant, 267 
 segdnitn, 1 
 
 Semitic languages, Ix 
 Sennacherib, meaning of, 164 
 Senuah, 285 
 
 'separated themselves,' 85, 250, 271 
 sepulchres, 160, 183 
 Seraiah, 18, 87, 286 
 service, 83, 106 
 'set his heart,' 92 
 'set the priests,' renderings of, 46 
 Shabbethai the Levite, 137 
 Shakespeare quoted, 167, 168, 311 
 Shallum, 170, 181 
 Shealtiel, the son of, 17, 39 
 
INDEX. 
 
 327 
 
 Shechaniah, 126, 129; son of Arah, 229 
 
 sheep gate, 172, 190 
 
 Shelemiah, the priest, 312 
 
 shekel, 273 
 
 Shemaiah, 224, 301 
 
 Shenazzar, xxxi 
 
 Sherebiah, 106, loS 
 
 Sheshbazzar, xxxiii; meaning of word, 
 
 xxxii ; identified with Zerubbabel, xxxi, 
 
 12, 73 ; return from captivity, 15 
 Shethar-boznai, 69, 77 
 shewbread, 275 
 shields and bows, 198, 200 
 Shimshai, the scribe, 55 
 Shiloni, son of, 284 
 Shushan, xlvi, 148 
 Sihon, 260 
 Siloah, see Siloam 
 Siloam, pool of, Ixii, 168, 182 
 silver, 96, 109 
 
 sin, 251; offering, 83,113; of the people, 
 „."3-"7 
 Smai, 256 
 singers of the Temple, xxvii, Ivii, 140, 
 
 280, 289, 305; identified with Levites, 
 
 liv; mentioned in the 'return,' 27; put 
 
 away strange wives, 140 
 singing men, and singing women, 34 
 singing by course, 47 
 Sisera, children of, 29 
 Smith, Robertson, quoted, 167, 176 
 Socin, quoted, 172 
 Sogdianus, xlvi 
 sojourneth, 8 
 soldiers, 107 
 Solomon's servants, register of, in the 
 
 return, 28 — 9; Temple, 43, 48 ; Garden, 
 
 162 
 spears, 199 
 stairs, 251 
 
 statutes and judgments, 92 
 'street of the house,' 132, 23S 
 Story of the Nations, quoted, 148 
 stuft"= furniture, 311 
 superscription of Compiler, 145 
 Susa, xlvi, 3, 56, 57, 148 
 Susanchites, 56, 57 
 Syrian satrapy, 55, 57 
 
 Tabeel, 54 
 
 Tabernacles, feast of, 40, 239 ; celebrated, 
 
 246—9 
 Tacitus referred to, 273 _ 
 talent, of gold, 109 ; of silver, 96, log 
 Talmud, reference to ' Ezra,' x ; tradition 
 
 of the Nethinim, 28 
 Targums, Ix 
 Tarpelites, 56 
 Tatnai, the satrap, xlvii ; complaint 
 
 against Jews, 69 ; letter to Darius, 71 ; 
 
 ordered to assist Jews, 77; executes 
 
 Darius's decree, 81 
 
 tax for Temple service, 274 
 
 Taylor's Jewish. Fathers quoted, 279 
 
 Tebeth, the month, 138 
 
 Teispes, 3 
 
 Tekoites, 17S 
 
 Tel-harsha, 30 
 
 Tel-melah, 30 
 
 Temple restoration — foundations laid, 
 xxxii, 44 — 49; work hindered, xxxvi, 
 52, 67 ; work recommenced, xxxvi, 68 ; 
 contributions to, 36 ; materials and 
 arrangements, 42 — 3; support from 
 Darius, 78 ; completion, xxxvi, 81 ; 
 dedicated, 82 — 131 
 
 Temple, decline of worship, xxxviii ; tax 
 for, xliv, 274 ; pollution by Antiochus, 
 82, 131 ; outward business of, 288 ; 
 value of offerings, 109 ; law as to tres- 
 pass in, 225 
 
 Thamah, 29 
 
 thanksgiving, of Ezra, 98 ; sacrifice of, 
 ii3; = chDirs, 295 
 
 throne of the governor, 176 
 
 Tirshatha, xlvii, lix, 32; title of Nehe- 
 miah, xxi, 243 ; title of Zerubbabel, 13, 
 
 31 
 Tisri, the seventh month, 38, 237, 239 
 tithe, 279, 304 ; note on, 280 
 Tobiah, xliv, xlviii, 164, 220, 309 
 transgress, 130, 132, 134, 154 
 treasurer, xlviii, 12, 304 
 treasury, 95 
 Trent, Council of, xiv 
 trespass=guilt, 119, 124, 125, 127, 132 
 tribute, of Persian provinces, xliii, xlviii, 
 
 59, 78, 97, 207, 265 
 ' trouble ' = weariness, 264 
 ' troubled ' = terrified, 52 
 trumpets, 47 
 Tyropoeon valley, 167, i63 
 
 unclean land, 122 
 
 uncleanness, 123 
 
 ' understanding ' = discretion, 105 
 
 Unni, 295 
 
 Ur of the Chaldees, 254 
 
 Urim and Thummim, 32; meaning of 
 
 words, 33 
 Urijah, 240 
 usury of Jews, xliii, li, 207 ; forbidden 
 
 by law, 209 ; condemned by Nehe- 
 
 miah, 212 
 
 valley-gate, 167, 180 
 
 vessels of the Temple, xxx, Ixvii, 2, ii 
 
 7j, 280 ; discrepancy in number, 14 
 
 gifts from Babylon, 95 
 viewed = surveyed, if 8 
 Virgin's spring, 187 
 Vulgate, as to naming of books, xiv 
 
 wair=defence, 121 
 
528 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 walls of Jerusalem — destroyed, xli, 150; 
 surveyed by Nehemiah, 168 ; work of 
 restoration^ 172—189; height, 193; 
 time occupied in restoration, 227 ; dedi- 
 cation, 298 — 303 
 
 ward, 305, 314, 320 
 
 Warren, Sir C, quoted, 1S6, 192 
 
 ' watch ye,' no 
 
 water gate, 187 
 
 weeping, 48 
 
 weighing of treasures, 112 
 
 wine, 158, 159, 218, 278 
 
 winepress, 314 
 
 wives, strange— to be put away, 127, 128, 
 132, 134 ; Jews who had married, 139 
 
 —143 
 wood-offering, 276 — 7 
 Wright's (W. A.), Bidle Word-Book, 
 
 reference to, 167. 200, 311 
 Wright (W.). Cojiip. Gram, quoted, Ixiv 
 Wycliffe's Bible, xiv 
 
 Xerxes I. = Ahasuerus, xxxvii, xlvi, 53, 
 
 64 ; theory as to name, 65 
 Xerxes II., xlvi 
 Xenophon, referred to, 157 
 
 year, reckoning of Hebrew, 147 
 Yod, confused with Vau, 295 
 
 Zabbud, 102 
 
 Zadok, sons of, and priesthood, liii, Iv 
 
 Zadok, son of Baana, 175 
 
 Zadok, the scribe, 268, 312 
 
 Zanoah, 180 
 
 Zechariah, the prophet, xxxvi, Ixvi, 67, 
 
 81 
 Zerah, son of, 284, 290 
 Zerubbabel, xxiii, xxxiii, xxxvii, Ixvi ; 
 
 identity with Sheshbazzar, xxxi, 12 ; 
 
 journey, 15; descent, 17; name, 17; 
 
 title, 31 ; commences Temple, 44 ; 
 
 reply to Samaritans, 52 
 Zidkijah, 268 
 Zion, Mt., site of, 182 
 
 \ 
 
 Cambridge: tkinted by c. j. clay, m.a. and sons, at the university press 
 
Cupyrtght 
 
 Camhnclge I nwfir.vtp Press 
 
 Stcm/ord 
 
THE PITT PRESS SERIES. 
 
