Olih BS WSA- l<^7 1873 FRAGILE DOES NOT CIRCULATE CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY GIFT OF Mr. Daniel J. Theron CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 3 1924 058 517 529 Fragile does not circulate FRAGILE PAPER Please handle this book with care, as the paper is brittle. ~ Cornell University Library The original of tiiis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924058517529 NOTICE TO SUBSCRIBERS. 'IV /T ESSRS. CLARK have pleasure in publishing, as the first issue of the Foreign Theological Library for 1873- WlNER'S COLLKCTION OF THE CONFESSIONS OF Christendom; and Keil on Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther. The second issue for 1873 will be Keil's Commentary on Jeremiah, Vol. I., and probably Bishop Martensen's Christian Ethics. They thank their Subscribers for the long-continued support with which they have been favoured. An early remittance of the Subscription for 1873 (^is.) will oblige. Messrs. CLARK are enabled to offer to Subscribers to Foreign Theological Library the well-known Work of Dr. Alexander of Princeton — Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah, Edited by ■ Professor Eadie, in two vols. 8vo, at the Subscription price of los. 6d. They beg to draw attention to the prospectus of their pro- posed translation of Dr. Meyer's Commentary on the New Testament. 38 George Street, Edinburgh, May 1873. CLARK'S FOREIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY. FOUETH SERIES. YOL. XXXYIII. Witil on t^e 33oo6ii of «E|ra, 'jgj^emtafi, anU (BiOitv. EDINBUEGH: T. & T. CLAEK, 38, GEOEGE STEEET. MDCCCLXXIII. FEINTED BY MUBKAY AND GIBB, FOB T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH. lONDON HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO. DUBLIN, .... JOHN ROBBKTSON AND CO. NEW YORK, . . . SORIBNEK, WELFORD, AND CO. BIBLICAL COMMENTARY ON THE OLD TESTAMENT. BY C. E. KEIL, D.D., AED F. DELITZSOH, D.D., PROFESSORS OF THEOLOGY. THE BOOKS OF EZEA, NEHEMIAH, AND ESTHEE, BY C. E. KEIL. TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN BY SOPHIA TAYLOE. EDINBUEGH: T. & T. CLAEK, 38, GEOEGE STEEET. MDCCCLXXlil. CONTENTS. EZEA. § 1. Name and Contents, Object and Plan, . . .1 § 2. Unity and Composition, . . .6 § 3. Composition and Historical Character, . • . .14 I. The Return of the Jews feom Babylon under Cyrus; Eestoration of the Temple and of tee Worship of God AT Jerusalem (Chap, i.-vi.), . . . .19 Chap. L — The Edict of Cyrus, the Departure from Babylon, the Restitution of the Sacred Vessels, . . .19 Chap. ii. — List of those who returned from Babylon with Zerub- babel and Joshua, . . . . . .30 Chap. iii. — The Altar of Burnt-offering erected, the Feast of Tabernacles celebrated, and the Foundations of the Temple laid, 49 Chap. iv. — Hindrances to building the Temple. Accusations , against the Jews concerning the building of the "Walls of Jerusalem, . . . . . . .57 Chap. V. — The Building of the Temple continued, and Notice thereof sent to King Darius, . . . , . 75 Chap. vi. — The Royal Decree, the Completion and Dedication of the Temple, and the Feast of the Passover, . . 81 II. The Return of Ezra the Scribe from Babylon to Jeru- salem, AND HIS Entry upon his Official Duties there (Chap, vn.-x.), . . . . . .93 ' Chap. vii. — Ezra's Return and Commission, . . .93 Chap. viii. — List of those Heads of Houses who returned with Ezra, and Account of the Journey, .... 102 Chasp. ix. X. — Ezra's Proceedings in the Severance of the Strange Women from the Congregation of Israel, . . 113 NEHEMIAH. § 1. Contents, Division, and Object, .... 139 § 2. Integrity and Date of Composition, .... 143 I. Nehemiah's Journey to Jerusalem, and the Restoeation OF the Walls of Jerusalem (Chap, i.-vi.), . . 154 Chap. i. — Nehemiah's Interest in and Prayer for Jerusalem, . 154 VIU CONTENTS. FAGS Chap. ii. — Nebemiah journeys to Jerusalem with the King's permission, and furnished with Royal Letters. He makes a Survey of the Walls, and resolves to undertake the Work of building them, ...... 163 Chap. iii. iv. — The Building of the Walls and Gates of Jeru- salem, .....•• 173 Chap. V. — ^Abolition of Usury — ^Nebemiah 's Unselfishness, . 207 Chap. vi. — Snares laid for Nebemiah — Completion of the WaU, 215 II. Nehemiah's further Exertions m behalf of the Commu- NiTT (Chap, vii.-xii. 43), ..... 224 Chap. vii. — The Watching of the City ; Measures to increase • the Number of its Inhabitants ; List of the Houses that returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel, . . . 224 Chap, viii.-x. — Public Reading of the Law; the Feast of Taber- nacles ; a public Fast held, and a Covenant made to keep the Law, . . . . . . .226 Chap. xi. — Increase of the Inhabitants of Jerusalem ; List of the Inhabitants of Jerusalem and of the other Towns, . 256 Chap. xii. 1-43 — Lists of Priests and Levites. Dedication of the WaU of Jerusalem, ..... 265 III. Nehemiah's Operations during his Second Sojourn in Jerusalem (Chap. xii. 44-xiii. 31), . . . . 282 ESTHEE. § 1. Name, Contents, Object, and Unity, .... 301 § 2. Historical Character, ...... 304 § 3. Authorship and Date, ...... 312 § 4. Canonicity, . ' . , . . . . 313 Chap. i. — The Banquet of King Ahashverosh and the Divorce of Queen Vashti, . . . . . . ' 319 Chap. ii. — Elevation of Esther to the Throne. Service rendered by Mordochai to the King, . . . . . 333 Chap. iii. — Haman's Elevation, and his Design against the Jews, . 342 Chap. iv. — Mordochai's Mourning on account of the Decree for the Assassination of the Jews, and his Admonition to Esther to intercede for her People, ..... 349 Chap. V. — Esther's gracious Reception by the King. Haman's Rage against Mordochai, ..... 355 Chap. vi. — Elevation of Mordochai and Disgrace of Haman, . 858 Chap. vii. — Haman's Downfall and Ruin, . . . 363 Chap. viii. — Mordochai advanced to Haman's position. Counter- Edict for the Preservation of the Jews, . . . 366 Chap, ix.— The Jews avenged of their Enemies. The Feast of Purim instituted, ...... 371 Chap. X.— Power and Greatness of Mordochai, . . . 378 THE BOOK OF EZRA. INTRODUCTION. § 1. NAME AND CONTENTS, OBJECT AND PLAN OF THE BOOK OF EZRA. |HE book of Ezra derives its name of K^W in the Hebrew Bible, of "EaSpais in the Septuagint, and of Liber Esdrce in the Vulgate, from Ezra, i'^ty, the priest and scribe who, in chap, vii.-x., nar- rates his return from captivity in Babylon to Jerusalem, and the particulars of his ministry in the latter city. For the sake of making the number of the books contained in their canon of Scripture correspond with the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet, the Jews had from of old reckoned the books of Ezra and Nehemiah as one ; whilst an apocry- phal book of Ezra, composed of passages from the second book of Chronicles, the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, and certain popular legends, had long been current among the Hellenistic Jews together with the canonical book of Ezra, Hence our book of Ezra is called, in the catalogues of the Old Testament writings handed down to us by* the Fathers (see the statements of Origen, of the Council of Laodicea, Can. 60, of Cyril, Jerome, and others, in the Lehrbuch der Einleitung, § 216, Not. 11, 13), "EaSpais -TrpSno's (a), and the book of Nehemiah "EaBpw; Sewrepps (j8), and consequently separated as i. Ezra from the book of Nehemiah as ii. Ezra ; while the Greek book of Ezra is called iii. Ezra, to which was subsequently added the -falsely so-called book of Ezra as A 2 INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOK OF EZRA. IV. Ezra. In the Septaagint, the Vet. Itala, and the Syriac, on the contrary (comp. Libri V. T. apocryphi syriace e re- cogn. de Lagarde), we find the Greek book of Ezra placed as "EixBpa^ wpcarov before the canonical book, and the latter designated "EaSpai Bevrepov. The book of Ezra consists of two parts. The first part, comprising a period anterior to Ezra, begins with the edict of Coresh (Cyrus), king of Persia, permitting the return to their native land of such Jews as were exiles in Babylon, and prescribing the rebuilding of the temple at Jerusalem (i. 1-4) ; and relates that when the heads of the nation, the priests and Levites, and many of the people, made prepara- tions "for returning, Cyrus had the sacred vessels which Nebuchadnezzar had carried away from Jerusalem brought forth and delivered to Sheshbazzar (Zerubbabel), prince of Judah (i. 5-11). Next follows a list of the names of those who returned from captivity (chap, ii.), and the account of the building of the altar of burnt-offerings, the restoration of divine worship, and the laying of the foundation of the temple (chap. iii.). Then the manner in which the rebuild- ing of the temple was hindered by the Samaritans is nar- rated ; and mention made of the written accusation sent by the adversaries of the Jews to the kings Ahashverosh and Artachshasta (iv. 1-7) : the letter sent to the latter monarch, and his answer thereto, in consequence of which the rebuilding of the temple ceased till the second year of Darius, being inserted in the Chaldee original (iv. 24). It is then related (also in Chaldee) that Zerubbabel and Joshua, undertaking, in consequence of the prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah, the rebuilding of the temple, were immediately interrogated by Tatnai the Persian governor and his companions as to who had commanded such re- building ; that the reply of the Jewish rulers was reported in writing to the king, whereupon the latter caused search to be made for the edict of Cyrus, and gave command for the continuance and furtherance of the building in com- pliance therewith (v. 1-vi. 13) ; that hence the Jews were enabled to complete the work, solemnly to dedicate their NAME, CONTENTS, OBJECT, AND PLAN. 3 now finished temple (vi. 14-18), and (as further related, vers. 19-22, in the Hebrew tongue) to celebrate their pass- over with rejoicing. In the second part (vii.-x.), the return of Ezra the priest and scribe, in the seventh year of Arta- xerxes, from Babylon to Jerusalem, with a number of priests, Levites, and Israelites, is related ; and (vii. 1-10) a copy of the royal decree, in virtue of which Ezra was entrusted with the ordering of divine worship, and of the administration of justice as prescribed in the law, given in the Chaldee ori- ginal (vii. 11-26), with a postscript by Ezra (ver. 27 sq.). Then follows a list of those who went up with Ezra (viii. 1-14) ; and particulars given by Ezra himself concerning his journey, his arrival at Jerusalem (viii. 14-36), and the energetic proceedings by which he effected the separation of the heathen women from tl^e congregation (ix. 1— x. 17) ; the book concluding with a list of those who were forced to put away their heathen wives (x. 18—44). The first year of the rule of Cyrus king of Persia corre- sponding with the year 536 B.C., and the seventh year of Artaxerxes (Longimanus) with 458 B.C., it follows that this book comprises a period of at least eighty years. An interval of fifty-six years, extending from the seventh year of Darius Hystaspis, in which the passover was celebrated after the dedication of the new temple (vi. 19-22), to the seventh of Artaxerxes, in which Ezra went up from Babylon (vii. 6), separates the events of the first part from those of the second. The narrative of the return of Ezra from Babylon in vii. 1 is nevertheless connected with the celebration of the passover under Darius by the usual formula of transition, "Now after these things," without further comment, because no- thing had occurred in the intervening period which the author of the book felt it necessary, in conformity with the plan of his work, to communicate. Even this cursory notice of its contents shows that the object of Ezra was not to give a history of the re-settlement in Judah and Jerusalem of the Jews liberated by Cyrus from the Babylonian captivity, nor to relate all the memorable events which took place from the departure and the arrival 4 INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOK OP EZRA. in Judah of those who returned with Zerubbabel and Joshua, until his own return and his ministry in Jerusalem. For he tells us nothing at all of the journey of the first band of returning exiles, and so little concerning their arrival in Jerusalem and Judah, that this has merely a passing notice in the superscription of the list of their names ; while at the close of this list he only mentions the voluntary gifts which they brought with them for the temple service, and then just remarks that they — the priests, Levites, people, etc. — dwelt in their cities (ii. 70). The following chapters (iii.-vi.), moreover, treat exclusively of the build- ing of the altar of burnt-offering and the temple, the hin- drances by which this building was delayed for years, and of the final removal of these hindrances, the continuation and completion of the building, and the dedication of the new temple, by means of which the tribe of Judah was enabled to carry on the worship of God according to the law, and to celebrate the festivals in the house of the Lord. In the second part, indeed, after giving the decree he had obtained from Artaxerxes, he speaks in a comparatively circumstantial' manner of the preparations he made for his journey, of the journey itself, and of his arrival at Jerusalem; while he relates but a single incident of his proceedings there, — an incident, indeed, of the utmost im- portance with respect to the preservation of the returned community as a covenant people, viz. the dissolution of the marriages with Canaanites and other Gentile women, for- bidden by the law, but contracted in the period immediately following his arrival at Jerusalem. Of his subsequent pro- ceedings there we learn nothing further from his own writings, although the king had given him authority, " after the wisdom of his God, to set magistrates and judges" (vii. 25); while the book of Nehemiah testifies that he continued his ministry there for some years in conjunction with Nehemiah, who did not arrive till thirteen years later : eomp. Neh. viii.-x. and xii. 36, 38. Such being the nature of the contents of this book, it is evident that the object and plan of its author must have been UNITY AND COMPOSITION. 5 to collect only such facts and documents as might show the manner in which the Lord God, after the lapse of the seventy years of exile, fulfilled His promise announced by the pro- phets, by the ■ deliverance of His people from Babylon, the building of the temple at Jerusalem, and the restoration of the temple worship according to the law, and preserved the re-assembled community from fresh relapses into heathen customs and idolatrous worship by the dissolution of the marriages with Gentile women. Moreover, the restoration of the temple and of the legal temple worship, and the separa- tion of the heathen from the newly settled community, were necessary and indispensable conditions for the gathering out of the people of God from among the heathen, and for the maintenance and continued existence of the nation of Israel, to which and through which God might at His own time fulfil and realize' His promises made to. their forefathers, to make their seed a blessing to all. the families of the earth, in a manner consistent both with His dealings with this people hitherto, and with the further development of His promises made through the prophets. The significance of the book of Ezra in sacred history lies in the fact that it enables us to perceive how the Lord, on the one hand, so disposed the hearts of the kings of Persia, the then rulers of the world, that in spite of all the machinations of the enemies of God's people, they promoted the building of His temple in Jeru- salem, and the maintenance of His worship therein ; and on the other, raised up for His people, when delivered from Babylon, men like Zerubbabel their governor, Joshua the high priest, and Ezra the scribe, who, supported by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, undertook the work to which they were called, with hearty resolution, and carried it out with a powerful hand. § 2. UNITY AND COMPOSITION OF THE BOOK OF EZRA. Several modern critics (Zunz, Ewald, Bertheau, and others) have raised objections both to the single authorship and to the independent character of this book, and declared 6 INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOK OF EZRA. it to be but a fragment of a larger work, comprising not only the book of Nehemiah, but that of Chronicles also. The section of this work which forms our canonical book of Ezra is said to have been composed and edited by some unknown author about 200 years after Ezra, partly from an older Ohaldee history of the building of the temple and of the walls of Jerusalem, partly from a record drawn up by Ezra himself of his agency in Jerusalem, and from certain other public documents. The evidence in favour of this hypothesis is derived, first, from the fact that not only the official letters to the Persian kings, and their decrees (iv. 8-22, V. 6-17, vi. 6-12, vii. 12-26), but also a still longer section on the building of the temple (v. 23-vi. 18), are written in the Ohaldee, and the remaining portions in the Hebrew language ; next, from the diversity of its style, its lack of internal unity, and its want of finish ; and, finally, from the circumstance that the book of Ezra had from of old been combined with that of Nehemiah as one book. These reasons, however, upon closer consideration, prove too weak to confirm this view. For, to begin with the historical testimony, Nagelsbach, in Herzog's Eealencycl. iv. p. 166, justly finds it " incomprehensible " that Bertheau should ap- peal to the testimony of the Talmud, the Masora, the most ancient catalogues of Old Testament books in the Christian church, the Cod. Alexandr., the Cod. Friderico Aug., and the LXX., because the comprehension of the two books in one in these authorities is entirely owing to the Jewish mode of computing the books of the Old Testament. Even Josephus (c. Ap. i. 8) reckons twenty-two books, which he arranges, in a manner peculiar to himself, into five books of Moses, thirteen of the prophets, and four containing hymns to God and moral precepts for man ; and Jerome says, in Prol. Gal., that the Hebrews reckon twenty-two canonical books, whose names he cites, after the number of the letters of their alphabet, but then adds that some reckoned Ruth and Lamentations separately, thus making twenty-four, because the Rabbis distinguished between u* and B*, and received a double Jod (") into the alphabet for the sake of including in UNITY AND COMPOSITION. 7 it the name niPi'', which when ahbreviated is written ". The number twenty-four is also found in Baha batlir. fol. 14. Hence we also find these numbers and computations in the Fathers and in the resolutions of the councils, but with the express distinction of l. and ii. Ezra. This distinction is not indeed mentioned in the Talmud ; and Baba bathr., I.e., says : Esra scripsit librum suum £t genealogias librorum Chron. usque ad sua tempora. But what authority can there be in such testimony, which also declares Moses to have been the author not only of the Pentateuch, but also of the book of Job, and Samuel the author of the books of Judges, Euth, and Samuel ? The authority, too, of Cod. Alex, and Cod. Frid. Aug. is opposed to that of Cod. Vatic, and of the LXX., in which the books Ezra and Nehemiah are sepa- rated, as they likewise are in the Masoretic text, although the Masoretes regarded and reckoned both as forming but one book.-' This mode of computation, however, affords no ground for the supposition that the books of Ezra and Nehemiah originally formed one work. For in-this case we should be obliged to regard the books of the twelve minor prophets as the work of one author. If the number of books was to be reduced to twenty-two or twenty-four, it was neces- sary to combine smaller works of similar character. The single authorship of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah is most decidedly negatived, not only by the superscription of the latter book, n'^p3n"ja n^Dna I'll'ij there being in the entire Old Testament no other instance of a single portion or section of a longer work being distinguished from its other portions by a similar superscription, with the name of the author ; but also by the fact already brought forward in the introduction to Chronicles, p. 23, that no reason or motive whatever can ^ Though Zunz and Ewald appeal also to the Greek book of Ezra, in which portions of Chronicles and of the hooks of Ezra and Nehemiah are comprised, it is not really to be understood how any critical import- ance can be attributed to this apocryphal comjiilation. Besides, even if it possessed such importance, the circumstance that only the two last chapters of Chronicles, and only vii. 78-viii. 13 of Nehemiah, are com- prised in it, says more against than in favour of the assumed single authorship of the three canonical books. 8 INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOK OF EZRA. be perceived for a sabsequent division of the historical work in question into three separate books, on account of its recep- tion into the canon. The contents, too, and the form of this book, present us with nothing incompatible either with its single authorship or independence. The use of the Ohaldee tongue for the official documents of the Persian kings and their subordi- nates cannot surprise us, this being the official language in the provinces of the Persian empire west of the Euphrates, and as current with the returning Jews as their Hebrew mother tongue. It is true that the use of the Chaldee lan- guage is not in this book confined merely to official docu- ments, but continued, iv. 8-22, in the narrative of the building of the temple down to the dedication of the rebuilt temple, iv. 23-vi. 18 ; and that the Hebrew is not employed again till from vi. 19 to the conclusion of the book, with the exception of vii. 12-26, where the commission given by Artaxerxes to Ezra is inserted in the Ohaldee original. We also meet, however, with the two languages in the book of Daniel, chap, ii., where the Magi are introduced, ver. 4, as answering the king in Aramaic, and where not only their conversation with the monarch, but also the whole course of the event, is given in this dialect, which is again used chap, iii.-vii. Hence it has been attempted to account for the use of the Chaldee in the narrative portions of the book of Ezra, by the assertion that the historian, after quoting Chaldee documents, found it convenient to use this language in the narrative combined therewith, and especially because during its course he had to communicate other Chaldee documents (chap. v. 6-17 and vi. 3-12) in the original. But this explanation is not sufficient to solve the problem. Both here and in the book of Daniel, the use of the two languages has a really deeper reason ; see § 14 sq. on Daniel. With respect to the book in question, this view is, moreover, insufficient ; because, in the first place, the use of the Chaldee tongue does not begin with the communication of the Chaldee documents (iv. 11), but is used, ver. 8, in the paragraph which introduces them. And then, too, the narrator of the UNITY AND COMPOSITION. 9 Chaldee historical section, chap. v. 4, gives us to understand, by his use of the first person, " Then said we unto them," that he was a participator in the work of rebuilding the temple under Darius ; and this, Ezra, who returned to Jeru- salem at a much later period, and who relates his return (chap, vii. 27) in the first person, could not himself have been. These two circumstances show that the Chaldee section, iv. 8— vi. 18, was composed by an eye-witness of the occurrences it relates ; that it came into the hands of Ezra when com- posing his own work, who, finding it adapted to his purpose as a record by one who was contemporary with the events he related, and a sharer in the building of the temple, included it in his own book with very slight alteration. The mention of Artachshasta, besides Coresh and Darjavesh, in vi. 14, seems opposed to this view. " But since neither Ezra, nor a later author of this book, contemporary with Darius Hys- taspis, could cite the name of Artaxerxes as contributing towards the building of the temple, while the position of the name of Artaxerxes after that of Darius, as well as its very mention, contradicts the notion of a predecessor of King Darius, the insertion of this name in vi. 14 may be a later addition made by Ezra, in grateful retrospect of the splendid gifts devoted by Artaxerxes to the temple, for the purpose of associating him with the two monarchs whose favour rendered the rebuilding of the temple possible (see on vi. 14). In this case, the mention of Artaxerxes in the passage just cited, offers no argument against the above-mentioned view of the origin of the Chaldee section. Neither is any doubt cast upon the, single authorship of the whole book by the notion that Ezra inserted in his bpok not only an authentic list of the returned families, chap, ii., but also a narrative of the building of the temple, composed in the Chaldee tongue by an eye-witness. All the other arguments brought forward against the unity of this book are quite unimportant.' The variations and discrepancies which Schrader, in his treatise on the duration of the second temple, in the Theol. Studien u, Kriti- ken, 1867, p. 460 sq., and in De Wette's Einleitung, 8th 10 INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOK OF EZEA. edit. § 235, supposes he has discovered in the Chaldee sec- tion, first between chap. iv. 8-23 and v. 1-6, 14a, 15, on the one hand, and chap. iv. 24 on the other, and then between these passages and the remaining chapters of the first part, chap, i., iii., iv. 1, vii. 24, and chap. vi. 146, 16-18, 19-22, can have, no force of argument except for a criticism which confines its operations to the words and letters of the text of Scripture, because incapable of entering into its spiritual meaning. If the two public documents iv. 8-23 differ from what precedes and follows them, by the fact that they speak not of the building of the temple but of the building of the walls of Jerusalem, the reason may be either that the adver- saries of the Jews brought a false accusation before King Artachshashta, and for the sake of more surely- gaining their own ends, represented the building of the temple as a build- ing of the fortifications, or that the complaint of their enemies and the royal decree really relate to the building of the walls, and that section iv. 8-23 is erroneously referred by exposi- tors to the building of the temple. In either case there is no such discrepancy between these public doouments and what precedes and follows them as to annul the single authorship of this Ohaldee section ; see the explanation of the passage. Still less does the circumstance that the narrative of the con- tinuation and completion of the temple-building, v. 1-vi. 15, is in a simply historical style, and not interspersed with reflections or devotional remarks, offer any proof that the notice, iv. 24, " Then ceased the work of the house of God which is at Jerusalem, so it ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia," and the information, vi. 16-18, that the Jews brought offerings at the dedica- tion of the temple, and appointed priests and Levites in their courses for the service of God, cannot proceed from the same historian, who at the building of' the temple says nothing of the offerings and ministrations of the priests and Levites. Still weaker, if possible, is the argument for different authorship derived from characteristic expressions, viz. that in iv. 8, 11, 23, v. 5, 6, 7, 13, 14, 17, and vi. 1, 3, 12, 13, the Persian kings are simply called " the UNITY AND COMPOSITION. 11 king," and not " king of Persia," as they are designated by the historian in iv. 7, 24, and elsewhere. For a thoughtful reader will scarcely need to be reminded that, in a letter to the king, the designation king of Persia would be not only superfluous, but inappropriate, while the king in his answer would have still less occasion to call himself king of Persia, and that even the historian has in several places — e.g. V. 5, 6, vi. 1 and 13 — omitted the addition " of Persia" when naming the king. Nor is there any force in the remark that in v. 13 Ooresh is called king of Babylon. This epithet, ?33 ^\ would only be objected to by critics who either do not know or do not consider that Coresh was king of Persia twenty years before he became king of Babylon, or obtained dominion over the Babylonian empire. The title king of Persia would here be misleading, and the mere designation king inexact, — Cyrus having issued the decree for the rebuilding of the temple not in the first year of his reign or rule over Persia, but in the first year of his sway over Babylon. In Part ii. (chap, vii.-x.), which is connected with Part i. by the formula of transition i^^'^ ^'l^'nn "inx, it is not in- deed found " striking " that the historian should commence his narrative concerning Ezra by simply relating his doings (vii. 1-10), his object being first to make the reader ac- quainted with the person of Ezra. It is also said to be easy to understand, that when the subsequent royal epistles are given, Ezra should be spoken of in the third person ; that the transition, to the first person should not be made until the thanksgiving to God (vii. 27) ; and that Ezra should then narrate his journey to and arrival at Jerusalem, and his ener- getic proceedings against the unlawful marriages, in his own words (chap. viii. and ix.). But it is said to be "striking," that in the account of this circumstance Ezra is, from ch. x. 1 onwards, again spoken of in the third person. This change of the person speaking is said to show that the second part of the book was not composed by Ezra himself, but that some other historian merely made use of a record by Ezra, giving it verbally in chap. viii. and ix., and in chap. vii. and x. 12 INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOK OF EZRA. relating Ezra's return from Babylon, and the conclusion of the transaction concerning the unlawful marriages, in his own words, but with careful employment of the said record. This view, however, does not satisfactorily explain the tran- sition from the first to the third person in the narrative. For what could have induced the historian, after giving Ezra's record verbally in chap. viii. and ix,, to break off in the midst of Ezra's account of his proceedings against the unlawful marriages, and, instead of continuing the record, to relate the end of the transaction in his own words? Bertheau's solution of this question, that the author did this for the sake of brevity, is of no force ; for chap. x. shows no trace of brevity, but, on the contrary, the progress and conclusion of the affair are related with the same circum- stantiality and attention to details exhibited in its com- mencement in viii. and ix. To this must be added, that in other historical portions of the Old Testament, in which the view of different authorship is impossible, the narrator, as a person participating in the transaction, frequently makes the transition from the first to the third person, and vice versa. Compare, e.g., Isa. vii. 1 sq. (" Then said the Lord unto Isaiah, Go forth," etc.) with viii. 1 ("Moreover, the Lord said unto me, Take thee a great roll," etc.) ; Jer. xx. 1-6, where Jeremiah relates of himself in the third person, that he had been smitten by Pashur, and had prophesied against him, with ver. 7 sq., where, without further explanation, he thus continues : " O Lord, Thou hast persuaded me, and I was persuaded;" or Jer. xxviii. 1 ("Hananiah , . . spake unto me . . . the Lord said to me") with ver. 5 (" Then the prophet Jeremiah said to the prophet Hananiah "), and also ver. 6 ; while in the verse (7) immediately following, Jere- miah writes, " Hear thou now this word which I speak in thine ears." As Jeremiah, when here narrating circum- stances of his own ministry, suddenly passes from the third to the first person, and then immediately returns to the third ; so, too, might Ezra, after speaking (vii. 1-10) of his return to Jerusalem in the third person, proceed with a subsequent more circumstantial description of his journey to and arrival UNITY AND COMPOSITION. 13 at Jerusalem, and narrate his acts and proceedings there in the first person (chap. viii. and ix.), and then, after giving his prayer concerning the iniquity of his people (chap, ix.), take up the objective form of speech in his account of what took place in consequence of this prayer ; and instead of writing, " Now when I had prayed," etc., continue, " Now when Ezra had prayed," and maintain this objective form of statement to the end of chap. x. Thus a change of author cannot be proved by a transition in the narrative from the first to the third person. As little can this be inferred from the remark (vii. 6) that " Ezra was a ready scribe in the law of Moses," by which his vocation, and the import of his return to Jeru- salem, are alluded to immediately after the statement of his genealogy. The reasons, then, just discussed are not of such a naturq as to cast any real doubt upon the single authorship of this book ; and modem criticism has been unable to adduce any others. Neither is its independence impeached by the circum- stance that it breaks off "unexpectedly" at chap, x., with- out relating Ezra's subsequent proceedings at Jerusalem, although at chap. vii. 10 it is said not only that " Ezra had prepared his heart ... to teach in Israel statutes and judg- ments," but also that Artaxerxes in his edict (vii. 12-26) commissioned him to uphold the authority of the law of God as the rule of action ; nor by the fact that in Neh. viii.-x. we find Ezra still a teacher of the law, and that these very chapters form the necessary complement of the notices con- cerning Ezra in the book of Ezra (Bertheau). For though the narrative in Neh. viii.-x. actually does complete the history of Ezra's ministry, it by no means follows that the book of Ezra is incomplete, and no independent work at all, 'but only a portion of a larger book, because it does not con- tain this narrative. For what justifies the assumption that ' " Ezra purposed to give an account of all that he effected at Jerusalem I" The whole book may be sought through in vain for a single peg on which to hang such a theory. To impute such an intention to Ezra, and to infer that, because his ministry is spoken of in the book of Nehemiah also, the 14 INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOK OF EZRA. book of Ezra is but a fragment, we should need far more weighty arguments in proof of the single authorship of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah than the defenders of this hypothesis are able to bring forward. In respect of diction, nothing further has been adduced than that the expression 'r'i' ''D'^!!? 1-3, so frequently recurring in Ezra (Ezra vii. 28 ; compare vii. 6, 9, viii. 18, 22, 31), is also once found in Nehemiah (ii. 8). But the single occurrence of this one expression, common to himself and Ezra, in the midst of the very peculiar diction and style of Nehemiah, is not the slightest proof of the original combination of the two books ; and Neh. ii. 8 simply shows that Nehemiah appropriated words which, in his intercourse with Ezra, he had heard from his lips. — With respect to other instances in which the diction and matter are common to the books of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, we have already shown, in the intro- duction to Chronicles, that they are too trifling to establish an identity of authorship in the case of these three books ; and at the same time remarked that the agreement between the closing verses of Chronicles and the beginning of Ezra does but render it probable that Ezra may have been the author of the former book also. ■ § 3. COMPOSITION AND HISTORICAL CHAEACTEE OP THE BOOK OF EZRA. If this book is a single one, i.e. the work of one author, there can be no reasonable doubt that that author was Ezra, the priest and scribe, who in chap, vii.-x. narrates his return from Babylon to Jerusalem, and the circumstances of his ministry there, neither its language nor contents ex- hibiting any traces of a later date. Its historical character, too, was universally admitted until Schrader, in his before- named treatise, p. 399, undertook to dispute it with respect to the first part of this book. The proofs he adduced were, first, that the statement made by the author, who lived 200 years after the building of the temple, in this book, i.e. in the chronicle of the foundation of the temple in the second COMPOSITION AND HISTORICAL CHAEACTEK. 15 year after the return from Babylon, concerning the cessation of the building till the second year of Darius, and its resump- tion in that year, is unhistorical, and rests only upon the in- sufficiently confirmed assumption that the exiles, penetrated as they were with ardent love for their hereditary religion, full of joy that their deliverance from Babylon was at last effected, and of heartfelt gratitude to God, should have suffered fifteen years to elapse before they set to work to raise the national sanctuary from its ruins ; secondly, that the accounts both of the rearing of the altar, iii. 2 and 3, and of the proceedings at laying the foundations of the temple, together with the names, dates, and other seemingly special details found in chap, iii., iv. 1-5, 24, vi. 14, are not derived from ancient historical narratives, but are mani- festly due to the imagination of the chronicler drawing upon the documents given in the' book of Ezra, upon other books of the Old Testament, and upon his own combinations thereof. This whole argument, however, rests upon the assertion, that neither in Ezra v. 2 and 16, in Hagg. i. 2, 4, 8, 14, ii. 12, nor in Zech. i. 16, iv. 9, vi. 12, 13, viii. 9, is the resumption of the temple building in the second year of the reign of Darius spoken of, but that, on the contrary, the laying of its foundations in the said year of Darius is in some of these passages assumed, in others distinctly stated. Such a conclusion can, however, only be arrived at by a misconception of the passages in question. When it is said, Ezra v. 2, " Then (i.e. when the prophets Haggai and Zechaiiah prophesied) rose up Zerubbabel and Jeshua . . . and began to build the house of God" (".^^P? ''''"!?'), there is no need to insist that N33 often signifies to rebuild, but the word may be understood strictly of beginning to build. Aiid this accords with the fact, that while in chap. iii. and iv. nothing is related concerning the building of the temple, whose foundations were laid in the second year of the return, it is said that immediately after the foundations were laid the Samaritans came and desired to take part in the building of the temple, and that when their request was refused, they weakened the hands of the people, and deterred them from 16 INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOK OF EZRA. building (iv. 1-5). Schrader can only establish a discre- pancy between v. 2 and chap. iii. and iv. by confounding building with foundation-laying, two terms which neither in Hebrew nor German have the same signification. Still less can it be inferred from the statement of the Jewish elders (Ezra v. 16), when questioned by Tatnai and his com- panions as to who had commanded them to build the temple, " Then came the same Sheshbazzar and laid the foundation of the house of God, which is in Jerusalem, and since that time even until now hath it been in building," that the building of the temple proceeded without intermission from the laying of its foundations under Cyrus till the second year of Darius. For can we be justified in the supposition that the Jewish elders would furnish Tatnai with a detailed statement of matters for the purpose of informing him what had been done year by year, and, by thus enumerating the hindrances which had for an interval put a stop to the building, afford the Persian officials an excuse for consequently declaring the question of resuming the building non-suited? For Tatnai made no inquiry as to the length of time the temple had been in building, or whether this had been going on uninterruptedly, but only who had authorized them to build ; and the Jewish elders replied that King Cyrus had com- manded the building of the temple, and delivered to Shesh- bazzar, whom he made governor, the sacred vessels which Nebuchadnezzar had carried away to Babylon, whereupon Sheshbazzar had begun the work of building which had been going on from then till now. Moreover, Schrader himself seems to have felt that not much could be proved from Ezra V. 2 and 16. Hence he seeks to construct the chief support of his theory from the prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah. In this attempt, however, he shows so little comprehension of prophetic diction, that he expounds Haggai's reproofs of the indifference of the people in building the temple, Hagg. i. 2, 4, 8, as stating that as yet nothing had been done, not even the foundations laid; transforms the words, Hagg. i. 14, " they came and did work in the house of the Lord" ('33 hSk^d ^\i>v^), into "they began to build;" COMPOSITION AND HISTORICAL CHARACTER. 