 COMPLETE LIST. 
 
 
 1. GREEK. 
 
 
 
 Author 
 
 W^^r/^ 
 
 Editor 
 
 Price 
 
 Aristophanes 
 
 Aves — Plutus — Ranae 
 
 Green 
 
 7.16 each 
 
 j^ 
 
 Vespae 
 
 Graves 
 
 3/6 
 
 Demosthenes 
 
 Olynthiacs 
 
 Glover 
 
 /;/ the Press 
 
 Euripides 
 
 Heracleidae 
 
 Beck & Headlam 3/6 
 
 
 Hercules Furens 
 
 Gray & Hutchinson 2/- 
 
 ,, 
 
 Hippolyfus 
 
 Hadley 
 
 ^1- 
 
 ,, 
 
 Iphigeneia in Aulis 
 
 Headlam 
 
 2/6 
 
 »> 
 
 Hecuba 
 
 Hadley 
 
 lie 
 
 )« 
 
 Alcestis 
 
 ,, 
 
 Nearly ready 
 
 J ) 
 
 Orestes 
 
 Wedd 
 
 4/6 
 
 Herodotus 
 
 Book V 
 
 Shuckburgh 3/- 
 
 j^ 
 
 „ VI, VIII, IX 
 
 ,, 
 
 4/- each 
 
 ,, 
 
 „ VIII 1—90, IX 1—89 
 
 i> 
 
 2/6 each 
 
 Homer 
 
 Odyssey ix, x 
 
 Edwards 
 
 2J6 each 
 
 ,, 
 
 ,, XXI 
 
 >» 
 
 i\- 
 
 ,, 
 
 Iliad VI, XXII, XXIII, xxiv 
 
 >» 
 
 2 - each 
 
 Lucian 
 
 Somnium, Charon, etc. 
 
 Heitland 
 
 3/6 
 
 ,, 
 
 Menippus and Timon 
 
 Mackie 
 
 3/6 
 
 Plato 
 
 Apologia Socratis 
 
 Adam 
 
 3/6 
 
 ,, 
 
 Crito 
 
 ,, 
 
 2/6 
 
 >> 
 
 Euthyphro 
 
 >» 
 
 2/6 
 
 
 Protagoras 
 
 J. & A. M. 
 
 Adam 4/6 
 
 Plutarch 
 
 Demosthenes 
 
 Holden 
 
 4/6 
 
 jj 
 
 Gracchi 
 
 >> 
 
 6/- 
 
 «) 
 
 Nicias 
 
 >» 
 
 5/- 
 
 »» 
 
 Sulla 
 
 
 6/- 
 
 
 Timoleon 
 
 ,, 
 
 6/- 
 
 Sophocles 
 
 Oedipus Tyrannus 
 
 Jebb 
 
 4/6 
 
 Thucydides 
 
 Book III 
 
 Spratt 
 
 5- 
 
 ,j 
 
 Book VII 
 
 Holden 
 
 5/- 
 
 Xenophon 
 
 Agesilaus 
 
 Hailstone 
 
 2/6 
 
 jj 
 
 Anabasis Vol. I. Text. 
 
 Pretor 
 
 3/- 
 
 ) 1 
 
 Vol. II. Notes. 
 
 >) 
 
 4/6 
 
 1) 
 
 «, I, n 
 
 
 4/- 
 
 )> 
 
 „ I, III, IV, V 
 
 ,, 
 
 2/- each 
 2/6 each 
 
 tt 
 
 II, VI, VII 
 
 ,, 
 
 ♦» 
 
 Cyropaedeia i, ii (2 vols.) 
 
 Holden 
 
 61- 
 
 >» 
 
 Ill, IV, V 
 
 ,, 
 
 5/- 
 
 
 „ VI, VII, VIII 
 
 n 
 
 5/- 
 
 lO 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 lo.g.96 
 
THE PITT PRESS SERIES. 
 
 2. LATIN. 
 
 Author Work 
 
 Caesax De Bello Gallico 
 
 Editor 
 
 Cicero 
 
 Com. I, III, VI, VIII 
 ,, Ii-iii, and VII 
 ,, l-iii 
 ,, iv-v 
 De Bello Civili. Com. I 
 
 ,, ,, Com. Ill 
 
 Actio Prima in C. Verrem 
 ,, De Amicitia 
 
 „ De Senectute 
 
 „ Div. in Q. Caec. et Actio 
 
 Prima in C. Verrem 
 „ Philippica Secunda 
 
 „ Pro Archia Poeta 
 
 „ „ Balbo 
 
 M n Milone 
 
 n ,, Murena 
 
 ,) ,, Plancio 
 
 M ,, Sulla 
 
 ,, Somnium Scipionis 
 
 CorneUus Nepos Miltiades, Themistocles, Aris- 
 tides, Pausanias, Cimon 
 Hannibal, Cato, Atticus 
 Epistles. Bk i 
 Odes and Epodes 
 Odes. Books i, in 
 „ Book II, IV 
 Epodes 
 
 Books IV, VI, IX, xxvii 
 » V 
 
 ,, XXI, XXII 
 
 Pharsalia. Hk i 
 Pharsalia. Bk vii 
 Book V 
 
 Fasti. Book vi 
 Metamorphoses, Bk i. 
 Epidicus 
 Asinaria 
 Stichus 
 Pseudolus 
 Alexander in India 
 Agricola and Germania 
 Hist. Bk I 
 Hautontiniorumenos 
 Aeneid i to xii 
 Bucolics 
 
 Georgics I, ii, and ill, iv 
 Complete Works, Vol. i. Text 
 M n Vol. II, Notes 
 
 Peskett 
 
 Cowie 
 Reid 
 
 Heitland & Cowie 
 
 Peskett 
 
 Reid 
 
 Horace 
 
 Livy 
 
 Lucan 
 
 Lucretius 
 Ovid 
 
 Plautua 
 
 Quintus Curtius 
 Tacitus 
 
 Terence 
 Vergil 
 
 Heitland 
 Holden 
 Reid 
 Pearman 
 
 Shuckburgh 
 
 Gow 
 
 Stephenson 
 
 Whibley 
 
 Dimsdale 
 
 Price 
 
 i/6 each 
 i\- each 
 
 3/- 
 
 1/6 
 
 3/- 
 /// the Press 
 1/6 
 3/6 
 3/6 
 
 3/- 
 3/6 
 
 2/- 
 
 1/6 
 
 2/6 
 
 3/- 
 4/6 
 3/6 
 
 2/ 
 
 1/6 
 1/6 
 
 2/6 
 
 5/- 
 
 each 
 
 ij6each 
 
 1/6 
 
 2/6 each 
 
 2I6 
 
 2/6 each 
 
 Heitland & Haskins 1/6 
 
 Postgate /;/ the Press 
 
 Duff 
 Sidgwick 
 Dowdall 
 Gray 
 
 >> 
 Fennell 
 Auden 
 
 Heitland & Raven 
 Stephenson 
 Davies In fht 
 
 Gray 
 Sidgwick 
 
 1/6 
 1/6 
 3/- 
 
 3/6 
 2/6 
 3/- 
 3/6 
 3/- 
 Press 
 
 ,. 3/- 
 I /6 each 
 
 lie 
 
 2/- each 
 3/6 
 4/6 
 
THE PITT PRESS SERIES. 
 
 Author 
 
 About 
 Biart 
 iCorneille 
 
 JDe Bonnechose 
 
 3. FRENCH. 
 
 Work 
 
 Le Roi des Montagues 
 Quand j'etais petit 
 La Suite du Menteur 
 Polyeucte 
 Lazare Hoche 
 Bertrand du Guesclin 
 
 Editor 
 Ropes In the 
 
 Eoielle In the 
 
 Masson 
 Braunholtz 
 Colbeck 
 Leathes 
 
 Delavigne 
 
 5 > 
 
 D'Harleville 
 
 De Lamartine 
 
 De Vigny 
 
 Erckmann-Cliatrian La Guerre 
 
 Cruizot 
 
 Part II ( With Vocabulary) 
 
 Louis XI 
 
 Les Enfants d'Edouard 
 
 Le Vieux Celibataire 
 
 Jeanne d'Arc 
 
 La Canne de Jonc 
 
 Iiemercier 
 Mme de Stael 
 
 Merimee 
 Michelet 
 Moli^re 
 
 Firon 
 
 Fonsard 
 
 Bacine 
 
 >> 
 Sainte-Beuve 
 
 Saintine 
 
 Discours sur I'Histoire de la 
 Revolution d'Angleterre 
 Fredegonde et Brunehaut 
 Le Directoire 
 Dix Annees d'Exil 
 Colomba 
 
 Louis XI & Charles the Bold 
 Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme 
 L'Ecole des Femmes 
 Les Precieuses ridicules 
 
 ,, {Abridged Edition) 
 Le Misanthrope 
 La Metromanie 
 Charlotte Corday 
 Les Plaideurs 
 
 , , {A b7-idged Edition ) 
 M. Daru. (Causeries du 
 
 Lundi, Vol. ix) 
 Picciola 
 
 Eve 
 
 Masson 
 Clapin «& 
 Eve 
 Clapin 
 
 Ropes 
 
 Scribe & Legouv6 Bataille de Dames 
 
 Scribe 
 
 Sedaine 
 
 Souvestre 
 
 TMerry 
 
 Villemain 
 Voltaire 
 
 Xavier de 
 Maistre 
 
 Eve 
 
 Masson 
 
 Masson & Prothero 
 
 Ropes 
 
 Clapin 
 
 Saintsbury 
 
 Braunholtz 
 
 Masson 
 
 Ropes 
 
 Braunholtz 
 
 Masson 
 
 Clapin 
 
 Bull 
 
 Colbeck 
 
 Bull 
 
 Eve 
 
 Ropes 
 
 Le Verre d'Eau 
 
 Le Philosophe sans le savoir 
 
 Un Philosophe sous les Toits 
 
 Le Serf & Le Chevrier de Lorraine 
 
 Le Serf ( With Vocabulary) 
 
 Lettres sur I'histoire de 
 France (xiii— xxiv) Masson & Prothero 
 
 Recits des Temps Merovin- 
 
 giens, I — III Masson & Ropes 
 
 Lascaris ou les Grecs du xv® Siecle Masson 
 
 Histoire du Siecle de Louis 
 
 XIV, Pt I, Ch. I— XIII Masson & Prothero 
 Pt II, Ch. XIV — XXIV „ ,, 
 
 Pt III, Ch. XXV— end „ „ 
 
 La Jeune Siberienne. Lej y^^^^^^ 
 Lepreux de la Cite d' Aoste \ 
 
 Price 
 Press 
 Press 
 
 2l- 
 
 ij- 
 ^1- 
 ^1- 
 
 1/6 
 
 il- 
 
 1/6 
 1/6 
 3/- 
 
 2/6 
 
 il6 
 ij6 
 
 i/- 
 
 2/6 
 
 ^Z- 
 
 2/- 
 l/- 
 
 2/- 
 2/- 
 2/- 
 2/- 
 
 ^z- 
 ^z- 
 
 1/6 
 
 2/6 
 
 3Z- 
 
 2/- 
 
 2/6 
 2/6 
 2/6 
 
 1/6 
 
THE PITT PRESS SERIES. 
 4. GERMAN. 
 
 A utJwr 
 
 Benediz 
 Freytag 
 
 Goethe 
 
 Oriiniii 
 
 Gutzkow 
 
 Hacklander 
 
 Work 
 Ballads on German History 
 Dr Wespe 
 Der Staat Friedrichs des 
 
 Grossen 
 German Dactylic Poetry 
 Knabenjahre (1749 — 1761) 
 Hermann und Dorothea 
 Iphigenie 
 Selected Tales 
 Zopf und Schwert 
 Der geheime Agent 
 
 Editor Price 
 
 Wagner 2/- 
 
 Breul 3/- 
 
 Wagner i\- 
 
 3/- 
 Wagner & Cartmell 2/- 
 
 3/6 
 Breul In the Press 
 
 Rippmann 3/- 
 
 Wolstenholme 3/6 
 
 E. L. Milner Barry 3/- 
 
 Hauff 
 
 Das Bild des Kaisers 
 
 Breul 
 
 3/- 
 
 *i 
 
 Das Wirthshaus im Spessart 
 
 Schlottmann 
 
 
 
 
 & Cartmell 
 
 3/- 
 
 ,, 
 
 Die Karavane 
 
 Schlottmann 
 
 3/- 
 
 Immermann 
 
 Der Oberhof 
 
 Wagner 
 
 3/- 
 
 Klee 
 
 Die deutschen Heldensagen 
 
 Wolstenholme 
 
 3/- 
 
 KoMrauscli 
 
 Das Jahr 181 3 
 
 ,, 
 
 ^Z- 
 
 Lessing 
 
 Minna von Barnhelm 
 
 Wolstenholme 
 
 
 
 
 In the Press 
 
 Lessing & GeUert Selected Fables 
 
 Breul 
 
 3/- 
 
 Mendelssolin 
 
 Selected Letters 
 
 Sime 
 
 3/- 
 
 Raumer 
 
 Der erste Kreuzzug 
 
 Wagner 
 
 ^Z- 
 
 Rieni 
 
 Culturgeschichtliche 
 
 
 
 
 Novellen 
 
 Wolstenholme 
 
 3Z- 
 
 »» 
 
 Die Ganerben & Die Ge- 
 
 
 
 
 rechtigkeit Gottes 
 
 >» 
 
 3/- 
 
 SchUler 
 
 Wilhelm Tell 
 
 Breul 
 
 2/6 
 
 '» 
 
 , , {A bridged Edition ) 
 
 i» 
 
 1/6 
 
 >» 
 
 Geschichte des dreissigjiih- 
 
 
 
 
 rigen Kriegs Book III. 
 
 »» 
 
 3/- 
 
 »> 
 
 Maria Stuart 
 
 i» 
 
 3/6 
 
 ** 
 
 Wallenstein I. (Lager and 
 
 
 
 
 Piccolomini] 
 
 I » 
 
 3/6 
 
 i> 
 
 Wallenstein II. (Tod) 
 
 )» 
 
 3/6 
 
 Uhland 
 
 Ernst, Herzog von Schwaben 
 
 Wolstenholme 
 
 3/6 
 
THE PITT PRESS SERIES. 
 