17 makes Hagg. ii. 18, by a tautological view of the words p'? ''?.^ "'^'^ ^i'O, mean that the foundations of the temple were not laid till the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month of the second year of Darius (see the true meaning of the passage in the commentary on Haggai) ; and finally, explains the prophecies of Zechariah (i. 16, iv. 9, vi. 12, viii. 9) concern- ing the rearing of a spiritual temple by Messiah as applying to the temple of wood and stone actually erected by Zerub- babel. By such means he arrives at the result that " neither does the Ohaldee section of Ezra (chap, v.), including the official documents, say anything of a foundation of the temple in the second year after the return from Babylon; nor do the contemporary prophets Haggai and Zechariah make any mention of this earlier foundation in their writings, but, on the contrary, place the foundation in the second year of Darius : that, consequently, the view advocated by the author of the book of Ezra, that the building of the temple began in the days of Cyrus, and immediately after the return of the exiles, is wholly without documentary proof." This result he seeks further to establish by collecting all the words, expressions, and matters (such as sacrifices, Levites, priests, etc.) in Ezra iii. and iv. and vi. 16-22, to which parallels may be found in the books of Chronicles, for the sake of drawing from them the further conclusion that " the chronicler," though he did not indeed invent the facts related in Ezra iii. 1-4, v., and vi. 16—22, combined them from the remaining chapters of the book of Ezra, and from other books of the Old Testament, — a conclusion in which the chief stress is placed upon the supposed fact that the chronicler was sufficiently known to have been a compiler and maker up of history. Such handling of Scripture can, however, in our days no longer assume the guise of " scientific criticism ;" this kind of critical produce, by which De Wette and his follower Gramberg endeavoured to gain notoriety sixty years ago, having long been condemned by theological science. Nor can the historical character of this book be shaken by such frivolous objections. Three events of fundamental import- ance to the restoration and continuance of Israel as a separate 18 INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOK OF EZRA. people among the other nations of the earth are contained in it, viz. : (1) The release of the Jews and Israelites from the Babylonian captivity by Cyrus ; (2) The re-settlement in Judah and Jerusalem, with the rebuilding of the temple ; (3) The ordering of the re-settled flock according to the law of Moses, by Ezra. The actual occurrence of these three events is raised above all doubt by the subsequent historical development of the Jews in their own land ; and the nar- rative of the manner in which this development was rendered possible and brought to pass, possesses as complete docu- mentary authentication, in virtue of the communication of the official acts of the Persian kings Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes, — acts of which the whole contents are given after the manner, so to speak, of State papers, — as any fact of ancient history. The historical narrative, in fact, does but furnish a brief explanation of the documents and edicts which are thus handed down. For the exegetical literature, see Leiirb. der Einleitung, p. 455 ; to which must be added, E. Bertheau, die Bucher Esra, Nehemm, und Ester erkl., Lpz. (being the seventeenth number of the Tcurzgef. exeget. Handbuchs zum A. T.). EXPOSITION. I.— THE RETURN OF THE JEWS FROM BABYLON UNDER CYRUS. RESTORATION OF THE TEMPLE AND OF THE WORSHIP OF GOD AT JERUSALEM.— Chap. I.-VI. jHEN the seventy years of the Babylonian captivity had elapsed, King Cyrus, by an edict published in the first year of his rule over Babylon, gave permission to all the Jews in his whole realm to return to their native land, and called, upon them to rebuild the temple of God at Jerusalem. The execution of this royal and gracious decree by the Jews forms the subject of the first part of this book, — chap. i. and ii. treating of the return of a considerable number of families of Judah, Ben- jamin, and Levi, under the conduct of Zerubbabel the prince and Joshua the high priest, to Jerusalem and Judsea ; the remaining chapters, iii.-vi., of the restoration of the wor- ship of God, and of the rebuilding of the temple. CHAP. I. — THE EDICT OF CTEUS, THE DEPAETUEE FEOM BABYLON, THE EESTITUTION OF THE SACKED VESSELS. In the first year of his rule over Babylon, Cyrus king of Persia proclaimed throughout his whole kingdom, both by voice and writing, that the God of heaven had commanded • him to build His temple at Jerusalem, and called upon the Jews living in exile to return to' Jerusalem, and to build there the house of the God of Israel. At the same time, he exhorted all his subjects to facilitate by gifts the journey of la 20 THE BOOK OF EZRA. the Jews dwelling in their midst, and to assist by free-will offerings the building of the temple (1-4). In consequence of this royal decree, those Jews whose spirit God had raised up prepared for their return, and received from their neigh- bours gifts and free-will offerings (5 and 6). Cyrus, more- over, delivered to Sheshbazzar, the prince of Judah, the vessels of the temple which Nebuchadnezzar had brought from Jerusalem to Babylon. Vers. 1-4. The edict of Cyrus. — Ver. 1. The opening word, '■'■And in the first year," etc., is to be explained by the cir- cumstance that what is here recorded forms also, in 2 Ohron. xxxvi. 22 and 23, the conclusion of the history of the kingdom of Judah at its destruction by the Chaldeans, and is trans- ferred thence to the beginning of the history of the restora- tion of the Jews by Cyrus. tJ'lis is the Hebraized form of the ancient Persian Kurus, as Kvpo<;, Cyrus, is called upon the monuments, and is perhaps connected with the Indian title Kuru; see Delitzsch on Isa. xliv. 28. The first year of Cyrus is the first year of his rule over Babylon and the Babylonian empire.-' D"13 — in the better editions, such as that of Norzi and J. H. Mich., with Pathach under 1, and only pointed DIS with a graver pause, as with Silluk, iv. 3, in the cuneiform inscriptions Pdraqa — signifies in biblical phraseology the Persian empire; comp. Dan. v. 28, vi. 9, etc. niMp, that the word of Jahve might come to an end. n?3, to be completed, 2 Chron. xxix. 34. The word of the Lord is completed when its fulfilment takes place ; hence in the Vulg. ut compleretur, i.e. niKpDPj 2 Chron. xxxvi. 21. Here, however, ni?3 is more appropriate, because the notion of the lapse or termination of the seventy years predominates. The statement of the prophet Jeremiah (Jer. xxv. 11, etc., xxix. 10; comp. 2 Chron. xxxvi. 21) concerning the desola- tion and servitude of Judah is here intended. These seventy years commenced with the first taking of Jerusalem by ^ Duplex fuit mitium, Cyri Persarum regis ; pritis Persicura, idque antiquius, posterius Babylonicu'm, de quo Eesdras ; quia dum Cyrus in Perside tarituin regnaret, regnurii ejus ad Judeeos, qui in Babylonia erant, nihil adtinuit. — Cleric: ad Esr. i. 1. CHAP. I. 2. 21 Nebuchadnezzar, when Daniel and other youths of the seed- ■ royal were carried to Babylon (Dan. i. 1, 2) in the fourth year of King Jehoiakim ; see the explanation of Dan. i. 1. This year was the year 606 B.C. ; hence the seventy years terminate in 536 B.C., the first year of the sole rule of Cyrus over the Babylonian empire. Then "Jahve stirred up the spirit of Coresh," i.e. moved him, made him willing; comp. with this expression, 1 Chron. v. 26 and Hagg. i. 14. ?ip"15^?5, " he caused a voice to go forth," i.e. he pro- claimed by heralds; comp. Ex. xxxvi. 6, 2 Chron. xxx. 5, etc. With this is zeugmatically combined the subsequent DJ1 ^??P?) so that the general notion of proclaiming has to be taken from 7lp IDV, and supplied before these words. The sense is : he proclaimed throughout his whole realm by heralds, and also by written edicts. Ver. 2. The proclamation — "Jahve the God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the eartji ; and He hath charged me to build Him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah" — corresponds with the edicts of the great kings of Persia preserved in the cuneiform inscriptions, inasmuch as these, too, usually begin with the acknowledgment that they owe their power to the god Ahuramazd^ (Ormuzd), the creator of heaven and earth.^ In this edict, however, Cyrus expressly calls the God of heaven by His Israelitish name Jahve, and speaks of a commission from this God to build Him a temple at Jerusalem. Hence it is manifest that Cyrus consciously entered into the purposes of Jahve, and sought, as far as he was concerned, to fulfil them. Bertheau thinks, on the "contrary, that it is impossible to dismiss the conjecture that our historian, guided by an uncertain tradition, and induced by his own historical prepossessions, 1 Comp. e.g. the inscription of Elvend in three languages, explained in Joach. Menant, Expose des elements de la grammaire assyrienne, Paris 1868, p. 302, whose Aryan text begins thus : Deus magnus Auramazda, qui maximus deorum, qui Jianc terram creavit, qui hoc ccelum creavit, qui homines creavit, quipotentiam (?) dedit hominibus, qui Xerxem regem fecit, etc. An inscription of Xerxes begins in a similar manner, according to Lassen, in Die altpersischen Keilinschriften, Bonn 1836, p. 172. 22 THE BOOK OF EZEA. remodelled the edict of Cyrus. There is, however, no sufficient foundation for such a conjecture. If the first part of the book of Ezra is founded upon contemporary records of the events, this forbids an a priori assertion that the matter of the proclamation of Cyrus rests upon an uncertain tradition, and, on the contrary, presupposes that the historian had accurate knowledge of its contents. Hence, even if the thoroughly Israelitish stamp presented by these verses can afford no support to the view that they faithfully report the contents of the royal edict, it certainly offers as little proof for the opinion that the Israelite historian remodelled the edict of Cyrus after an uncertain tradition, and from historical prepossessions. Even Bertheau finds the fact that Cyrus should have publicly made known by a written edict the permission given to the Jews to depart, probable in itself, and corroborated by the reference to such an edict in chap. V. 17 and vi. 3. This edict of Cyrus, which was deposited in the house of the rolls in the fortress of Achmetha, and still existed there in the reign of Darius Hystaspis, contamed, however, not merely the permission for the return of the Jews to their native land, but, according to vi. 3, the command of Cyrus to build the house of God at Jerusalem 1 and Bertheau himself remarks on chap. vi. 3, etc. : " There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the statement that Cyrus, at the time he gave permission for the re-settlement of the community, also commanded the expenses of rebuild- ing the temple to be defrayed from the public treasury." To say this, however, is to admit the historical accuracy of the actual contents of the edict, since it is hence manifest that Cyrus, of his own free will, not only granted to the Jews permission to return to the land of their fathers, but also commanded the rebuilding of the temple at Jerusalem. Although, then, this edict was composed, not in Hebrew, but in the current language of the realm, and is reproduced in this book only in a Hebrew translation, and although the occurrence of the name Jahve therein is not Corroborated by chap. vi. 3, yet these two circumstances by no means justify Bertheau' s conclusion, that "if Cyrus in this edict called CHAP. I. 2. 23 the universal dominion of which he boasted a gift of the god whom he worshipped as the creator of heaven and earth, the Israelite translator, who could not designate this god by his Persian name, and who was persuaded that the God of Israel had given the kingdom to Cyrus, must have bestowed upon the supreme God, whom Cyrus mocked, the name of Jahve, the God of heaven. When, then, it miglit further have been said in the document, that Cyrus had resolved, not without the consent of the supreme God, to provide for the rebuilding of the temple at Jerusalem, — and such a reference to the supreme God might well occur in the announcement of a royal resolution in a decree of Cyrufe, — the Israelite translator could not again but conclude that Cyrus referred to Jahve, and that Jahve had commanded him to provide for the building of the temple." For if Cyrus found him- self impelled to the resolution of building a temple to the God of heaven in Jerusalem, i.e. of causing the temple de- stroyed by Nebuchadnezzar to be rebuilt, he must have been acquainted with this God, have conceived a high respect for Him, and have honoured Him as the God of heaven. It was not possible that he should arrive at such a resolution by faith in AhuramazdS,, but only by means of facts which had inspired him with reverence for the God of Israel. It is this consideration which bestows upon the statement of Josephus, Antt. xi. 1. l,-i— that Cyrus was, by means of the predictions of Isaiah, chap. xli. 25 sq., xliv. 28, xlv. 1 sq., who had prophesied of him by name 200 years before, brought to the conviction that the God of the Jews was the Most High God, and was on this account impelled to this resolution, — so high a degree of probability that we cannot but esteem its essence as historical. For when we consider the position held by Daniel at the court of Darius the Mede, the father- in-law of Cyrus, — that he was there elevated to the rank of one of the three presidents set over the 120 satraps of the realm, placed in the closest relation with the king, and highly esteemed by him (Dan. vi.), — we are perfectly justified in adopting the opinion that Cyrus had been made acquainted with the God of the Jews, and with the prophecies of Isaiah 24 THE BOOK OF EZEA. concerning Coresh, by Daniel. ^ Granting, • then, that the edict of Cyrus may have been composed in the current lan- guage of the realm, and not rendered word for word in Hebrew by the biblical author of the present narrative, its essential contents are nevertheless faithfully reproduced; and there are not sufficient grounds even for the view that the God who had inspired Cyrus with this resolution was in the royal edict designated only as the God of heaven, and not expressly called Jahve. Why may not Gyrus have desig- nated the God of heaven, to whom as the God of the Jews he had resolved to build a temple in Jerusalem, also by His name Jahve ? According to polytheistic notions, the wor- ship of this God might be combined with the worship of Ahuramazda as the supreme God of the Persians. — On 'Ml '^y 1\>S, J. H. Mich, well remarks : Mandavit mihi, nimi- rum dudum ante per Jesajam xliv. 24-28, xlv. 1—13, forte etiam per Danielem, qui annum hunc Cyri primum vivendo attigit (Dan. i. 21, vi. 29) et Susis in Perside vixit chap, viii. 2 (in saying which, he only infers too much from the last passage ; see on Dan. viii. 2). Ver. 3. In conformity with the command of God, Cyrus not only invites the Jews to return to Jerusalem, and to rebuild the temple, but also requires all his subjects to assist the returning Jews, and to give free-will offerings for the 1 Hence not only ancient expositors, but also in very recent times Pressel (Ilerzog's Eealencycl. iii. p. 232), and A. Koehler, Haggai, p. 9, etc., defend the statement of Josephus, I.e., rair (viz. the previously quoted prophecy, Isa. xliv. 28) oiii daxyuoina. xal Savfiaaa-UTO, to hhii opfi'/i ris £'X«/3£ na-l (pi'horijj.ia, iroitiaoii rcc ysypa/^/iiuei, as historically au- thentic. Pressel remarks, " that Holy Scripture shows what it was that made so favourable an impression upon Cyrus, by relating the role played by Daniel at the overthrow of the Babylonian monarchy, Dan. v. 28, 30. What wonder was it that the fulfiUer of this prediction should have felt himself attracted towards the prophet who uttered it, and should willingly restore the vessels which Belshazzar had that night committed the sin of polluting ? " etc. The remark of Bertheau, on the contrary, "that history knows of no Cyrus who consciously and volun- tarily honours Jahve the God of Israel, and consciously and voluntarily receives and executes the commands of this God," is one of the arbitrary dicta of neological criticism. CHAP. I. 4-6. 25 temple. 033 ''D, who among you of all his people, refers to all those subjects of his realm to whom the decree was to be made known ; and all the people of Jahve is the whole nation of Israel, and not Judah only, although, according to ver. 5, it was mainly those only who belonged to Judah that availed themselves of this royal permission, isy Vn^K ^'^1, his God be with him, is a wish for a blessing : comp. Josh. i. 17 ; 1 Esdras ii. 5, eatco ; while in 2 Ohron. xxxvi. 23 we find, on the other hand, nw'for in'. This wish is followed by the summons to go up to Jerusalem and to build the temple, the reason for which is then expressed by the sentence, " He is the God which is in Jerusalem." Ver. 4. '1J1 nSB'SPfPai are all belonging to the people of God in the provinces of Babylon, all the captives still living : comp. Neh. i. 2 sq. ; Hagg. ii. 3. These words stand first in an absolute sense, and 'U1 niap!3n"P3D belongs to what follows : In all places where he (i.e. each man) sojourneth, let the men of his place' help him with gold, etc. The men of his place are the non-Israelite inhabitants of the place. i'l'J, to assist, like 1 Kings ix. 1. OTS") specified, besides gold, silver, and cattle, means moveable, various kinds. nyjsn-QVj with, besides the free-will offering, i.e. as well as the same, and is therefore supplied in ver. 6 by ?y ^3r'. Free-will offerings for the temple might also be gold, silver, and vessels: comp. viii. 28 ; Ex. xxxv. 21. Vers. 5 and 6. In consequence of this royal summons, the heads of the houses of Judah and Benjamin, of the priests and Levites, — in short, all whose spirit God stirred up, — rose to go up to build the house of God. The ? in ?hb serves to com- prise the remaining persons, and may therefore be rendered by, in short, or namely ; comp. Ewald, § 310, a. The relative sentence then depends upon hb without IK'S. The thought is : All the Jews were called upon to return, hut those only obeyed the call whom God made willing to build the temple at Jerusalem, i.e. whom the religious craving of their hearts impelled thereto. For, as Josephus says, Antt. xi. 1: iroWol Karifieii/av iv rfj Ba^vXavi, to, KTr]it,aia KajoCKmrn) ov dikovres. — Ver. 6. All their surrounders assisted them with 26 THE BOOK OF EZRA. gifts. The suiTounders are the people of the places where Jews were making preparations for returning ; chiefly, therefore, their heathen neighbours (ver. 4), but also tbose Jews who remained in Babylon. DH'T? ^P]^ is not identical in meaning with T p?n, to strengthen, e.g. Jer. xxiii. 14, Neh. ii. 18 ; but with 1^3 p'tnn, the Piel here standing instead of the elsewhere usual Hiphil : to grasp by the hand, i.e. to assist ; comp. Lev. xxv. 34. ^V I?!', separated to, besides ; elsewhere joined with p, Ex. xii. 37, etc. 3'nJnn connected with bh without IK'S, as the verbum Jin. in ver. 5, 1 Chron. xxix. 3, and elsewhere. Q'''?^?*!^ 'T'?? must, according to ver. 4, be supplied mentally ; comp. ii. 68, iii. 5, 1 Ohron. xxix. 9, 17. Vers. 7-10. King Cyrus, moreover, caused those sacred vessels of the temple which had been carried away by Nebuchadnezzar to be brought forth, and delivered them by the hand of his treasurer to Sheshbazzar, the prince of Judah, for the use of the house of God which was about to be built. X''Sinj to fetch out from the royal treasury. The " vessels of the house of Jahve " are the gold and silver vessels of the temple which Nebuchadnezzar, at the first taking of Jerusalem in the reign of Jehoiakim, carried away to Babylon, and lodged in the treasure-house of his god (2 Chron. xxxvi. 7 and Dan. i. 2). For those which he took at its second conquest were broken up (2 Kings xxiv. 13) ; and the other gold and silver goods which, as well as the large brazen implements, were taken at the third con- quest, and the destruction of the temple (2 Kings xxv. 14 sq. ; Jer. Iii. 18 sq.), would hardly have been preserved by the Chaldeans, but rather made use of as valuable booty. — Ver. 8. Cyrus delivered these vessels I] ?V, into the hand of the treasurer, to whose care they were entrusted ; i.e. placed them under his inspection, that they might be faithfully re- stored. TlinD is Mithridates. "laja, answering to the Zend gazabara, means treasurer (see com. on Dan. p. 45, note 1). This officer counted them out to the prince of Judah Shesh- bazzar, undoubtedly the Chaldee name of Zerubbabel. For, according to v. 14, 16, isaB'B' was the governor (nriB) placed CHAP. I. 7-10. 27 by Cyrus over the new community in Judah and Jerusalem, and who, according to ver. 11 of the present chapter, re- turned to Jerusalem at the head of those who departed from Babylon; while we are informed (chap. ii. 2, iii. 1, 8, and iv. 3, V. 2) that Zerubbabel was not only at the head of the returning Jews, but also presided as secular ruler over the settlement of the community in Judah and Jerusalem. The identity of Sheshbazzar with Zerubbabel, which has been ob- jected to by Schrader and Noldeke, is placed beyond a doubt by a comparison of v. 16 with iii. 8, etc., v. 2 : for in v. 16 Sheshbazzar is named as he who laid the foundation of the new temple in Jerusalem ; and this, according to v. 2 and iii. 8, was done by Zerubbabel. The view, too, that Zerub- babel, besides this his Hebrew name, had, as the official of the Persian king, also a Ohaldee name, is in complete ana- logy with the case of Daniel and his three companions, who, on being taken into the service of the Babylonian king, re- ceived Chaldee names (Dan. i. 7). Zerubbabel, moreover, seems, even before his appointment of nna to .the Jewish community in Judah, to have held some office in either the Babylonian or Persian Court or State; for Cyrus would hardly have entrusted this office to any private individual among the Jews. The meaning of the word "'SHE'B' is not yet ascertained : in the LXX. it is written Sacra^aadp, ^a^a')(aa-dp, and ^ava^dcraapo^ ; 1 Esdras has Hafiavacrcrdp, or, according to better MSS., Xava^aacrdp; and Josephus, I.e., 'A^aa-adp. — Vers. 9-11. The enumeration of the vessels : 1. D'^mJS of gold 30, and of silver 1000. The word occurs only here, and is translated in the Septuagint ■^v/cTTJpe^ ; in 1 Esdr. ii. 11, a-n-ovSeta. The Talmudic explanation of Aben Ezra, " vessels for collecting the blood of the sacrificed lambs," is derived from "US, to collect, and nPD^ a lamb, but is certainly untenable. '^l^S is probably connected with iOJj^, the rabbinical ^Dip, the Syriac U-ir^, the Greek icdp- ToXXos or KdpTaXo<;, a basket (according to Suidas), KapraXo'i having no etymology in Greek ; but can hardly be derived, as by Meier, heir. Wurzelworterbuch, p. 683, from the Syriac 28 THE BOOK or EZRA. ^i^, nudavit, to make bare, the Arabic JIs/:, to make empty, to hollow, with the sense of hollow basins. 2. cspno 29. This word also occurs only here. The Sept. has -iraprj'K- Xar/IJikva (interpreting etymologically after ^?n), 1 Esdr. OviaKM, the Vulg. cultri, sacrificial knives, according to the rabbinical interpretation, which is based upon «l^n, in the sense of to pierce, to cut through (Judg. v. 26 ; Job xx. 24). This meaning is, however, certainly incorrect, being based linguistically upon a mere conjecture, and not even offering an appropriate sense, since we do not expect to find knives between vessels and dishes. Ewald {Gesch. iv. p. 88), from the analogy of niSPHD (Judg. xvi. 13, 19), plaits, supposes vessels ornamented with plaited or net work ; and Bertheau, vessels bored after the manner of a grating for censing, closed fire-pans with holes and slits. All is, however, un- certain. 3. CI^SSj goblets (goblets with covers ; comp. 1 Chron. xv. 18) 'of gold, 30; and of silver, 410. The word D'JB'D is obscure ; connected with *|p5 ^Tl^sa it can only mean goblets of a second order (comp. 1 Chron. XV. 18). Such an addition appears, however, superfluous ; the notion of a second order or class being already involved in their being of silver, when compared with the golden goblets. Hence Bertheau supposes CiBi'D to be a numeral corrupted by a false reading ; and the more so, because the sum-total given in ver. 11 seems to require a larger number than 410. These reasons, however, are not insuperable. The notion of a second order of vessels need not lie in their being composed of a less valuable metal, but may also be used to define the sort of implement; and the difference between the separate numbers and the sum-total is not per- fectly reconciled by altering D^Jty'D into d''si'K, 2000. 4. 1000 other vessels or implements. Ver. 11. "All the vessels of gold and of silver were five thousand and four hundred." But only 30 + 1000 d''^DiJX, 29 Qisi'nD, 30 + 410 covered goblets, and 1000 other vessels are enumerated, making together 2499. The same numbers are found in the LXX. Ancient interpreters reconciled CHAP. I. 11. 29 the difference by the supposition that in the separate state- ments only the larger and more valuable vessels are specified, while in the sum-total the greater and lesser are reckoned together. This reconciliation of the discrepancy is, however, evidently arbitrary, and cannot be justified by a reference to 2 Chron. xxxvi. 18, where the taking away of the greater and lesser vessels of the temple at the destruction of Jeru- salem is spoken of. In ver. 11 it is indisputably intended to give the sum-total according to the enumeration of the separate numbers. The difference between the two state- ments has certainly arisen from errors in the numbers, for the correction of which the means are indeed wanting. The error may be supposed to existin the sum-total, where, instead of 5400, perhaps 2500 should be read, which sum may have been named in round numbers instead of 2499.^ n?ijn ni?J?n oy, at the bringing up of the carried away, i.e. when they were brought up from Babylon to Jerusalem. The infinitive Niphal nipyn, with a passive signification, occurs also Jer. xxxvii. 11. '^ Ewald (Gesch. iv. p. 88) and Bertheau think they find in 1 Bsdr. ii. 12, 13, a basis for ascertaining the correct number. In this passage 1000 golden and 1000 silver tntoalua, 29 silver 6v'ittx,!ti, 30 golden and 2410 silver (pixKat, and 1000 other vessels, are enumerated (1000 + 1000 + 29 + 30 + 2410 + 1000 = 5469); while the total is said to be 5469 But 1000 golden a'?roiiiua bear no proportion to 1000 silver, still less do 30 golden (fioLhat to 2410 silver. Hence Bertheau is of opinion that the more definite statement 30, of the Hebrew text, is to be regarded as original, instead of the first 1000 ; that, on the other hand, instead of the 30 golden D''"liS3, 1000 originally stood in the text, making the total 5469. Ewald thinks that we must read 1030 instead of 1000 golden D'^BIJK (a-naiiiua), and make the total 5499. In opposition to these conjectures, we prefer abiding by the Hebrew text; for the • numbers of 1 Bsdras are evidently the result' of an artificial, yet unskil- ful reconciliation of the discrepancy. It cannot be inferred, from the fact that Ezra subsequently, at his return to Jerusalem, brought with him 20 golden dniSS, that the number of 30 such D*"liS3 given in this passage is too small. 30 . THE BOOK OF EZRA. CHAP. ir. — LIST OF THOSE WHO KETUENED FEOM BABYLON WITH ZEKUBBABEL AND JOSHUA, The title (vers. 1 and 2) announces that the list which follows it (vers. 3-67) contains the number of the men of the people of Israel who returned to Jerusalem and Judah from the captivity in Babylon, under the conduct of Zerub- babel, Joshua, and other leaders. It is composed of separate lists : of the families of the people, 3-35 ; of the priests and Levites, 36-42 ; of the Nethinims and servants of Solomon, 43-58 ; of families who could not prove their Israelite de- scent, and of certain priests whose genealogy could not be found, 59-63 ; and it closes with the sum-total of the per- sons, and of their beasts of burden, 64-67. This is followed by an enumeration of the gifts which they brought with them for the temple (vers. 68 and 69), and by a final state- ment with regard to the entire list (ver. 70). Nehemiah also, when he desired to give a list of the members of the community at Jerusalem, met with the same document, and incorporated it in the book which bears his name (chap. vii. 6-73). It is also contained in 1 Esdr. v. 7-45. The three texts, however, exhibit in the names, and still more so in the numbers, such variations as involuntarily arise in transcrib- ing long lists of names and figures. The sum -total of 42,360 men and 7337 servants and maids is alike in all three texts ; but the addition of the separate numbers in the Hebrew text of Ezra gives only 29,818, those in Nehemiah 31,089, and those in the Greek Esdras 30,143 men. In our elucidation of the list, we shall chiefly have respect to the differences between the texts of Ezra and Nehemiah, and only notice the variations in 1 Esdras so far as they may appear to conduce to a better understanding of the matter of our text. Vers. 1 and 2. Tlie title. — " These are the children of the province that went up out of the captivity, of the carrying away {i.e. of those which had been carried away), whom Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon had carried away unto Babylon, and who returned to Jerusalem and Judah, every CHAP. II. 1, 2. 31 one to his city." Id Neh. vii. 6 -"aap is omitted, through an error of transcription caused by the preceding 733 ; and fTiinipi stands instead of fTiWI, which does not, however, affect the sense. HJ^'isn is the province whose capital was Jerusalem (Neh. xi. 3), i.e. the province of Judtea as a district of the Persian empire ; so v. 8, Neh. i. 2. The Chethiv T1VJ13U3 is similar to the form Nebucadrezor, Jer. xlix. 28, and is nearer to the Babylonian form of this name than the usual biblical forms Nehucadnezzar or Nebucadrezzar. For further remarks on the various forms of this name, see on Dan. i. 1. They returned " each to his city," i.e. to the city in which he or his ancestors had dwelt before the captivity. Bertheau, on the contrary, thinks that, " though in the allotment of dwelling-places some respect would certainly be had to the former abode of tribes and families, yet the meaning cannot be that every one returned to the locality where his forefathers had dwelt : first, because it is certain (?) that all memorial of the con- nection of tribes and families was frequently obliterated, comp. below, v. 59-63 ; and then, because a small portion only of the former southern kingdom being assigned to the Ceturned community, the descendants of dwellers in those towns which lay without the boundaries of the new state could not return to the cities of their ancestors." True, how- ever, as this may be, the city of each man cannot mean that " which the authorities, in arrangirig the affairs of the com- munity, assigned to individuals as their domicile, and of which they were reckoned inhabitants in the lists then drawn up for tlie sake of levying taxes," etc. (Bertheau). This would by no means be expressed by the words, " they returned each to his own city." We may, on the contrary, correctly say that the words hold good a potiori, i.e. they are used without regard to exceptions induced by the above-named circum- stance. 1K3~it?'^, ver. 2, corresponds with the Qvjjn of ver. 1 ; hence in Neh. vii. 7 we find also the participle C^a. They came with Zerubbabel, etc., that is, under their conduct and leadership. Zerubbabel (Zopo^d^eX, bant or ^^ailj, probably abbreviated from 733 J?l"if, in Babylonia satus seu genitus) the son of Shealtiel was a descendant of the captive king Jehoia- 32 THE BOOK OF EZRA. chin (see on 1 Chron. iii. 17), and was probably on account of this descent made leader of the expedition, and royal governor of the new settlement, by Cyrus. Jeshua (JflK'.';, the subsequently abbreviated form of the name Jehoshua or Joshua, which is used Neh. viii. 17 also for Joshua the son of Nun, the contemporary of Moses) the son of Josedech (Hagg. i. 1), and the grandson of Seraiah the high priest, who was put to death by Nebuchadnezzar at Kiblah, was the first high priest of the restored cpmmunity ; see on 1 Ohron. v. 41. Besides those of Zerubbabel and Joshua, nine (or in Nehe- miah more correctly ten) names, probably of heads of fami- lies, but of whom nothing further is known, are placed here. 1. Nehemiah, to be distinguished from the well-known Nehe- miah the son of Hachaliah, Neh. i. 1 ; 2. Seraiah, instead of which we have in Neh. vii. 7 Azariah ; 3. Eeeliah, in Nehe- miah Raamiah ; 4. Nahamani in Nehemiah, Evrjvio'} in Esdras V. 8, omitted in the text of Ezra ; 5. Mordecai, not the Mor- decai of the book of Esther (ii. 5 sq.) ; 6. Bilshan ; 7. Mispar, in Nehemiah Mispereth ; 8. Bigvai ; 9. Rehum, in 1 Esdras Po'tfjLot; ; 10. Baanah. These ten, or reckoning Zerubbabel and Joshua, twelve men, are evidently intended, as leaders of the returning nation, to represent the new community as the successor of the twelve tribes of Israel. This is also unmis- takeably shown by the designation, the people of Israel, in the special title, and by the offering of twelve sin-offerings, according to the number of the tribes of Israel, at the dedi- cation of the new temple, vii. 16. The genealogical relation, however, of these twelve representatives to the twelve tribes cannot be ascertained, inasmuch as we are told nothing of the descent of the last ten. Of these ten names, one meets indeed with that of Seraiah, Neh. x. 3 ; of Bigvai, in the mention of the sons of Bigvai, ver. 14, and viii. 14; of Rehum, Neh. iii. 17, xii. 3 ; and of Baanah, Neh. x. 28 ; but there is nothing to make the identity of these persons probable. Even in case they were all of them descended from members of "the former kingdom of Judah, this is no certain proof that they all belonged also to the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, since even in the reign of Reho- CHAP. II. 3-85. 33 boam pious Israelites of the ten tribes emigrated thither, and both at and after the destruction of the kingdom of the ten tribes, many Israelites might have taken refuge and settled in Judah. The last words, ver. 2, " The number of the men of the people of Israel," contain the special title of the first division of the following list, with which the titles in vers. 36, 40, 43, and 55 correspond. They are called the people of Israel, not the people of Judah, because those who returned represented the entire covenant people. Vers. 3-35. List of the houses and families of the people. Comp. Neh. vii. 8—38. — To show the variations in names and numbers between the two texts, we here place them side by side, the names in Nehemiah being inserted in parentheses. Ezra ii. Ezra it. Neh. VII 1. The sons ofParosh, 2172 2172 2. ») » Shephatiah, . 372 872 S. )) 11 Arah, . . . . 775 652 4. )) 7J Pahath Moab, of tlie son 3 of Joshua and Joab, . 2812 2818 5. )) )> Elam, . . . . 1254 1254 6. )) )) Zattu, . 945 845 7. )) )1 Zaooai, . 760 760 8. )» n Bani (Binnui), 642 648 9. n )» Bebai, . 623 628 10. >> 1) Azgad, . 1222 2322 11. )) »» Adonikam, . 666 667 12. u 71 Bigvai, . 2056 2067 13. J) 11 Adin, . 454 655 14. )) 77 Ater of Hezekiah, 98 98 15. 1) 77 Bezai, . 323 324 16. )) 77 Jorah (Harif ), 112 112 17. 1) 77 Hashum, 223 328 18. 11 77 Gibbar (Gibeon), . 95 95 19. 11 77 Bethlehem, . 123) 56) 188 20. The men of Netophah, . 21. 11 7» Anathoth, . 128 128 22. The sons of Azmaveth (men of Beth AzmavethV 42 42 23. 11 17 Kirjath-arim, Chephira \ and Beeroth, . 743 743 24. 11 77 Ramah and Oaba, . 621 621 25. The men of Michmas, 122 122 34 THE BOOK OF EZRA. Ezra ii. Ezra ii. Neh. VII 26. The men of Bethel and Ai, 223 123 27. The sons of Nebo (Aoher), 52 52 28. Magbish, 156 wanting. 29. the other Elam, . 1254 1254 80. Harim, . 820 820 31. Lod, Hadid, and Ono, . 725 721 32. Jericho, 345 845 83. Seuaah, . 3630 3980 Total, 24,144 25,406 The differences in the names are unimportant. In ver. 6 the 1 copulative inserted between the names J?1B^] and 3Ni', both in Nehemiah and 1 Esdras, is wanting ; the name *J3 (ver. 10) is written '"133 in Nehemiah (ver. 15) ; for nni' (ver. 18), Neh. vii. 24 has 1''"in, evidently another name for the same person, Jorah having a similarity of sound with nn^'', harvest-rain, and f|''"]n with ^llh, harvest; for "I3ii (ver. 20), Neh. vii. 25 more correctly reads tiysa^ the name of the town ; and for C^V n^li? (ver. 25), Neh. vii. 29 hap the more correct form ^''')V] F\^^J> : the sons of Azmaveth (ver. 24) stands in Nehemiah as the men of Beth- Azmaveth ; while, on the other hand, for the sons of Nebo (ver. 29), we have in Nehemiah (ver. 33) the men of Nebo Acher, where "inx seems to have been inserted inadvertently, Elam Acher so soon following.^ The names Bezai, Jorah, and Hashum (vers. 17-19) are transposed in Nehemiah (vers. 22-24) thus, Hashum, Bezai, and Harif ; as are also Lod, etc., and Jericho, (vers. 33, 34) into Jericho and Lod, etc. (Nehemiah, vers. 36, 37). Lastly, the sons of Magbish (ver. 30) are omitted in Nehemiah ; and the sons of Bethlehem and the men of Netophah (vers. 21 and 22) are in Nehemiah (ver. 26) reckoned together, and stated to be 188 instead of 123 + 56 = 179. A glance at the names undoubtedly shows that those numbered 1-17 are names of races or houses: those from 18-27, and from 31-33, are as certainly names of 1 This view is more probable than the notion of Dietrich, in A. Merx Archil! fUr wissensch. Forschung des A. T., No. 8, p. 345, that by the addition nns in Nehemiah, the Nebo in Judah is distinguished from the Nebo in Reuben. CHAP. 11. S-35. 35 towns; here, therefore, inhabitants of towns are named. This series is, however, interrupted by Nos. 28-30 ; Hjirim being undoubtedly, and Magbish very probably, names not of places, but of persons ; while the equality of the number of the other, Elam 1254, with that of Elam (No. 6), seems somewhat . strange. To this must be added, that Magbish is wanting both in Nehemiah and 2 Esdras, and the other Elam in 1 Esdras ; while, in place of the sons of Harim 320, we have in 1 Esdr. v. 16, in a more appropriate position, viol 'Apofi 32. Hence Bertheau infers that Nos. 28 and 29, sons of Magbish and sons of Elam Acher (vers. 30 and 31), are spurious, and that Harim should be written ^Apm/i, and in- serted higher up. The reasons for considering these three statements doubtful have certainly some weight; but con- sidering the great unti'ustworthiness of the statements in the first book of Esdras, and the other differences in the three, lists arising, as they evidently do, merely from clerical errors, we could not venture to call them decisive. Of the names of houses or races (Nos. 1-17 and 30), we meet with many in other lists of the time of Ezra and Nehe- miali ;^ whence we perceive, (1) that of many houses only a portion returned with Zerubbabel and Joshua, the remain- ing portion following with Ezra ; (2) that heads of houses are entered not by their personal names, but by that of the house. The names, for the most pax't, descend undoubtedly from the time anterior to the captivity, although we do not meet with them in the historical books of that epoch, because those books give only the genealogies of those more important 1 In the list of those who went up with Ezra (chap, viii.), the sons of Farosh, Pahath-Moab, Adin, Elam, Shephatiah, Joab, Bebai, Azgad, AdoniktuQ, Bigvai, and, accoiding to the original text (Ezra viii. 8, 10), also the sons of Zattu and Bani. In tlie lists of those who had taken strange wives (chap, z.) we meet with individuals of the sons of Parosh, Elam, Zattu, Bebai, Bani, Pah&th-Moab, Harim, Hashum, and of the eons of Nebo. Finally, in the lists of the heads of the people in the time of Nehemiah (NeJi. x. 15 sq.) appear the names of Parosh, Pahath- Moab, Elam, Zattu, Bani, Azgad, Bebai, Bigvai, Adin, Ater, Hashum, Bezai, Harif, Harim, Anatlioth, together with others which do not occur in the list we are now treating of. 36 THE BOOK OF EZEA. personages who make a figure in history. Besides this, the genealogies in Chronicles are very incomplete, enumerating for the most part only the families of the more ancient times. Most, if not all, of these races or houses must be regarded as former inhabitants of Jerusalem. Nor can the circum- stance that the names given in the present list are not found in the Jists of the inhabitants of Jerusalem (1 Chron. ix. and Neh. xi.) be held as any vaHd objection ; for in those lists only the heads of the great races of Judah and Benjamin 'are named, and not the houses which those races com- prised. The names of cities, on the other hand (Nos. 18-33), are for the most part found in the older books of the Old Testament : Gibeon in Josh. ix. 3 ; Bethlehem in Kuth i, 2, Mic. v. 1; Netophah, 2 Sam. xxiii. 