 5. ENGLISH. 
 
 Author 
 
 JFor^ 
 
 Editor 
 
 Price 
 
 'iHZ.JQiX 
 
 A Sketch of Ancient Philoso- 
 
 
 
 
 phy from Thales to Cicero 
 
 
 3/6 
 
 Wallace 
 
 Outlines of the Philosophy of Aristotle 
 
 4/6 
 
 Bacon 
 
 Histoiy of the Reign of 
 
 
 
 
 King Henry VII 
 
 Lumby 
 
 3/- 
 
 >> 
 
 Essays 
 
 West In the Press 
 
 Cowley 
 
 Essays 
 
 ,, 
 
 4/- 
 
 Gray 
 
 Poems 
 
 Tovey In the Press 
 
 Macaulay 
 
 Lord Clive 
 
 Innes 
 
 1/6 
 
 More 
 
 History of King Richard III 
 
 Lumby 
 
 3/6 
 
 ,, 
 
 Utopia 
 
 ,, 
 
 3/6 
 
 Milton 
 
 Arcades and Comus 
 
 Verity 
 
 3/- 
 
 jj 
 
 Ode on the Nativity, L'Alle-) 
 
 
 2/6 
 
 
 gro, 11 Penseroso & Lycidas^ 
 
 »> 
 
 >* 
 
 Samson Agonistes 
 
 )) 
 
 2/6 
 
 )9 
 
 Paradise Lost, Bks I, ii 
 
 ,, 
 
 2/- 
 
 }) 
 
 „ Bks III, IV 
 
 > ) 
 
 i\- 
 
 }) 
 
 „ Bks V, VI 
 
 >> 
 
 ^z- 
 
 tt 
 
 „ Bks VII, VIII 
 
 
 2/- 
 
 It 
 
 „ Bks IX, X 
 
 ,, In the Press 
 
 )) 
 
 ,, Bks XI, XII 
 
 jj 
 
 ^\- 
 
 Pope 
 
 Essay on Criticism 
 
 West 
 
 2- 
 
 Scott 
 
 Marmion 
 
 Masterman 
 
 2/6 
 
 if 
 
 Lady of the Lake 
 
 >> 
 
 2/6 
 
 
 Lay of the last Minstrel 
 
 Flather 
 
 2/- 
 
 ,j 
 
 Legend of Montrose 
 
 Simpson 
 
 2/6 
 
 Shakespeare 
 
 A Midsummer-Night's Dream 
 
 Verity 
 
 i/6 
 
 >> 
 
 Twelfth Night 
 
 ,, 
 
 1/6 
 
 '> 
 
 Julius Caesar 
 
 ,, 
 
 1/6 
 
 >> 
 
 The Tempest 
 
 ,, 
 
 1/6 
 
 Shakespeare & Fletcher Two Noble Kinsmen 
 
 Skeat 
 
 3/6 
 
 Sidney 
 
 An Apologie for Poetrie 
 
 Shuckburgh 
 
 3/- 
 
 West 
 
 Elements of English Grammar 
 
 2/6 
 
 ,, 
 
 English Grammar for Beginners 
 
 
 i/- 
 
 Carlos 
 
 Short History of British India 
 
 
 I- 
 
 Mill 
 
 Elementary Commercial Geography 
 
 1/6 
 
 Bartholomew 
 
 Atlas of Commercial Geography 
 
 
 3/- 
 
 Bohinson 
 
 Church Catechism Explained 
 
 2/- 
 
THE PITT PRESS SERIES. 
 
 Author 
 
 Colbeck 
 
 Comenius 
 
 Eve 
 
 Sidgwick 
 Abbott 
 
 Farrar 
 
 Poole 
 
 Locke 
 
 Milton 
 
 Sidgwick 
 
 Thring 
 
 6. EDUCATIONAL SCIENCE. 
 
 ^Vork Editor 
 
 Lectures on the Teaching of Modem 
 
 Languages 
 Life and Educational Works Laurie 
 
 Three Lectures on the Practice of 
 
 Education 
 
 I. On Marking >. 
 
 II. On Stimulus 
 
 h I 
 
 III. On the teaching of Latin \ 
 e Composition J 
 
 Vol. 
 
 Verse Compos 
 
 General Aims of the Teacher) 
 
 Form Management \ ' ^ *^'' 
 
 Thoughts on Education Quick 
 
 Tractate on Education Browning 
 
 On Stimulus 
 
 Theory and Practice of Teaching 
 
 Price 
 
 3/6 
 
 V- 
 
 1/6 
 
 3/6 
 2/- 
 i/- 
 4/6 
 
 7. MATHEMATICS. 
 
 Ball Elementary Algebra 
 
 Euclid Books i — vi, xi, xii 
 
 ,, Books I — VI 
 
 „ Books I — IV 
 
 Also separately 
 
 Books I, & li; III, & IV; v, & vi 
 
 ,, Solutions to Bks i — iv W 
 
 Hobson& Jessop Elementary Plane Trigonometry 
 
 Taylor 
 
 XI, & XII i/6 
 W. Taylor 
 
 Loney Elements of Statics and Dynamics 
 
 Part I. Elements of Statics 
 „ II. Elements of Dynamics 
 »» Solutions of Examples, Statics and Dynamics 
 
 ,, Mechanics and Hydrostatics 
 
 Smith, C. Arithmetic for Schools, with or without answers 
 
 »» Part I. Chapters I— viii. Elementary, with 
 
 or without answers 
 >» Part II. Chapters ix— xx, with or without 
 
 answers 
 Hale, G. Key to Smith's Arithmetic 
 
 4/6 
 
 5/- 
 4/- 
 3/- 
 
 eacA 
 61- 
 
 7/6 
 
 4/6 
 
 3/6 
 7/6 
 4/6 
 3/6 
 
 21- 
 
 2/- 
 
 7/6 
 
 London: C. J. CLAY and SONS, 
 
 CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE, 
 
 AVE MARIA LANE. 
 
 GLASGOW : 26^, Argyle Street. 
 6 
 
2Cte (Stamfetilige ISifele for <Scf)oote 
 anlr Clollegcs* 
 
 General Editors : 
 J. J. S. PEROWNE, D.D., Bishop op Worcester, 
 A. F. KIRKPATEICK, D.D., Regius Professor of Hebrew. 
 
 Extra Fcap. 8vo. cloth, with Maps when required. 
 Book of Joshua. Rev. G. F. Maclear, D.D. 2s. 6d. 
 Book of Judges. Rev. J. J. Lias, M.A. 3s. 6d. 
 First Book of Samuel. Prof. Kirkpatrick, D.D. 3s. Qd. 
 Second Book of Samuel. Prof. Kirkpatrick, D.D. 3s. 6d. 
 First & Second Books of Kings. Prof. Lumby, D.D. 3s. Qd. each. 
 Books of Bzra & Neliemiali. Prof. Ryle, D.D. 4s. 6^. 
 Book of Job. Prof. Davidson, D.D. 5s. 
 Psalms. Book I. Prof. Kirkpatrick, D.D. 3s. Qd. 
 Psalms. Books II and III. Prof. Kirkpatrick, D.D. 3s. M. 
 Book of Bcclesiastes. Very Rev, E. H. Plumptre, D.D. 5s. 
 Book of Isaiah. Chaps. I.— XXXIX. Rev. J. Skinner, D.D. 
 