28 — see comm. on 1 Ohron. ii. 54 ; Anathoth in Josh. xxi. 18, Jer. i. 1 ; Kirjath-jearira, Chephirah, and Beeroth, as cities of the Gibeonites, in Josh. ix. 17 ; Eamah and Geba, which often occur in the histories of Samuel and Saul, also in Josh, xviii. 24, 25; Michmash in 1 Sam. xiii. 2, 5, Isa. x. 28; Bethel and Ai in Josh. vii. 2 ; and Jericho in Josh. v. 13, and elsewhere. All these places were situate in the neigh- bourhood of Jerusalem, and were probably taken possession of by former inhabitants or their children immediately after the return. Azmaveth or Beth-Azmaveth (Neh. vii. 28) does not occur in the earlier history, nor is it mentioned out of this list, except in Neh. xii. 29, according to which it must be sought for in the neighbourhood of Geba. It has not, however, been as yet discovered ; for the conjecture of Kitter, Erdk. xvi. p. 519, that it may be el-Hizme, near AnS,ta, is unfounded. Nor can the position of Nebo be certainly de- termined, the mountain of that name (Num. xxxii. 3) being out of the question. Nob or Nobe (1 Sam. xxi. 2) has been thought to be this town. Its situation is suitable ; and this view is supported by the fact that in Neh. xi. 31 sq., Nob, aiid iiot Nebo, is mentioned, together with many of the places here named; in Ezra x. 43, however, the sons of Nebo are again specified. As far as situation is concerned, Nuba, or Beit-Nuba (Kobinson's Biblical Researches, p. 189), CHAP. 11. 36-80. 37 may, as Bertlieau thinks, correspond with this town. Mag- bish was by many older expositors regarded as the name of a place, but is certainly that of a person ; and no place of such a name is known. The localities Lod, Hadid, and Ono (ver. 33) first occur in the later books of the Old Testament. On Lod and Ono, see comm. on 1 Chron. viii. 12. Tin is certainly 'ABiSd (1 Mace. xii. 38, xiii. 13), not far from Lydda, where there is still a place called el-Hadithe, ^jjk.\ (Robinson's Biblical Researches, p. 186). nWD, ver. 35, is identified by older expositors with Sevvd, vvv Mar^SoKa-epvd, which Jerome describes as terminus Judw, m septimo lapide Jerichus contra septentrionalem plagam (^Onom. ed. Lars, et Parth. p. 332 sq.) ; in opposition to which, Kobinson, in his above-cited work, identifies Magdal- Senna with a place called Mejdel, situate on the summit of a high hill about eighteen miles north of Jericho. The situation, however, of this town does not agree with the distance mentioned by Eusebius and Jerome, and the name Mejdel, i.e. tower, is not of itself sufficient to identify it with Magdal-Senna. The situation of the Senaah in question is not as yet determined ; it must be sought for, however, at no great distance from Jericho. Of the towns mentioned in the present list, we find that the men of Jericho, Senaah, and Gibeon, as well as the inhabitants of Tekoa, Zanoah, Beth- haccerem, Mizpah, Beth-zur, and Keilah, assisted at the building of the walls of Jerusalem under Nehemiah (Neh. iii. 2, 3, 7). A larger number of towns of Judah and Benjamin is specified in the list in Neh. xi. 25-35, whence we perceive that in process of time a greater multitude of Jews returned from captivity and settled in the land of their fathers. Vers. 36-39. The list of the priests is identical, both in names and numbers, with that of Neh. vii. 39-42. These are : The sons of Jedaiah, of the house of Jeshua, . 973 „ „ Immer, . . . ^ 1052 „ „ Pashur, .... 1247 „ „ Harim, . • . . 1017 Total, 1289 38 THE BOOK OF EZRA. Jedaiah is the head of the second order of priests in 1 Chron, xxiv. 7. If, then, Jedaiah here represents this order, the words "of the house of Jeshua" must not be applied to Jeshua the high priest ; the second order belonging in all probability to the line of Ithamar, and the high-priestly race, on the contrary, to that of Eleazar. We also meet the name Jeshua in other priestly families, e.g. as the name of the ninth order of priests in 1 Chron. xxiv. 11, so that it may bei the old name of another priestly house. Since, however, it is unlikely that no priest of the order from which the high priest descended should return, the view that by Joshua the high priest is intended, and that the sons of Jedaiah were a portion of the house to which Joshua the high priest be- longed, is the. more probable one. In this case Jedaiah is not the name of the second order of priests, but of the head of a family of the high-priestly race. Immer is the name of the sixteenth order of priests, 1 Chron. xxiv. 14. Pashur does not occur among the orders of priests in 1 Chron. xxiv. ; but we find the name, 1 Chron. ix. 12, and Neh. xi. 12, among the ancestors of Adaiah, a priest of the order of Malchijah ; the Pashur of Jer. xx. and xxi. being, on the contrary, called the son of Immer, i.e. a member of the order of Immer. Hence Bertheau considers Pashur to have been the name of a priestly race, which first became extensive, and took the place of an older and perhaps extinct order, after the time of David. Gershom of the sons of Phinehas, and Daniel of the sons of Ithamar, are said, viii. 2, to have gone up to Jerusalem with Ezra, while the order to which they belonged is not specified. Among the priests who had married strange wives (x. 18-22) are named, sons of Jeshua, Immer, Harim, Pashur ; whence it has been inferred " that, till the time of Ezra, only the four divisions of priests here enumerated had the charge of divine worship in the new congregation" (Bertheau). On the relation of the names in vers. 36-39 to those in Neh. x. 3-9 and xii. 1-22, see remarks on these passages. Vers. 40-58. Levites, Netldnim, and Solomon's servants. Comp. Neh. vii. 43-60. CHAP. II. 40-68. 39 Ezra. Neh. Levites : the sons of Jeshua and Kadmiel, of the sons ofHodaviah, 74 74 Singers : sons of Asaph, . . . . 128 148 Sons of the door-keepers; sons of Shallum, Ater, etc., 139 138 Nethinim and servants of Solomon, in aU, . . 392 392 Total, 733 752 The Levites are divided into three classes : Levites in the stricter sense of the word, i.e. assistants of the priests in divine worship, singers, and door-keepers ; comp. 1 Chron. xxiv. 20-31, XXV., and xxvi. 1-19. Of Levites in the stricter sense are specified the sons of Jeshua and Kadmiel of the sons of Hodaviah (7S''P'ii3'! and n^jl'iin of our text are evi- dently correct Readings; and ?K''»'ii?? and nj"j^n, Keri njl^n?, Neh, vii. 43, errors of transcription). The addition, " of the sons of Hodaviah," belongs to Kadmiel, to distinguish him from other Levites of similar name. Jeshua and Kadmiel were, according to iii. 9, chiefs of two orders of Levites in the times of Zerubbabel and Joshua. These names recur as names of orders of Levites in Neh. x. 10. We do not find the sons of Hodaviah in the lists of Levites in Chronicles. — Ver. 41. Of singers, only the sons of Asaph, i.e. members of the choir of Asaph, returned. In Neh. xi. 17 three orders are named, Bakbukiah evidently representing the order of Heman. — Ver. 42. Of door-keepers, six orders or divisions re- turned, among which those of Shallum, Talmon, and Akkub , dwelt, according to 1 Chron. ix. 17, at Jerusalem before the captivity. Of the sons of Ater, Hatita and Shobai, nothing further is known. — Ver. 43. The Nethinim, i.e. temple-bonds- men, and the servants of Solomon, are reckoned together, thirty-five families of Nethinim and ten of the servants of Solo- mon being specified. The sum-total of these amounting only to 392, each family could only have averaged from eight to nine individuals. The sons of Akkub, Hagab and Asnah (vers. 45, 46, and 50), are omitted in Nehemiah ; the name Shamlai (ver. 46) is in Neh. vii. 48 written Salmai ; and for D''D''S3, ver. 50, Neh. vii. 52 has D''Dt}'lS3, a form combined from CDIS? and W^^Sii, AU other variations relate only to differ- 40 THE BOOK OF EZUA. erces of form. Because Ziha (xn"?, ver. 43) again occurs in Neh. xi. 21 as one of the chiefs of the Nethinim, and the names following seem to stand in the same series with it, Bertheau insists on regarding these names as those of divi- sions. This cannot, however, be correct ; for Ziha is in Neh. xi. 21 the name of an individual, and in the present list also the proper names are those of iiidividuals, and only the sons of Ziha, Hasupha, etc., can be called families or divisions. Plural words alone, Mehunim and Nephisim, are names of races or nations ; hence the sons of the Mehunim signify individuals belonging to the Mehunim, who, perhaps, after the victory of King Uzziah over that people, were as prisoners of war made vassals for the service of the sanc- tuary. So likewise may the sons of the Nephisim have been prisoners of war of the Ishmaelite race B^'SJ. Most of the families hepe named may, however, have been descendants of the Gibeonites (Josh. ix. 21, 27). The servants of Solo- mon must not be identified with the Canaanite bond-servants mentioned 1 Kings ix. 20 sq., 2 Chron. viii. 7 sq., but were probably prisoners of war of some other nation, whom Solo- mon sentenced to perform, as bondsmen, similar services to those imposed upon the Gibeonites. The sons of these ser- vants are again mentioned in Neh. xi. 3. In other pas- sages they are comprised under the general term Nethinim, with whom they are here computed. Among the names, that of Dl^sn. nnaa (ver. 57), i.e. catcher of gazelles, is a sin- gular one ; the last name, ''l?tj, is in Neh. vii. 59 liON. Vers. 59 and 60. Those who went up with, but could not prove that they pertained to, the nation of Israel. Comp. Neh. vii. 61 and 62. — Three such families are named, con- sisting of 652, or according to Nehemiah of 642, persons. These went up, with those who returned, from Tel-melah (Salthill) and Tel-harsa (Thicket or Forest Hill), names of Babylonian districts or regions, the situations of which can- not be ascertained. The words also which follow, "itSK pK ana. are obscure, but are certainly not the names of individuals, the persons who went up not being specified till ver. 60. The words are names of places, but it is uncertain whether CHAP. II. 61-63. 41 the three are used to express one or three places. In favour of the notion that they designate but one locality, may be alleged that in ver. 60 only three races are named, which would then correspond with the districts named in ver. 59 : Tel-melah, Tel-harsa, and Oherub-Addan- Immer ; a race from each district joining those who went up to Jerusalem. The three last words, however, may also designate three places in close proximity, in which one of the races of ver. 60 might be dwelling. These could not show their father's house and their seed, i.e. genealogy, whether they were of Israel. DH, as ■yyell as the suffixes of DJfnt and Dni3X"n''3j tefers to the persons named in ver. 60. They could not show that the houses of Delaiah, Tobiah, and Nekoda, after which they were called, belonged to Israel, nor that they themselves were of Israelitish origin. Cler. well remarks : Judaicam religionem dudum sequeban- tur, quam ob rem se Judceos censebant ; quamvis non possent genealogicas ullas tabulas ostendere, ex quibus constaret, ex Hebrceis oriundos esse. One of these names, Nekoda, ver. 48, occurring among those of the Nethinim, Bertheau con- jectures that while the sons of Nekoda here spoken of claimed to belong to Israel, the objection was made that they might belong to the sons of Nekoda mentioned ver. 48, and ought therefore to be reckoned among the Nethinim. Similar objections may have been made to the two other houses. Although they could not prove their Israelite origin, they were permitted to go up to Jerusalem with the rest, the rights of citizenship alone being for the present withheld. Hence we meet with none of these names either in the enumeration of the heads and houses of the people, Neh. X. 15-28, or in the list Ezra x. 25-43. Vers. 61-63. Priests who could not prove themselves members of the priesthood. Comp. Neh. vii. 63-65. — Three such families are named : the sons of Habaiah, the sons of Hakkoz, the sons of Barzillai. These could not discover their family registers, and were excluded from the exercise of priestly functions. Of these three names, that of Hakkoz occurs as the seventh order of priests ; but the names 42 THE BOOK OF EZRA. alone did not suffice to prove their priesthood, this being also borne by other persons. Oomp. Neh. iii. 4, The sons of Barzillai were the descendants of a priest who had married a daughter, probably an heiress (Num. xxxvi.), of Barzillai ■ the Gileadite, so well known in the history of David (2 Sam. xvii. 27, xix. 32-39 ; 1 Kings ii. 7), and had taken her name for the sake of taking possession of her inheritance (the suffix DOB'" refers to 0133 ; see on Num. xxvii. 1-11). That by contracting this marriage he had not renounced for him- self and his descendants his priestly privileges, is evident from the fact, that when his posterity returned from cap- tivity, they laid claim to these privileges. The assumption, however, of the name of Barzillai might have cast such a doubt upon their priestly origin as to make it necessary that this should be proved from the genealogical registers, and a search in these did not lead to the desired discovery. Dana is their E'n^ "isp, Neh. vii. 5, the book or record in which their genealogy was registered. The title of this record was D''b'n'_riBnj the Enregistered : the word is in apposition to DDJia^ and the plural it<^l?3 agrees with it, while in Neh. vii. 64 the singular NSpj agrees with Dana. They were declared to be polluted from the priesthood, i.e. they were excluded from the priesthood as polluted or unclean. The construction of the Pual vf by number, i.e. counted ; comp. 1 Ohron. ix. 28, xxiii. 31, etc. — Ver. 5. And afterward, i.e. after the feast of tabernacles, they offered the continual, i.e. the daily, burnt-offering, and (the offerings) for the new moon, and all the festivals of the Lord (the annual feasts). Di^jJ must be inserted from the context before D'?''in^. to complete the sense. "And for every one that willingly offered a free-will offering to the Lord." naiJ is a burnt-offering which was offered from free inclination. Such offerings might be brought on any day, but were chiefly presented at the annual festivals after the sacrifices prescribed by the law ; comp. Num. xxix. 39. — In ver. 6 follows the supplementary remark, that the sacrificial worship began from the first day of the seventh month, but that the foundation of the temple of the Lord 1 Bertheau, on the contrary, cannot understand the meaning of this sentence, and endeavours, by an alteration of the text after 1 Esdras, to make it, signify that some of the people of the countries came with the purpose of obstructing the building of the altar, but that the Israelites ■were able to effect the erection because a fear of God came upon the neighbouring nations, and rendered them incapable of hostile inter- ference. 52 THE BOOK OF EZRA. was not yet laid. This forms a transition to what follows.^ — Ver. 7. Preparations were also made for the rebuilding of the temple ; money was given to hewers of wood and to masons, and meat and drink (i.e. corn and wine) and oil to the Sidonians and Tyrians {i.e. the Phoenicians ; comp. 1 Chron. xxii. 4), to bring cedar trees from Lebanon to the sea of Joppa {i.e. to the coast of Joppa), as was formerly done by Solomon, 1 Kings v, 20 sq., 2 Chron. ii. 7 sq. ti''B'13, according to the grant of Cyrus to tbem, i.e. according to the permission given them by Cyrus, sc. to re- build the temple. For nothing is said of any special grant from Cyrus with respect to wood for building. li''B'"! is in ^ Bertheau, comparing ver. 6 with ver. 5, incorrectly interprets it as meaning: "From the first day of the seventh month the offering of thank-offerings began (comp. ver. 2) ; then, from the fifteenth day of the second month, during the feast of tabernacles, the burnt-offerings prescribed by the law (ver. 4).; but the daily burnt-offerings were not recommenced till after the feast of tabernacles, etc. Hence it was not from the first day of the seventh month, hut subsequently to the feast of tabernacles, that the worship of God, so far as this consisted in burnt- offerings, was fully restored." The words of the cursive manuscript, however, do not stand in the text, but their opposite. In ver. 2, not thank-offerings (d''n3T or D''D^B'),but burnt-offerings (ni^Jj), are spoken of, and indeed those prescribed in the law, among which the daily morn- ing and evening burnt-offering, expressly named in ver. 3, held the first place. With this, ver. 5, " After the feast of tabernacles they offered the continual burnt-offering, and the burnt-offerings for the new moon," etc., fully harmonizes. The offering of the continual, i.e. of the daily, burnt-offerings, besides the new moon, the feast-days, and the free-will offerings, is named again merely for the sake of completeness. The right order is, on the contrary, as follows : The altar service, with the daily morning, and evening sacrifice, began on the first day of the seventh month ; this daily sacrifice was regularly offered, according to the law, from then till the fifteenth day of the second month, i.e. till the beginning of the feast of tabernacles ; all the offerings commanded in the law for the separate days of this feast were then offered according to the numbers prescribed ; and after this festival the sacrifices ordered at the new moon and the other holy days of the year were offered, as well as the daily burnt-offerings, — none but these, neither the sacrifice on the new moon (the first day of the seventh month) nor the sin-offer- ing on the tenth day of the same month, i.e. the day of atonement, having been offered before this feast of tabernacles. CHAP. III. 8-13. 53 the O. T. av. \ey. ; in Chaldee and rabbinical Hebrew, NB'n and ''En mean facuUatem habere ; and IB*"! power, permission. Vers. 8-13. The foundation of the temple laid. — Ver. 8. In the second year of their coming to the house of God at Jerusalem, i.e. after their arrival at Jerusalem on their re- turn from Babylon, in the second month, began Zerubbabel and Joshua to appoint the Levites from twenty years old and upwards to the oversight of the work (the building) of the house of the Lokd. That is to say, the work of build- ing was taken in hand. Whether this second year of the return coincides with the second year of the rule of Cyrus, so that the foundations of the temple were laid, as Tlieo- phil. Antioch. ad Autolio, lib. 3, according to Berosus, re- lates, in the second year of Cyrus, cannot be determined. For nothing more is said in this book than that Cyrus, in the first year of his reign, issued the decree concerning the return of the Jews from Babylon, whereupon those named in the list, chap, ii., set out and returned, without any further notice as to whether this also took place in the first year of Cyrus, or whether the many necessary pre- parations delayed the departure of the first band till the following year. The former view is certainly a possible though not a very probable one, since it is obvious from ii. 1 that they arrived at Jerusalem and betook themselves to their cities as early as the seventh month of the year. Now the period between the beginning of the year and the seventh monthj i.e. at most six months, seems too short for the pub- lication of the edict, the departure, and 'the arrival at Jeru- salem, even supposing that the first year of Cyrus entirely coincided with a year of the Jewish calendar. The second view, however, would not make the difference between the year of the rule of Cyrus and the year of the return to Jerusalem a great one, since it would scarcely amount to half a year. ^T'PJ!?!' . . . 1?D[?, they began and appointed, etc., they began to appoint, i.e. they began the work of build- ing the temple by appointing. Those enumerated are — 1. Zerubbabel and Joshua, the two rulers : 2. The remnant of their brethren = their other brethren, viz. a, the priests and 54 THE BOOK OF EZEA. Levites as brethren of Joshua ; h, all who had come out of captivity, i.e. the men of Israel, as brethren of Zerubbabel. These together formed the community who appointed the Levites to preside over, i.e. to conduct the building of the temple. For the expression, comp, 1 Chron. xxiii. 4-24. — Ver. 9. The Levites undertook this appointment, and executed the commission. The singular Iby?} stands before a plural subject, as is frequently the case when the verb precedes its subject. Three classes or orders of Levites are named : 1. Jeshua with his sons and brethren ; 2. Kadmiel with his sons, the sons of Hodaviah ; 3. The sons of Hena- dad, their sons and brethren. Jeshua and Kadmiel are the two heads of orders of Levites already named (ii. 40). From a comparison of these passages, we perceive that T\y\T\\ 133 is a clerical error for rf^^^r^ (or n»1in) '33. This more precise designation is not " a comprehensive ap- pellation for all hitherto enumerated" (Bertheau), but, as is undoubtedly obvious from ii. 40, only a more precise designation of the sons of Kadmiel. "i???, as one, i.e. all, without exception. The third class, the sons of Henadad, are not expressly named in ii. 40 among those who re- turned from Babylon ; but a son of Henadad appears, Neh. iii. 24 and x. 10, as head of an order of Levites. The naming of this order after the predicate, in the form of a supplementary notice, and unconnected by a 1 cop., is strik- ing. Bertheau infers therefrom that the construction of the sentence is incorrect, and desires to alter it according to 1 Esdr. V. 56, where indeed this class is named immediately after the two first, but nimi 133 is separated from what pre- cedes; and of these riTini ''33 is made a fourth class, vloi 'ItuSa Tov 'HXiaSovS. All this sufficiently shows that this text cannot be regarded as authoritative. The? striking position or supplementary enumeration of the sons of Hena- dad may be explained by the fact to which the placing of nnw after mini ys points, viz. that the two classes, Jeshua with his sons and brethren, and Kadmiel with his sons, were more closely connected with each other than with the sons of Henadad, who formed a third class. The D^l^n CHAP. III. 8-13. 55 at the end of the enumeration offers no argument for the transposition of the words, though this addition pertains not only to the sons of Henadad, but also to the two first classes, en nb'j; is plural, and only an unusual reading for ''B'J? ; see on 1 Chron. xxiii. 24. — Ver. 10. When the builders laid the foundation of the temple of the Lord, they (Zerubbabel and Joshua, the heads of the community) set the priests in their apparel with trumpets, and the Levites the sons of Asaph with cymbals, to praise the Lord after the ordinance of David. The perf. IIB^.I, followed by an imperf. con- nected by a Vav consecutive, must be construed : When they laid the foundations, then. d''B'3pOj clothed, sc. in their robes of office ; comp. 2 Chron. v. 12, xx. 21. 't!' ^^ as 1 Chron. XXV. 2. On ver. 11, comp. remarks on 1 Chron. xvi. 34, 41, 2 Chron. v. 13, vii. 3, and elsewhete. Older expositors (Clericus, J. H. Mich.), referring to Ex. xv. 21, understand ??n3 wy^ of the alternative singing of two choirs, one of which sang, " Praise the Lord, for He is good ; " and the other responded, " And His mercy endureth for ever." In the present passage, however, there is no decided allusion to responsive singing; hence (with Bertheau) we take W^_ in the sense of, "They sang to the Lord with hymns of thanksgiving." Probably they sang such songs as Ps. cvi., cvii., or cxviii., which commence with an invita- tion to praise the Lord because He is good, etc. All the people, moreover, raised a loud shout of joy. '"iPilJ nyinn is repeated in ver. 13 by nriDE'ri nv^nn, IDin ?j?, on account of the foflnding, of the foundation-laying, of the house of the Lord. IDin as in 2 Chron. iii. 3. — Ver. 12. But many of the priests and Levites, and chief of the people, the old men who had seen (also) the former temple, at the founda- tion of this house before their eyes (i.e. when they saw the foundation of this house laid), wept with a loud voice. Solomon's temple was destroyed e.g. 588, and the foundation of the subsequent temple laid B.C. 535 or 534 : hence the older men among those present at the latter event might pos- sibly have seen the former house ; indeed, some (according to Hagg. ii. 2) were still living in the second year of Darius 56 THE BOOK OF EZRA, Hystaspis who had beheld the glory of the earlier building. Upon these aged men, the miserable circumstances under which the foundations of the new temple were laid produced so overwhelming an impression, that they broke into loud weeping, iipj? is connected by its accents with the words preceding : the former temple in its foundation, i.e. in its sta- bility. But this can scarcely be correct. For not only does , no noun ID', foundation, occur further on ; but even the following words, " of this house before their eyes," if severed from iip^3, have no meaning. Hence (with Aben Ezra, Cler., Berth., and others) we connect iip;3 with the parenthetical sentence following, " when the foundation of this house was laid before their eyes ;" and then the suffix of the infinitive i^DJ expressly refers to the object following, as is sometimes the case in Hebrew, e.g. 2 Chron. xxvi. 14, Ezra ix. 1, and mostly in Chaldee ; comp. Ew. § 209, c, " But many were in rejoicing and joy to raise their voices," i.e. many so joyed and rejoiced that they shouted aloud. — Ver. 13. And the people could not discern (distinguish) the loud cry of joy in the midst of (beside) the loud weeping of the people ; for the people rejoiced with loud rejoicings, and the sound was heard afar off. The meaning is not, that the people could not hear the loud weeping of the older priests, Levites, and heads of the people, because it was overpowered by the Joud rejoicings of the multitude. The verse, on the contrary, contains a statement that among the people also (the assembly exclusive of priests, Levites, and chiefs) a shout of joy and a voice of weeping arose ; but that the shouting for joy of the multitude was so loud, that the sounds of rejoicing and weeping could not be distinguished from each other. I'Sn, with the ace. and ?, to perceive something in the presence of (along with) another, i.e. to distinguish one thing from another. " The people could not discern " means : Among the multitude the cry of joy could not be distinguished from the noise of weeping. P^nnDP ly as 2 Chron. xxvi. 15. CHAP. IV. 1-5. 57 CHAP. IV. HINDRANCES TO BUILDING THE TEMPLE. ACCUSATIONS AGAINST THE JEWS CONCEENING THE BUILDING OF THE WALLS OF JEEUSALEM. Vers. 1-5. The adversai'ies of the Jews prevent the build- ing of the temple till the reign of Darius (vers. 1, 2). When the adversaries of Judali and Benjamin heard that the com- munity which had returned from captivity were beginning to rebuild the temple, they came to Zerubbabel, and to the chiefs of the people, and desired to take part in this work, because they also sacrificed to the God of Israel. These adversaries were, according to ver. 2, the people whom Esar- haddon king of Assyria had settled in the neighbourhood of Benjamin and Judah. If we compare with this vevse the information (2 Kings xvii. 24) that the kings of Assyria brought men from Cuthah, and from Ava, and from Hamath, and from Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Samaria, and that they took possession of the depopulated kingdom of the ten tribes, and dwelt therein; then these adversaries of Judah and Benjamin are the inhabitants of the former kingdom of Israel, who were called Samaritans after the central-point of their settlement, njian ija^ sons of the captivity (vi. 19, etc., viii. 35, x. 7, 16), also shortly into npian, e.g. i. 11, .are the Israelites returned from the Babylonian captivity, who composed the new com- munity in Judah and Jerusalem.. Those who returned with Zerubbabel, and took possession of the dwelling-places of their ancestors, being, exclusive of priests and Levites, chiefly members of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, are called, especially when named in distinction from the other inhabitants of the land, Judah and Benjamin. The adversaries give the reason of their request to share in the building of the temple in the words : " For we seek your God as ye do ; and we do sacrifice unto Him since the days of Esarhaddon king of Assyria, which brought us up hither." The words Q*n?f ''^O?^. ^\ ai'e variously explained. Older expositors take the Chethiv N?]. as a negative, and make D'naf to mean the offering of sacrifices to idols, both because 58 THE BOOK OF EZRA. ^h is a negative, and also because the assertion that they had sacrificed to Jahve would not have pleased the Jews, gtda dejiciente templo non debuennt sacrificare ; and sacrifices not offered in Jerusalem were regarded as equivalent to sacri- fices to idols. They might, moreover, fitly strengthen their case by the remark : " Since the days of Esarhaddon we offer no sacrifices to idols." On the other hand, however, it is arbitrary to understand HDJ, without any further defini- tion, of sacrificing to idols ; and the statement, " We already sacrifice to the God of Israel," contains undoubtedly a far stronger reason for granting their request than the circum- stance that they do not sacrifice to idols. Hence we incline, with older translators (LXX., Syr., Vulg., 1 Esdras), to regard N? as an unusual form of i^, occui-ring in several places (see on Ex. xxi. 8), the latter being also substituted in the present instance as Keri. The position also of ^ before wniK points the same way, for the negative would certainly have stood with the verk On Esarhaddon, see remarks on 2 Kings xix. 37 and Isa. xxsvii. 38. — Ver. 3. Zerubbabel and the other chiefs of Israel answer, " It is not for you and for us to build a house to our God ;" i.e.. You and we cannot together build a house to the God who is our God ; " but we alone will build it to Jahve the God of Israel, as King Cyrus commanded us." '^T\\ WTON, we together, i.e. we alone (without your assistance). By the emphasis placed • upon "our God" and "Jahve the God of Israel," the asser- tion of the adversaries, " We seek your God as ye do," is indirectly refuted. If Jahve is the God of Israel, He is not the God of those whom Esarhaddon brought into the land. The appeal to the decree of Cyrus (i. 3, comp. iii. 6, etc.) forms a strong argument for the sole agency of Jews in building the temple, inasmuch as Cyrus had in- vited those only who were of His (Jahve's) people (i. 3). Hence the leaders of the new community were legally justi- fied in rejecting the proposal of the colonists brought in by Esarhaddon. For the latter were neither members of the people of Jahve, nor Israelites, nor genuine worshippers of Jahve. They were non-Israelites, and designated themselves CHAP. IV. 1-5. 59 as those whom the king of Assyria had brought into the land. According to 2 Kings xvii. 24, the king of Assyria brought colonists from Babylon, Cuthah, and other places, and placed them in the cities of Samaria instead of the children of Israel. Now we cannot suppose that every Israelite, to the very last man, was carried away by the Assyrians; such a de- portation of a conquered people being unusual, and indeed impossible. Apart, then, from the passage, 2 Chron. xxx. 6, etc., which many expositors refer to the time of the de- struction of the kingdom of the ten tribes, we find that in the time of King Josiah (2 Chron. xxxiv. 9), when the foreign colonists had been for a considerable period in the country, there were still remnants of Manasseh, of Ephraim, and of all Israel, who gave contributions for the house of God at Jerusalem; and also that in 2 Kings xxiii. 15-20 and 2 Chron. xxxiv. 6, a remnant of' the Israelite inhabit- ants still existed in the former territory of the ten tribes. The eighty men, too, who (Jer. xli. 5, etc.) came, after the destruction of the temple, from Shechem, Shiloh, and Samaria, mourning, and bringing offerings and incense to Jerusalem, to the place of the house of God, which was still a holy place to them, were certainly Israelites of the ten tribes still left in the land, and who had probably from the days of Josiah adhered to the temple worship. These rem- nants, however, of the Israelite inhabitants in the territories of the former kingdom of the ten tribes, are not taken into account in the present discussion concerning the erection of the temple ; because, however considerable their numbers might be, they formed no community independent of the colonists, but were dispersed among them, and without political influence. It is not indeed impossible "that the colonists were induced through the influence exercised upon them by the Israelites living in their midst to prefer to the Jews the request, ' Let us build with you ;' still those who made the proposal were not Israelites, but the foreign colonists" (Bertheau). These were neither members of the chosen people nor worshippers of the God of Israel. At their first settlement (2 Kings xvii. 24, etc.) they evidently 60 THE BOOK OF EZEA. feared not the Lord, nor did they learn to do so till the king of Assyria, at their request, sent them one of the priests who had been carried away to teach them the manner of worship- ping the God of the land. This priest, being a priest of the Israelitish calf-worship, took up his abode at Bethel, and taught them to worship Jahve under the image of a golden calf. Hence arose a worship which is thus described, 2 Kings xvii. 29-33 : Every nation made gods of their own, and put them in the houses of the high places which the Samaritans, i.e. the former inhabitants of the kingdom of the ten tribes, had made, every nation in their cities wherein they dwelt. And besides their idols Nergal, Asima, Nibhaz, Tartak, they feared Jahve ; they sacrificed to all these gods as well as to Him. A mixed worship which the prophet- historian (2 Kings xvii. 34) thus condemns: "They fear not the Lord, and do after their statutes and ordinancesj not after the law and commandment which the Lord commanded to the sons of Jacob." And so, it is finally said (ver. 41), do also their children and children's children unto this day, i.e. about the middle of the Babylonian captivity ; nor was it till a subsequent period that the Samaritans renounced gross idolatry. The rulers and heads of Judah could not acknowledge that Jahve whom the colonists worshipped as a local god, together with other gods, in the houses of the high places at Bethel and elsewhere, to be the God of Israel, to whom they were building a temple at Jerusalem. For the question was not whether they would permit Israelites who earnestly sought Jahve to participate in His worship at Jerusalem, — a permission which they certainly would have refused to none who sincerely desired to turn to the Lord God, — but whether they would acknowledge a mixed popu- lation of Gentiles and Israelites, whose worship was more heathen than Israelite, and who nevertheless claimed on its , account to belong to the people of God.^ To such, the 1 Tho opinion ot Knobel, that those who preferred the request were not the heathen colonists placed in the cities of Samaria by the Assyrian king (2 Kings xvii. 24), hut the priests sent by the Assyrian king to Samaria (2 Kings xvii. 27), has been rejected as utterly unfounded by CHAP. IV. 1-6. 61 rulers of Judah could not, without unfaithfulness to the Lord their God, permit a participation in the building of the Lord's house. Ver. 4. In consequence of this refusal, the adversaries of Judah sought to weaken the hands of the people, and to deter them from building, n^n Dy^ the people of the land, i.e. the inhabitants of the country, the colonists dwelling in the land, the same who in ver. 1 are called the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin. ''H^l followed by the participle ex- presses the continuance of the inimical attempts. To weaken the hands of any one, means to deprive him of strength and courage for action ; comp. Jer. xxxviii. 4. niin^ dj? are the inhabitants of the realm of Judah, who, including the Ben- jamites, had returned from captivity, Judah being now used to designate the whole territory of the new community, as be- fore the captivity the entire southern kingdom ; comp. ver. 6. Instead of the Chethiv C!???*?, the Keri offers Qyi]?!?, from Iria, Piel, to terrify, to alarm, 2 Ohron. xxxii. 18, Job xxi. 6, because the verb nba nowhere else occurs; but the noun '""i^??, fear, being not uncommon, and presupposing the existence of a verb 373, the correctness of the Chethiv cannot be im- pugned.; — Ver. 5. And they hired counsellors against them, to frustrate their purpose (of building the temple). Q''"}^D'i still depends on the ^^^1 of ver. 4. 130 is a later ortho- graphy of "1?!', to hire, to bribe. Whether by the hiring of CSj;!'" we are to understand the corruption of royal counsel- lors or ministers, or the appointment of legal agents to act against the Jewish community at the Persian court, and to endeavour to obtain an inhibition against the erection of the temple, does not appear. Thus much only is evident from the text, that the adversaries succeeded in frustrating the continuance of the building " all the days of Koresh," i.e. the yet remaining five years of Cyrus, who was for the space of seven years sole ruler of Babylon ; while the machinations against the building, begun immediately after the laying of Bertheau, who at the same time demonstrates, against Fritzsche on 1 . Esdr. V. 65, the identity of the unnamed king of Assyria (2 Kings xvii. 24) -with Esarhaddon. 62 " THE BOOK OF EZEA. its foundations in the second year of the return, had the effect, in the beginning of the third year of Cyrus (judging from Dan. X. 2), of putting a stop to the work until the reign of Darius, — in all, fourteen years, viz. five years of Cyrus, seven and a half of Cambyses, seven months of the Pseudo-Smerdis, and one year of Darius (till the second year of his reign). Vers. 6-23. Complaints against the Jews to Kings AJiash- verosh and Artachshasta. — The right understanding of this section depends upon 'the question, What kings of Persia are meant by Ahashverosh and Artachshasta? while the answer to this question is, in part at least, determined by the contents of the letter, 8-16, sent by the enemies of the Jews to the latter monarch. — Ver. 6. And in the reign of Ahashverosh, in the beginning of his reign, they wrote an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusa- lem. nJLJK', not to mention the name of the well, Gen. xxvi. 21, occurs here only, and means, according to its derivation from t^^, to bear enmity, the enmity ; hence here, the accu- sation. 'aB'^ ?y belongs to niE)B>, not to wna ; the letter was sent, not to the inhabitants of Judah, but to the king against the Jews; The contents of this letter are not given, but may be inferred from the designation n3BB>. The letter to Artach- shasta then follows, 7-16. In his days, i.e. during his reign, wrote Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of their companions. W^^?, for which the Keri offers the ordinary form 1''ipi^3, occurs only here in the Hebrew sections, but more frequently in the Ohaldee (comp. iv. 9, 17, 23, v. 3, and elsewhere), in the sense of companions or fellow-citizens; according to Gesenius, it means those who bear the same surname (Kunje) together with another, though Ewald is of a different opinion; see § 117, 6, note. The singular would be written nw (Ewald, § 187, d). And the writing of the letter was written in Aramaean {i.e. with Aramaean cha- racters), and interpreted in {i.e. translated into) Aramaean. llW'j is of Aryan origin, and connected with the modern Persian ^JjJ^y nmeishten, to write together; it signifies in Hebrew and Chaldee a letter : comp. ver. 18, where i'JjriB'a CHAP. IV. 6-23. 63 is used for sniJN of ver. 11. Bertheau translates ana tJJjiB'an, copy of the letter, and regards it as quite identical with the Chaldee Ss*iJi"]3X t^.?'']?, ver. 11 ; he can hardly, how- ever, be in the right. 2ri3 does not mean a transcript or copy, but only a writing (comp. Esth. iv. 8). This, too, does away with the inference " that the writer of this statement had before him only an Aramaean translation of the letter contained in the state-papers or chronicles which he made use of." It is not ana, the copy or writing, but IJl??'?'?, the letter, that is the subject of fTiDns S^inD, interpreted in Ara- maean. This was translated into tlie Aramaean or Syrian tongue. The passage is not to be understood as stating that the letter was drawn up in the Hebrew or Samaritan tongue, and then translated into Aramaean, but simply that the letter was not composed in the native language of the writers, but in Aramaean. Thus Gesenius rightly asserts, in his Thes. p. 1264, et lingua aramcea scripta erat; in saying which DJ^J^ does not receive the meaning concepit, expressit^ but retains its own signification, to interpret, to translate into another language. The writers of the letter were Samari- tans, who, having spruilg from the intermingling of the Babylonian settlers brought in by Esarhaddon and the remnants of the Israelitish population, spoke a language more nearly akin to Hebrew than to Aramaean, which was spoken at the Babylonian court, and was the official lan- guage of the Persian kings and the Persian authorities in Western Asia. This Aramaean tongue had also its own characters, differing from those of the Hebrew and Samari- tan. This is stated by the words T'pnx 3in3, whence Ber- theau erroneously infers that this Aramsean .writing was written in other than the ordinary Aramaean, and perhaps in Hebrew characters. This letter, too, of Bishlara and his companions seems to be omitted. There follows, indeed, in ver. 8, etc., a letter to King Artachshasta, of which a copy is given in vers. 11-16; but the names of the writers are different from those mentioned in ver. 7. The three names, Bishlam, Mithredath, and Tabeel (ver. 7), cannot be identi- fied with the two names Kehum and Shimshai (ver. 8). 64 THE BOOK OF EZRA. When we consider, however, that the writers named in ver. 8 were high oiBcials of the Persian king, sending to the monarch a written accusation against the Jews in their own and their associates' names, it requires but little stretch of the imagination to suppose that these personages were acting at the instance of the adversaries named in ver. 7, the Samaritans Bishlam, Mithredath, and Tabeel, and merely inditing the complaints raised by these opponents against the Jews. This view, which is not opposed by the 3n3 of ver. 7, — this word not necessarily implying an autograph, — commends itself to our acceptance, first, because the notion that the contents of this letter are not given finds no analogy in ver. 6, where the contents of the letter to Ahashverosh are sufficiently hinted at by the word n3DE>; while, with regard to the letter of ver. 7, we should have not a notion of its purport in case it were not the same which is given in ver. 8, etc.^ Besides, the statement concerning the Aramaaan composition of this letter would have been utterly purpose- less if the Aramaean letter following in ver. 8 had been an entirely different one. The information concerning the language in which the letter was written has obviously no other motive than to introduce its transcription in the original Aramsean. This conjecture becomes a certainty through the fact that the Aramaean letter follows in ver. 8 without a copula of any kind. If any other had been intended, the 1 copulative would no more have been omitted here than in ver. 7. The letter itself, indeed, does not begin till ver. 9, ^ The weight of this argument is indirectly admitted by Ewald (Gesch. iv. p. 119) and Bertheau, inasmuch as both suppose that there is a long gap in the narrative, and regard the Aramseau letter mentioned in ver. 7 to have been a petition, on the part of persons of consideration in the community at Jerusalem, to the new king, — ^two notions which imme- diately betray themselves to be the expedients of perplexity. The supposed "long gaps, which the chronicler might well leave even in transcribing from his documents" (E\v.), do not explain the abrupt com- mencement of ver. 8. If a petition from the Jewish community to the king were spoken of in ver. 7, the accusation against the Jews in ver. 8 would certainly have been alluded to by at least a ^ adversative, or some other adversative particle. CHAP IV. 8-16. . 65 while ver. 8 contains yet another announcement of it. This circumstance, however, is explained by the fact that the writers of the letters are other individuals than those named in ver. 7, but chiefly by the consideration that the letter, together with the king's answer, being derived from an Aramaean account of the building of the temple, the intro- duction to the letter found therein was also transcribed. Ver. 8, etc. The writers of the letter are designated by titles which show them to have been among the higher functionaries of Artachshasta. Kehum is called Q3/0 pya, dominus consilii v, decreti, by others eonsiliarius, royal coun- sellor, probably the title of the Persian civil governor (erro- neously taken for a proper name in LXX., Syr., Arab.) ; Shimshai, ''^^D, the Hebrew isiD, scribe, secretary. N033 is interpreted by Rashi and Aben Ezra by "101*3 i??'*'?, as we shall say ; KDp is in the Talmud frequently an abbrevia- tion of "10N3 or ■iO''J, of like signification with lbs? : as follows. — Ver. 9. After this introduction we naturally look for the letter itself in ver. 9, instead of which we have (9 and 10) a full statement of who were the senders ; and then', after a parenthetical interpolation, " This is the copy of the letter," etc., the letter itself in ver. 11. The statement is rather a clumsy one, the construction especially exhibiting a want of sequence. The verb to H^. is wanting ; this follows in ver. 11, but as an anacoluthon, after an enumeration of the names in 9 and 10 with in?B'. The sentence ought properly to run thus: "Then {i.e. in the days of Artachshasta) Eehum, etc., sent a letter to King Artachshasta, of which the following is a copy : Thy servants, the men on this side the river," etc. The names enumerated in vers. 9 and 10 were undoubtedly all inserted in the superscription or pre- amble of the letter, to give weight to the accusation brought against the Jews. The author of the Chaldee section of the narrative, however, has placed them first, and made the copy of the letter itself begin only with the words, " Thy ser- vants," etc. First come the names of the superior officials, Rehum and Shimshai, and the rest of their companions. The latter are then separately enumerated: the Dinaites, E 66 THE BOOK OF EZRA. LXX. Aeivahi, — so named, according to the conjecture of Ewald {Gesch. iii. p. 676), from the Median city long after- wards called Deinaver (Abulf. G4ogr. ed. Paris, p. 414) ; the Apharsathchites, probably the Pharathiakites of Strabo (xv. 3. 12) (JJapriTaKrivoi, Herod, i, 101), on the borders of Persia and Media, described as being, together with the Elymaites, a predatory people relying on their mountain fastnesses ; the Tarpelites, whom Junius already connects with the Tdirovpoi dwelling east of Elymais (Ptol. vi. 2. 6) ; the Apharsites, probably the Persians (s''D"iB with x prosthetic); the Ar- chevites, probably so called from the city '^'}^, Gen. x. 10, upon inscriptions Uruk, the modern Warka; the ''!'.«3, Babylonians, inhabitants of Babylon ; the Shushanchites, i.e. the Susanites, inhabitants of the city of Susa ; ^)^'^., in the Keri ^.''.i^'^, the Dehavites, the Grecians {Adoi, Herod, i. 125) ; and lastly, the Elamites, the people of Elam or Elymais. Full as this enumeration may seem, yet the motive being to name as many races as possible, the addition, " and the rest of the nations whom the great and noble Osnapper brought over and set in the city of Samaria, and the rest that are on this side the river," etc., is made for the sake of enhancing the statement. Prominence being given both here and ver. 17 to the city of Samaria as the city in which Osnapper had settled the colonists here named, the " nations brought in by Osnapper" must be identical with those who, according to ver. 2, and 2 Kings xvii. 24, had been placed in the cities of Samaria by King Esarhaddon. Hence Os- napper would seem to be merely another name for Esarhaddon. But the names Osnapper (LXX. 'Aaaevaipdp) and Asar- haddon (LXX. 'Aaapahdv) being too different to be iden- tified, and the notion that Osnapper was a second name of Asarhaddon having but little probability, together with the circumstaHce that Osnapper is not called king, as Asar- haddon is ver. 2, but only " the great and noble," it is more likely that he was some high functionary of Asarhaddon, who presided over the settlement of eastern races in Samaria and the lands west of the Euphrates. " In the cities," or at least the preposition 3, must be supplied from the preceding nnpa CHAP. IV. 8-16. 67 before rinrji najj nsB' : and in the rest of the territory, or in the cities of the rest of the territory, on this side of Euphrates. "^^J?? trans, is to be understood of the countries west of Eu- phrates ; matters being regarded from the point of view of the settlers, who had been transported from the territories east, to those west of Euphrates. njJ'31 means "and so forth," and hints that the statement is not complete. On comparing the names of the nations here mentioned with the names of the cities from which, according to 2 Kings xvii. 24, colonists were brought to Samaria, we find the inhabitants of most of the cities there named — Babylon, Cuthah, and Ava — here comprised under the name of the country as N''?a3, Babylonians ; while the people of Hamath and Sepharvaim may fitly be included among "the rest of the nations," since certainly but few colonists would have been transported from the Syrian Hamath to Samaria. The main divergence between the two passages arises from the mention in our , present verse, not only of the nations planted in the cities of Samaria, but of all the nations in the great region on this side of Euphrates (f^^LJ? 1?V). AH these tribes had similar interests to defend in opposing the Jewish community, and they desired by united action to give greater force to their representation to the Persian monarch, and thus to hinder the people of Jerusalem from becoming powerful. And certainly they had some grounds for uneasiness lest the remnant of the Israelites in Palestine, and in other regions on this side the Euphrates, should combine with the Jerusalem community, and the thus united Israelites should become sufficiently powerful to oppose an effectual resistance to their heathen adversaries. On the anacoluthistic connection of ver. 11, see remarks above, p. 65. ^'fl?, vers. 11, 23, ch. v. 6, vii. 11, and frequently in the Targums and the Syriac, written }JB'ns Esth. iii. 14 and iv. 8, is derived from the Zendish paiti (Sanscr.praii) and genghana (in Old-Persian thanhana), and signifies properly a counterword, i.e. counterpart, copy. The form with 1 is either a corruption, or formed from a compound with fra ; comp. Gildemeister in the Zeitschr. fur die Kunde des Morgenl. iv. p. 210, and Haug in Ewald's 68 THE BOOK OF EZRA. bibl. Jalij'b. v. p. 163, etc.— The copy of the letter begins with ^l^'nay,' thy servants, the men, etc. The Ohethib ^jnay is the original form, shortened in the Keri into '^'^^V, Both forms occur elsewhere; comp. Dan. ii. 29, iii. 12, and other passages. The nawi, etc., here stands for the full enumeration of the writers already given in ver. 9, and also for the customary form of salutation.— Vers. 12-16. The letter. Ver. 12. "Be it known unto the king." On the form ti)JV for W.n^, peculiar to biblical Ohaldee, see remarks on Dan. ii. 20. " Which are come up from thee," i.e. from the territory where thou art tarrying ; in other words, from the country beyond Euphrates. This by no means leads to the inference, as Schrader sup- poses, that these Jews had been transported from Babylon to Jerusalem by King Artachshasta. p?P answers to the Hebrew n?V, and is used like this of the journey to Jeru- salem. " Are come to us, to Jerusalem." ^'^''pj;, to us, that is, into the parts where we dwell, is more precisely defined by the words "to Jerusalem." "They are building the rebellious and bad city, and are setting up its walls and digging its foundations." Instead of Nrin^D (with Kamets and Metheg under n) the edition of J. H. Mich, has KPillO, answering to the stat. abs. N^^O, ver. 15; on the other hand, the edition of Norzi and several codices read '^'Jl'^o, the feminine of 1^"i». For NHB^iKa Norzi has Nfity^S?, from t^'KB, a contraction of B'''Na. For ^hbsm niB> must be read, accord- ing to the Keri, l^^a?*" a^^w. The Shaphel ':h:ip, from '?% means to complete, to finish. TtS'K, bases, foundations. ItS'li; may be the imperf. Aphel of mn, formed after the example of D''^l for O'lpl, omitting the reduplication, ts^nj. cm means to sew, to sew together, and may, like asn, be understood of repairing walls or foundations. But it is more likely to be the imperf. Aphel of Disn, in Syriac ^^L, and in the Talmud, to dig, to dig out, fodit, excavavit— to dig out the foundations for the purpose of erecting new buildings. — Ver. 13. « Now be it known unto the king, that if this city be built up and . . . they will not pay toll, tribute, and custom, and it (the city) will at last bring damage to the king." The three CHAP. IV. 8-16. 69 words ^?ni m n'n3» occur again, ver. 20 and vii. 24, in. this combination as designating the different kinds of imposts. iTjiD, with resolved Dagesh forte, for rriD (ver. 20), signifies measure, then tax or custom measured to every one. v3, probably a duty on consumption, excise; ^?n, a toll paid upon roads by travellers and their goods. The word QnSN^ which occurs only here, and has not been expressed by old translators, depends upon the Pehlevi word Dn'l^5 : it is con- nected with the Sanscrit apa, in the snperl. apama, and sig- nifies at last, or in the future; comp. Hang, p. 156. CJ^?^?, a Hebraized form for T???, ver. 15, is perhaps only an error of transcription. — Ver. 14. " Now, because we eat the salt of the palace, and it does not become us to see the damage of the king, we send (this letter) and make known to the king." npo TOD, to salt salt = to eat salt. To eat the salt of the palace is a figurative expression for : to be in the king's pay. See this interpretation vindicated from the Syriac and Persian in Gesen. thes. p. 790.^ ni"ijf, deprivation, emptying, here injury to the I'oyal power or revenue. ?I^"1X, participle of ^■]S, answering to the Hebrew ^1^, means • fitting, becoming. — ^Ver. 15. " That search may be made in the book of the chronicles of thy fathers, so shalt thou find in the book of the Chronicles that this city has been a rebellious city, and hurtful to kings and countries, and that they have from of old stirred up sedition within it, on which account this city was (also) destroyed." ii?3*. is used impersonally : let one seek, let seai'ch be made. ''^"^^^ "i^Oj ^°°^ °^ records, is the public royal chronicle in which the chief events of the history of the realm were recorded, called Esth. vi. 1 the book of the records of daily events. T/iy fathers are the predecessors of the king, i.e. his predecessors in government ; therefore not merely the Median and Persian, but the Chaldean and Assyrian kings, to whose dominions the Persian monarchs had succeeded. "iflRB'K, a verbal noun from the 1 Luther, in translating " all we who destroyed the temple," follows the Rabbis, who, from the custom of scattering salt upon destroyed places, Judg. ix. 45, understood these words as an expression figurative of destruction, and Ki)3'n as the temple. 70 THE BOOK OF EZRA. Ithpeal of f^f, rebellion. ND^P riDl' 1«?, from the days of eternity, i.e. from time immemorial, nnl' is in the construc- tive state, plural, formed from the singular KO^'. This form occurs only here and ver. 19, but is analogous with the Hebrew poetical form T\So] for D^pj.—Ver. 16. After thus casting suspicion upon the Jews as a seditious people, their adversaries bring the accusation, already raised at the begin- ning of the letter, to a climax, by saying that if Jerusalem is rebuilt and fortified, the king will lose his supremacy over the lands on this side the river, nj^ bapb, on this account, for this reason, that the present inhabitants of the fortified city Jerusalem, are like its former inhabitants, thou wilt have no portion west of Euphrates, i.e. thou wilt have nothing more to do with the countries on this side the river — wilt forfeit thy sway over these districts. Vers. 17-22. The royal answer to this letter. NDJriE) — a word which has also passed into the Hebrew, Eccles. viii. 11, Esth. i. 20 — is the Zend, patigama, properly that which is to take place, the decree, the sentence; see on Dan. iii. 16. 'i "ID^ nKOT still depends upon 3 : those dwelling in Samaria and the other towns on this side the river. The royal letter begins with njJai D^B*, " Peace," and so forth. nj|3 is abbre- viated from nJW. — Ver. 18. " The letter which you sent to us has been plainly read before me." E'lS^, part. pass. Pael, corresponds with the Hebrew part. Plel B'^bP. made plain, adverbially, plainly, and does not signify "translated into Persian." — Ver. 19. " And by me a command has been given, and search has been made; and it has been found that this city from of old hath lifted itself (risen) up against kings," etc. K|':riD, lifted itself up rebelliously, as (in Hebrew) in 1 Kings i. 5. — Ver. 20. "There have been powerful kings in Jerusalem, and (rulers) exercising do- minion over the whole region beyond the river" (westward of Euphrates). This applies in its full extent only to David and Solomon, and in a less degree to subsequent kings of Israel and Judah. On ver. 206, comp. ver. 13. — Ver. 21. " Give ye now commandment to hinder these people (to keep them from the work), that this city be not built until CHAP. IV. 24. 71 command (sc. to build) be given from me." tjfc'Pi";, Ithpeal of D'ltJ'. — Ver. 22. "And be warned from committing an oversight in this respect," Le. take heed to overlook nothing in this matter (T'ni, instructed, warned). " Why should the damage become great (i.e. grow), to bring injury to kings ? " — Ver. 23. The result of this royal command. As soon as the copy of the letter was read before Rehum and his asso- ciates, they went up in haste to Jerusalem to the Jews, and hindered them by violence and force. Vp^ with N prosthetic only here, elsewhere H^"^. ( = y^"ij), arm, violence. Bertheau translates, " with forces and a host ;'' but the rendering of ynis or iUiiJ by " force" can neither be shown to be correct from Ezek. xvii. 9 and Dan. xi. 15, 31, nor justified by the translation of the LXX., iv "inroi'} ical Swd/iei. Ver. 24. " Then ceased the work of the house of God at Jerusalem. So it ceased unto the second year of Darius king of Persia." With this statement the narrator returns to the notice in ver. 5, that the adversaries of Judah suc- ceeded in delaying the building of the temple till the reign of King Darius, which he takes up, and now adds the more precise information that it ceased till the second year of King Darius. The intervening section, vers. 6-23, gives a more detailed account of those accusations against the Jews made by their adversaries to kings Ahashverosh and Artach- shasta. If we read vers. 23 and 24 as successive, we get an impression that the discontinuation to build mentioned in ver. 24 was the effect and consequence of the prohibition obtained from King Artachshasta, through the complaints brought against the Jews by his officials on this side the river; the IHX? of ver. 24 seeming to refer to the IH^ of ver. 23. Under this impression, older expositors have with- out hesitation referred the contents of vers. 6-23 to the inter- ruption to the building of the temple during the period from Cyrus to Darius, and understood the two names Ahashverosh and Artachshasta as belonging to Cambyses and (Pseudo) Smerdis, the monarchs who reigned between Cyrus and Darius. Gi'ave objections to this view have, however, been raised by Kleinert (in the Beitrdgen der Dorpatet' Prof, d. 72 THE BOOK OF EZRA. Theol. 1832, vol. i.) and J. W. Schultz {Cyrus der Grosse, in Tlieol. Stud. u. Krit. 1853, p. 624, etc.), who have sought to prove that none but the Persian kings Xerxes and Ar- taxerxes can be meant by Ahashverosh and Artachshasta, and that the section vers. 6-23 relates not to the building of the temple, but to the building of the walls of Jerusalem, and forms an interpolation or episode, in which the historian makes the efforts of the adversaries of Judah to prevent the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem under Xerxes and Artaxerxes follow immediately after his statement of their attempt to hinder the building of the temple, for the sake of presenting at one glance, a view of all their machinations against the Jews. This view has been advocated not only by Vaihinger, " On the Elucidation of the History of Israel after the Captivity," in the Tlieol. Stud. u. Krit. 1857, p. 87, etc., and Bertheau in his Commentary on this passage, but also by Hengstenberg, Christol. iii. p. 143, Auberlen, and others, and opposed by Ewald In the 2d edition of his Gesch. Israels, iv. p. 118, where he embraces the older explanation of these verses, and A. Koehler on Haggai, p. 20. On reviewing the arguments advanced in favour of the more modern view, we can lay no weight at all upon the circumstance that in 6-23 the building of the temple is not spoken of. The contents of .the letter sent to Ahashverosh (ver. 6) are not stated ; in that to Artachshasta (vers. 11—16) the writers certainly accuse the Jews of building the rebellious and bad city (Jerusalem), of setting up its walls and digging out its foundations (ver. 12) ; but the whole document is so evidently the result of ardent hatred and malevolent suspicion, that well-founded objections to the truthfulness of these accusa- tions may reasonably be entertained. Such adversaries might, for the sake of more surely attaining their end of obstructing the work of the Jews, easily represent the act of laying the foundations and building the walls of the temple as a rebuilding of the town walls. The answer of the king, too (vers. 17-22), would naturally treat only of such mat- ters as the accusers had mentioned. The argument derived from the names of the kings is of far more importance. CHAP. IV. 24. 73 The name t5'i"i1B'nN (in ver. 6) occurs also in the book of Esther, where, as is now universally acknowledged, the Persian king Xerxes is meant ; and in Dan. ix. 1, as the name of the Median king Kyaxares. In the cuneiform in- scriptions the name is in Old-Persian Ksayarsa, in Assyrian Hisiarsi, in which it is easy to recognise both the Hebrew form'Ahashverosh, and the Greek forms '3,ep^, they prophesied to (not against) the Jews ; ?J? as in Ezek. xxxvii. 4, = ?N, Ezek. xxxvii. 9, xxxvi. 1. The Jews in Judah and Jerusalem, in contradistinction to Jews dwelling elsewhere, especially to those who had remained in Babylon, lin^y belongs to R?K DK'S, in the name of God, who was upon them, who was come upon them, had manifested Himself to them. Comp. Jer. xv. 16. — Ver. 2. "Then rose up Zerubbabel . . . and Joshua . . . and began to build the house of God at Jerusalem, and with them the prophets of God helping them." The beginning to build is (iii. 6, etc.) the commencement of the building properly so called, upon the foundations laid, iii. 10 ; for what was done after this foundation-laying till a stop was put to the work, was so unimportant that no further notice is taken of it. The " prophets of God" are those mentioned ver. 1, viz. Haggai, and Zechariah the son, i.e. grandson, of Iddo, for his father's name was Berechiah (see Introd. to Zechariah). Haggai entered upon his work on the fii'st day of the sixth month, in the second year of Darius; and his first address made such an impression, that Zerubbabel and Joshua with the people set about the intermitted work of building as early as the twenty-fourth day of the same month (comp. Hagg. i. 1 and 14 sq.). Two months later, viz. in the eighth month of the same year, Zechariah began to exhort the people to turn sincerely to the Lord their God, and not to relapse into the sins of their fathers. CHAP. V. 3-5. 77 Vers. 3-5. When the building was recommenced, the governor on this side Euphrates, and other royal officials, evidently informed of the undertaking by the adversaries of the Jews, made their appearance for the purpose of investi- gating matters on the spot. \^^''^V. ^^^., came to them, to the two above-named rulers of the community at Jerusalem. Tatnai (LXX. QavOavat) was nna, viceroy, in the provinces west of Euphrates, i.e., as correctly expanded in 1 Esdras, of Syria and Phoenicia, to which Judaea with its Pecha Zerubbabel was subordinate. With him came Shethar- Boznai, perhaps his secretary, and their companions, their subordinates. The royal officials inquired: "Who has commanded you to build this house, and to finish this wall?" The form Kpap here and ver. 13 is remarkable, the infinitive in Chaldee being not X33, but wap; compare vers. 2, 17, and vi. 8. Norzi has both times W|?, as though the Dagesh forte were compensating for an omitted 0- "^"iB'Nj which occurs only here and ver. 9, is variously explained. The Vulgate, the Syriac, and also the Eabbins, translate : these walls. This meaning best answers to the context, and is also linguistically the most correct. It can hardly, how- ever, be derived (Gesenius) from "lE'S^ but rather from' JB'N^ in Chaldee IIB'Nj firm, strong — walls as the strength or firm- ness of the building. The form K3"i^X has arisen from XJE'^, and is analogous to the form nJB'3.' — Ver. 4. Then told we them after this manner ("?■??, iv. 8), what were the names of the men who were building this building. From KJIDK, we said, it is obvious that the author of this account was an eye-witness of, and sharer in, the work of building. There is, not a shadow of reason for altering W"!OK into li?^_, or into the participle pOi? (Ew., Berth., and others) ; the eiiTOy, Gen. xxiv. 12 sq.), to build this house, i.e. that this house may be built : namely, (1 expl.) of the royal moneys, of the custom (n'lD, see remarks on iv. 13) on this side the river, let- expenses (the cost of building) be punctually given to these men, that there be no hindrance." N^tsni) xb-n. CHAP. VI. 6-12. 87 that there be no cessation or leisure from work, i.e. that the work is not to be discontinued. On the construction of the N? with the following infinitive, comp. Dan. vi. 9. The Vulgate renders the sense correctly b/ ne impediatur opus, — ^Ver. 9. " And what is needful, both young bullocks and rams and lambs, for the burnt-offerings of the God of heaven, wheat, salt, wine, and oil, according to the word of the priests at Jerusalem {i.e. as the priests shall require for the service of God), let it be given them day by day without fail." HD is joined with the plur. fem.-of the partic. \^f^, and is defined by the enumeration which follows, n^b, properly the anoint- ing, then oil as the means of anointing. On SW and l\n?, see remarks on iv. 12. w NP"''i, that there be no failure. — Ver. 10. The end the king had in view in all this follows : " That they (the priests) may offer sacrifices well-pleasing to the God of heaven, and pray for the life of the king and of his sons." rnifT'J (comp. Dan. ii. 46) are sacrifices agree- able to God, nirfj nn (Lev. i. 9, 13, and elsewhere), i.e. sacrifices pleasing to God. Cyrus had commanded the re- building of the temple at Jerusalem, because he acknow- ledged the God of Israel to be the God of heaven, who had given him the kingdoms of the earth (i. 2). Darius was treading in his footsteps by also owning the God of the Jews as the God of heaven, and desiring that the blessing of this God might rest upon himself and his dynasty. Such an acknowledgment it was possible for the Persian kings to make without a renunciation of theijr polytheism. They could honour Jahve as a mighty, nay, as the mightiest God of heaven, without being unfaithful to the gods of their fathers ; while the Jews could also, in the interest of their own welfare, pray and offer sacrifices in the temple of the LOED for the life of the king to whom God had caused them to be subject (comp. Jer. xxix. 7). Accordingly we find that in after times sacrifices were regularly offered for the king on appointed days: comp. 1 Mace. vii. 33, xii. 11 ; 2 Mace. iii. 35, xiii. 23 ; Joseph. Antiq. xii. 2. 5, and else- where. — Ver. 11. To inculcate obedience to his command, Darius threatens to punish its transgression with death: 88 THE BOOK OF EZRA. " If any one alters this command, let a beam be torn from his house, and let him be fastened hanging thereon." To alter a command means to transgress or abolish it. VK, a piece of wood, a beam. fl''i?T, raised on high, is in Syriac the usual word for crucified, and is to be so understood here. KTO, to strike, with '^V, strike upon, fasten to, nail to. This kind of capital punishment was customary among the Assy- rians (Diod. Sic. ii. 1), the ancient Persians, and many other nations, but seems to have been executed in different man- ners among different people. Among the Assyrians it generally consisted in the impalement of the delinquent upon a sharp strong wooden post; comp. Jjajard, Nineveh and Babylon, p. 355, and Nineveh and its Remains, p. 379, with the illustration fig. 58. According to Herod, iii. 159, Darius impaled as many as 3000 Babylohians after the cap- ture of their city {aveerKoXoinae). Crucifixion proper, how- ever, i.e. nailing to a cross, also occurred among the Persians ; it was, however, practised by nailing the body of the criminal to a cross after decapitation ; see the passages from Hero- dotus in Brissonii de regio Persarum princip. 1. ii. c. 215. "And let his house be made a dunghill." See remarks on Dan. ii. 5 and 2 Kings x. 27. — Ver. 12. Finally, Darius adds the threat: "The God who has caused His name to dwell there, destroy every king and (every) people that shall stretch forth the hand to alter (this command), to destroy this house of God at Jerusalem." The expression, " the God who has caused His name to dwell there," is indeed specifi- cally Israelitish (comp. Deut. xii. 11, xiv. 23; Jer. vii. 12; Neh. i. 9), and therefore undoubtedly originated with the Jewish historian ; but the matter itself, the wish that God Himself would destroy him who should injure His temple, re- calls the close of the inscription of Bisitun, wherein the judg- ments of Ahuramazda are imprecated upon him who should dare to injure the image and inscription, and his blessing invoked upon him who should respect them (Berth.). Vers. 13-18. The execution of the royal decree, the com- pletion of the building, and the dedication of the new temple. — Ver. 13. Tatnai and his associates diligently executed the CHAP. VI. 13-18. 89 commands of Darius. " Because Darius the king sent (Le. despatched to them the letter, whose contents have just been given, 6—12), they speedily acted accordingly in the manner stated" (i'??!). — Ver. 14. The elders of the Jews, moreover, built, and they prospered through the prophesy- ing of Haggai and Zachariah, who thereby effected the resumption of the work, and promised them success. 3 is used of the rule by which, or manner in which anything is done. " They built and finished (the building) according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the command of Gyrus, Darius, and Artachshasta, kings of Persia." The naming of Artachshasta presents some diffi- culty; for since it is impossible to conceive that a prede- cessor of Darius is intended by a name which follows the name of that monarch, none but Artaxerxes Longimanus can be meant, and he did not reign till long after the completion of the temple. Cleric, and J. H. Mich, ex- plain the mention of his name by the consideration that Artaxerxes, by his edict (vii. 15, 21), contributed to the maintenance, though not to the building, of the temple.* It may in this instance be questionable whether the name NnsJ'B'nmN was added by the author of the Chaldee section, or by Ezra when he introduced this into his book. We believe the latter to be the correct view, because the Chaldee section, to judge by the W']'?*', v. 4, was com- posed by one who lived contemporaneously with the build- ing of the temple, while from the date of the completion of the temple to the Seventh year of Artaxerxes fifty-seven years elapsed. — Ver. 15. And this house was finished on the third day of the month Adar (the twelfth month), which is the sixth year of the reign of King ■ Darius. N^S^B', ac- cording to the Keri ''V'tJ', with the K dropped, is the Shaphel 1 ^^ Nam etsi," remarks Calovius ia J. H. Mich., adnotatt. uber. ad h. I., " non ad structuram templi conduxerit proprie edictum Artaxerxis, qux Darii secundo anno incepia et sexto dbsoluta fuit, v. 15 ad orna- menta tamen et additamenta earn spectasse duUum non est: quss ai ipso, ceu rege post Cyrum et Darium erga Judasos Persarum omninm lenignis- simo, profecta hie celeiraiur." Similarly but more briefly explained by Clericus. 90 THE BOOK OF EZRA. of NV*, to bring a thing to an end, to finish it. , The form N''S''tJ' is not a participle pass, formed from the Shaphel (Gesen.), for this would be «''?''??'"?, but a Hebraized passive form of the Shaphel in the meaning of the Targumistic Ishtaphal, like Vn'^n^ Dan. iii. 13, and nwn, Dan. vi. 18, with the active vn;!!, Dan. vi. 17. In the Targums ''^^ has mostly an active, and only in a few passages the intransi- tive meaning, to end, to be at the end ; comp. Levy, cliald. Wbrterbuch, s.v} — Vers. 16, 17. The sons of Israel, more exactly the priests and the Levites, and the rest of the sons of the captivity, kept the dedication of this house of God with joy. nsjn 1DJ! = the Hebrew n33n nW, to celebrate the dedication (2 Chron, vii. 9). "^JIO?? Hebrew "inDa'3; see Neh. viii. 10. They brought for the dedication a hundred bullocks, two hundred rams, four hundred lambs as burnt- offerings, and twelve he-goats for a sin-offering for all Israel, according to the number of the tribes of Israel, because the temple was intended for the entire covenant people, whose return to the Lord and to the land of their fathers, according to the predictions of the prophets, was hoped for (comp. e.g. Ezek. xxxvii. 15 sq., Jer. xxxi. 27 sq.), not, as older expositors thought, because certain families of the ten tribes, who had before settled in Judah, were also among those who returned (J. H. Mich, ad h. I.). — Ver. 18. At the same time, the priests and. Levites were appointed, according to their classes and divisions, to the service of the temple, that they might henceforth fulfil their oflSce, each class in its week (2 Chron. xxiii. 4 ; 2 Kings xi. 9). ^D*i?ni corresponds with the Hebrew n^DV'l, iii. 8, and elsewhere. ^ Instead of the " third day,'' which the LXX. also has, in accord- ance with the Hebrew text, 1 Eadr. vii. 6 gives the three-and-twen- tieth day of the month Adar, — a statement which Bertheau arbitrarily insists upon regarding as the original reading, because " the view that the compiler altered the third into the twenty-third day, because it seemed to him more fitting to assume an eight days' celebration of the dedication (comp. 1 Kings viii. 60, 2 Chron. xxix. 18), and to fill up therewith also the eight last days of the year, is rather far-fetched." Such a view, however, would be entirely consistent with the whole spirit of 1 Esdras. CHAP. VI. 19-22. 91 As Bertheaii justly remarks, " The services of public wor- ship, which after the completion of the temple were to be performed by the priests and Levites, according to ancient ordinance, are here spoken of." With these words the Chaldee section closes. Vers. 19-22. Celebration of the feast of the passover, and of the feast of unleavened bread, in the year following the dedi- cation, as an historical testimony to the fact that the wor- ship of God with its festivals was regularly carried on in the new temple. — Ver. 19. The feast of the passover, on the fourteenth day of the first month, took place only a few weeks after the dedication of the temple. The reason given in ver. 20 — for the priests and Levites had purified them- selves without exception (in???, like iii. 9) ; they were all clean, and they killed the passover for all the sons of the captivity {i.e. the laity "who had returned from exile), and for their brethren the priests, and for themselves — ^has in this connection the meaning : Then the congregation celebrated the passover, and they were able to keep and to eat the pass- over, because the priests had purified themselves that they might be qualified for performing the office incumbent upon them of sprinkling the blood ; and the Levites were also clean, that they might be able to kill the lambs for the whole congregation (comp. the remarks on 2 Chron. xxx. 17, etc., and xxxv. 11, 14). From the days of Josiah, it seems to have been customary for the Levites to take the place of the heads of families (Ex, xii. 6, etc.) in slaughter- ing the passover lambs for the whole community, both priesthood and laity : for the laity, that no person who was unclean might kill the paschal lamb; for the priests, that their labours might be lightened, the sprinkling of blood and the offering of sacrifices occupying them, far into the night (2 Chron, xxxv. 11, 14, 15), And this custom was followed at this time also. The priests are called Di!]''nK, brethren of the Levites, as in 2 Chron. xxix. 34, xxxv, 15, — Ver. 21. Thus the sons of Israel who had returned from captivity, and all that had separated them- selves unto them from the uncleanness of the heathen of 92 TOE BOOK OF EZRA. the country to seek Jahve the God of Israel, could eat the passover. pN? V.iJ = Y^.^\} '?3?, x. 2, 11, are the heathen races dwelling in Palestine. The expression is not essentially different from nisntiri '^W, ix. 1 sq., iii. 3, and is only dis- tinguishable therefrom, inasmuch as the latter appellation includes not merely the heathen inhabitants of Palestine, but also the heathen of other lands, as the Moabites, Ammonites, Egyptians, etc. (ix. 1 sq.). Those who had separated themselves from the uUcleanness of the heathen to them (the Jews) to seek Jahve, are not proselytes from heathenism (Aben Ezra, Kashi, Clericus, and others), but Israelites, who had till now lived in Palestine, and mingled with the heathen inhabitants of the land. They were de- scended from those Israelites whom the kings of Assyria and Babylon had not carried away from the realms of Israel and Judah, and who with respect to religion had combined heathenism and the worship of Jahve (2 Kings xvii. 32, etc.), and thus defiled themselves with heathen impurity, but who now, after the erection of the temple, joined themselves to the new community, for the purpose of worshipping with them the God of their fathers in His temple, according to the law of Moses. For, as Bertheau rightly remarks, " in the days of Ezra the princes of the new community complain that the laity, the priests, and Levites do not separate from the people of the lands (ix. 1) ; reference is made to the dangers which threaten the Israelites, because they dwell in the holy land among the unclean (ix. 10). To separate from the uncleanness of the nations means to renounce intermarriage and other connec- tion with them, x. 2, 10. They are Israelites who are sum- moned, X. 11, to separate from the peoples of the land ; the seed of Israel is, in Neh. ix. 2, separated from the sons of , the stranger, and in Neh. x. 29 they who separate from them are evidently Israelites, for, when they bind them- selves to walk according to the law of God, they are said to join their brethren, i.e. their fellow-countrymen." Hence in this passage also we cannot but regard those who sepa- rated themselves as Israelites, dissolving their connection CHAP. VII. 1-10, 93 with the heathen for the sake of the God of Israel. — Ver. 22. Hereupon they kept the feast of unleavened bread for seven days with joy ; for the Lord had made them joyful, and turned to them {i.e. had made them joyful by turning to them) ■ the heart of the king of Assyria. With regard to the expression, comp. 2 Ohron. xx. 27, Neh. xii. 43. The king of Assur is the Persian king Darius, who as ruler of the former realm of Assyria is thus designated. The turning of this king's heart to them consisted in this, that their hands were strengthened for the work of the house of God, i.e. that through the goodwill of the king they were enabled to complete the building of their temple, and to restore the worship of the God of Israel. On Pjn ? ^'T"^*-i comp. 1 Sam. xxiii. 19. II.— THE EETUEN OF EZRA THE SCRIBE FROM BABYLON TO JERUSALEM, AND HIS ENTRY UPON HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES THERE.— Chap. VII.