 In the Press. 
 Book of Jeremiah. Rev. A. W. Streane, D.D. 4s. 6d. 
 Book of Bzekiel. Prof. Davidson, D.D. 5s. 
 Book of Hosea. Rev. T. K. Cheyne, M.A., D.D. 3s. 
 Books of Joel and Amos. Rev. S. R. Driver, D.D. 
 
 In the Press. 
 Books of Obadiah and Jonah. Arch. Perowne. 2s. Qd. 
 Book of Micah. Rev. T. K. Cheyne, M.A., D.D. Is. Qd. 
 Nahum, Habakkuk & Zephaniah. Prof. Davidson, D.D. 3s. 
 Books of Haggai^ Zechariah & Malachi. Arch . Perowne . Ss.Qd. 
 Book of Malachi. Archdeacon Perowne. Is. 
 Gospel according to St Matthew. Rev. A. Carr, M.A. 2s. Qd. 
 Gospel according to St Mark. Rev. G.F. Maclear, D.D. 2s. Qd. 
 Gospel ace. to St Iiuke. Very Rev. F. W. Farrar, D.D. 4s. 6^. 
 Gospel according to St John. Rev. A. Plummer, D.D. 4s. Qd. 
 Acts of the Apostles. Prof. Lumby, D.D. 4s. Qd. 
 BpisUe to the Romans. Rev. H. C. G. Moule, D.D. 3s. Qd. 
 First and Second Corinthians. Rev. J. J. Lias, M.A. 2s. each. 
 Bpistle to the Galatians. Rev. E. H. Perowne, D.D. Is. Qd. 
 Epistle to the Bphesians. Rev. H. C. G. Moule, D.D. 2s. Qd. 
 Epistle to the Philippians. Rev. H. C. G. Moule, D.D. 2s. Qd, 
 Colossians and Philemon. Rev. H. C. G. Moule, D.D. 2s. 
 Epistles to the Thessalonlans. Rev. G. G. Findlay, B.A. 2s. 
 Epistles to Timothy 6c Titus. Rev. A. E. Humphreys, M.A. 3s. 
 Epistle to the Hebrews. Very Rev. F. W. Farrar, D.D. Bs.Qd. 
 Epistle of St James. Very Rev. E. H. Plumptre, D.D. Is. Qd. 
 St Peter and St Jude. Very Rev. E, H. Plumptre, D.D. 2s. Qd. 
 Epistles of St John. Rev. A. Plummer, D.D. 3s. Qd. 
 Book of Revelation. Rev. W. H. Simcox, M.A. 3s. 
 Other Volumes Preparing. 
 
 LONDON : C. J. CLAY and SONS, 
 
 CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE, 
 
 AVE MARIA LANE. 
 
€i)t Smaller 
 Cambnige ^ibk for ^cftoofe* 
 
 Now Beady. With Maps. Price Is. each volume. 
 
 Book of Joshua. Eev. J. S. Black, M.A. 
 
 Book of Judges. Eev. J. S. Black, M.A. 
 
 First Book of Samuel. Prof. Kirkpatrick, D.D. 
 
 Second Book of Samuel. Prof. Kirkpatrick, D.D. 
 
 First Book of Kings. Prof. Lumby, D.D. 
 
 Second Book of Kings. Prof. Lumby, D.D. 
 
 Gospel according to St Matthew. Eev. A. Carr, M.A. 
 
 Gospel according to St Mark. Eev. G. F. Maclear, D.D. 
 
 Gospel according to St Iiuke. Very Eev. F. W. Farrar, D.D. 
 
 Gospel according to St John. Eev. A. Pltjmmeb, D.D. 
 
 Acts of the Apostles. Prof. Lumby, D.D. 
 
 Cfte Cambnirse #reek Ces^tament 
 
 for Schools antr ODoUeges 
 
 General Editor: J. J. S. PEEOWNE, D.D. 
 
 Gospel according to St Matthew. Eev. A. Carr, M.A. 
 
 With 4 Maps. 4s. 6rf. 
 Gospel according to St Hflark. Eev. G. F. Maclear, D.D. 
 
 With 3 Maps. 4s. 6(Z. 
 Gospel according to St Ziuke. Very Eev. F. W. Farrar. 
 
 With 4 Maps. 6s. 
 Gospel according to St John. Eev. A. Plummer, D.D. 
 
 With 4 Maps. 6s. 
 Acts of the Apostles. Prof. Lumby, D.D. 4 Maps. Qs. 
 First Bpistle to the Corinthians. Eev. J. J. Lias, M.A. 3s. 
 Second Bpistle to the Corinthians. Eev. J. J. Lias, M.A. 3s. 
 EpisUe to the Hebrews. Very Eev.F. W. Farrar, D.D. 3s. 6d. 
 Epistles of St John. Eev. A. Plummer, D.D. 4s. 
 
 General Editor : Prof. J. A. EOBINSON, D.D. 
 EpisUe to the Fhilippians. Eev. H. C. G. Moule, D.D. 
 
 {In the Press. 
 Epistle of St James. Eev. A. Carr, M.A. 2s. 6d. 
 Pastoral EpisUes. Eev. J. H. Bernard, D.D, [In Preparation. 
 Book of Revelation. Eev. W. H. Simcox, M.A. 5s. 
 
 aonton: C. J. CLAY and SONS, 
 
 CAMBEIDGE WAEEHOUSE, AVE MAEIA LANE. 
 
 (Slassofaj: 263, ARGYLE STREET. 
 
 ILeipjifl: F. A. BROCKHAUS. 
 
 i^efaj lork: THE MACMILLAN CO. 
 
 Cambridge: printed by j. & c. f. clay, at the uNivEaaiTY PfiEss. 
 
THE CAMBRIDGE BIBLE FOR 
 SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES. 
 
 General Editors: 
 
 J. J. S. Perowne, Bishop of Worcester. 
 
 A. F. KiRKPATRiCK, V>X^.^ Regius Professor of Hebrew. 
 
 ^^ It is difficult to commend too highly this excellent series.^'' — Guardian. 
 
 ^^The modesty of the general title of this series has, we believe, led 
 many to misunderstand its character and underrate its value. The books 
 are well stated for study in the upper forms of our best schools, but not 
 the less are they adapted to the watits of all Bible students who are not 
 specialists. We doubt, indeed, whether any of the numerous popular 
 commentaries recently issued in this country will be found more service- 
 able for general use." — Academy. 
 
 " One of the most popular and useful literary enterprises of the 
 nineteenth century." — Baptist Magazine. 
 
 " Of great value. The whole series of comments for schools is highly 
 esteemed by students capable of forming a judgment. The books are 
 scholarly without being pretentious : and information is so given as to be 
 easily understood." — Sword and Trowel. 
 
 '• The notes possess a rare advantage of being scholarly, and at the same 
 time within the comprehension of the average reader. For the Sunday- 
 School Teacher we do not know of a more valuable work.^'' — Sunday- 
 School Chronicle. 
 
 The Book of Judges. J. J. Lias, M.A. " His introduction is clear 
 and concise, full of the information which young students require." — 
 Baptist Magazine. 
 