-X. In the seventh year of the reign of King Artaxerxes Longimanus, Ezra the priest and scribe returned with certain priests, Levites, and other Israelites from Babylon to Jerusalem, furnished with a royal commission to provide for the worship of God, and the observance of the law, according to the ordinance of God, by the community, chap. vii. and viii. This mission he began to execute by sending away such heathen women as were married to Israelites. CHAP. VII. — Ezra's return and commission. Vers. 1-10 form the introduction to the narrative which follows of Ezra's return to Jerusalem and his ministry there, and speak in general terms of himself and his arrival at Jerusalem with a band of exiles. They are followed, vers. 11-26, by a copy of the royal commission, and a thanks- 94 THE BOOK OF EZRA. giving, vers. 27, 28, on the part of Ezra, for the mercy of God bestovyed upon him. Vers. 1-6. What follows is slightly combined with the former occurrences by the formula "after these things," without any more exact chronological definition ; comp. Gen. XV. 1, xxii. 1, and elsewhere. Between the dedication of the temple in the sixth year of Darius and the arrival of Ezra in Jerusalem, a period of fifty-seven years had elapsed. "In the reign of Artachshasta king of Persia, went up Ezra," etc. The verb of the subject X^?V does not follow till ver. 6, where, after the interposition of the long genealogy, vers. 1-5, the distant subject is again taken up in S'lJJf '?, we also make known to you (it is made known to you). These words also are addressed to the treasurers, as.levyers of taxes on this side the river. That, with regard to all priests, . . . and (other) mini- sters of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose upon them toll, tribute, or custom. The Nn?N nn ^npB are not worshippers in the house of God, but they who do service in the house of God. The expression comprises any servants of the temple who might have been omitted in the classes enumerated. On 'U1 v3 n^JO, comp. iv. 13. CpB' N?, (any one) has no right, with an infinitive following : it is allowed to no one to do. f'PIP from sp"!, Targ. for D^B*. On this matter, compare Josephus, Ant. xii. 3. 3, according to which Antiochus the Great freed the priests and Levites from taxation. — ^Ver. 25, etc. Finally, Ezra is empowered to appoint over his whole people (all the Jews) on this side the rivei", judges who know the law of God, and to inflict severe penalties upon those who transgress it. — Ver. 25. " Thou, Ezra, after the wisdom of thy God which is in thy hand (^T3 ^T like ver. 14), set magistrates and judges, which may judge all the people that are on this side the river, namely all such as know the laws of thy God, and teach ye them that know them not." The form *3p is imper. Pael for CHAP. VII. 27, 28. 101 '30, the A sound probably passing in rapid speech into the flatter E sound. '^All the people on this side the river" is limited to Israelites or Jews by the further particulars, " who know the law of thy God," etc. These are to receive from Ezra judges, viz. such as are acquainted with the law, i.e. Israelite judges, and thus to be placed under the jurisdiction established at Jerusalem. The sentence, "and, they who know it (the law) not, them teach ye, make them acquainted with it," does not refer to the heathen, but to born Israelites or Jews, who, living among the heathen, had not hitherto made the Mosaic law the rule of their lives. Such were the judges to constrain to the observance and obedience of the law. — Ver. 26. But whosoever will not do the law of thy God, and the law of the king, let a court be speedily (1^3») held on his account (i.e. let him be brought to justice, and punished). This, too, applies chiefly to such as were Is- raelites born. The law of the king is the present edict, the commission therein entrusted to Ezra : whoever opposes, neglects, or transgresses it, shall be condemned, whether to death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment. ]\! ...\\} = the Hebrew DS . . . CN = sive . . ; sive. lE'iE' (Keri ''?'if ), rooting out (from K'^B', to root out), i.e. banishment, exilium (Vulg.), not TraiSeia (LXX.). Vers. 27 and 28. This royal commission granted to the Jews all they could possibly desire from the heathen gover- nors of the country, for the establishment and furtherance of their civil and religious polity. By granting these privi- leges, Artaxerxes was not only treading in the footsteps of Cyrus and Darius Hystaspes, but even going beyond these princes in granting to the Jews a jurisdiction of their own. Without a magistrate who was one of themselves, the Jewish community could not well prosper in their own land ; for the social and religious life of Israel were so closely connected, that heathen magistrates, however well-inten- tioned, were incapable of exercising a beneficial influence upon the welfare of the Jews. Hence Ezra, having thus reported the royal commission, adds a thanksgiving to God for having put such a thing into the king's heart, namely, 102 THE BOOK OF EZRA. to beautify the house of the Lord, and for having granted him favour before the king and his counsellors. The sen- tence nen '•^Vl. is a continuation of the preceding infinitive sentence in the tempus finit. ? before '''?.^v3 is the ? com- prehensive. Ezra names the beautifying of the house of God as the occasion of his thanksgiving, not only because this formed the chief matter of the royal favour, but also because the re-establishment of divine worship vi^as the re- establishment of the moral and religious life of the com- munity. " And I felt myself strengthened, and gathered together (so that I gathered together) the heads of Israel to go up with me (to Jerusalem)." Ezra assembled the heads, i.e. of houses, as fellow-travellers, because their decision would be a rule for the families at the head of which they stood. With their heads, the several races and families determined to return to the land of their fathers. CHAP. VIII. — LIST OF THOSE HEADS OF HOUSES WHO RE- TURNED WITH EZRA, AND ACCOUNT OF THE JOURNEY. Vers. 1-14. A list of tliose heads of Jiouses who returned with Ezra from Babylon to Jerusalem. Compare the parallel list, 1 Esdr. viii. 28-40.— Ver. 1. The title: "These are the heads of the houses, and (this is) their genealogy, who went up with me." D^^nhK "B-KT for Dn-nhs-lT'a "'E'S-i, as frequently. Dfc'n^rin'i, " and their genealogy," is added, be- cause in the list following the heads of the different houses are not merely enumerated according to their own names, but the names of the races to which they belonged are also stated. — Ver. 2. Priests and descendants of David. Of priests, Gershom of the sons of Phinehas, and Daniel of the sons of Ithamar. Gershom and Daniel are the names of heads of priestly houses, and " sons of Phinehas and sons of Ithamar " designations of races. Phinehas was the son of the high priest Eleazar, the son of Aaron, and Ithamar a younger son of Aaron, 1 Chron. v. 30 and 29. This does not signify that only the two priests Gershom and Daniel went up with Ezra; for in ver. 24 he chose twelve from CHAP. VIII. 1-14. 103 among the chief of the priests, who went up with him, to have charge of the gifts (Bertheau). The meaning is, that Gershom and Daniel, two heads of priestly houses, went up, and that the house of Gershom belonged to the race of Phinehas, and that of Daniel to the race of Ithamar. A Daniel is named among the priests in Neh. x. 7, but whether he is identical with the Daniel in question does not appear. Of the sons (descendants) of David (the king), Hattush, as head of a house. A Hattush, son of Hashabniah, occurs Neh. iii. 10, and a priest of this name Neh. x. 5 and xii. 2. Hattush also holds the first place among the sons of Shemaiah - enumerated 1 Chron. iii. 22, who probably were among the descendants of David. It seems strange that the numbers neither of the priests nor of the sons of David who went up with Ezra should be given, since from ver. 3 onwards, in the case of the houses of lay races, the numbers of those who returned to the home of their ancestors is regularly stated. — Vers. 3-14. Twelve lay houses are named both in the present text and in 1 Esdr. viii. 30-40. In ten cases the names of the races, which are uniformly introduced with "'33D, are identical in both texts, viz. Parosh, Pahath-Moab, Adin, Elam, Shephatiah, Joab, Bebai, Azgad, Adonikam, and Bigvai. On the other hand, it appears surprising, 1st, that in the first house mentioned, before the name '^l']^], besides "of the sons of Parosh," we have also ny^E' ''isg (ver. 3), while before all the other names we find only "of the sons of" one individual ; 2dli/, that in ver. 5, after fi^^SB' ^i3, instead of a name of the head of a house, only Ben Jahaziel follows ; 3dli/, that in ver. 10 also, after fT'DibE' \33K)'i, we have merely Ben Josiphiah, the names themselves being apparently omitted in these two last cases. This conjecture is corro- borated by a comparison with the LXX. and 1 Esdr. viii., which shows, moreover, that it is not the personal name of the head of the house, but the name of the race, which has been lost. For hii''in'< p rT'ijaE' yao, ver. 5, we find in the LXX. airo T&v vl&v Za66r]<; Zexevia^ vtos MJjwjX, and in 1 Esdr. viii. 32, e« tS>v vi&v Za66rjr\inn iisj?, " and with Zechariah, his genealogy of 150 males," i.e. with him his race, consisting of 150 males, registered in the genealogy of the race. In the CHAP. VIII. 1-14. 105 case of the names which follow, the number only is given after the briefer expression iSV- A review, then, of the twelve races, according to the re- storation of the original text in vers. 5 and 10, presents us with names already occurring in the list of the races who came from Babylon with Zerubbabel, ii. 3-15, with the exception of the sons of Joab, ver. 9, who are wanting in chap, ii., where, on the other hand, several other races are enumerated. Bertheau seeks to identify the sons of Joab, ver. 9, with the sons of Joab who in ii. 6 are reckoned with the sons of Pahath-Moab, and to explain their special enu- meration in the present list, by the conjecture that the one house subsequently separated into the two houses of Paliath- Moab and Joab. This is, indeed, possible ; but it is quite as probable that only one portion or branch of the sons (de- scendants) of Joab was combined with the race of the sons of Pahath-Moab, and that the rest of the hne Joab formed a separate house, no family of which returned with Zerub- babel. The occurrence of the other races in both lists is to be explained by the circumstance that portions of them returned with Zerubbabel, and that the rest did not follow till Ezra's departure.— Ver. 13. The addition CJnnN, last (comp. 2 Sam. xix. 12), is thus explained by J. H. Mich. : respectu eorum qui primum cum Zorohdbele sub Cyro in patnam redierunt c. ii. 13. Bertheau, however, considers this explanation untenable, because D^jnns stands in the present series only with the sons of Adonikam, while it is never- theless certain, that many families belonging also to other races than this had returned with Zerubbabel, in comparison with whom all who returned with Ezra might be called last. This reason, however, is not conclusive; for in ver. 13 the further statement also differs, both in form and matter, from those in the former verses. Here, instead of the name of the head of the house, we read the words " last, and these their names ; " whereupon three names are given, and not till then 'Ul Q[}?J)1, " and with them sixty males." Here, then, it is not the head of the house who is named, but in his place three heads of families, amounting together 103 THE BOOK OF EZRA. to sixty males. Now, as these three families did not form a house, these sixty sons of Adonikam who returned with Ezra are, with regard to the six hundred and sixty-six sons of Adonikam who returned with Zerubbabel, designated the last, or last arrived, and thus comprised with them as one house. — Ver. 14. Of the sons of Bigvai also two heads are named, Uthai and Zabbud, and with them seventy males. In 1 Esdr. viii. 40, the names Uthai and Zabbud are cor- rupted into Ovdl 6 Tov 'laraKKOvpov. The total number of individuals belonging to these twelve races, who re- turned with Ezra, amounts, according to the Hebrew text, to 1496 males and fifteen heads ; according to 1 Esdras, to 1690 males, and the thirteen heads of the twelve races, without reckoning the priests and sons of David, whose numbers are not stated. Vers. 15—36. Account of the journey. — Vers. 15-20. The assembling of the expedition. When the Israelites who were about to return to Jerusalem had assembled, and were ready for starting, Ezra perceived that there were no Levites among them. He then sent for certain chief men among them, and by means of the influence of Iddo, the chief at the place Casiphia, induced a number of Levites and Nethinim to determine on joining the expedition (vers. 15-20). He then proclaimed a fast at the place of meeting, for the purpose of supplicating God to grant them a pros- perous journey (vers. 21-23). — Ver. 15. The travellers assembled at the river Ahava, where they encamped three days. In ver. 15 the river is designated NWN'i'^ ^^^, i.e. either which comes (flows) towards AhUva, or flows into Ahava; in ver. 21 it is more briefly called NWS? "inj, and in ver. 31 K)D.^ 1113, which may mean the river of Ahava, of the region or district called Ahava, or, after the analogy of nns iri3, merely the river of the name of Ahava. It is doubtful which of these meanings is correct, the name Ahava being still unexplained. Comp. the various con- jectures in A. G. F. Schirmer, observationes exeg. crit. in lilr. Esdrce, Vratisl. 1820, p. 28 sqq. The connection points to a place or district in the neighbourhood of Babylon; CHAP. VIII. 15-20. 107 hence Bertheau is inclined to regard Aliava as a tributary or canal of the Euphrates, flowing through a place, perhaps only a field or open space, of the same name, in the im- mediate neighbourhood of Babylon ; while Ewald supposes it may be the river somewhat to the west or south of Euphrates, called by the Greeks Pallacopas, whose situation would suit the context, and whose name might arise from sins ihs, the river Ahwa or Aba. The LXX. gives the name Evl; in 1 Esdr. viii. 40 and 61 we find 0epd, evidently a false reading. Josephus says quite generally, ets to trepav tov Ev^pdrov. — When Ezra, during the three days' encampment at this place, directed his attention to the people and the priests (? r?i?, to give heed, Neh. xiii. 7, Dan. ix. 23, and elsewhere), he found no Levites among those who had assembled. Ver. 16. He then sent several chief men to Iddo, the chief man in the place Casiphia, to beg him and his brethren to bring him servants for the house of God. The LXX. translates p nnfiE'N, "I sent to (or for) Eliezer," etc., which would mean to fetch them: " that I might then send them to Iddo." The Vulgate, on the other hand, and many expositors, under- stand p as nota accus., like 2 Chron. xvii. 7, which is simpler. Of the nine men here designated as Q'V'K'i, the names of Eliezer, Shemaiah, Jarib, Nathan, Zechariah, and Meshul- 1am occur again in x. 15, 18-31, though we cannot certainly infer the indentity of those who bear them. The appella- tion CB'X'n does not determine whether they belonged to the priesthood or laity. The two remaining are called Q'?'???, teachers ; comp. Neh. viii. 7, 9, 1 Chron. xv. 22, xxv. 8, and elsewhere. Although this word is, in the passages cited, used of Levites, yet we cannot suppose those here named to have been teaching Levites, because, according to ver. 16, there vyere as yet no Levites amongst the assemblage ; hence, too, they could not be teachers properly so called, but only men of wisdom and understanding. The Chethiv nssisi must be read HKSixi : I sent them to (-"J?, according to later usage, for 7N) ; the Keri is i^.J?^?, I despatched, sent them. Both readings suit the sense. The place Casiphia is entirely un- known, but cannot have been far from the river Ahava. 108 THE BOOK OP EZRA. Caspia, the region of the Caspian Sea, is out of the question, being far too remote. " I put words in their mouth to speak to Iddo," i.e. I told them exactly what they should say to Iddo; comp. 2 Sam. xiv. 3, 19. The words a^i^nsn T-ns hK give no intelligible meaning; for Vns we must, with the Vulgate, 1 Esdras, and others, read vnxi : to Iddo and his brethren, the Nethinim, at the place Casiphia. This would seem to say that Iddo was one of the Nethinim. Such an inference is not, however, a necessary one; for the ex- pression may also, like " Zadok the (high) priest and his brethren, the (ordinary) priests," 1 Chron. xvi. 39, be under- stood tq mean that Iddo, the chief man of that place, was a Levite, and that the Nethinim were, as a lower order of temple servants, called brethren of Iddo the Levite. The circumstance that not only Nethinim, but also Lievites, were induced by Iddo to join the expedition (8-20), requires us thus to understand the words. '?« nn? n''ri"iB'», servants for the house of God, are Levites and Nethinim, the upper and lower orders of temple ministers. From ver. 17 it appears that both Levites and Nethinim had settled in the place Casiphia, and that Iddo, as the chief man of the place, held an influential position among them. No further in- ferences, however, concerning their settlement and employ- ment can be drawn from this circumstance. — Vers. 18 and 19. The delegates sent to Iddo succeeded, through the gracious assistance of God ('?K 1^3, see vii. 6), in inducing forty Levites, and two hundred and twenty Nethinim, by means of Iddo's influence, to join their fellow-countrymen in their journey to Jerusalem. They brought to us . . . «^ and W^y refer to Ezra and his fellow-travellers, '^^f ^% a man of understanding, seems to be a proper name, being joined to Sherebiah, the name following, by a 1 copulative. He was one of the descendants of Mahli, the son, i.e. grandson, of Levi the son of Israel, i.e. Jacob : comp. Ex. vi. 16, 19, 1 Chron. vi. 4. Sherebiah occurs again in ver. 24, and Neh. viii. 7, ix. 4, etc., x. 13, xii. 24. The Levite Hashabiah, ver. 19, is also named again, ver. 24, Neh. x. 2, and xii. 24- • while the name of the Levite Jeshaiah, on the CHAP. VIII. 21-80. 109 contrary, is not again met with in the books of either Ezra or Nehemiah. — Ver. 20. With respect to the Nethinim, whom David and the princes (of Israel) had given for the service of the Levites {i.e. made servants of the temple, to perform the lowest offices for the Levites), comp. Josh, ix, 21 and Ezra ii. 43. "They all were distinguished by name," i.e. were men of note; comp. remarks on 1 Ohron. xii. 31. Vers. 21-30. The last preparations for the journey. — Ver. 21. When the company of fellow-travellers was thus completed, Ezra proclaimed a fast at the place of meeting at the river Ahava, " that we might humble ourselves before our God, to seek of Him a prosperous journey for ourselves, our families, and our goods." Fasting, as a means of hum- bling themselves before God, for the purpose of obtaining an answer to their petitions, was an ancient custom with the Israelites : Jadg. xx. 26 ; 1 Sam. vii. 6 ; Joel i. 14 ; 2 Ohron. xx. 3. nnE'] rfrn^ a straight way, a way made level by the removal of obstructions, i.e. a prosperous journey ; comp. Ps. cxii. 7. ^0, a noun collective, properly the little children, more frequently denoted the entire family, a man's wives and children ; see remarks on Ex. xii. 37. t^'iai, pos- sessions in cattle and other goods. — Vei". 22. For I was ashamed to request of the king a band of soldiers and horse- men to help us against enemies in the way (i.e. to protect us from hostile attacks during our journey) ; for we had said to the king : The hand of our God is over all them that seek him for good (i.e. for their good), and His power and His wrath against all them that forsake Him. iW in con- nection with isx is not His powerful wrath, but His power and might to conquer all enemies, evidencing itself in wrath against the wicked. This confession, which they had uttered before the king, they desired to make good by earnest humble supplication, that God would prove Himself their help and defence against all their enemies. And for this — adds Ezra, looking back on their prosperous journey after it was accomplished — He was entreated of us. Because they had supplicated His assistance by prayer and fasting, 110 THE BOOK OF EZEA. God granted them His protection by the way.— Vers. 24-30. Then Ezra delivered the gold, the silver, and the vessels, which he had received as gifts for the temple, to twelve of the chiefs of the priests, and -twelve Levites, that they might take charge of them during the journey, and bring them to Jerusalem. " I separated twelve of the chief of the priests," i.e. from the whole company of priests who were journeying with us. The following fi^^^ns'p does not suit the sense, whether we take the j" as a sign of the dative (LXX.) or of the accusative (Vulgate, and several ex- positors). For Sherebiah and Hashabiah were neither priests nor chiefs of priests, but Levites of the race of Merari (ver. 18), and cannot therefore be reckoned among the twelve chiefs of priests. If we take n''T\^ for a dative, and translate, " I separated twelve of the chiefs of the priests for Sherebiah and Hashabiah," this would place the priests in a servile relation to the Levites, contrary to their true position. For niantW we must read n^2^B'1, and accept the reading of 1 Esdras, Kal 'Ea-epe^iav, as correct. Ezra sepa- rated twelve chiefs of the priests and twelve Levites, for the purpose of delivering to their custody the gifts of gold, silver, and implements for the temple. Of the chiefs of the priests no names are mentioned; of the Levites, the two names Sherebiah and Hashabiah are given as those of heads of houses, with whom ten other Levites were asso- ciated. — Ver. 25, etc. To these chief priests and Levites Ezra weighed the silver and the gold and the vessels ; S'??', to weigh, i.e. to deliver by weight. In the Chethiv n^ipK'N the O sound is maintained, and consequently the Keri is pointed — . On the other hand, in ver. 26 the i is dropped, and the form pointed with — > though many Mss., followed by J. H. Michaelis, have — here also. 'i'N n^a nD^nri is in appo- sition with the before-named objects : the gold, the silver, and the vessels, the offering for the house of our God, which the king, his councillors . . . had offered ; comp. vii. 15, 16, 19. In ICinn the article represents the relative pronoun ; see on 1 Ohron. xxvi. 28. ^''^VMH, all Israelites who were found, met with, in Babylon, and were not going CHAP. VIII. 31-S6. Ill With them to Jerusalem ; comp. 1 Chron. xxix. 17, 2 Chron. V. 11. Q'lJ pj;, hke "1! -"J?, i. 8, to their hand, i.e. handed over to their keeping. The gifts amounted to : six hundred and fifty talents of silver, and silver vessels one hundred in talents, i.e. one hundred talents in value, one hundred talents of gold, and twenty covered basins of gold (comp. i. 10) one thousand dariks in value, and two brazep vessels of fine golden brilliancy, precious as gold. ^i^V? is an abstract noun, formed from the participle Hophal of inv, to glitter like gold, and constructed as a feminine. The word, with its adjective, either depends upon flE'nj, in the stat. construct., or stands in apposition thereto, and is not, as a participle Hophal, used adjectively and combined with riB*™, for then the two adjectives snso and niiD would not be in different genders. niniDn, likenillbn '■isa, 2 Chron. xx. 25.— Ver. 28, etc. On delivering these treasures, Ezra adds the admoni- tion : Ye are holy to the Lord, and the vessels are holy, and the gold and the silver are a free-will offering unto the Lord God of your fathers ; watch and keep (that which is com- mitted to you). Since they were themselves, as priests and Levites, holy to the Lord, they were also to treat and keep the gifts committed to their charge as holy gifts, until, on their arrival at Jerusalem, they should • weigh them (i.e. deliver them by weight) before the priests, the Levites, and the princes of Israel, in the chambers of the house of the Lord. The article to niatypn (stat. construct.) is among the incorrectnesses of the later Hebrew. — ^Ver. 30. Then they took the weight of the silver, . . . i.e. received the silver, etc., delivered to them by weight. Vers. 31—36. The start, the journey, and the arrival at Jerusalem. — Ver. 31. The start from the river Ahava (comp. ver. 15) did not take place till the twelfth day of the first month; while according to vii. 9, the journey from Babylon was appointed for the first day of the month, and according to viii. 15, the bands of travellers who assembled at the river Ahava encamped there three days. These statements may be reconciled as follows : On the first day the company of travellers began to assemble, and during the three days' 112 THE. BOOK OF EZRA. encampment at the place of meeting Ezra became aware that no Levites were found among the travellers; upon which he took the measures mentioned, ver. 16, etc., to induce certain Levites and Nethinim to accompany them. When these were afterwards present, Ezra ordained a fast, to supplicate the divine protection for the journey, and committed the sacred gifts to the care of the priests and Levites. Eight days elapsed while' these preparations for departure were being made, so that the start from the river Ahava did not take place till the twelfth day. The journey was successfully accomplished, God's gracious protection delivering them from the hands of enemies and marauders ; comp. ver. 22. — Vers. 32, 33. They arrived at Jerusalem, as stated vii. 9, on the first day of the fifth month, the journey consequently occupying three months and a half. The particulars of the journey are not communicated ; and as we do not even know the locality of the place of meeting at the river Ahava, the length of road to be traversed can- not be determined. After their arrival at Jerusalem, they abode, i.e. remained, as Nehemiah subsequently did, quiet and inactive three days, to recover from the fatigues and hard- ships of the journey, Neh. ii. 11, before they undertook the arrangement of their affairs. On the fourth day, the gifts they had brought with them were delivered in the house of God {^m, like n^iJipK, ver. 16) into the hand of Meremoth and Eleazar the priests, and Jozabad and Noadiah, two Levites, who took charge of them, the chiefs of the priests and Levites being, according to ver. 29, also present. Meremoth Ben Uriah reappears in Neh. iii. 4, 21, and is also intended Neh. xii. 3. Eleazar the son of Phinehas, and the Levite Noadiah, are not again met with. Jozabad, of the sons of Jeshua (ii. 40), may be the Levite Jozabad mentioned x. 23. Binnui is named among the Levites, Neh. X. 10 and xii. 8. — Ver. 34. " By number, by weight, as to all," i.e. all vras delivered by number and weight ; and the whole weight was written at that time, i.e. an authentic list was made at the delivery which then took place. — Ver. 35. After the delivery of the dedicated gifts, those who had CHAP. IX. X. 113 come tip out of captivity (with Ezra), the sons of the cap- tivity, offered burnt -offerings and sin-offerings, out of gratitude for the favour shown by God in the gracious restoration of His people Israel. This is implied in the words : " burnt-offerings to the God of Israel, twelve bullocks for all Israel" (the twelve tribes), and twelve he-goats for a sin-offering, as in vi. 17. Ninety-six (8 X 12) lambs and seventy-seven lambs (77, the intensified seven) were like- wise brought as a burnt-offering. " All this was a burnt- offering for the LoED," of which, therefore, nothing could be eaten by the offerers. The sin-offering preceded the burnt- offering, as the necessary basis of an acceptable burnt-offer- ing. The sin-offerings availed as an atonement for the sins of all Israel, and the burnt-offerings typified the surrender of the entire nation to the service of the Lord. Thus the fact that these were offered for all Israel was an actual declaration that they who had now returned were hence- forth resolved, together, with all Israel, to dedicate their lives to the service" of the Lord their God. — Ver. 36. Here upon the royal decrees (the commission, vii. 12-26) were delivered to the satraps of the king, and to the governors on this side the river ; and they furthered the people and the house of God, as Artaxerxes had commanded in his edict, vii. 20-24. On a''JB1'nf ns and niina, see rem. on Dan. iii. 2. The satraps were the military chiefs of the province, the niina, the heads of the civU government. NB'J, to lift up, to support, like i. 4. CHAP. IX. X. — Ezra's proceedings in the severance OF the strange women from the congregation OP ISRAEL. When Ezra, some time after his arrival, was in the temple at Jerusalem, the princes of the people informed him that the Israelites had mingled themselves by marriage with the people of the lands (ix. 1, 2). Deeply moved by this com- munication, he sat astonished till the time of the evening sacrifice, while all who feared God's word assembled about H 114 THE BOOK OF EZRA. him (vers. 3, 4). At the evening sacrifice he fell upon his knees and prayed, making a touching confession of sin before God, in the name of the congregation (vers. 5-15). During this prayer many were gathered around him weeping, and Shecaniah coming forth from their midst, acknowledged the transgressions of the congregation, and declared that they would make a covenant with God to put away all the strange wives (x. 1-4). After making the princes, the priests, and Levites take an oath that they would do according to the declaration thus made, Ezra left the temple and retired to the chamber of Johanan, to fast and mourn over the trans- gression of those who had returned from captivity (vers. 5, 6). An assembly at Jerusalem was then proclaimed, and those who should not attend it were threatened with heavy penalties (vers, 7-9). At this assembly Ezra reproved the people for their transgression, and called upon them to separate themselves from the people of the countries, and from the strange wives (vers. 10, 11) ; upon which the assembly resolved to appoint a commission to investigate and decide upon individual cases. In spite of the opposition of some, this proposal was accepted, and the commission named (vers. 12-17), which held its sittings from the first day of the tenth month, and made an end of its investigations into all cases brought before it by the close of the year. Then follows the list of those who had taken strange wives (vers. 18—44), with which the book concludes. Chap. ix. Information given of the intermingling of Israel with the heathen nations of the land by marriage (vers. 1—4), and Ezra's prayer and confession (vers. 5-15). — Vers. 1, 2. "When this was done, the princes came to me, and said, The people of Israel, and the priests, and the Levites, do not separate themselves from the people of the lands, according to their abominations, (even) of the Oanaanites; . . . for they have taken (wives) of their daughters for themselves and for their sons, and the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of the lands." What now follows is placed in close chronological sequence with what precedes by the for- mula njN rt??3l, at the time of the completion of these things; CHAP. IX. 1-4. 115 comp. 2 Chron. xxxi. 1, xxix. 29, vii. 1. n^S are the things related chap. viii. 33-36. Of these the delivery of the gifts took place on the fourth day after Ezra's arrival at Jerusa- lem, i.e. on the fourth or fifth day of the first month (comp. viii. 32, etc., with vii. 9). The sacrifices (viii. 35) would un- doubtedly be offered immediately; and the royal orders would be transmitted to the satraps and governors (viii. 36) very soon after. As soon, then, as Ezra received intelligence con- cerning the illegal marriages, he took the matter in hand, so that all related (ix. 3-10) occurred on one day. The first assemblage of the people with relation to this business was not, however, held till the twentieth day of the ninth month (x. 9) ; while on the calling of this meeting, appearance thereat was prescribed within three days, thus leaving ap- parently an interval of nine whole months between chap, viii. and ix. Hence Bertheau conjectures that the first. pro- clamation of this assembly encountered opposition, because certain influential personages were averse to the further prosecution of this matter (x. 15). But though x. 4-7 does not inform us what period elapsed between the adoption of Shecaniah's proposal to Ezra, and the proclamation for assembling the people at Jerusalem, the narrative does not give the impression that this proclamation was delayed for months through the opposition it met with. Besides, Ezra may have received the information concerning the un- lawful marriages, not during the month of his arrival at Jerusalem, but some months later. We are not told whether it was given immediately, or soon after the completion of the matters mentioned viii. 33-36. The delivery of the royal commands to the satraps and governors (viii. 36) may have occupied weeks or months, the question being not merely to transmit the king's decrees to the said officials, but to come to such an understanding with them as might secure their favour and goodwill in assisting the newly established com- munity, and supporting the house of God. The last sentence (viii. 36), "And they furthered the people and the house of God," plainly shows that such an understanding with the royal functionaries was effected, by transactions which. 116 THE BOOK OF EZKA. must have preceded what is related chap. ix. This matter having been arranged, and Ezra being now about to enter upon the execution of his commission to inquire concerning Judah and Jerusalem according to the law of his God (vii. 12), he received information of the illegal marriages. While he was in the temple, the princes (Q'l^'I', the princes, are those who give the information, the article being used e.g. like that in B^srij Gen. xiv.l3) came to him, saying: The people (viz. Israel, the priests, and the Levites; the three classes of the Israelite community) do not separate them- selves from the people of the lands; comp. vi. 21. Dn''n3yh3, with respect to their abominations, i.e. as Israel should have done with respect to the abominations of these people. The ? to ''^JJ?3? might be regarded as introducing the enumeration of the different nations, and corresponding with 'fiyo ; it is, however, more likely that it is used merely as a periphrasis for the genitive, and subordinates the names to Dn'ri3J?ri : their, i.e. the Canaanites', etc., abominations, the suffix re- lating, as e.g. at iii. 12 and elsewhere, to the names follow^- ing. Five Canaanitish races are here named, as in Ex. xiii. 5, with this difference, that the Perizzites are here substi- tuted for the Hivites, while in Ex. iii. 8, xxiii. 23, both are enumerated, making six ; to these are added in Deut. vii. 1 the Girgashites, making, generally speaking, seven nations. Ammonites, Moabites, and Egyptians are here cited besides the Canaanitish races. The non-severance of the Israelites from these nations consisted, according to ver. 2, in the fact of their having contracted marriages with them. In the law, indeed (Ex. xxxiv. 16 ; Deut. vii. 3), only marriages with Canaanitish women were forbidden ; but the reason of this prohibition, viz. that Israel might not be seduced by them to idolatry, made its extension to Moabites, Ammonites, and Egyptians necessary under existing circumstances, if an effectual check was to to be put to the relapse into heathenism of the Israelitish community, now but just gathered out again from among the Gentiles. For during the captivity idolaters of all nations had settled in the depopulated country, and mingled with the remnant of the Israelites left there. By CHAP. IX. 1-4. 117 " the people of the lands," however, we are not to under- stand, with J. H. Michaelis, remnants of the races subju- gated by Nebucl^adnezzar and carried to Babylon, — who were now, after seventy years, returning, as well as the Jews, to their native lands under Cyrus ; in support of which view Mich, incorrectly refers to Jer. xxv. 9, etc., — but those por- tions, both of the ancient Oanaanitish races and of the Moabites and Ammonites, who, escaping the sentence of captivity, remained in the land. IKfe^J is naturally completed by D'tyj from the context; comp. x. 44, 2 Chron. xi. 21, and other passages. The subject of 'i^njjnri is the collective Vlt lyipn, the holy seed, i.e. the members of the nation called to holiness (E^. xix. 5). The appellation is taken from Isa. vi. 13, where the remnant of the covenant people, preserved in the midst of judgments, and purified thereby, is called a holy seed. The second part of ver. 2 contains an explanatory ac- cessory clause : and the hand of the princes and rulers hath been first in this unfaithfulness (/VP, comp. Lev. v. 15), i.e. the princes were the first to transgress ; on the figurative ex- pression, comp. Deut. xiii. 10. C^JD is an Old-Persian word naturalized in Hebrew, signifying commander, prefect; but its etymology is not as yet satisfactorily ascertained : see Delitzsch on Isa. xli. 25. — Ver. 3, etc. This information threw Ezra into deep grief and moral consternation. The tearing of the upper and under garments was a sign of heartfelt and grievous affliction (Josh. viii. 6) ; see remarks on Lev. X. 6. The plucking out of (a portion of) the hair was the expi?ession of violent wrath or moral indignation, comp. Neh. xiii. 25, and is not to be identified with the cutting off of the hair in mourning (Job i. 20). "And sat down stunned;" Op^B'P, desolate, rigid, stunned, without motion. While he was sitting thus, there were gathered unto him all who feared the word of God concerning the transgression of those that had been carried away. Tin, trembling, being terrified, generally construed with ?¥ or ?N (e.g. Isa. Ixvi. 2, 5), but here with 3 (like verbs of embracing, believing), and meaning to believe with trembling in the word which God had spoken concerning this ?yD, i.e. thinking with terror 118 THE BOOK OF EZRA. of the punishments which such faithless conduct towards a covenant God involved. Vers. 5-15. Ezra's prayer and confession for the congrega- tion. — Ver. 5. And at the time of the evening sacrifice, I rose up from my mortification (fT'iJjri, humiliation, generally through fasting, here through sitting motionless in deep affliction of soul), and rending my garment and my mantle. These words contribute a second particular to ''fl»i?, and do not mean that Ezra arose with his garments torn, but state that, on arising, he rent his clothing, and therefore again manifested his sorrow in this manner. He then fell on his knees, and spread out his hands to God (comp. 1 Kings viii. 22), to make a confessi9n of the heavy guilt of the congregation before God, and thus impressively to set their sins before all who heard his prayer. — Ver. 6, etc. The train of thought in this prayer is as follows : I scarcely dare to lift up my face to God, through shame for the greatness of our misdeeds (ver. 6). From the days of our fathers, God has sorely punished us for our sins by delivering us into the power of our enemies ; but has now again turned His pity towards us, and revived us in the place of His sanctuary, through the favour of the king of Persia (7-9). But we have again transgressed His commands, with the keeping of which God has connected our possession of the good land given unto us (vers, 10-12). Should we then, after God has spared us more than we through our tres- passes have deserved, bring His wrath upon us, till we are wholly consumed ? God is just ; He has preserved us ; but we stand before Him with heavy guilt upon us, such guilt ' that we cannot endure God's presence (vers. 13-15). Ezra does not pray for the pardon of their sin, for he desires only to bring the congregation to the knowledge of the greatness of their transgression, and so to invite them to do all that in them lies to atone for their guilt, and to appease God's wrath. — Ver. 6. "I am ashamed, and am covered with shame, to lift up my face to Thee, my God." 'nB'3 ''^¥?^^\ united, as in Jer. xxxi. 19, comp. Isa. xlv. 16, and other passages. 0733, to be covered with shame, is stronger CHAP. IX. 5-15. 119 than B'ia. " For our iniquities are increased over our head," i.e. have grown above our head. ti'X"! '^^Vm^, to or over the head. npjJDp serves to enhance the meaning of ^^"J, like 1 Ohron. xxiii. 17. " And our guiltiness is great, (reaching) unto the heavens;" comp. 2 Ohron. xxviii. 9. — Ver. 7. " Since the days of our fathers, have we, our kings, our priests, been delivered into the hands of the kings of the lands, to the sword, tp captivity, to plunder, and to shame of face." The words from ^nna onwards serve to explain what is meant by being delivered into the hand of strange kings. On the expression D''3S HE'S, comp. Dan. ix. 7, etc., 2 Ohron. xxxii. 21. njn Di'n3, as it is this day, as is to-day the case ; see remarks on Dan. ix. 7. The thought is : We are still sorely suffering for our sins, by being yet under the yoke of foreign sovereigns. — Ver. 8. " And now for a little moment there has been mercy from the Loed our God, to leave us a rescued remnant, and to give us a nail in His holy place, that our God may lighten our eyes, and give us a little reviving in our bondage." He calls the short interval be- tween their release from captivity by Cyrus, and the time when he is speaking, WT ISJ^ips, a little moment (comp. Isa. xxvi. 20), in comparison with the long period of suffering from the times of the Assyrians (comp. Neh. ix. 32) till the reign of Cyrus. •^^''Pf , a rescued remnant, is the new com- munity delivered from Babylon, and returned to the land of their fathers. In proportion to the numerous population of former days, it was but a remnant that escaped destruction ; but a remnant which, according to the predictions of the prophets, was again to grow into a large nation. A founda- tion for this hope was given by the fact that God had given them " a nail in the place of His sanctuary." The expres- sion is figurative, in^ is a nail or peg struck into the wall, to hang any kind of domestic utensils upon ; comp. Isa. xxii. 23, etc. Such a nail was the place of God's sanctuary, the temple, to the rescued community. This was to them a firm nail, by which they were borne and upheld ; and this nail God had given them as a support to which they might cling, and gain new life and vigour. The infinitive clauses 120 THE BOOK OF EZRA. following, '^''^yf? and iWJ?^, are dependent upon the preceding infinitives I^N^ni) and rirf?), and state the purpose for which God has given a nail in His house to this remnant. , That our God may enlighten our eyes, i.e. may bestow upon us new vitality; comp. Ps. xiii. 4. Suffering and misfortune make the eyes dim, and their light is quenched in death : the enlightened or beaming eye is an image of vital power ; comp. I Sam. xiv. 27, 29. n^np ^^^^? is not to be trans- lated, ut daret nobis vivificationem, the suffix to WPin? being not dative, but acciisative. The literal rendering is: that He may make us a slight reviving. ^'ri?, the means of supporting life, restoration tp life ; see on 2 Chron. xiv. 13. Ezra adds ^V'O ; for the life to which the community had attained was but feeble, in comparison with a vigorous social life. Their deliverance from Babylon and return to the land of their fathers was, so to speak, a revival from death ; compare the embodiment of this figure in Ezekiel's vision, Ezel^. xxxvii. 1-14 : they were, however, still in a state of vassalage, and had not yet regained their independence. This thought is further carried out in ver. 9 : " For we are bondmen, yet our God hath not forsaken us in our bondage, but hath extended mercy to us before the kings of Persia ; so that they have given us a reviving to build up the house of our God, and to repair its ruins, and have given us a wall about us in Judah and Jerusalem." They who have re- turned to Jerusalem and Judah are still bondmen, for they are yet under the Persian yoke ; but God has disposed the kings of Persia so to favour them as to give them a reviv- ing, to enable them to rebuild the house of God. Cyrus and Darius had not merely permitted and commanded the building of the temple, but had also furnished them with considerable assistance towards the carrying out of this work ; comp. i. 3, etc., vi. 7-9. The suffix in I'^'^in al- ludes to S''npN IT'S. The words of the last sentence are figurative, l^!? means the wall of a vineyard, the wall or fence built for its protection (Isa. v. 2, 5). Hence the wall, or enclosure, is an image of protection from the incur- sions and attacks of enemies. Such a wall has been given CHAP. IX. 6-15. 121 them in Judah and Jerusalem by the kings of Persia. " The meaning is not that they possess a place defended by walls (perhaps, therefore, the temple) in Jerusalem and Judah, but that the Persian kings have given to the new community a safe dwelling-place (or the means of existence), because the power of the Persian empire secures to the returned Israelites continued and undisturbed possession of the city and the land." (Bertheau.) After this statement concerning the divine favour, Ezra next sets himself to describe the conduct of his country- men with respect to the mercy extended to them. — Ver. 10. "And now, O our God, what can we say after this? That we have forsaken Thy commandments." DNr, i.e. such proofs of the divine compassion as have just been men- tioned. The answer which follows commences with '3, before which 1?S3 is mentally repeated : " we can only say that we have forsaken Thy commandments, requited Thy kindness with sins." — Ver. 11. Namely, the commandments "which Thou hast commanded by Thy servants the prophets, saying, The land unto which ye go to possess it is an unclean land through the uncleanness of the people of the lands, through their abominations, wherewith they have filled it from one end to another through their impurity. And now give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons (for wives), nor seek their peace nor their wealth for ever; that ye may be strong, and eat the good of the land, and leave it for an in- heritance to your children for ever." The words of the prophets introduced by ibN? are found in these terms neither in the prophetical books nor the Pentateuch. They are not, therefore,. to be regarded as a verbal quotation, but only as a declaration that the prohibition of intermarriage with the heathen had been inculcated by the prophets. The intro- duction of this prohibition by the words : the land unto which ye go to possess it, refers to the Mosaic age, and in using it Ezra, had chiefly in view Deut. vii. 1-3. He inter- weaves, however, with this passage other sayings from the Pentateuch, e.g. Deut. xxiii. 7, and from the prophetic 122 THE BOOK OF EZRA. writings, without designing to make a verbal quotation. He says quite generally, by His servants the prophets, as the author of the books of Kings does in similar cases, e.g. 2 Kings xvii. 23, xxi. 10, xxlv. 2, where the leading idea is, not to give the saying of some one prophet, but to represent the truth in question as one frequently reiterated. The sayings of Moses in Deuteronomy also bear a prophetical character; for in this book he, after the manner of the prophets, seeks to make the people lay to heart the duty of obeying the law. It is true that we do not meet in the other books of Scripture a special prohibition of marriages with Canaanites, though in the prophetical remarks, Judg. iii. 6, such marriages are reproved as occasions of seducing the Israelites to idolatry, and in the prophetic descriptions of the whoredoms of Israel with Baalim, and the general ani- madversions upon apostasy from the Lord, the transgression of this prohibition is implicitly included ; thus justifying the general expression, that God had forbidden the Israelites to contract such marriages, by His servants the prophets. Be- sides, we must here take into consideration the threatening of the prophets, that the Lord would thrust Israel out of the land for their sins, among which intermarriage with the Canaanites was by no means the least. Ezra, moreover, makes use of the general expression, "by the prophets," because he desired to say that God had not merely forbidden these marriages once or twice in the law, but had also re- peatedly inculcated this prohibition by the prophets. The law was preached by the prophets when they reiterated what was the will of God as revealed in the law of Moses. In this respect Ezra might well designate the prohibition of the law as the saying of the prophets, and cite it as pro- nounced according to the circumstances of the Mosaic period.^ The words : the land into which ye go, etc., recall the introduction of the law in Deut. vii. 1, etc, ; but the 1 It is hence evident that these words of Ezra afford no evidence against the single authorship of the Pentateuch. The inference that a saying of the law, uttered during the wanderings in the wilderness, is here cited as a saying of the prophets, the servants of Jahve, is, accord- CHAP. IX. 5-15. 123 description of the land as a land of uncleanness through the uncleanness of the people, etc, does not read thus either in the Pentateuch or in the prophets. n^Jj the uncleanness of women, is first applied to moral impurity by the prophets : comp. Lam. i. 17 ; Ezek. vii. 20, xxxvi. 17, comp. Isa. Ixiv. 5. The expression na"?s nspj from edge to edge, i.e. from one end to the other, like nap n|, 2 Kings x. 21, xxi. 16, is taken from vessels filled to their upper rim. nrijJl introduces the consequence : and now, this being the case. The pro- hibition 'Wl WPin ^S is worded after Deut. vii. 3. The addi- tion : nor seek their peace, etc., is taken almost verbally from Deut. xxiii. 7, where this is said in respect of the Am- monites and Moabites. iptnFi IVl?? recalls Deut. xi. 8, and the promise : that ye may eat the good of the land for ever, Isa. i. 19. D^'jap DnB''iini, and leave it for an inheritance to your children, does not occur in this form in the Pentateuch, but only the promise : that they and their children should pos- sess the land for ever. On t5'''"iin in this sense comp. Judg. xi. 24, 2 Chron. xx. 11. — Ver. 13, etc. And after all, continues Ezra, taking up again the nxr''insil of ver. 10, — " after all that is come up9n us for our evil deeds, and for our great trespass — yea, Thou our God hast spared us more than our iniquity deserved, and hast given us this escaped remnant — can we again break Thy commandments, and join in affinity with the people of these abominations ? Wilt Thou not be angry with us even to extirpation, so that no residue and no escaped remnant should be left ? " The premiss in ver. 13a is followed in ver. 14 by the conclusion in the form of a question, while the second clause of ver. 13 is an explanatory parenthesis. Bertheau construes the passage otherwise. He finds the continuation of the sentence : and after all this ... in the words 'W1 nris ''3, which, calmly spoken, would read : Thou, O God, hast not wholly destroyed us, but hast preserved to us an escaped remnant ; while instead of such a continuation we have an exclamation of grateful wonder, ing to the jtist remark of Bertheau, entirely refuted even by the fact that the words cited are nowhere found in the Pentateuch in this exact form, and that hence Ezra did not intend to make a verbal quotation. 124- THK BOOK OF EZRA. emphatically introduced by '3 in the sense of ''3 QJ^N. With this construction of the clauses, however, no advance is made, and Ezra, in this prayer, does but repeat what he had already said, vers. 8 and 9 ; although the introductory ''ins leads us to expect a new thought to close the con- fession. Then, too, the logical connection between the question ver. 14 and what precedes it would be wanting, i.e. a foundation of fact for the question ver. 14. Bertheau remarks oi; ver. 14, that the question : should we return to break (i.e. break again) the commands of God ? is an anti- thesis to the exclamation. But neither does this question, to judge by its matter, stand in contrast to the exclamation, nor is any such contrast indicated by its form. The dis- course advances in regular progression only when ver. 14a forms the conclusion arrived at from ver. 13a, and the thought in the premiss (13a) is limited by the thought introduced with ''S. What had come upon Israel for their sins was, according to ver. 7, deliverance into the hand of heathen kings, to the sword, to captivity, etc. God had not, however, merely chastened and punished His people for their sins, He had also extended mercy to them, ver. 8, etc. This, therefore, is also mentioned by Ezra in ver. 136, to justify, or rather to limit, the bb in Nan"^3. The 'a is properly confirmatory : for Thou, our God, hast indeed punished us, but not in such measure as our sins had deserved ; and receives through the tenor of the clause the adversative meaning of imo, yea (comp. Ewald, § 330, b). '» napp Pi3B'n, Thou hast checked, hast stopped, beneath our iniquities. ^JK'n is not used intransitively, laut actively ; the missing object must be supplied from the context: Thou hast withheld that, all of which should have come upon us, i.e. the punishment we deserved, or, as older expositors completed the sense, iram tuam. y:iS?p nap^, infra delicta nostra, i.e. Thou hast punished us less than our iniquities deserved. For their iniquities they had merited extirpation ; but God had given them a rescued remnant. '^^^^ as this, viz. this which exists in the community now returned from Babylon to Judaea. This is the circumstance which justifies CHAP. X. 1-5. 125 the question : should we, or can we, again (aiB'J is used ad- verbially) break Thy commandments, and become related by marriage ? (tfii!!'!lD like Deut. vii. 3.) niajJnn ^dv, people who live in abominations. The answer to this question is found in the subsequent question : will He not — if,- after the sparing mercy we have experienced, we again transgress the com- mands of God — be angry with us till He have consumed us ? nj;^ until the turning away of the fierceness of the wrath (? IJ? according to the later usage of the language instead of "^V only, comp. Ewald, § 315, a, not instead of j> only, as Bertheau seeks, by incorrectly interpreted passages, to prove). The meaning is : until the fierce wrath of God concerning these marriages shall be turned away, by their dissolution and the dismissal of the strange women from the congregation. The last words, njn "12'n^ nj?, offer some difficulty. De "Wette and Ber- theau translate them : on account of this matter, which *• IV can by no means signify. We regard i" n? = IJf of the older CHAP. X. 7-17. 131 language, in the sense of during, like 2 Kings ix. 22, accord- ing to which the meaning is: as long as this thing lasts; but we connect these words, not, as J. H. Michaelis, with the immediately preceding clause : the wrath which is fierce during this matter {quce usque, i.e. constanter ardet), but take them as more exactly defining the leading idea of the verse : the princes are to stand and judge the guilty as long as this matter lasts, so that i^^J] "i^ib ty is co-ordinate with ^''B'riP ly '1J"|. — Ver. 15. Jonathan the son of Asahel, and Jahaziah the son of Tikvah, indeed opposed this proposal on the part of the community, and were supported in their opposition by two Levites, but without being able to carry it out. This statement is introduced by 'H^, only, in the form of a qualifi- cation to the remark that the wJiole assembly (ver. 12) made this resolution : nevertheless Jonathan . . . stood up against this. For bv "^^V, to stand up against, or as elsewhere 7? Dip, comp. 1 Ohron. xxi. 1, 2 Ohron. xx. 23, Dan. viii. 25, xi. 14. Such also is the view of R. Sal, and Lightf., while older ex- positors Understand it as meaning: only Jonathan . . . stood up for this matter, like the steterunt super hoc of the Vul- gate, or as the decidedly incorrect explanation of J. H, Mich. : prcsfecti sunt huic negotio. — Nothing further is known of the four opponents here named. That they did not suc- ceed in this opposition appears from what follows. Ver. 16. The children of the captivity, i.e. the returned exiles, did so ; i.e. the congregation carried their resolve into execution. And Ezra the priest, and men, heads of houses according to their houses, — i.e. so that each house was represented by its head, — were separated, i.e. chosen to conduct the investiga- tion. The 1 copulative before D''?'3>?. has been lost, an asyn- deton seeming in this case inadmissible. Bertheau, on the contrary, unnecessarily changes v13»1 into i? -''la;! after 1 Esdras ix. 16. "And they all by names," comp. viii. 20. '3E'?.1, and they held a sitting {i.e. their first sitting) on the first day of the tenth month, and therefore only ten days after the assembly just spoken of. "i^'in cVn"!?, to inquire into the matter. It is impossible in Hebrew to form B^n^J from B'l'J, and this word can only arise from 'J^'^% as Ewald, 132 THE BOOK OF EZEA. § 239, a, note, Olshansen, . Lehrb. d. hebr. Spr. Tp. 150, and JBottcher, ausf. Lehrb. der hebr. Spr. i. 1, p. 162, note, unanimously agree. — Ver. 17. And they made an end with, all, with respect to the men who had brought home strange wives. ^33 (with the article) cannot be so connected with Dit^JS, from which it is separated by the accentuation of the latter, as to admit of the repetition, as by older expositors, of the preposition 3 before CK^JK: with all, namely, with the men. Still less can ^33, as Bertheau thinks, be taken in the sense of " in every place," and CB'JX connected as an accusative with l^aiH : they finished in every place the men (!) ; for rips with an accusative of the person signifies to annihilate, to make an end of, while 3 rjp3 means to finish, to make an end with, comp. Gen. xliv. 12. If, as the accentuation requires, we take ?33 independently, D''?'Ji< can only be an accusative of more exact definition: in respect of the men (D''B'J^, being without the article, because words which define it follow). As this gives a suitable meaning, it seems unnecessary to alter the punctuation and read C'K'JS'MS, or with Ewald, § 290, c, note 1, to regard ^''K'JN 733 as a singular combination. — Till the first day of the first month (of the next year), therefore in three months, their sittings having begun, according to ver. 13, on the first day of the tenth month. — The account of this transaction closes with — The list of the men who had taken strange wives, vers, 18-44; among whom were priests (18-22), Levites (23, 24), and Israelites, i.e. laymen (25-43). — Ver. 18, etc. Among the priests there stand first, four names of sons and brethren of the high priest Jeshua, the son of Joza- dak, who returned to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel. vriN, his (Jeshua's) brethren. Judging by ii. 36, these were among the descendants of Jedaiah, a section of the house of the high-priestly family (see rem. on ii. 36), and were there- fore distant cousins of the high priest. They gave their hands, i.e. bound themselves by shaking hands, to put away their wives, i.e. to dismiss them, and to sever them from the congregation of Israel, '3''???'K1, " and guilty a ram for their trespass," i.e. condemned to bring a ram as a trespass-offer- CHAP. X. 18-44. 133 ing. fi''I??'S1 is to be regarded as the continuation of the infinitive clause t?''Xinp. As elsewhere, infinitive clauses are continued without anything further in the verb, finit. (comp. Ewald, § 350) ; so here also does the adjective b'lpB'S follow, requiring that n^''n? should be mentally sup- plied. JNS'Vn, a ram of the flock, is, as an accusative of more exact definition, dependent on cpt^^. This trespass- offering was imposed upon them according to the principle of the law, Lev. v. 14, etc., because they had committed a ""J?? against the Lord, which needed expiation ; see on Lev. v. 14. — In what follows, only the names of the individuals, and a statement of the families they belonged to, are given, with- out repeating that the same obligations, namely, the dis- missal of their stfange wives, and the bringing of a trespass- offering, were imposed on them also, this being self-evident from the context. — Among the sons of Immer were three, among the sons of Harim five, among the sons of Pashur six offenders ; in all, eighteen priests. By comparing ii. 36—39, we perceive that not one of the orders of priests who returned with Zerubbabel was free from participation in this transgression. Some of the names given, 20-22, re- appear in the lists in Neh. viii. 4 and x. 2-9, and may belong to the same individuals. — Ver. 23. Of Levites, only ■six names are given, and that without stating the houses to which they belonged. From ii. 40, however, it appears that they were of the sons of Jeshua and Kadmiel there mentioned. "Kelaiah, the same is Kelita ;" the latter is the usual name of the person in question, and that which he bears in Neh. viii. 7 and x. 11. Jozabad also reappears in Neh. viii. 7. — Ver. 24, etc. Of singers one, and of porters three names are given; comp. ii. 41, 42. In all, ten Levites. — ^Ver. 25. Of Israel, as distinguished from priests and Levites, i.e. of the laity. Of these latter are given in all eighty-six names, belonging to ten races, 25-43, who re- turned with Zerubbabel. See Nos. 1, 5, 6, 9, 8, 4, 30, 17, and 27 of the survey of these races, p. 33. fliDT_ in ver. 29 should, according to the Chethiv, be read niDn^.. — The twofold naming of sons of Bani in this list (vers. 29 and 34) 134 THE BOOK OF EZRA. is strange, and Bani is evidently in one of these places a mistake for some other name. Bertheau supposes that Bigvai may have stood in the text in one of these places. The error undoubtedly lies in the second mention of Bani (ver. 34), and consists not merely in the wrong transcrip- tion of this one name. For, while of every other race four, six, seven, or eight individuals are named, no less than seven and twenty names follow ''33 ^33t?, though all these persons could hardly have belonged to one race, unless the greater number of males therein had married strange wives. Besides, no names of inhabitants of cities of Judah and Benjamin are given in this list (as in ii. 21-28, and 33-35), although it is stated in vers. 7 and 14 that not only the men of Jerusalem, but also dwellers in other cities, had contracted these prohibited marriages, and been summoned to Jerusalem, that judgment might be pro- nounced in their several cases. These reasons make it pro- bable that the twenty-seven persons enumerated in vers. 34-42 were inhabitants of various localities in Judah, and not merely individuals belonging to a single house. This supposition cannot, however, be further corroborated, since even the LXX. and 1 Esdr. read the name Bani in vers. 27 and 34, nor can any conjecture respecting the correct read- ing laying claim to probability be ventured on. In the single names, the Greek texts of the Septuagint and 1 Esdras frequently differ from the Hebrew text, but the differences are almost all of a kind to furnish no material for criticism. A considerable number of these names reappear in the lists of names in the book of Nehemiah, but under circumstances which nowhere make the identity of the per- sons bearing them certain. — Ver. 44 contains the statement with which the account of this transaction closes. The Chethiv "KB'j seems to be an error of transcription for INB'J (the Keri), which the sense requires. '131 CriD E'"'!, " and there were among them women who had brought forth sons." Dn» must be referred to women, notwithstanding the mascu- line suffix. 10''B'J, too, can only be referred to a *'° strengthen, means here to repair the gaps and holes in the wall; comp. Ezra xxvii. 9, 27. Meremoth ben Urijah repaired, according to ver. 21, another portion besides. MeshuUam ben Berechiah was, according to vi. 18, a person of consideration in Jerusalem. The men of Tekoa, who do not occur among those who returned with Zerub- babel (Ezra ii.), also repaired a second portion. " But their nobles brought not their neck to the service of their Lord." The expression "to bring the neck to service" is, according to Jer. xxvii. 11, to be understood as meaning: to bring the CHAP. III. 6-12. 177 neck under the yoke of any one, i.e. to subject oneself to the service of another. ffijV stands for Q^^JV. It is questionable whether Di^''p.'i'<. is to be taken as the plural of excellence, and understood of God, as in Deut. x. 17, Ps. cxxxv. 3, Mai. i. 6; or of earthly lords or rulers, as in Gen. xl. 1, 2 Sam. X. 3, 1 Kings xii. 27. The former view seems to us decidedly correct, for it cannot be discerned how the suffix should (according to Bertheau's opinion) prevent our thinking of the service of God, if the repairing of the wall of Jerusalem may be regarded as a service required by God and rendered to Him. Besides, the fact that C^l^* is only used of kings, and is inapplicable whether to the authorities in Jerusalem or to Nehemiah, speaks against referring it to secular rulers or authorities. Vers. 6-12. From the gate of the old wall to the valley gate. — Ver. 6. fi^E'\T njJB' does not mean the old gate, for rUB'\T is genitive. Schultz (Jerus. p. 90), Thenius, and Bertheau supply "i''yn, gate of the old town, and explain the name from the fact that Bezetha, the new town, already existed as a suburb or village in front of the gate, which was named after the contrast. To this Arnold rightly ob- jects (in Herzog's Realencycl. xviii. p. 628) that it is by no means proved that there was at that time any contrast between the old and new towns, and as well as Hupfeld {die topograph. Streitfragen aber Jerus., in the morgenl. Zeit- schrift, XV. p. 231) supplies noin : gate of the oH wall. He does not, however, derive this designation from the remark (ver. 8), " They fortified Jerusalem unto the broad wall," as though this old wall received its name from ha,ving been left undestroyed by the Chaldeans, which is irreconcilable with the fact (4-8) that both the gate of the old wall and the portions of wall adjoining it on each side were now built, but understands the term " old wall " as used in con- trast to the "broad wall," which had indeed been rebuilt after the destruction by Joash (2 Kings xiv. 13). This view we esteem to be correct. The individuals specified as the builders of this gate are not further known. That two principes were employed in the rebuilding of this gate is M 178. THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. explained by Ramb. as arising vel quod penitus disturhata a Chaldceis, vel quod magnis sumtibus reparanda fuit, quos unus princeps ferre non potuit. — Ver. 7. Next unto them i-epaired Melatiah the Gibeonite, and Jadon the Merono- thite, the men of Gibeon and of Mizpah. If Melatiah is to be regarded as the superintendent of the men of Gibeon, Jadon the Meronothite must be equally esteemed that of the men of Mizpah. Meronoth, mentioned only here and 1 Chron. xxvii. 30, must have been some small place near Mizpah. Mizpah (nsven, the watch-tower) is probably the modern Nebi Samwil, two leagues to the north-east of Jeru- salem; see rem. on Josh. xix. 26. The meaning of the words next following, 'iJI nna ND3?, is questionable. Ber- theau, together with Osiander, Gler., de Wette, and others, understands them as more precisely defining the men be- fore named, as men of Gibeon and Mizpah, of the throne or belonging to the throne of the Pechah of Eber hannahar. This addition brings to light the fact that Jews who were not under the jurisdiction of Nehemiah, nevertheless took part in the restoration of the wall. It also distinguishes these men of Mizpah from those mentioned vers. 15 and 19, who were certainly not under the Pechah. of Eber hannahar. Finally, the boundary of the little territory of the returned Jewish community must have been at about Mizpah and Gibeon ; and a statement that certain inhabitants of this district were not under the Pechah of Jerusalem, but under the Pechah of the province west of Euphrates, would agree with the position of Gibeon and Mizpah. None, however, of these reasons are of much force. For if, according to vers. 5 and 27, the Tekoites repaired two different lengths of wall, without this fact implying any distinction between these two parties of Tekoite builders, the same may be the case with the men of Gibeon and Mizpah. Besides, neither in this verse nor in vers. 15 and 19 are the men of Mizpah in general spoken of, so as to make a distinction necessary ; for in this verse two chiefs, Melatiah and Jadon, are designated as men of Gibeon and Mizpah, and in 15 and 19 two rulers of the district of CHAP III. 6-12. 179 Mizpah are specified by name. Hence the view that part of the inhabitants of Mizpah were under the jurisdiction of the Pechah of the province west of Euphrates, and part under that of the Pechah of Jerusalem, is devoid of pro- babiHty. Finally, there is no adequate analogy for the metonomy set up in support of this view, viz. that Sy, which only occurs again in vers. 17 and 19. Nehemiah the son of Azbuk, the ruler of half the district of Beth-zur (see rem. on 2 Chron. xi. 7), repaired the wall as far as " opposite the sepulchres of David, and unto the pool that was made, and to the house of the heroes." The sepulchres of David are the sepulchres of the house of David in the city of David (comp. 2 Chron. xxxii. 33). " Opposite the sepulchres of David" is the length of wall on the eastern side of Zionj where was probably, as Thenius the erroneous notion that the fountain-gate (ver. 15 and ii. 14) stood on the site of the present dung-gate {Bab el Mogharibeh), for which no other reason appears than the assumption that the southern wall of the city of David, before the captivity, went over Zion, in the same direction as the southern wall of modern Jerusalem, only perhaps in a rather more south- erly direction, — an assumption shown to be erroneous, even by the cir- cumstance that in this case the sepulchres of David, Solomon, and the kings of Judah would have stood outside the city wall, on the southern part of Zion ; while, according to the Scripture narrative, David, Solomon, and the kings of Judah were buried in the city of David (1 Kings ii. 10, xi. 42, xiv. 31, xv. 8, and elsewhere). But apart from this consideration, this hypothesis is shattered by the statements of this fifteenth verse, which Bertheau cannot explain so inconsistently with the other state- ments concerning the building of the wall, as to make them say that any one coming from the west and going round by the south of the city towards the east, would first arrive at the fountain-gate, and then at the portion of wall in question ; but is obliged to explain, so that the chief work, the building of the fountain-gate, is mentioned first ; then the slighter work, the reparation of a length of wall as supplemen- tary ; and this makes the localities enumerated in ver. 13 succeed each other in the following order, in a direction from the west by south and east towards the north : ' ' Valley-gate — 6n|> thousand cubits of wall as far as the dung- gate ; dung-gate — the wall of the conduit towards the king's garden, as far as the stairs which lead from the city of David — fountain- gate." No adequate reason for'this transposition of the text is afforded by the circumstance that no portion of wall is mentioned (vers. 14 and 15) as being repaired between the dung-gate and the valley-gate. For how do we know that this portion on the southern side of Zion was broken down and needing repair ? Might not the length between these two gates have been left standing when the city was burnt by the Chaldeans ? CHAP. III. 16-19. 187 endeavours to show in the Zeitschr. of the deutsch morgenl. Gesellsch. xxi. p. 495 sq., an entrance to the burying-place of the house of David, which was within the city. The " pool that was made " must be sought at no great distance, in the Tyropoean valley, but has not yet been discovered. The view of Krafft {Topographie von Jerusalem, p. 152), that it was the reservoir artificially constructed by Hezekiah, between the two walls for the water of the old pool (Isa. xxii. 11), rests upon incorrect combinations. " The house of the heroes" is also unknown. In vers. 17 and 18, the lengths of wall repaired by the three building parties there men- tioned are not stated. " The Levites, Rehum the son of Bani," stands for : the Levites under Rehum the son of Bani. There was a Rehum among those who returned with Zerub- babel, xii. 3, Ezra ii. 2 ; and a Bani occurs among the Levites in ix. 5. After him repaired Hashabiah, the ruler of half the district of Keilab, for his district. Keilah, situate, according to Josh. xv. 44 and 1 Sam. xxiii. 1, in the hill region, is probably the village of Kila, discovered by Tobler (vol. iii. p. 151), eastward of Beit Dshibrin. By the addi- tion i3?sp, for his district, i.e. that half of the whole district which was under his rule, " it is expressly stated that the two halves of the district of Keilah worked apart one from the other" (Bertheau). The other half is mentioned in the verse next following. — Ver. 18. " Their brethren" are the inhabitants of the second half, who were under the rule of Bavai the son of Henadad. — Ver. 19. Next to these re- paired Ezer the son of Jeshua, the ruler of Mizpah, another piece (on n^JE' irnp, see rem. on ver. 11) opposite the ascent to the armoury of the angle. pB'lin or P^i}] (in most editions) is probably an abbreviation of pB'an'JT'a, arsenal, armoury; and yivprsn is, notwithstaifding the article in pE'an, genitive : for to combine it as an accusative with ni?}?, and read, " the going up of the armoury upon the angle," gives no suitable meaning. The locality itself cannot indeed be more pre- cisely stated. The armoury was probably situate on the east side of Zion, at a place where the wall of the city formed an angle; or it occupied an angle within the city 188 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. itself, no other buildings adjoining it on the south. The opinion of Bertheau, that the armoury stood where the tower described by Tobler {Dritte Wand. p. 228) stands, viz. about midway between the modern Zion gate and the dung-gate, and of which he says that " its lower strata of stones are undoubtedly of a remoter date than the rebuild- ing of the wall in the sixteenth century," coincides with the assumption already refuted, that the old wall of the city of David passed, like the southern wall of modern Jerusalem, over Mount Zion. Vers. 20-25. The wall from the angle to the place of tTie court of the prison by the king's upper house. — Ver. 20. After him Baruch the son of Zabbai emulously repaired a second length of wall, from the angle to the door of the house of Eliashib the high priest. Bertheau objects to the reading fTJ.nn, and conjectures that it should be 'T^T}'^, " up the hill." But the reason he adduces, viz. that often as the word P''|pn occurs in this description, a, further definition is nowhere else added to it, speaks as much against, as for his proposed alteration ; definitions of locality never, throughout the entire narrative, preceding P''Tnn, but uniformly standing after it, as also in the present verse. Certainly '"l"jnn can- not here mean either to be angry, or to be incensed, but may without difficulty be taken, in the sense of the Tiphal 'P^t}^, to emulate, to contend (Jer. xxii. 15, xii. 5), and the perfect adverbially subordinated to the following verb (comp. Gesen. Gramm. § 142, 3, a). The Keri offers ''3f instead of ^3T, probably from Ezra ii. 9, but on insufficient grounds, the name ''St occurring also Ezra x. 28. Of the position of the house of Eliashib the high priest, we know nothing further than what appears from these verses (20 and 21), viz. that it stood at the northern part of the eastern side of Zion (not at the south-western angle of the temple area, as Bertheau supposes), and extended some considerable dis- tance from south to north, the second length of wall built by Meremoth reaching from the door at its southern end to the T'pari, termination, at its northern end. On Meremoth, see rem. on ver. 4. — Ver. 22. Farther northwards repaired , CHAP. III. 20-25. 189 the priests, the men of the district of Jordan. 133 does not, as Bertheau infers from xli, 28, signify the country round Jerusalem, but here, as there, the valley of the Jordan; See rem. on xii. 28 and on Gen. xiii. 10. Hence this verse in- forms us that priests were then dwelling in the valley of the Jordan, probably in the neighbourhood of Jericho. The length of wall built by these priests is not further parti- cularized. — Ver. 23. Further on repaired Benjamin and Hashub over against their house, and Azariah the son of Maaseiah, by his house. Nothing further is known of these individuals. — Ver. 24. Next repaired Binnui the son of Henadad, a second portion from the house of Azariah, to the angle and to the corner ; and further on (ver. 25) Palal the son of Uzzai, from opposite the angle and the high tower which stands out from the king's house by the court of the prison. We join PvJ/\! to '■n^tsn^ though it is also verbally admissible to combine it with 1]?Bn fi% " the tower which stands out from the king's upper house," because nothing is known of an upper and lower king's house. It would be more natural to assume (with Bertheau) that there was an upper and a lower tower at the court of the prison, but this is not implied by tivJ?!!. The word means first, high, ele- vated, and its use does not assume the existence of a lower tower ; while the circumstance that the same tower is in ver. 27 called the great (■'iljii) tells in favour of the meaning high in the present case. The court of the prison was, ac- cording to Jer. xxxii. 2, in or near the king's house ; it is also mentioned Jer. xxxii. 8, 12, xxxiii. 1, xxxvii. 21, xxxviii. 6, 13, 28, and xxxix. 14. But from none of these passages can it be inferred, as by Bertheau, that it was situate in the neighbourhood of the temple. His further remark, too, that the king's house is. not the royal palace in the city of David, but an official edifice standing upon or near the temple area, and including the court of the prison with its towers, is en- tirely without foundation.' The royal palace lay, according 1 Equally devoid of proof is the view of Ewald, Diestel (in Herzog's Jiealeneycl. xiii. p. 325), Arnold, and others, that the royal palace stood upon Moriah or Ophel on the south side of the temple, in support of 190 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. to Josephus, Ant. viii. 5. 2, opposite the temple (avriKpv'j exiov vaov), i.e. on the north-eastern side of Zion, and this is quite in accordance with the statements of this verse ; for as it is not till ver. 27 that the description of the wall-build- ing reaches the walls of Ophel, all the localities and build- ings spoken of in vers. 24-27a must be sought for on the east side of Zion. The court of the prison formed, accord- ing to Eastern custom, part of the royal fortress upon Zion. The citadel had, moreover, a high tower. This is obvious from Cant. iv. 4, though the tower of David there men- tioned, on which hung a thousand bucklers, all shields of mighty men, may not be identical with the tower of the king's house in this passage; from Mic. iv. 8, where the tower of the flock, the stronghold of the daughter of Zion, is the tower of the royal citadel ; and from Isa. xxxii. 14; where citadel and tower (ina, properly watch-tower) answer to the tiO"!?? of the royal citadel, which lay with its forts upon the hill of Zion. This high tower of the king's house, i.e. of the royal citadel, stood, according to our verses, in the immediate neighbourhood of the angle and the corner (i^jsn) ; for the section of wall which reached to the nas lay opposite the angle and the high tower of the king's house. The wall here evidently formed a corner, running no longer from south to north, but turning eastwards, and passing over Ophel, the southern spur of Moriah. A length from this corner onwards was built by Pedaiah the son of Parosh; comp. Ezra ii. 3. Vers. 26 and 27. Having now reached the place where the wall encloses Ophel, a remark is inserted, ver. 26, on the dwellings of the Nethinim, i.e. of the temple servants. The Nethinim dwelt in Ophel as far as (the place) before the water-gate toward the east, and the tower that standeth out. "'H Hjiisn still depends upon 133 IJ?. The water-gate towards the east, judging from xii. 37, lay beyond the south- eastern corner of the temple area. Bertheau, reasoning upon the view that the open space of the house of God, •which Diestel adduces Neh. iii. 25. See the refutation of this view in the commentary on 1 Kings vii. 12 (note). CHAP. III. 26, 27. 191 where Ezra spoke to the assembled people (Ezra x. 9), is identical with the open place before the water-gate mentioned Neh. viii. 1, 3, 16, places it on the east side of the temple area, near where the golden gate {Rab er JRahm'e) now stands. This identity, however, cannot be proved ; and even if it could, it would by no means follow that this open space lay on the east side of the temple area. And as little does it follow from xii. 37, as we shall show when we reach this" passage. NVi»n P'lJBri is said by Bertheau to have belonged perhaps to the water-gate towards the east, since, by reason of the statements contained iii vers. 31 and 32, we must not seek it so far northwards on the east side of the temple area, as to combine it with the remains of a tower projecting seven and a half feet from the line of wall at the north-east comer, and described by Robinson (Biblical Researches, p. 226). But even if the tower in question must not be identi- fied with these remains, it by no means follows that it stood in the neighbourhood of the golden gate. Even Arnold, in his work already cited, p. 636, remarks, in opposition to Bertheau's view, that " it is evident from the whole state- ment that the tower standing out from the king's house, in vers. 25, 26, and 27, is one and the same, and that Ber- theau's view of our having here three separate towers can hardly be maintained," although he, as well as Bertheau, transposes both the king's house and the court of the prison to the south of the temple area. The similar appellation of this tower as N^fi'H in the three verses speaks so decidedly for its identity, that very forcible reasons must be adduced before the opposite view can be adopted. In ver. 26 it is not a locality near the water-gate in the east which is indicated by NSi*n P'lJlsn, but the western boundary of the dwellings of the Nethinim lying opposite. They dwelt, that is, upon Ophel, southwards of the temple area, on a tract of land reaching from the water-gate in the east to opposite the out- standing tower of the royal citadel in the west, i.e. from the eastern slope of the ridge of Ophel down to the Tyropoean valley. — Ver. 27. After them the Tekoites repaired a second piece from opposite the great tower that standeth out to 192 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAII. the wall of Ophel. The great (high) tower of the king's house within the city wall being some distance removed therefrom, the portion of wall on the eastern ridge of Zion from south to north, reaching as far as the turning and the corner, and the commencement of the wall running from this corner eastwards, might both be designated as lying op- posite to this tower. The portion mentioned in our verse passed along the Tyropoean valley as far as the wall of Ophel. King Jotham had built much on the wall of Ophel (2 Chron. xxvii. 