 II. Samuel. A. F. Kirkpatrick, D.D. "Small as this work is 
 in mere dimensions, it is every way the best on its subject and for its 
 purpose that we know of. The opening sections at once prove the 
 thorough competence of the writer for dealing with questions of criti- 
 cism in an earnest, faithful and devout spirit ; and the appendices discuss 
 a few special difficulties with a full knowledge of the data, and a judicial 
 reserve, which contrast most favourably with the superficial dogmatism 
 which has too often made the exegesis of the Old Testament a field for 
 the play of unlimited paradox and the ostentation of personal infalli- 
 bility. The notes are always clear and suggestive; never trifling or 
 irrelevant ; and they everywhere demonstrate the great difference in 
 value between the work of a commentator who is also a Hebraist, and 
 that of one who has to depend for his Hebrew upon secondhand 
 sources. " — A cademy. 
 
 I. Kings and Ephesians. " With great heartiness we commend 
 these most valuable little commentaries. We had rather purchase 
 these than nine out of ten of the big blown up expositions. Quality is 
 far better than quantity, and we have it here." — Sword and Trowel. 
 
 II. Kings. "The Introduction is scholarly and wholly admirable, 
 the notes must be of incalculable value to students." — Glasgow Herald. 
 
 "It would be difficult to find a commentary better suited for general 
 use. ' ' — A cademy. 
 1 0,000 
 9/7/96 
 
2 CAMBRIDGE BIBLE FOR SCHOOLS ^ COLLEGES. 
 
 The Book of Job. ** Able and scholarly as the Introduction is, it is 
 far surpassed by the detailed exegesis of the book. In this Dr Davidson's 
 strength is at its greatest. His linguistic knowledge, his artistic habit, 
 his scientific insight, and his literary power have full scope when he 
 comes to exege&is. ..." — The Spectator. 
 
 " In the course of a long introduction, Dr Davidson has presented 
 us with a very able and very interesting criticism of this wonderful 
 book. Its contents, the nature of its composition, its idea and purpose, 
 its integrity, and its age are all exhaustively treated of.... We have not 
 space to examine fully the text and notes before us, but we can, and do 
 heartily, recommend the book, not only for the upper forms in schools, 
 but to Bible students and teachers generally. As we wrote of a previous 
 volume in the same series, this one leaves nothing to be desired. The 
 notes are full and suggestive, without being too long, and, in itself, the 
 introduction forms a valuable addition to modern Bible literature." — The 
 Educational Times. 
 
 "Already we have frequently called attention to this exceedingly 
 valuable work as its volumes have successively appeared. But we have 
 never done so with greater pleasure, very seldom with so great pleasure, 
 as we now refer to the last published volume, that on the Book of Job, 
 by Dr Davidson, of Edinburgh.... We cordially commend the volume to 
 all our readers. The least instructed will understand and enjoy it; 
 and mature scholars will learn from it." — Methodist Recorder. 
 
 Psalms. Book I. "It is full of instruction and interest, bringing 
 within easy reach of the English reader the results of the latest scholar- 
 ship bearing upon the study of this ever new book of the Bible. The 
 Introduction of eighty pages is a repertory of information, not drily but 
 interestingly given. " — Methodist Recorder. 
 
 "It seems in every way a most valuable little book, containing a 
 mass of information, well-assorted, and well-digested, and will be useful 
 not only to students preparing for examinations, but to many who want 
 a handy volume of explanation to much that is difficult in the Psalter. 
 
 We owe a great debt of gratitude to Professor KLirkpatrick for his 
 
 scholarly and interesting volume." — Church Times. 
 
 "In this volume thoughtful exegesis founded on nice critical scholar- 
 ship and due regard for the opinions of various writers, combine, under 
 the influence of a devout spirit, to render this commentary a source of 
 much valuable assistance. The notes are 'though deep yet clear,' for 
 they seem to put in a concentrated form the very pith and marrow of all 
 the best that has been hitherto said on the subject, with striking freedom 
 from anything like pressure of personal views. Throughout the work care 
 and pains are as conspicuous as scholarship." — Literary Churchman. 
 
 Psalms. Books II. and III. "This second portion of the Psalter 
 maintains all the excellencies of the earlier volume. It is scholarly and 
 sympathetic, and, let us add, it is deeply interesting. The introduction 
 on the whole of the Psalter is prefixed to the present volume, and is a 
 triumph of comprehensiveness and clearness. Its learning is adequate, 
 and its attitude on disputed points at once reasonable and reverent." — 
 Independent. 
 
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. 
 
 " The second volume of Professor Kirkpatrick's Commentary on 
 the Book of Psalms has all the excellent qualities which characterised 
 the first. ...It gives what is best in the philology of the subject. Its notes 
 furnish what is most needed and most useful. Its literary style is at- 
 tractive. It furnishes all that is of real value in the form of introduction, 
 and it has a studious regard for the devout as well as intelligent under- 
 standing of the Psalms." — Critical Review. 
 
 "This volume of the Cambridge Bible for schools and colleges is a 
 very valuable contribution to the expository literature of the Old Testa- 
 ment. The introduction, which occupies some 70 pages, is a compact 
 compendium of explanatory and critical information upon the whole 
 Psalter. The notes are brief, but full, and very suggestive." — Baptist. 
 
 Job — Hosea. " It is difficult to commend too highly this excellent 
 series, the volumes of which are now becoming numerous. The two 
 books before us, small as they are in size, comprise almost everything 
 ihat the young student can reasonably expect to find in the way of helps 
 towards such general knowledge of their subjects as may be gained 
 without an attempt to grapple with the Hebrew ; and even the learned 
 scholar can hardly read without interest and benefit the very able intro- 
 ductory matter which both these commentators have prefixed to their 
 volumes." — Guardian. 
 
 Ecclesiastes; or, the Preacher. — "Of the Notes, it is sufficient to 
 say that they are in every respect worthy of Dr Plumptre's high repu- 
 tation as a scholar and a critic, being at once learned, sensible, and 
 practical — Commentaries are seldom attractive reading. This little 
 volume is a notable exception." — The Scots?nan. 
 
 Jeremiah, by A. W. vStreane, D.D. "The arrangement of the book 
 is well treated on pp. xxx., 396, and the question of Baruch's relations 
 with its composition on pp. xxvii., xxxiv., 317. The illustrations from 
 English literature, history, monuments, works on botany, topography, 
 etc., are good and plentiful, as indeed they are in other volumes of this 
 series." — Church Quarterly Review. 
 
 Malachi. "Archdeacon Perowne has already edited Jonah and 
 Zechariah for this series. Malachi presents comparatively few difficulties 
 and the Editor's treatment leaves nothing to be desired. His introduction 
 is clear and scholarly and his commentary sufficient. We may instance 
 the notes on ii. 15 and iv. 2 as examples of careful arrangement, 
 clear exposition and graceful expression." — Academy. 
 
 " The Gospel according to St Matthew, by the Rev. A. Carr. The 
 introduction is able, scholarly, and eminently practical, as it bears 
 on the authorship and contents of the Gospel, and the original form 
 in which it is supposed to have been written. It is well illustrated by 
 two excellent maps of the Holy Land and of the Sea of Galilee." — 
 English Churchman, 
 
 "St Mark, with Notes by the Rev. G. F. Maclear, D.D. Into 
 this small volume Dr Maclear, besides a clear and able Introduc- 
 tion to the Gospel, and the text of St Mark, has compressed many 
 
4 CAMBRIDGE BIBLE FOR SCHOOLS &- COLLEGES. 
 
 hundreds of valuable and helpful notes. In short, he has given us 
 a capital manual of the kind required — containing all that is needed to 
 illustrate the text, i. e. all that can be drawn from the history, geography, 
 customs, and manners of the time. But as a handbook, giving in a 
 clear and succinct form the information which a lad requires in order 
 
 to stand an examination in the Gospel, it is admirable I can very 
 
 heartily commend it, not only to the senior boys and girls in our High 
 Schools, but also to Sunday-school teachers, who may get from it the 
 very kind of knowledge they often find it hardest to get. " — Expositor. 
 
 "With the help of a book like this, an intelligent teacher may make 
 'Divinity' as interesting a lesson as any in the school course. The 
 notes are of a kind that will be, for the most part, intelligible to boys 
 of the lower forms of our public schools ; but they may be read vrith 
 greater profit by the fifth and sixth, in conjunction with the original 
 text." — The Academy. 
 
 *' St Luke. Canon Farrar has supplied students of the Gospel 
 with an admirable manual in this volume. It has all that copious 
 variety of illustration, ingenuity of suggestion, and general soundness of 
 interpretation which readers are accustomed to expect from the learned 
 and eloquent editor. Anyone who has been accustomed to associate 
 the idea of 'dryness' with a commentary, should go to Canon Farrar 's 
 St Luke for a more correct impression. He will find that a commen- 
 tary may be made interesting in the highest degree, and that without 
 losing anything of its solid value.. ..But, so to speak, it is too good for 
 some of the readers for whom it is intended." — The Spectator. 
 
 The Gospel according to St John. "The notes are extremely 
 scholarly and valuable, and in most cases exhaustive, bringing to the 
 elucidation of the text all that is best in commentaries, ancient and 
 modern." — The English Churchman atid Clerical journal. 
 
 **(i) The Acts of the Apostles. By J. Rawson Lumby, D.D. 
 (2) The Second Epistle of the Corinthians, edited by Professor Lias. 
 The introduction is pithy, and contains a mass of carefully-selected 
 information on the authorship of the Acts, its designs, and its sources. 
 
 The Second Epistle of the Corinthians is a manual beyond all praise, 
 
 for the excellence of its pithy and pointed annotations, its analysis of the 
 contents, and the fulness and value of its introduction." — Examiner. 
 
 "The Rev. H. C. G. Moule, D.D., has made a valuable addition 
 to The Cambridge Bible for Schools in his brief commentary on 
 the Epistle to the Romans. The 'Notes' are very good, and lean, 
 as the notes of a School Bible should, to the most commonly ac- 
 cepted and orthodox view of the inspired author's meaning ; while the 
 Introduction, and especially the Sketch of the Life of St Paul, is a model 
 of condensation. It is as lively and pleasant to read as if two or three 
 facts had not been crowded into well-nigh every sentence." — Expositor. 
 
 "The Epistle to the Romans. It is seldom we have met with a 
 work so remarkable for the compression and condensation of all that 
 is valuable in the smallest possible space as in the volume before us. 
 Within its limited pages we have ' a sketch of the Life of St Paul,' 
 we have further a critical account of the date of the Epistle to the 
 Romans, of its language, and of its genuineness. The notes are 
 
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS 
 
 numerous, full of matter, to the point, and leave no real difficulty 
 or obscurity unexplained." — The Examiner. 
 
 "The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Edited by Professor Lias. 
 Every fresh instalment of this annotated edition of the Bible for Schools 
 confirms the favourable opinion we formed of its value from the exami- 
 nation of its first number. The origin and plan of the Epistle are 
 discussed vdth its character and genuineness." — The Nonconformist. 
 
 Galatians. "Dr Pekowne deals throughout in a very thorough 
 manner with every real difficulty in the text, and in this respect he has 
 faithfully followed the noble example set him in the exegetical master- 
 piece, his indebtedness to which he frankly acknowledges." — Modern 
 Church. 
 
 "This little work, like all of the series, is a scholarly production; 
 but we can also unreservedly recommend it from a doctrinal standpoint; 
 Dr E. H. Perowne is one who has grasped the distinctive teaching of 
 the Epistle, and expounds it with clearness and definiteness. In an 
 appendix, he ably maintains the correctness of the A. V. as against the 
 R. V. in the translation of II. i6, a point of no small importance." — 
 English Churchman, 
 
 The Epistle to the Ephesians. By Rev. H. C. G. Moule, D.D. 
 *' It seems to us the model of a School and College Commentary — 
 comprehensive, but not cumbersome; scholarly, but not pedantic." — 
 Baptist Magazine. 
 
 The Epistle to the PhiUppians. " There are few series more valued 
 by theological students than ' The Cambridge Bible for Schools and 
 Colleges,' and there will be no number of it more esteemed than that 
 by Mr H. C. G. Moule on the Epistle to the PhiUppians:' — Record. 
 
 Thessalonians. "It will stand the severest scrutiny, for no volume 
 in this admirable series exhibits more careful work, and Mr Findlay is 
 a true expositor, who keeps in mind what he is expounding, and for 
 whom he is expounding it." — Expository Times. 
 
 "Mr Findlay maintains the high level of the series to which hehas 
 become contributor. Some parts of his introduction to the Epistles to 
 the Thessalonians could scarcely be bettered. The account of Thessa- 
 lonica, the description of the style and character of the Epistles, and the 
 analysis of them are excellent in style and scholarly care. The notes 
 are possibly too voluminous ; but there is so much matter in them, and 
 the matter is arranged and handled so ably, that we are ready to forgive 
 their fulness. ...Mr Findlay's commentary is a valuable addition to 
 what has been written on the letters to the Thessalonian Church." — 
 Acade77iy. 
 
 "Mr Findlay has fulfilled in this volume a task which Dr Moulton 
 was compelled to decline, though he has rendered valuable aid in its pre- 
 paration. The commentary is in its own way a model — clear, forceful, 
 scholarly — such as young students will welcome as a really useful guide, 
 and old ones will acknowledge as giving in brief space the substance of 
 all that they knew. " — Baptist Magazine. 
 
 The Epistles to Timothy and Titus. "This is another contribution 
 to 'The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges,' and one that is 
 entirely true to the general idea of that excellent series. The pastoral 
 
6 CAMBRIDGE BIBLE FOR SCHOOLS ^ COLLEGES. 
 
 epistles have unusual difficulties, if they have also a very peculiar 
 ecclesiastical interest. They are well handled on the whole in both 
 
 these respects by Mr Humphreys The book is a good piece of work, 
 
 quite worthy of the place it occupies in the series." — The Daily Free 
 Press. 
 
 "The series includes many volumes of sterling worth, and this last 
 may rank among the most valuable. The pages evince careful scholar- 
 ship and a thorough acquaintance with expository literature; and the 
 work should promote a more general and practical study of the Pastoral 
 Epistles." — The Christian. 
 
 Hebrews. " Like his (Canon Farrar's) commentary on Luke it 
 possesses all the best characteristics of his writing. It is a work not 
 only of an accomplished scholar, but of a skilled teacher." — Baptist 
 Magazijie. 
 
 The Epistles of St John. By the Rev. A. Plummer, D.D. 
 "This forms an admirable companion to the 'Commentary on the 
 Gospel according to St John,' which was reviewed in The Churchfnan 
 as soon as it appeared. Dr Plummer has some of the highest qualifica- 
 tions for such a task ; and these two volumes, their size being considered, 
 will bear comparison with the best Commentaries of the time." — The 
 Churchman. 
 