3) ; and Manasseh had surrounded Ophel with a very high wall (2 Chron. xxxiii. 14), i.e. carried the wall round its western, southern, and eastern sides. On the north no wall was needed, Ophel being protected on this side by the southern wall of the temple area. Vers. 28-32. The wall of Ophel and the eastern side of the temple area. — Ver. 28. Above the horse-gate repaired the priests, each opposite his own house. The site of the horse- gate appears, from 2 Ohron. xxiii. 15 compared with 2 Kings xi. 6, to have been not far distant from the temple and the royal palace ; while according to the present verse, compared with ver. 27, it stood in the neighbourhood of the wall of Ophel, and might well be regarded as even belonging to it. Hence we have, with Thenius, to seek it in the wall running over the Tyropcean valley, and uniting the eastern edge of Zion with the western edge of Ophel in the position of the present dung-gate (^Bab el Mogharibeh). This accords with Jer. xxxi. 40, where it is also mentioned ; and from which passage Bertheau infers that it stood at the western side of the valley of Kidron, below the east corner of the temple area. The particular ?yo, " from over," that is, above, is not to be understood of a point northwards of the horse-gate, but denotes the place where the wall, passing up from Zion to Ophel, ascended the side of Ophel east of the horse-gate. If, then, the priests here repaired each opposite his house, it is evident that a row of priests' dwellings were built on the western side of Ophel, south of the south-western extremity of the temple area. — Ver. 29. Zadok ben Immer (Ezra ii. 37) wai3 probably the head of the priestly order of Immei'. CHAP. III. 28-32. 193 Shemaiah the son of Shecaniah, the keeper of the east gate, can hardly be the same as the Shemaiah of the sons of Shecaniah entered among the descendants of David in 1 Chron. iii. 22. He might rather be regarded as a descen- dant of the Shemaiah of 1 Ohron. xxvi. 6 sq., if the latter had not been enumerated among the sons of Obed-Edom, whose duty was to guard the south side of the temple. The east gate is undoubtedly the east gate of the temple, and not to be identified, as by Bertheau, with the water-gate towards the east (ver. 26). The place where Shemaiah repaired is not more precisely defined ; nor can we infer, with Bertheau, from the circumstance of his being the keeper of the east gate, that he, together with his subordinate keepers, laboured at the fortification of this gate and its adjoining section of wall. Such a view is opposed to the order of the description, which passes on to a portion of the wall of Ophel; see rem. on ver. 31. — Ver. 30. ''^n^ here and in ver. 31 gives no appro- priate sense, and is certainly only an error of transcription arising from the soriptio defect. I^ns. Hananiah the son of Shelemiah, and Hanun the sixth son of Zalaph, are not fur- ther known. The name of Meshullam the son of Berechiah occurs previously in ver. 4; but the same individual can hardly be intended in the two verses, the one mentioned in ver. 4 being distinguished from others of the same name by the addition ben Meshezabeel. ''3B' for IT'JE' (vers. 27, 24, and elsewhere) is grammatically incorrect, if not a" mere error of transcription, insB'J Iii, before his dwelling. nsB'J occurs only here and xiii. 7, and in the plural riiaE'Sn, xii. 44 ; it seems, judging from the latter passage, only another form for naOT, chamber ; while in xiii. 7, on the contrary, nSE'J is distinguished from n3B>p, xiii. 4, 5. Its etymology is obscure. In xiii. 7 it seems to signify dwelling. — Ver. 31. ''Si'yS'] is not a proper name, but an appellative, son of the goldsmith, or perhaps better, member of the goldsmiths' guild, according to which ''S'lSfn does not stand for ^Ijjfn, but desig- nates those belonging to the goldsmiths. The statements, (he repaired) unto the house of the Nethinim, and of the merchants opposite the gate ^i^asf?, and to the upper chamber N 194 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. of the corner, are obscure. This rendering is according to the Masoretic punctuation ; while the LXX., on the • con- trary, translate according to a different division of the ■words: Malchiah repaired as far as the house of the Ne- thinim, and the spice-merchants (repaired) opposite the gate Miphkad, and as far as the ascent of the corner. This translation is preferred by Bertheau, but upon questionable grounds. For the objection made by him, that if the other be adopted, either the same termination would be stated twice in different forms, or that two different terminations are intended, in which case it does not appear why one only should first be mentioned, and then the other also, is not of much importance. In ver. 24 also two terminations are men- tioned, while in ver. 16 we have even three together. And why should not this occur here also ? Of more weight is the consideration, that to follow the Masoretic punctuation is to make the house of the Nethinim and of the merchants but one building. Since, howevei', we know nothing further concerning the edifice in question, the subject is not one for discussion. The rendering of the LXX., on the other hand, is opposed by the weighty objection that there is a total absence of analogy for supplying lp\f.nii 1'''jn^1 ; for throughout this long enumeration of forty-two sections of wall, the verb P^IDD or 1p*!!]n, or some corresponding verb, always stands either before or after every name of the builders, and even the 1'''^r!^ is omitted only once (ver. 25). To the statement, " as far as the house of the Nethinim and the merchants," is appended the further definition : before (opposite) the gate Ipaen. This word is reproduced in the LXX. as a proper name (tov Ma^SKaS), as is also D''3''njin rTia, eaj? BeOav Nadivifi) ; in the Vulgate it is rendered appellatively : contra pertain judicialem; and hence by Luther, Rathsthor. Thenius translates {Stadt, p. 9) : the muster or punishment gate. liJBI? does not, however, signify punishment, although the view may be correct that the gate took the name liJEUsn from the n^an li'^SD mentioned Ezek. xliii. 21, where the bullock of the sin-offering was to be burnt without the sanctuary; and it may be inferred from this passage that • CHAP. III. 28-32. 195 near the temple of Solomon also there was an appointed place for burning the flesh of the sin-offering without the sanctuary. In Ezekiel's temple vision, this n^an li^BD is probably to be sought in the space behind the sanctuary, i.e. at the western end of the -great square of five hundred cubits, set apart for the temple, and designated the Gizra, or separate place. In the temples of Solomon and Zerub- babel, however, the place in question could not have been situate at the west side of the temple, between the temple and the city, which lay opposite, but only on the south side of the temple area, outside the court, upon Ophel, where Thenius has delineated it in his plan of Jerasalem before the captivity. Whether it lay, however, at the south- western corner of the temple space (Thenius), or in the middle, or near the east end of the southern side of the external wall of the temple or temple court, can be deter- mined neither from the present passage nor from Ezekiel's vision. Not from Ezek, xliii. 21, because the temple vision of this prophet is of an ideal character, differing in many points from the actual temple ; not from the present passage, because the position of the house of the Nethinim and the merchants is unknown, and the definition 1J3, (before) oppo- site the gate Miphkad, admits of several explanations. Thus much only is certain concerning this Miphkad gate, — on the one hand, from the circumstance that the wall was built be- fore (^M) or opposite this gate, on the other, from its omis- sion in xii. 39, where the prison-gate is mentioned as being in this neighbourhood in its stead, — that it was not a gate of the city, but a gate through which the liJS? was reached. ■ Again, it is evident that the njpj? of the corner which is men- tioned as the length of wall next following, must be sought for at the south-eastern corner of the temple area. Hence the house of the temple servants and the merchants must have been situate south of this, on the eastern side of Ophel, where it descends into the valley of Kidron. njan n*pj[, the upper chamber of the corner,. was perhaps a virepwov oi a corner tower, not at the north-eastern corner of the external circumvallation of the temple area (Bertheau), but at the 196 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. south-eastern corner, which was formed by the junction at this point of the wall of Ophel with the eastern wall of the temple area. If these views are correct, all the sections mentioned from ver. 28 to ver. 31 belong to the wall sur- rounding Ophel. This must have been of considerable length, for Ophel extended almost to the pool of Siloam, and was walled round on its western, southern, and eastern sides. — Ver. 32. The last section, between the upper chamber of the corner and the sheep-gate, was repaired by the gold- smiths and the merchants. This is the whole length of the east wall of the temple as far as the sheep-gate, at which this description began (ver. 1). The eastern wall of the temple area might have suffered less than the rest of the wall at the demolition of the city by the Chaldeans, or perhaps have been partly repaired at the time the temple was rebuilt, so that less restoration was now needed. A survey of the whole enumeration of the gates and lengths of wall now restored and fortified, commencing and terminating as it does at the sheep-gate, and connecting almost always the several portions either built or repaired by the words (pll) il^ ?J? or V'ins, gives good grounds for inferring that in the forty-two sections, including the gates, particularized vers. 1-32, we have a description of the en- tire fortified wall surrounding the city, without a single .gap. In ver. 7, indeed, as we learn by comparing it with xii. 29, the mention of the gate of Ephraim is omitted, and in 30 or 31, to judge by xii. 39, the prison-gate ; while the wall lying between the dung-gate and the fountain-gate is not men- tioned between vers. 14 and 15. The non-mention, how- ever, of these gates and this portion of wall may be explained by the circumstance, that these parts of the fortification, having remained unharmed, were in need of no restoration. We read, it is true, in 2 Kings xxv. 10 and 11, that Nebuzaradan, captain of the guard of Nebuchadnezzar, burnt the king's house and all the great houses of the city, and that the army of the Chaldees broke down or destroyed (Vni) the walls of Jerusalem round about ; but these words must not be so pressed as to make them express a total CHAP. III. 28-32. 197 levelling of the surrounding wall. The wall was only so far demolished as to be incapable of any longer serving as a defence to the city. And this end was fully accomplished when it was partially demolished in several places, because the portions of wall, and even the towers and gates, still per- haps left standing, could then no longer afford any protec- tion to the city. The danger that the Jews might easily refortify the city unless the fortifications were entirely de- molished, was sufficiently obviated by the carrying away into captivity of the greater part of the population. This ex- plains the fact that nothing is said in this description of the restoration of the towers of Hananeel and Hammeah (ver. 11), and that certain building parties repaired very long lengths of wall, as e.g. the 1000 cubits between the foun- tain-gate and the dung-gate, while others had very short portions appointed them. The latter was especially the case with those who built on the east side of Zion, because this being the part at which King Zedekiah fled from the city, the wall may here have been levelled to the ground. From the consideration of the course of the wall, so far as the description in the present chapter enables us to deter- mine it with tolerable certainty, and a comparison with the procession of the two bands of singers round the restored wall in chap. xii. 31-40, which agrees in the chief points with this description, it appears that the wall on the northern side of the city, before the captivity, coincided in the main with the northern wall of modern Jerusalem, being only somewhat shorter at the north-eastern and north-western corners ; and that it ran from the valley (or Jaffa) gate by the tower of furnaces, the gate of Ephraim, the old gate, and the fish-gate to the sheep-gate, maintaining, on the whole, the same direction as the second wall described by Josephus (belL Jud. v. 4. 2.) In many places remains of this wall, which bear testimony to their existence at a period long prior to Josephus, have recently been discovered. In an angle of the present wall near the Latin monastery are found " remains of a wall built of mortice-edged stones, near which lie blocks so large that we at first took them for 198 THE BOOK OF HEHEMIAH. portions of the natural rock, but found them on closer in-, spection to be morticed stones removed from their place. A comparatively large number of stones, both in the present wall between the north-west corner of the tower and the Damascus gate, and in the adjoining buildings, are morticed and hewn out of ancient material, and we can scarcely resist the impressipn that this must have been about the direction of an older wall." So Wolcott and Tipping in Kobinson's New Biblical Researches. Still nearer to the gate, about three hundred feet west of it, Dr. Wilson remarks {Lands of the Bible, i. p. 421), " that the wall, to some consi- derable height above its foundation, bears evidence, by the size and peculiarity of its stones, to its high antiquity," and attributes this portion to the old second wall (see Kobin- son). " Eastward, too, near the Damascus gate, and even near the eastern tower, are found very remarkable remains of Jewish antiquity. The similarity of these remains of wall to those surrounding the site of the temple is most sur- prising" (Tobler, Dritte Wand. p. 339). From these re- mains, and the intimations of Josephus concerning the second wall, Eobinson justly infers that the ancient wall must have run from the Damascus gate to a place in the neighbourhood of the Latin monastery, and that its course thence must havg been nearly along the road leading north- wards from the citadel to the Latin monastery, while be- tween the monastery and the Damascus gate it nearly coincided with the present wall. Of the length from the Damascus gate to the sheep-gate no certain indications have as yet been found. According to Robinson's ideas, it pro- bably went from the Damascus gate, at first eastwards in the direction of the present wall, and onwards to the highest point of Bezetha ; but then bent, as Bertheau supposes, in a south-easterly direction, and ran to a point in the present wall lying north-east of the Church of St. Anne, and thence directly south towards the north-east corner of the temple area. On the south side, on the contrary, the whole of the hill of Zion belonged to the ancient city ; and the wall did not, like the modern, pass across the middle of Zion, thus CHAP. III. 33-38. 199 excluding the southern half of tliis hill from the city, but went on the west, south, and south-east, round the edge of Zion, so that the city of Zion was as large again as that portion of modern Jerusalem lying on the hill of Zion, and included the sepulchres of David and of the kings of Judah, which are now outside the city wall. Tobler {Dritte Wand. p. 336) believes that a trace of the course of the ancient wall has been discovered in the cutting in the rock recently uncovered outside the city, where, at the building of the Anglican Episcopal school, which lies two hundred paces westward under En-Nebi-Daud, and the levelling of the garden and cemetery, were found edged stones lying scat- tered about, and "remarkable artificial walls of rock," whose direction shows that they must have supported the oldest or first wall of the city ; for they are just so far dis- tant from the level of the valley, that the wall could, or rather must, have stood there. "And," continues Tobler, " not only so, but the course of the wall of rock is also to a certain extent parallel with that of the valley, as must be supposed to be. the case with a rocky foundation to a city wall." Finally, the city was bounded on its western and eastern sides by the valleys of Gihon and Jehoshaphat re- spectively. Vers. 33-38 (chap. iv. 1-6, A. V.). The ridicule of Tohiah and Sariballat. — Vers. 33 and 34. As soon as Sanballat heard that we were building (C^s, partic, expresses not merely the resolve or desire to build, but also the act of commencing), he was wroth and indignant, and vented his anger by ridi- culing the Jews, saying before his brethren, i.e. the rulers of his people, and the army of Samaria (P'ri', like Esth. i. 3, 2 Kings xviii. 17), — in other words, saying publicly before his associates and subordinates, — " What do these feeble Jews f will they leave it to themselves ? will they sacrifice ? will they finish it to-day ? will they revive the stones out of the heaps that are burned?" Q'V'J' '""?, not, "What will they do ? (Bertheau), for the participle is present, and does not stand for the future; but, What are they doing? The form ^^DK, withered, powerless, occurs here only. The subject of 200 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. the four succeeding interrogative sentences must be the same. And this is enough to render inadmissible the ex- planation offered by older expositors of Qn^ 13t5J;;n : Will they leave to them, viz. will the neighbouring nations or the royal prefects allow them to build? Here, as in the case of the following verbs, the subject can only be the Jews. Hence Ewald seeks, both here and in ver. 8, to give to the verb 2ty the meaning to shelter: Will they make a shelter for themselves, i.e. will they fortify the town ? But this is quite arbitrary. Bertheau more correctly compares the passage, Ps. X. 14, Q"'n?¥« ?V '33TJ?, we leave it to God ; but incorrectly infers that here also we must supply DTIPN 7]}, and that, Will they leave to themselves? means. Will they commit the matter to God ? This mode of completing the sense, however, can by no means be justified ; and Bertheau's conjecture, that the Jews now assembling in Jerusalem, before commencing the work itself, instituted a devotional solemnity which San- ballat was ridiculing, is incompatible with the correct ren- dering of the participle. 3ry construed with ? means to leave, to commit a matter to any one, like Ps. x. 14, and the sense is: Will they leave the building of the fortified walls to themselves ? i.e. Do they think they are able with their poor resources to carry out this great work? This is appropriately followed by the next question : Will they sacri- fice ? i.e. bring sacrifices to obtain God's miraculous assist- ance ? The ridicule lies in the circumstance that Sanballat neither credited the Jews with ability to carry out the -work, nor believed in the overruling providence of the God whom the Jews worshipped, and therefore casts scorn by ^narn both upon the faith of the Jews in their God and upon the living God Himself. As these two questions are internally connected, so also are the two following, by which Sanballat casts a doubt upon the possibility of the work being executed. Will they finish (the work) on this day, i.e. to-day, directly ? The meaning is : Is this a matter to be as quickly executed as if it were the work of a single day ? The last question is : Have they even the requisite materials ? Will they re- vive the stones out of the heaps of rubbish which are burnt ? CHAP. IV. 1-8. 201 The bnilding-stone of Jerusalem was limestone, which gets softened by fire, losing its durability, and, so to speak, its vitality. This explains the use of the verb njHj to revive, to give fresh vital power. To revive burnt stones means, to bestow strength and durability upon the softened crumbled stones, to fit the stones info a new building (Ges. Lex.). The construction JliS'nB' neni is explained by the circum- stance that C^as is by its form masculine, but by its mean- ing feminine, and that nan agrees with the form D''33S. — Ver. 35. Tobiah the Ammonite, standing near Sanballat, and join- ing in in his raillery, adds : " Even that which they build, if a fox go up he will break their stone wall ;" i.e., even if they build up walls, the light footsteps of the stealthy fox will sufiice to tread them down, and to make breaches in their work. — Vers. 36 and 37. When Nehemiah heard of these contemptuous words, he committed the matter to God, en- treating Him to hear how they (the Jews) were become a scorn, i.e. a subject of contempt, to turn the reproach of the enemies upon their own head, and to give them up to plunder in a land of captivity, i.e. in a land in which they would dwell as captives. He supplicates, moreover, that God would not cover, i.e. forgive (Ps. Ixxxv. 3), their iniquity, and that their sin might not be blotted out from before His face, i.e. might not remain unpunished, " for they have pro- voked to wrath before the builders," i.e. openly challenged the wrath of God, by despising Him before the builders, so that they heard it. D''J)3n witRout an object, spoken of provoking the divine wrath by grievous sins; comp. 2 Kings xxi. 6 with 2 Chron. xxxiii. 6. — Ver. 38. The Jews con- tinued to build without heeding the ridicule of their enemies, " and all the wall was joined together unto the half thereof," i.e. the wall was so far repaired throughout its whole circum- ference, that no breach or gap was left up to half its height ; " and the people had a heart to work," i.e. the restoration went on so quickly because the people had a mind to work. Chap. iv. T^he attempts of the enemies to hinder the work by force, and NehemiaKs precautions against them. — Vers. 1-8. When the enemies learnt that the restoration of the wall 202 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH, was evidently getting on, they conspired together to fight against Jerusalem (vers. 1 and 2). The Jews then prayed to God, and set a watch (ver. 3). When the courage of the people began to fail, and their enemies spread a report of sudden attack being imminent, Nehemiah furnished the people on the wall with weapons, and encouraged the nobles and rulers to fight boldly for their brethren, their children, and their possessions (vers. 4-8). The Arabians, Ammon- • ites, and Ashdodites are here enumerated as enemies, besides Sanballat and Tobiah (vers. 2, 10, 19). The Arabians were incited to hostilities against the Jews by Geshem (11, 19), and the Ammonites by Tobiah ; the Ashdodites, the inhabit- ants of the city and territory of Ashdod, in the coast dis- trict of Philistia, were perhaps encouraged to renew their old hatred of Judah by Sanballat the Horonite. When these enemies heard that the walls of Jerusalem were ban- daged, i.e. that the breaches and damages in the wall were repaired, they were filled with wrath. The biblical expres- sion, to lay on a bandage, here and 2 Ohron. xxiv. 13, Jer. viii. 22, XXX. 17, xxxiii. 6, is derived from the healing of wounds by means of a bandage, and is explained by the sentence following : that the breaches began to be closed or stopped. The enemies conspired together to march against Jerusalem and injure it. V, because the people of the town are meant, nvlfi occurs but once more, viz. in Isa. xxxii. 6, in the sense of error; here it signifies calamities, for, as Aben Ezra well remarks, qui in angustiis constitutus est, est velut errans, qui nescit quid agat quove se vertat. — Ver. 3. The Jews, on the other hand, made preparation by prayer, and by setting a watch (l'??'P, comp. vii. 3, xiii. 30) day and night. We, viz. Nehemiah and the superintendents of the work, prayed and set a watch I3n\7j>, against them, to ward off a probable attack. Dn^JSl?, for fear of them, comp. ver. 10. — Ver. 4. The placing of the watch day and night, and the continuous labour, must have pressed heavily upon the people ; therefore Judah said : " The strength of the bearers of burdens fails, and there is much rubbish ; we are not able to build the wall." That is to say, the labour is beyond our CHAP. IV. 1-8. 203 power, we cannot continue it. — Ver. 5. Their discourage- ment was increased by the words of their enemies, who said : They (the Jews) shall not know nor see, till we come in the midst among them, and slay them, and cause the work to cease. — Ver. 6. When, therefore, the Jews who dwelt near them, i.e. in the neighbourhood of the adversaries, and heard their words, came to Jerusalem, " and said to us ten times (i.e. again and again), that from all places ye must return to us, then I placed," etc. Jews came from all places to Jerusalem, and summoned those who were building there to return home, for adversaries were surrounding the com- munity on all sides : Sanballat and the Samaritans on the north, the Ammonites on the east, the Arabians on the south, and the Philistines (Ashdodites) on the west. IK'S before laiK'Pi introduces their address, instead of "'3 ; being thus used, e.g., before longer speeches, 1 Sam. xv. 20, 2 Sam. i. 4; and for ''3 generally, throughout the later books, in conformity to Aramaean usage. "Return to us" (?S ^ItJ*, as in 2 Ohron. XXX. 9, for ?K 31B>), said the Jews who came from all quarters to Jerusalem to their fellow-townsmen, who from Jericho, Gibeon, and Tekoa (comp. iii. 2, 3, 5, 7) were working on the wall of Jerusalem. These words express their fear lest those who were left at home, especially the defenceless women, children, and aged men, should be left without pro- tection against the attacks of enemies, if their able-bodied men remained any Jonger in Jerusalem to take part in the building of the wall. — Ver. la is hardly intelligible. We translate it : Then I placed at the lowest places behind the wall, at the dried-up places, I (even) placed the people, after their families, with their swords, their spears, and their bows. Dipis? ni'nnFiD is a stronger expression for Dipts? nnno when used to indicate position, and p points out the direc- tion. The sense is: at the lowest places from behind the wall. Cnnsa gives the nature of the places where the people were placed with arms. n''nx and nn''ns mean a dry or bare place exposed to the heat of the sun : bare, uncovered, or empty places, perhaps bare hills, whence approaching foes might be discerned at a distance. The second T'DJ'.S}) is but 204 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. a reiteration of the verb, for the sake of combining it with its object, from which the Tpys) at the beginning of the verse was too far removed by the circumstantial description of the locaUty/ — Ver. 8. " And I looked, and rose up, and said." These words can only mean: When I saw the people thus placed with their weapons, I went to them, and said to the nobles, etc., "Be not afraid of them (the enemies); re- member the Lord, the great and the terrible," who will fight for you against your enemies (Deut. iii. 22, xx. 3, and xxxi. 6), "and fight ye for your brethren, your sons and your daughters, your wives and your houses," whom the enemies would destroy. Vers. 9-17. Thus was the design of the enemy circum- vented, and the Jews returned to their work on the wall, which they had forsaken to betake themselves to their wea- pons. The manner in which they resumed their building work was, that one half held weapons, and the other half laboured with weapons in hand. — Yer. 9. When our enemies heard that it (their intention) was known to us, and (that) God had brought their counsel to nought (through the mea- sures with which we had met it), we returned all of us to the wall, every one to his work. The conclusion does not begin till 3itJ'|1, 'PXn 1B*1 belonging to the premiss, in continuation of Vfii ''3. — Ver. 10. From that day the half of my servants wrought at the work, and the other half of them held the ^ Bertheau considers the text corrupt, regarding the word rii'DnriD as the object of TCys and alters it into DiatJ'nc or niJhB'n engines for hurling missiles (2 Chron. xxvi. 15), or into ni'intJD (a word of his own invention), instruments for hurling. But not only is this conjecture critically inadmissible, it also offers no appropriate sense. The LXX. reads the text as we do, and merely renders D^nnSl conjecturally by h rcig axiTruuols. Besides, it is not easy to see how ni33{J'n could have arisen from a false reading of nvnnnD; and it should be re- membered that niaBiriD does not mean a machine for hurling, while riVintiD is a mere fabrication. To this must be added, that such machines are indeed placed upon the walls of a fortress to hurl down ■ stones and projectiles upon assaulting foes, and not behind the walls, where they could only be used to demolish the walls, and so facilitate the taking of the town by the enemy. CHAP. IV. 9-17. 205 spears and shields, the bows and the armour, i.e. carried the arras. The servants of Nehemiah are his personal retinue, ver. 17, V. 10, 16, namely, Jews placed at his disposal as Pechah for ofBcial purposes. The l before ^''0?'?? ^^^ P'^^" bably placed before this word, instead of before the C^lBn following, by a clerical error ; for if it stood before the latter also, it might be taken in the sense of et — et. Q''i?''in?, instead of being construed with 3, is in the accusative, as also in ver. 11, and even in Jer. vi. 23 and Isa. xli. 9, 13. Unnecessary and unsuitable is the conjecture of Bertheau, that the word D'HOna originally stood after Q^'?''^^D, and that a fresh sentence begins with D''nD"ini ; and the other half held the spears; and the spears, the shields, and the bows, and the armour, and the rulers, were behind the whole house of Judah, — a strange combination, which places, the weapons and rulers behind the house of Judah. Besides, of the circumstance of the wea- pons being placed behind the builders, so that they might at any moment seize them, we not only read nothing in the text ; but in vers. 11 and 12 just the contrary, viz. that the builders wrought with one hand, and with the other held a weapon. " The rulers were behind all the house of Judah," i.e. each was behind his own people who were employed on the work, to encourage them in their labour, and, in case of attack, to lead them against the enemy. — In ver. 11 D'^aian noina is prefixed after the manner of a title. With respect to those who built the wall, both the bearers of burdens were lading with the one hand of each workman, and holding a weapon with the other, and the builders were building each with his sword girt on his side. The 1 prefixed to £3''NE'3n and CJiin means both ; and ?3B3 N^i, bearers of burdens, who cleared away the rubbish, and worked as labourers. These, at all events, could do their work with one hand, which would suffice for emptying rubbish into baskets, and for carrying material in handle baskets, i^* nnK3, literally, with the one (namely) of his hands that was doing the work. The suffix of nj points to the genitive following, nnx] nriN, the one and the other hand. n?B'n, not a missile, but a weapon that was stretched out, held forth, usually a sword or some 206 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. defensive weapon : see rem. on Josli. ii. 8, 2 Chron. xxxii. 5. The builders, on the contrary, needed both hands for their work : hence they had swords girt to their sides. " And he that sounded the trumpet was beside me." Nehemiah, as superintendent of the work, stood at the head of his servants, ready to ward off any attack; hence the trumpeter was beside him, to be able to give to those employed on the wall the signal for speedy muster in case danger should threaten. — Ver. 13 sq. Hence he said to the nobles, the rulers, and the rest of the people, i.e. all employed in building, " The work is much (great) and wide, and we are separated upon the wall one far from another ; in what place ye hear the sound of the trumpet, assemble yourselves to me : our God will fight for us." — In ver. 15 the whole is summed up, and for this purpose the matter of ver. 10 is briefly repeated, to unite with it the further statement that they so laboured from early morning till late in the evening. " We (Nehemiah and his servants) laboured in the work, and half of them (of the ser- vants) held the spears from the grey of dawn till the stars appeared." — Ver. 16. He took, moreover, a further precau- tion : he said to the people (i.e. to the labourers on the wall, and not merely to the warriors of the community, as Bertheau supposes) : Let every one with his servant lodge within Jeru- salem, i.e. to remain together during the night also, and not be scattered through the surrounding district, " that they may be guardianship for us by night and labour by day." The ab- stracts, guardianship and labour, stand for the concretes, guards and labourers. As W?, to us, refers to the whole community separated on the walls, so is iiW] t^'K to be understood of all the workers, and not of the fighting men only. From t^'N ^"iJ!?! it only appears that the fathers of families and master builders had servants with them as labourers. — Ver. 17. Nehemiah, moreover, and his brethren (his kinsmen and the members of his house), and his servants, and the men of the guard in his retinue, were constantly in their clothes ("not put- ting off our clothes" to rest). The last words, Dlsn in^sB' ty^N, are very obscure, and give no tolerable sense, whether we ex- plain ri^nn of water for drinking or washing. Luther trans- CHAP. V. 207 lates, Every one left off washing; but the words, Every one's weapon was water, can never bear this sense. Eoediger, in Gesen. Thes. s.v. rhf, seeks to alter n''!:n into ilj?, to which Bottcher (N. hit Aehrenl. iii. p. 219) rightly objects: "how could iTa have been altered into D^an, or ta^sn have got into the text at all, if some portion of it had not been originally there? What this il^a expresses, would be far more definitely given with the very slight correction of changing the closing D of D;sn, and reading WDH =«''»n (comp. 2 Sam. xiv. 19); thus each had taken his missile on the right (in his right hand), naturally that he might be ready to discharge it in case of a hostile attack." This conjecture seems to us a happy emendation of the unmeaning text, since W might easily have been changed into D ; and we only differ in this matter from Bottcher, by taking nPB' in its only legitimate meaning of weapon, and translating the words : And each laid his weapon on the right, viz. when he laid himself down at night to rest in his clothes, to be ready for fighting at the first signal from the watch. CHAP. V. — ABOLITION OF USURY — NEHEMIAH S UNSELFISHNESS. The events related in this and the following chapter also occurred during the building of the wall. Zealously as the rulers and richer members of the community, following the example of Nehemiah, were carrying on this great under- taking by all the means in their power, the work could not fail to be a heavy burden to the poorer classes, who found it very difficult to maintain their families in these expensive tinies, especially since they were still oppressed by wealthy usurers. Hence great discontent arose, which soon vented itself in loud complaints. Those who had no property de- manded corn for the support of their numerous families (ver. 2) ; others had been obliged to pledge their fields and vineyards, some to procure corn for their hunger, some to be able to pay the king's tribute; and these complained that they must now give their sons and daughters to bondage (vers. 208 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. 3-5). When these complaints came to the ears of Nehemiah, he was angry with the rulers ; and calling an assembly, he set before them the great injustice of usury, and called upon them to renounce it, to restore to their brethren their mort- gaged lands, and to give them what they had borrowed (vers. 6-11). His address made the impression desired. The noble and wealthy resolved to perform what was required ; whereupon Nehemiah caused them to take a solemn oath to this effect, indicating by a symbolical act that the heavy wrath of God would fall upon all who should fail to act according to their promise. To this the assembly expressed their Amen, and the people carried out the resolution (vers. 12, 13). Nehemiah then declared with what unselfishness he had exercised his office of governor, for the sake of lightening the heavy burden laid upon the people (vers. 14-19). Vers. 1-5. The people complain of oppression. — Ver. 1. There arose a great cry of the people and of their wives against their brethren the Jews, i.e., as appears from what follows (ver. 7), against the nobles and rulers, therefore against the richer members of the community. This cry is more particularly stated in vers. 2-5, where the malcontents are divided into three classes by B'.''l, vers. 2, 3, 4. — Ver. 2. There were some who said : Our sons and our daughters are many, and we desire to receive corn, that we may eat and live. These were the words of those workers who had no property, nnipj (from ni??)^ not to take by force, but only to desire that corn may be provided. — Ver. 3. Others, who were indeed possessed of fields, vineyards, and houses, had been obliged to mortgage them, and could now reap nothing from them. 31J?, to give as a pledge, to mortgage. The use of the participle denotes the continuance of the trans- action, and is not to be rendered, We must mortgage our fields to procure corn ; but. We have been obliged to mort- gage them, and we desire to receive corn for our hunger, because of the dearth. For (1) the context shows that the act of mortgaging had already taken place, and was still con- tinuing in force (we have been obliged to pledge them, and CHAP. V. 1-6. 209 they are still pledged) ; and (2) nni?3 must not be taken here in a different sense from ver. 2, but means, "We desire that corn may be furnished us, because of the dearth ; not, that we may not be obliged to mortgage our lands, but because they are already mortgaged. ^V'la, too, does not necessarily presuppose a scarcity in consequence of a failure of crops or other circumstances, but only declares Ihat they who had been obliged to pledge their fields were suffering from hun- ger. — Ver. 4. Others, again, complained : We have borrowed money for the king's tribute upon our fields and vineyards, ni? means to be dependent, nexwn esse, and transitively to make dependent, like S7», to be full, and to make full : We have made our fields and our vineyards answerable for money for the king's tribute (Bertheau), i.e. we have borrowed money upon our fields for . . . This they could only do by pledging the crops of these lands, or at least such a portion of their crops as might equal the sum borrowed ; comp. the law. Lev. xxv. 14-17. — Ver. 5. "And now our flesh is as the flesh of our brethren, and our sons as their sons ; and lo, we are obliged to bring our sons and our daughters into bon- dage, and some of our daughters are already brought into bon- dage ; and we have no power to alter this, and our fields and vineyards belong to others." " Our brethren" are the richer Jews who had lent money upon pledges, and ^^''33 are their sons. The sense of the first half of the verse is : We are of one flesh and blood with these rich men, i.e., as Kamb. already correctly explains it : non sumus deterioris conditionis quam tributes nostri divites, nee tamen nostrce inopice ex lege divina Deut. XV. 7, 8, subvenitur, nisi maximo cum foenore. The law not only allowed to lend to the poor on a pledge (Deut. XV. 8), but also permitted Israelites, if they were poor, to sell themselves (Lev. xxv. 39), and also their sons and daughters, to procure money. It required, however, that they who were thus sold should not be retained as slaves, but set at liberty without ransom, either after seven years or at the year of jubilee (Lev. xxv. 39-41; Ex, xxii. 2 sq.). It is set forth as a special hardship in this verse that some of their daughters were brought into bondage for maid-servants. 