 Revelation. "This volume contains evidence of much careful 
 labour. It is a scholarly production, as might be expected from the pen 
 of the late Mr W, H. SiMCOX. ..The notes throw light upon many 
 passages of this difficult book, and are extremely suggestive. It is an 
 advantage that they sometimes set before the student various interpre- 
 tations without exactly guiding him to a choice." — Guardian. 
 
 "Mr SiMCOX has treated his very difficult subject with that con- 
 scious care, grasp and lucidity which characterises everything he 
 wrote." — Modern Church. 
 
 W^i S'lnaHct O^ambritrgE W\\Az for Schools. 
 
 * ' We can only repeat what we have already said of this admirable 
 series^ co?itaining, as it does, the scholarship of the larger work. For 
 scholars in our elder classes, and for those preparing for Scripture exafni- 
 nations, no better commentaries can be put into their hands J^ — Sunday- 
 School Chronicle. 
 
 ' ' Despite their small size, these volu??ies give the substatice of the 
 admirable pieces of work on which they are founded. We can only hope 
 that in many schools the class-teaching will proceed on the lines these com- 
 fnentators S7iggest." — Record. 
 
 " We should be glad to hear that this series has been introduced into 
 many of otir Sunday -Schools, for which it is so admirably adapted.^^ — 
 Christian Leader. 
 
 ^'- All that is necessary to be known a7id learned by pupils in pinior 
 and elementary schools is to be fou7id in this series, hideed, much more 
 is provided than should be required by the exat?iiners. We do not know 
 what more could be done to provide sensible, interesting, and solid Scrip- 
 tural instruction for boys and girls. The Syndics of the Cambridge 
 
OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. 
 
 University Press are rendering great services both to teachers and to 
 scholars by the publication of such a valuable series of books, in which 
 slipshod work could not have a place. ^'' — Literary World. 
 
 ^'' For the student of the sacred oracles who utilizes hours of travel or 
 moments of waiting in the periisal of the Bible there is nothing so handy, 
 
 and, at the same time, so satisfying as these little books Nor let anyone 
 
 suppose that, because these are school-books, therefore they are beneath 
 the adult reader. They contain the very ripest results of the best Biblical 
 scholarship, and that in the very simplest form. ^^ — Christian Leader. 
 
 " Altogether one of the most perfect examples of a Shilling New Tes- 
 tament co7n7nentary which even this age of cheapness is likely to produce.'''' 
 — Bookseller. 
 
 Samuel I. and II. "Professor Kirkpatrick's two tiny volumes on 
 the First and Second Books of Samuel are quite model school-books; 
 the notes elucidate every possible difficulty with scholarly brevity and 
 clearness and a perfect knowledge of the subject." — Saturday Review. 
 
 "They consist of an introduction full of matter, clearly and succinctly 
 given, and of notes which appear to us to be admirable, at once full and 
 brief." — Church Times. 
 
 Kings I. " We can cordially recommend this little book. The Intro- 
 duction discusses the question of authorship and date in a plain but 
 scholarly fashion, while the footnotes throughout are brief, pointed, and 
 helpful." — Review of Reviews. 
 
 St Mattliew. "The notes are terse, clear, and helpful, and teachers 
 and students cannot fail to find the volume of great service." — 
 Publishers'' Circular. 
 
 St Mark. St Luke. "We have received the volumes of St Mark 
 and St Luke in this series.,.. The two volumes seem, on the whole, well 
 adapted for school use, are well and carefully printed, and have maps 
 and good, though necessarily brief, introductions. There is little doubt 
 that this series will be found as popular and useful as the well-known 
 larger series, of which they are abbreviated editions." — Guardian. 
 
 St Luke. "We cannot too highly commend this handy little book 
 to all teachers." — Wesleyan Methodist Sunday-School Record. 
 
 St John. "We have been especially interested in Mr Plummer's 
 treatment of the Gospel which has been entrusted to his charge. He is con- 
 cise, comprehensive, interesting, and simple. Young students of this inim- 
 itable book, as well as elder students, even ministers and teachers, may 
 use it with advantage as a very serviceable handbook." — Literary World. 
 
 "A model of condensation, losing nothing of its clearness and force 
 from its condensation into a small compass. Many who have long since 
 completed their college curriculum will find it an invaluable handbook." 
 — Methodist Times. 
 
 Acts. "The notes are very brief, but exceedingly comprehensive, 
 comprising as much detail in the way of explanation as would be needed 
 by young students of the Scriptures preparing for examination. We 
 again give the opinion that this series furnishes as much real hjelp as 
 would usually satisfy students for the Christian ministry, or even minis- 
 ters themselves." — Literary World. 
 
THE CAMBRIDGE GREEK TESTAMENT 
 
 FOR SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES 
 
 with a Revised Text, based on the most recent critical authorities, 
 
 and English Notes. 
 
 " Has achieved an excellence which puts it above criticism.'''' — Expositor. 
 
 St Matthew. *' Copious illustrations, gathered from a great variety 
 of sources, make his notes a very valuable aid to the student. They 
 are indeed remarkably interesting, while all explanations on meanings, 
 applications, and the like are distinguished by their lucidity and good 
 sense. " — Pall Mall Gazette. 
 
 St Mark. "Dr Maclear's introduction contains all that is known 
 of St Mark's life; an account of the circumstances in which the Gospel 
 was composed, with an estimate of the influence of St Peter's teaching 
 upon St Mark ; an excellent sketch of the special characteristics of this 
 Gospel ; an analysis, and a chapter on the text of the New Testament 
 generally. " — Saturday Review. 
 
 St Luke. "Of this second series we have a new volume by 
 Archdeacon Farrar on St L7ike, completing the four Gospels. ...It 
 gives us in clear and beautiful language the best results of modern 
 scholarship. We have a most attractive Introduction. Then follows 
 a sort of composite Greek text, representing fairly and in very beautiful 
 type the consensus of modem textual critics. At the beginning of the 
 exposition of each chapter of the Gospel are a few short critical notes 
 giving the manuscript evidence for such various readings as seem to 
 deserve mention. The expository notes are short, but clear and helpful. 
 For young students and those who are not disposed to buy or to study 
 the much more costly work of Godet, this seems to us to be the best 
 book on the Greek Text of the Third Gospel." — Methodist Recorder. 
 
 St John. ** We take this opportunity of recommending to ministers 
 on probation, the very excellent volume of the same series on this part 
 of the New Testament. We hope that most or all of our young ministers 
 will prefer to study the volume in the Cambridge Greek Testament for 
 Schools." — Methodist Recorder. 
 
 The Acts of the Apostles. "Professor Lumby has performed his 
 laborious task well, and supplied us with a commentary the fulness and 
 freshness of which Bible students will not be slow to appreciate. The 
 volume is enriched with the usual copious indexes and four coloured 
 maps. " — Glasgow Herald. 
 
 I. Corinthians. "Mr Lias is no novice in New Testament exposi- 
 tion, and the present series of essays and notes is an able and helpful 
 addition to the existing books." — Guardian. 
 
 The Epistles of St John. "In the very useful and well annotated 
 series of the Cambridge Greek Testament the volume on the Epistles 
 of St John must hold a high position.... The notes are brief, well 
 informed and intelligent." — Scots fnan. 
 
 CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY J. AND C. F. CLAY, AT THE UiNIVERSITY PRESS. 
 
DATE DUE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CAYLORD 
 
 
 
 PRINTCOIN USA 
 
mm 
 
 BS1355 .R994 
 
 The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah : with 
 
 ^nVmw,?,ln\T.^' Seminary-Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 00040 1796 
 
 mmmm