210 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. «T h»b ps, literally, our hand is not to God, i.e. the power to alter it is not in our hand ; on this figure of speech, comp. Gren. xxxi. 29. The last clause gives the reason : Our fields and our vineyards belonging to others, what they yield does not come to us, and we are not in a position to be able to put an end to the sad necessity of selling our daughters for servants. Vers. 6-13. Tlie abolition of usury. — Ver. 6. Nehemiah was very angry at this complaint and these things, i.e. the in- justice which had been brought to his knowledge. — Ver. 7. " And my heart took counsel upon it (^?I3l according to the Chaldee use of ^?*?, Dan. iv. 24), and I contended with the nobles and rulers, and said to them, Ye exact usury every one of his brother." ? S^B*: means to lend to any one, and NE'D, also r\mii^ Deut.'xxiv. 10, Prov. xxii. 26, and NE'D, is the thing lent, the loan, what one borrows from or lends to another. Consequently ^f^ NB'J is to lend some one a loan ; comp. Deut. xxiv. 10. This does not seem to suit this verse. For Nehemiah cannot reproach the nobles for lending loans, when he and his servants had, according to ver. 10, done so likewise. Hence the injustice of the transaction which he rebukes must be expressed in the emphatic precedence given to NB'D. Bertheau accordingly regards N^D not as the ac- cusative of the object, but as an independent secondary ac- cusative in the sense of : for the sake of demanding a pledge, ye lend. But this rendering can be neither grammatically nor lexically justified. In the first respect it is opposed by nsB'D N^n, Deut. xxiv. 10, which shows that Nf? in con- junction with KB'i is the accusative of the object; in the other, by the constant use of Ne'e in all passages in which it occurs to express a loan, not a demand for a pledge. From Ex. xxii. 24, where it is said, " If thou lend money (npri) to the poor, thou shalt not be to him nB'33, shalt not lay upon him usury," it is evident that HB'J is one who lends money on usury, or carries on the business of a money-lender. This evil secondary meaning of the word is here strongly marked by the emphatic prseposition of NB'D ; hence Nehe- miah is speaking of those who practise usury. " And I ap- CHAP. V. e-13. 211 pointed a great assembly on their account," to put a stop to the usury and injustice by a public discussion of the matter, ^[■y??, not against them (the usurers), but on their account. — Ver. 8. In this assembly he reproached them with the injustice of their behaviour. " We '' (said he) " have, after our ability, redeemed our brethren the Jews which were sold unto the heathen ; yet ye would sell your brethren, and, they are to be sold to us." We (i.e. Nehemiah and the Jews living in exile, who were like-minded with him) have bought, in contrast to ye sell. They had redeemed their Jewish bre- thren who were sold to the heathen. "3 '•'la for wa "IK'S ^1^, i.e., not according to the full number of those who were among ns, meaning as often as a sale of this kind occurred (Bertheau) ; for ''1 does not mean completeness, multitude, but only sufficiency, supply, adequacy of means (Lev. xxv. 26) ; hence W3 '''13 is: according to the means that we had: secundum suffioientiam vel facultatem, quce in nobis est (Ramb.), or secundum possibilitaiem nostram (Vulg.). The contrast is still more strongly expressed by the placing of D3 before DriSj so that 031. acquires the meaning of nevertheless (Ewald, § 354, a). The sale of their brethren for bond-servants was forbidden by the law, Lev. xxv. 42. The usurers had no- thing to answer to this reproach. " They held their peace, and found no word," sc. in justification of their proceed- ings. — Ver. 9. Nehemiah, moreover, continued ("iDSil, the Chethiv, is evidently a clerical error for i»K1, for the Niphal "I???.! does not suit) : " The thing ye do is not good: ought ye not (= ye surely ought) to walk in the fear of our God, be- cause of the reproach of the heathen our enemies?" i.e., we ought not, by harsh and unloving conduct towards our bre- thren, to give our enemies occasion to calumniate us. — Ver. 10. " I, likewise my brethren and my servants (comp. iv. 17), have lent them money and corn ; let us, I pray, remit (not ask' back) this loan ! " The participle Ct^i says : we are those who have lent. Herewith he connects the invitation, ver. 11 : " Eestore unto them, I pray you, even this day (Di»n3, about this day, i.e. even to-day, 1 Sam. ix. 13), their fields^ their vineyards, their olive gardens, and their houses, 212 THE BOOK OF NEHEMUH. and the hundredth of the money, and of the corn, wine, and oil which you have lent them." Nehemiah requires, 1st, that those who held the lands of their poorer brethren in pledge should restore them their property, without delay : 2d, that they should remit to their debtors all interest owing on money, corn, etc. that had been lent ; not, as the words have been frequently understood, that they should give back to their debtors such interest as they had already received. That the words in ver. 11a bear the former, and not the latter signification, is obvious from the reply, ver. 12, of those addressed : " We will restore, sc. their lands, etc., and will not require of them, sc. the hundredth; so will we do as thou sayest." Hence we must not translate Dn3 D'E'J nris nC'K, " which you had taken from them as interest " (de Wette), — a translation which, moreover, cannot be justified by the usage of the language, for 3 nK'3 does not mean to take in- terest from another, to lend to another on interest. The IK'S? relates not to nsoi, but to inxjni , . . ]yf] ; and a^B'n, to re- store, to make good, is used of both the transactions in question, meaning in the first clause the restoration of the lands retained as pledges, and in the second, the remission (the non-requirement) of the" hundredth. The hundredth taken as interest is probably, like the centesima of the Romans, to be understood of a monthly payment. One per cent, per month was a very heavy interest, and one which, in the case of the poor, might be exorbitant. The law, moreover, forbade the taking of any usury from their brethren, their poor fellow-countrymen, Ex. xxii. 25 and Lev. XXV. 36 sq. When the creditors had given the con- sent required, Nehemiah called the priests, and made them (the creditors) swear to do according to this promise, i.e. conscientiously to adhere to their agreement. Nehemiah ob- tained the attendance of the priests, partly for the purpose of giving solemnity to the oath now taken, and partly to give to the declaration made in the presence of the priests legal validity for judicial decisions. — ^Ver. 13. To make the agreement thus sworn to still more binding, Nehemiah con- firmed the proceeding by a symbolical action : Also I shook CHAP. V. U-19. 213 my lap, and said, So may God shake out every man from his house, and from his labour, that performeth (fulfilleth) not this promise, and thus may he be shaken out and emptied, t^n means the lap of the garment, in which things are carried (Isa. xlix. 22), where alone the word is again found. The symbolical action consisted in Nehemiah's gathering up his garment as if for the purpose of carrying something, and then shaking it out with the words above stated, which declared the meaning of the act. The whole congregation said Amen, and praised the Lord, sc. for the success with which God had blessed his efforts to help the poor. And the people did according to this promise, i.e. the community acted in accordance with the agreement entered into. Vers. 14-19. NehemiaKs unselfish conduct. — The transac- tion above related gave Nehemiah occasion to speak in his narrative of the unselfishness with which he had filled the office of governor, and of the personal sacrifices he had made for the good of his fellow-countrymen. — Ver. 14. The statement following is compared with the special occurrence preceding it by D3. As in this occurrence he had used his credit to do away with the oppression of the people by wealthy usurers, so also had he shown himself unselfish during his whole official career, and shunned no sacrifice by which he might lighten the burdens that lay upon his fellow-countrymen. " From the time that he appointed me to be their governor in the land of Judah, from the twentieth year even unto the two-and-thirtieth year of Artaxerxes the king, , I and my servants have not eaten the bread of the governor." The subject of njv is left undefined, but is obviously King Artaxerxes. Dns, their (the Jews') governor. This he was from the twentieth (comp. ii. 1) to the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes, in which, according to xiii. 6, he again visited the court of this monarch, returning after a short interval to Jerusalem, to carry out still further the work he had there undertaken. " The bread of the Pechah" is, according to ver. 15, the food and wine with which the community had to furnish him. The meaning is : During this whole period I drew no allow- 214 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. ances from the people. — Ver. 15. The former governors who had been before me in Jerusalem — Zerubbabel and his succes- sors—had received allowances, Dyn b^ lT'33n, had burdened the people, and had taken of them (their fellow-countrymen) for bread and wine (i.e. for the requirements of their table), "afterwards in money forty shekels." Some difficulty is presented by the word ins, which the LXX. render by eaxa-TOV, the Vulgate quotidie. The meaning ultra, prceter, besides (Ew. § 217, 1), can no more be shown to be that of "inSj than over can, which Bertheau attempts to justify by saying that after forty shekels follow forty-one, forty-two, etc. The interpretation, too : reckoned after money (Bottcher, de Inferis, § 409, b, and N. krit. Aehrenl, iii. p. 219), cannot be supported by the passages quoted in its behalf, since in none of them is ins used de iilo quod normm est, but has everywhere fundamentally the local signification after. Why, then, should not ins? be here used adverbially, afterwards, and express the thought that this money was afterwards de- manded from the community for the expenses of the gover- nor's table ? " Even their servants bare rule over the people." tipB' denotes arbitrary, oppressive rule, abuse of power for extortions, etc. Nehemiah, on the contrary, had not thus acted because of the fear of God. — Ver. 16. "And also I took part in the work of this wall ; neither bought we any land, and all my servants were gathered thither unto the work." 3 P''fn.n = 3 T^ PVp.'!!, to set the hand to something ; here, to set about the work. The manner in which Nehe- miah, together with his servants, set themselves to the work of wall-building is seen from iv. 10, 12, 15, and 17. Neither have we (I and my servants) bought any land, i.e. have not by the loan of money and corn acquired mortgages of land ; comp. ver. 10. — Ver. 17. But this was not all; for Nehemiah had also fed a considerable number of persons at his table, at his own expense. " And the Jews, both one hundred and fifty rulers, and the men who came to us from the nations round about us, were at my table," i.e. were my guests. The hundred and fifty rulers, comp. ii. 16, were the heads of the different houses of Judah collectively. These were al- CHAP. VI. 215 ways guests at Nehemiah's table, as were also sucli Jews as dwelt among the surrounding nations, when they came to Jerusalem. — Ver. 18. " And that which was prepared for one {i.e. a single) day was one ox, six choice (therefore fat) sheep, and fowls ; they were prepared for me, i.e. at my ex- pense, and once in ten days a quantity of wine of all kinds." The meaning of the last clause seems to be, that the wine was furnished every ten days : no certain quantity, however, is mentioned, but it is only designated in general terms as very great, nann?, nt DJJI, and with this, i.e. notwithstanding this, great expenditure, I did not require the bread of the Pechah (the allowance for the governor, comp, ver. 14), for the service was heavy upon the people. fiY-^S? is the service of building the walls of Jerusalem. Thus Nehemiah, from compassion for his heavily burdened countrymen, resigned the allowance to which as governor he was entitled. — Ver. 19. " Think upon me, my God, for good, all that I have done for this people." Compare the repetition of this desire, xiii. 14 and 31. ^V nb'j? in the sense of ? HB'SJ, properly for the sake of this people, i.e. for them. CHAP. VI. — SNARES LAID FOE NEHEMIAH — COMPLETION or THE WALL, When Sanballat and the enemies associated with him were unable to obstruct the building of the wall of Jerusalem by open violence (chap, iv.), they endeavoured to ruin Nehemiah by secret snares. They invited him to meet them in the plain of Ono (vers. 1, 2) ; but Nehemiah, perceiving that they intended mischief, replied to them by messengers, that he could not come to them on account of the building. After receiving for the fourth time this refusal, Sanballat sent his servant to Nehemiah with an open letter, in which he accused him of rebellion against the king of Persia. Nehemiah, however, repelled this accusation as the invention of Sanballat (vers. 3-9). Tobiah and Sanballat, moreover, hired a false prophet to make Nehemiah flee into the temple from fear of the snares prepared for him, that they might 216 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. then be able to calumniate him (10-14). The building of the wall was completed in fifty-two days, and the enemies were disheartened (15-17), although at that time many nobles of Judah had entered into epistolary correspondence with Tobiah, to obstruct the proceedings of Nehemiah (18, 19). Vers. 1-9. Tlie attempts of Sanballat and his associates to ruin Nehemiah. — Vers. 1, 2. When Sanballat, Tobiah, Geshem the Arabian, and the rest of the enemies, heard that the wall was built, and that no breaches were left therein, though the doors were then not yet set up in the gates, he sent, etc. i^ Vat^J, it was heard by him, in the indefinite sense of: it came to his ears. The use of the passive is more frequent in later Hebrew; comp. vers. 6, 7, xiii. 27, Esth. i. 20, and elsewhere. On Sanballat and his allies, see re- marks on ii. 19. The " rest of our enemies " were, accord- ing to iv. 1 (iv. 7, A. v.), Ashdodites, and also other hostile individuals. '1J1 nvn 1j? oa introduces a parenthetical sentence limiting the statement already made : Nevertheless, down to that time I had not set up the doors in the gates. The wall-building was quite finished, but doors to the gates were as yet wanting to the complete fortification of the city. The enemies sent to him, saying, Come, let us meet together (for a discussion) in the villages in the valley of Ono. — In ver. 7, i^W3, let us take counsel together, is synonymous with niyw of the present verse. The form CIB^i, elsewhere only lS3j 1 Chron. xxvii. 25, or IBS, village, 1 Sam. vi. 18, occurs only here. '""T??? however, being found Ezra ii. 25 and elsewhere as a proper name, the form l^B3 seems to have been in use as well as 1S3. There is no valid ground for regarding D''"1Q3 as the proper name of a special locality. To make their proposal appear impartial, they leave the appointment of the place in the valley of Ono to Nehemiah. Ono seems, according to 1 Ohron. viii. 12, to have been situate in the neighbourhood of Lod (Lydda), and is there- fore identified by Van de Velde {Mem. p. 337) and Bertheau with Kefr Ana (\j\s. J^) or Kefr Anna, one and three- quarter leagues north of Ludd. But no certain information CHAP. VI. 1-9. 217 concerning the position of the place can be obtained from 1 Ohron. viii. 12 ; and Eoediger (in the Hallische Lit. Zei- tung, 1842, No. 71, p. 665) is more correct, in accordance both with the orthography and the sense, in comparing it with Beit Unia (\jj^ <^ - 1 <), north-west of Jerusalem, not far from Beitin (Bethel) ; comp. Eob. Pal. ii. p. 351. The circumstance that the plain of Ono was, according to the present verse, somewhere between Jerusalem and Samaria, which suits Beit Unia, but not Kefr Ana (comp. Arnold in Herzog's Realenc. xii. p. 759), is also in favour of the latter view. " But they thought to do me harm." Probably they wanted to make him a prisoner, perhaps even to assassinate him. — Ver. 3. Nehemiah sent messengers to them, saying : " I am doing a great work, and I cannot, come down thither. Why should the work cease whilst I leave it and come down to you ? " That is, he let them know that he could not un- dertake the journey, because his presence in Jerusalem was necessary for the uninterrupted prosecution of the work of building. — Ver. 4. They sent to him four times in the same manner (n?n in'na, comp. 2 Sam. xv. 6), and Nehemiah gave them the same answer. — Ver. 5. Then Sanballat sent his servant in this manner, the fifth time, with an open letter, in which was written: "It is reported (J'??'^, it is heard) among the nations, and Gashmu saith, (that) thou and the Jews intend to rebel ; for which cause thou buildest the wall, and thou wilt be their king, according to these words." " The nations" are naturally the nations dwelling in the land, in the neighbourhood of the Jewish community. On the form Gashmu, comp. rem. on ii. 19. nin^ the particip., is used of that which any one intends or prepares to do : thou art intending to become their king. I?'??, therefore, for no other reason than to rebel, dost thou build the wall. — Ver. 7. It was further said in the letter : " Thou hast also appointed prophets to proclaim concerning thee in Jerusalem, saying, King of Judah ; and now it will be reported to the king according to these words (or things). Come, therefore, and let us take counsel together," so. to refute these things as 218 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. groundless rumours. By such accusations in an open letter, which might be read by any one, Sanballat thought to oblige Nehemiah to come and clear himself from suspicion by an interview. — Ver. 9. Nehemiah, however, saw through his stratagem, and sent word to him by a messenger: " There are no such things done* as thou say est, but thou feignest them out of thine own heart." DS"ji3, a contraction of Q?']i3, from N"13, which occurs again only in 1 Kings 2tii. 33, to invent, to feign, especially evil things. — Ver. 9. "For," adds Nehemiah when writing of these things, " they all desired to make us afraid, thinking ("ibN?) their hands will cease from the work, that it be not done." The last words, "And now strengthen my hands," are to be explained by the fact that Nehemiah hastily transports himself into the situation and feelings of those days when he prayed to God for strength. To make this request fit into the train of thought, we must supply : I however thought, or said. Strengthen, O God, my hands. pin is imperative. ■ The translation, in the first pers. sing, of the imperfect, " I strengthened " (LXX., Vulg., Syr.), is only an attempt to fit into their context words not under- stood by the translators. Vers. 10-14. A false prophet, hired by Tobiah and San- ballat, also sought, by prophesying that the enemies of Nehemiah would kill him iu the night, to cause him to flee with him into the holy place of the temple, and to protect his life from the machinations of his enemies by closing the temple doors. His purpose was, as Nehemiah subsequently learned, to seduce him into taking an illegal step, and so give occasion for speaking evil of him. — Ver. 10. " And I came into the house of Shemaiah the son of Delaiah, the son of Mehetabeel, who was shut up." Nothing further is known of this prophet Shemaiah. From what is here related we learn, that he was one of the lying prophets employed by Sanballat and Tobiah to ruin Nehemiah. We are not told what induced or caused Nehemiah to go into the house of Shemaiah ; he merely recounts what the latter was hired by his enemies to effect. From the accessory clause, " and he was shut up," we may perhaps infer that Shemaiah in some CHAP. VI. 10-14. 219 way or other, perhaps by announcing that he had something of importance to communicate^ persuaded Nehemiah to visit him at his house. 11VJ| NWl does not, however, involve the meaning which Bertheau gives it, viz. that Nehemiah went to Shemaiah's house, because the latter as ilVJf could not come to him. The phrase says only, that when Nehemiah entered Shemaiah's house, he found him IIVJ?, which simply means shut up, shut in his house, not imprisoned, and still less in a state of ceremonial uncleanness (Ewald), or overpowered by the hand of Jahve — laid hold on by a higher power (Bertheau). It is evident from his proposal to Nehemiah, "Let us go together to the house of God," etc., that he was neither im- prisoned in his house, nor prevented by any physical cause from leaving home. Hence it follows that- he had shut himself in his house, to intimate to Nehemiah that also he felt his life in danger through the machinations of his enemies, and that he was thus dissimulating in order the more easily to induce him to agree to his proposal, that they should together escape the snares laid for them by fleeing to the temple. In this case, it may be uncertain whether Shemaiah had shut himself up, feigning that the enemies of Judah were seeking his life also, as the prophet of Jahve ; or whether by this action he was symbolically announcing what God charged him to make known to Nehemiah. Either view is possible ; while the circumstance that Nehemiah in ver. 12 calls his advice to flee into the temple a riKiai against him, and that it was quite in character with the proceedings of such false prophets to enforce their words by symbolical signs (comp. 1 Kings xxii. 11), favours the former. The going into the house of God is more closely defined by "'^''^D ^i'^'?^, within the holy place, where, as is well known, no layman was allowed to enter. " And let us shut the doors of the holy place ; for they (the enemies) will come to slay thee, and indeed this night will they come to slay thee." He seeks to corroborate his warning as a special revelation from God, by making it appear that God had not only made known to him the design of the enemies, but also the precise time at which they intended to carry it into execution. — 220 THE BOOR OF NEHEMIAH. Ver. 11. Nehemiah, however, was not to be alarmed thereby, but exclaimed : Should such a man as I flee ? an'd what man like me could go into the holy place, and live? I will not go in. ''nj is the perf. with Vav consecutive: that he may live. This word is ambiguous ; it may mean : to save his life, or : and save his life, not, expiate such a transgression of the law with his life. Probably Nehemiah used it in the latter sense, having in mind the command. Num. xviii. 7, that the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death. — ^Ver. 12. And I perceived, — viz. from the conduct of Shemaiah on my refusal to follow his advice, — and, lo, not God had sent him (i.e. had not commissioned or inspired him to speak these words ; t^i) emphatically precedes CnPN : not God, but himself), but that he pronounced this prophecy against me, because Tobiah and Sanballat had hired him. The verb ]t2iff (sing.) agrees only with the latter word, although in fact it refers to both these individuals. — Ver. 13. " On this account was he hired that I might be afraid, and do so ; and if I had sinned (by entering the holy place), it (my sin) would have been to them for an evil report, that they might defame me." The use of ]Vob before two sentences, the second of which expresses the purpose of the first, is peculiar: for this purpose, that I might fear, etc., was he hired. To enter and to shut himself within the holy place would have been a grave desecration of the house of God, which would have given occasion to his enemies to cast suspicion upon Nehemiah as a despiser of God's commands, and so to undermine his authority with the people. — In ver. 14 Nehe- miah concludes his account of the stratagems of his enemies, with the wish that God would think upon them according to their works. In expressing it, he names, besides Tobiah arid Sanballat, the prophetess Noadiah and the rest of the prophets who, like Shemaiah, would have put him in fear: whence we perceive, 1st, that the case related (vers. 10-13) is given as only one of the chief events of the kind ('2''^X?> lil^^® '^si's- 9) 19) ; and 2dy that false prophets were again busy in the congregation, as in the period preceding the captivity, and seeking to seduce the people from ■ CHAP. VI. 15, 16. 221 hearkening to the voice of the true prophets of God, who preached repentance and conversion as the -conditions of prosperity. Vers. 15 and 16. The wall completed, and the impression made hy this work upon the enemies of the Jews. — Ver. 15. The wall was finished on the twenty-fifth day of the month Elul, i.e. of the sixth month, in fiftyrtwo days. According to this statement, it must have been begun on the third day of the fifth month (Ab). The year is not mentioned, the before-named (ii. 1) twentieth year of Artaxerxes being in- tended. This agtees with the other chronological statements of this book. For, according to ii. 1, it was in Nisan (the first month) of this year that Nehemiah entreated permission of the king to go to Jerusalem ; and we learn from v. 14 and xiii. 6 that he was governor in Jerusalem from the twentieth year onwards, and must therefore have set out for that' place immediately after receiving the royal permission. In this case, he might well arrive in Jerusalem before the ex- piration of the fourth month. He then surveyed the wall, and called a public assembly for the purpose of urging the whole community to enter heartily upon the work of re- storation (ii. 11—17). All this might take place in the course of the fourth month, so that the work could be actually taken in hand in the fifth. Nor is there any reason- able ground, as Bertheau has already shown, for doubting the correctness of the statement, that the building was com- pleted in fifty-two days, and (with Ewald) altering the fifty- two days into two years and four months.^ For we must ' Ewald, Gesch. iv. p. 178, thinks that traces of the correct reading of this verse are found in the statement of Josephus, Ant. xi. 5. 7 sq., that the wall of Jerusalem was finished in two years and four months, and that the word DTUti"! may have been omitted from Neh. vi. 15 by an ancient clerical error, though he is obliged to admit that Josephus in other instances gives no trustworthy dates concerning Nehemiah, whom he makes arrive at Jerusalem in the twenty-fifth, and complete the wall in the twenty-eighth year of Xerxes. On the other hand, Ber- theau has already remarked, that even if DTUE' is supplied, no agree- ment with the statement of Josephus is obtained, since the question stiU remains how four months can be made out of fifty-two days, or 222 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. in this case consider, 1st, the necessity for hastening the work repeatedly pointed out by Nehemiah ; 2d, the zeal and relatively very large number of builders — the whole community, both the inhabitants of Jerusalem and the men of Jericho, Tekoa, Gibeon, Mizpah, etc. having combined their efforts ; 3d, that the kind of exertion demanded by such laborious work and unintermitted watchfulness as are described chap, iv., though it might be continued for fifty- two days, could scarcely endure during a longer period ; and lastly, the amount of the work itself, which must not be re- garded as the rebuilding of the whole wall, but only as the restoration of those portions that had been destroyed, the repair of the breaches (i. 3, ii. 13, vi. 1), and of the ruined gates, — a large portion of wall and at least one gate having remained uninjured (see p. 180). To this must be added that the material, so far as stone was concerned, was close at hand, stone needing for the most part to be merely brought out of the ruins ; besides which, materials of all kind might have been collected and prepared beforehand. It is, moreover, incorrect to compute the extent of this fortified wall by the extent of the wall of modern Jerusalem. — Ver. 16. The news that the wall was finished spread fear among the enemies, viz. among the nations in the neighbour- hood of Jerusalem (comp. iv. 1, v. 9) ; they were much cast down, and perceived " that this work was effected with the help of our God." The expression QD''-!''??? ''•'?! occurs only here, and must be explained according to 1''3a vB', his countenance fell (Gen. iv. 5), and 3? ?B», the heart fails (i.e. the courage) (1 Sam. xvii. 32) : they sank in their own eyes, i.e. they felt themselves cast down, discouraged. Vers. 17-19. To this Nehemiah adds the supplementary remark, that in those days even nobles of Judah were in alliance and active correspondence with Tobiah, because he vice versa, fifty-two days of four months. In fact, it is vain to seek for any common ground on which these two different statements can be harmonized ; and hence the two years and four months of Josephus can scarcely be regarded as furnishing traces of another reading of the text. CHAP. VI, 17-19. 223 had married into a respectable Jewish family. — Ver. 17. " Also in those days the nobles of Judah wrote many letters (dn''n'i3N D''a"iDj they made many, multiplied, their letters) passing to Tobiah, and those of Tobiah came to them." — Ver. 18. For many in Judah were sworn unto him, for he was the son-in-law of Shecanlah the son of Arab ; and his son Johanan had taken (to wife) the daughter of Meshullam the son of Berechiah. In this case Tobiah was connected with two Jewish families, — a statement which is made to con- firm the fact that many in Judah were nyinp vjfa, associates of an oath, joined to him by an oath, not allies in con- sequence of a treaty sworn to (Bertheau). From this reason being given, we may conclude his aiSnity by marriage was confirmed by an oath. Shecaniah ben Arah was certainly a respectable Jew of the race of Arah, Ezra ii. 5. Meshullam ben Berechiah appears among those who shared in the work of building, iii. 4 and 30. According to xiii. 4, the high priest Eliashib was also related to Tobiah. From the fact that both Tobiah and his son Jehohanan have genuine Jewish names, Bertheau rightly infers that they were probably de- scended from Israelites of the northern kingdom of the ten tribes. With this the designation of Tobiah as " the Am- monite" may be harmonized by the supposition that his more recent or remote ancestors were naturalized Ammonites. — Ver. 19. "Also they reported his good deeds before me, and uttered my words to him." vnbiD, the good things in him, or "his good qualities and intentions" (Bertheau). The subject of the sentence is the nobles of Judah. i? d''S''SiD, they were bringing forth to him. On this matter Bertheau remarks, that there is no reason for assuming that the nobles of Judah endeavoured, by misrepresenting and distorting the words of Nehemiah, to widen the breach between him and Tobiah. This is certainly true ; but, at the same time, we cannot further infer from these words that they were trying to effect an understanding between the two, and representing to Nehemiah how dangerous and objectionable his under- taking was ; but were by this very course playing into the hands of Tobiah. For an understanding between two in- 224 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. dividuals, hostile the one to the other, is not to be brought about by reporting to the one what is the other's opinion of him. Finally, Nehemiah mentions also that Tobiah also sent letters to put him in fear Q^^'X^, infin. Piel, like 2 Chron. xxxii. 18 ; comp. the participle above, vers. 9 and 14). The letters were probably of similar contents with the letter of Sanballat given in ver. 6. II.— NEHEMIAH'S FURTHER EXERTIONS IN BEHALF OF THE COMMUNITY.— Chap. VII. -XII. 43. The building of the wall being now concluded, Nehemiah first made arrangements for securing the city against hostile attacks (vii. 1—3) ; then took measures to increase the in- habitants of Jerusalem (vii. 4-73 and xi. 1 and 2) ; and finally endeavoured to fashion domestic and civil life accord- ing to the precepts of the law (chap, viii.-x.), and, on the occasion of the solemn dedication of the wall, to set in order the services of the Levites (chap. xii.). CHAP. VII. — THE WATCHING OP THE CITY. MEASURES TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF ITS INHABITANTS. LIST OE THE HOUSES THAT RETURNED FROM BABYLON WITH ZERUBBABEL. Vers. 1-3. The watching of the city provided for. — Ver. 1. When the wall was built, Nehemiah set up the doors in the gates, to complete the fortification of Jerusalem (comp. vi. 1). Then were the gatekeepers, the singers, and the Levites entrusted with the care (liP.^i?, prceflci; comp. xii. 14). The care of watching the walls and gates is meant in this con- nection. According to ancient appointment, it was the duty of the doorkeepers to keep watch over the house of God, and to open and close the gates of the temple courts ; comp. 1 Ohron. ix. 17-19, xxvi. 12-19. The singers and the Levites appointed to assist the priests, on the contrary, CHAP. VII. 1-s. 225 had, in ordinary times, nothing to do with the service of watching. Under the present extraordinary circumstances, however, Nehemiah committed also to these two organized corporations the task of keeping watch over the walls and gates of the city, and placed them under the command of his brother Hanani, and of Hananiah the ruler of the citadel. This is expressed by the words, ver. 2 : I gave Hanani . . . and Hananiah . . . charge over Jerusalem, nvan is the fortress or citadel of the city lying to the north of the temple (see rem. on ii. 8), in which was probably located the royal garrison, the commander of which was in the ser- vice of the Persian king. The choice of this man for so important a charge is explained by the additional clause : " for he was a faithful man, and feared God above many." The 3 before E'^K is the so-called Caph veritatis, which ex- presses a comparison with the idea of the matter : like a man whom one may truly call faithful. CaiO is comparative : more God-fearing than many. — Ver. 3. The Chethiv ■I0N''1 is both here and v. 9 certainly a clerical error for the Keri "iONI, though in this place, at all events, we might read "'???.!!, it was said to them. " The gates of Jerusalem are not to be opened till the sun be hot ; and while they (the watch) are yet at their posts, they are to shut the doors and lock them ; and ye shall appoint watches of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, some to be at their watch-posts, others before their house." 1S''JJ in Hebrew is used only here, though more frequently in the Talmud, of closing the doors, tns, to make fast, i.e. to lock, as more frequently in Syriac. The injin, absol. '^'"OVJ^ instead of the temp. fin. is emphatic : and you are to appoint. The sense is : the gates are to be occupied before daybreak by the Levites (singers and other Levites) -appointed to guard them, and not opened till the sun is hot and the watch already at their posts, and to be closed in the evening before the departure of the watch. After the closing of the gates, i.e. during the night, the in- habitants of Jerusalem are to keep watch for the purpose of defending the city from any kind of attack, a part occupy- ing the posts, and the other part watching before their (each 226- THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. before his own) house, so as to be at hand to defend the city. Vers, 4-73a. The measures taken ly Nehemiali for in- creasing the number of the inhabitants of Jerusalem. — Ver. 4. The city was spacious and great, and the people few therein, and houses were not built. D^i; ri?n-i, broad on both sides, that is, regarded from the centre towards either the right or left hand. The last clause does not say that there were no houses at all, for the city had been re-inhabited for ninety years ; but only that houses had not been built in proportion to the size of the city, that there was still much unoccupied space on which houses might be built. — ^Ver. 5. And God put into my heart, i.e. God inspired me with the resolution ; comp. ii. 12. What resolution, is declared by the sentences following, which detail its execution. The resolution to gather together the nobles and rulers of the people for the purpose of making a list of their kinsmen, and thus to obtain a basis for the operations contemplated for increasing the inhabitants of Jerusalem. CJ^Bi?^. Cinn are • combined, as in ii. 16. On B'n^nn, comp, 1 Ghron'. v. 17, While this resolve was under consideration, Nehemiah found the register, i.e. the genealogical registry, of those who came up at first (from Babylon), njiEiNia, at the be- ginning, i.e. with Zerubbabel and Joshua under Gyrus (Ezra ii.), arxd not subsequently with Ezra (Ezra vii.). "And I found written therein," These words introduce the list now given. This list, vers, 6-73a, is identical with that in Ezra ii,, and has been already discussed in our remarks on that chapter. CHAP, Viri.-X. — PUBLIC READING OF THE LAW, THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES, A PUBLIC FAST HELD, AND A COVENANT MADE TO KEEP THE LAW. These three chapters form a connected whole, and describe acts of worship and solemnities conducted by Ezra and other priests and Levites, Nehemiah as the secular governor being only twice mentioned in them (viii. 9, x. 2). The contents of CHAP, viii-s. 227 the three chapters are as follows : On the approach of the seventh month, which opened with the feast of trumpets, and during which occurred both the feast of tabernacles and the great day of atonement, the people were gathered to Jerusalem; and Ezra, at the request of the congregation, read to the assembled people out of the book of the law on the first and second days. It being found written in the law, that the Israelites were to dwell in booths during the seventh month, it was resolved to keep the festival in accordance with this direction ; and this resolution was carried into execution by erecting booths made with branches of trees on house- tops, in courts, and in the public places of the city, and cele- brating the seven-days' festival by a daily public reading of the law (chap. viii.). On the twenty-fourth day of the same month, the congregation again assembled, with fasting and mourning, to make a public confession of their sins, and to renew their covenant with God (chap. ix. x.). The second clause of vii. 73 belongs to chap, viii., and forms one sentence with viii. 1. " When the seventh month came, and the children of Israel were in their cities, the whole people gathered themselves together as one man in the open space that was before the water-gate," etc. The capitular division of the Masoretic text is erroneous, and makes the words, "and the children of Israel were in their cities," appear a mere repetition of the sentence, "and all Israel dwelt in their cities." The chronological statement, " when the seventh month came," without mention of the year, points back to the date in vi. 15 : the twenty-fifth Elul, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes ; on which day the building of the wall was completed. Elul, the sixth month, is fol- lowed by Tishri, the seventh, and there is nothing against the'inference that the seventh month of the same year is in- tended ; the dedication of the wall not being related till chap, xii., and therefore occurring subsequently, while all the facts narrated in chap, viii.-xi. might, without any diffi- culty, occur in the interval between the completion of the wall and its dedication. For, besides the public reading of the law on the first two days of the seventh month, the cele- 228 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. bration of the feast of tabernacles, and the public fast on the twenty-fourth day of the seventh month (chap, viii.-xi.), nothing more is recorded (xi. 1, 2) than the execution of the resolve made by Nehemiah, immediately after the com- pletion of the wall (vii. 4), viz. to increase the inhabitants of Jerusalem, by appointing by lot one of every ten dwellers in the surrounding country to go to Jerusalem and dwell there. This is succeeded by lists of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and of the cities of Benjamin and Judah, and lists of the priests and Levites (xi. 3-xii. 26). Chap. viii. 1-8. The public reading of the law. — Vers. 1-3. The introduction to this narrative (vii. 73i-viii. la) is identical with Ezra iii. 1. The same matter, the assembling of the people on the approach of the seventh month, is described in the same words. But the object of this assem- bling of the people was a different one from that mentioned in Ezra iii. Then they met to restore the altar of burnt- offering and the sacrificial worship ; now, on the contrary, for the due solemnization of the seventh mionth, the festal month of the year. For this purpose the people came from the cities and villages of Judah to Jerusalem, and assembled " in the open space before the water-gate," i.e. to the south-east of the temple space. On the situation of the water-gate, see rem. on iii. 26, xii. 37 sq., and Ezra x. 9. "And they spake unto Ezra the scribe " (see rem. on Ezra vii. 11). The subject of IIDN"! is the assembled people. These requested, through their rulers, that Ezra should fetch the book of the law of Moses, and publicly read it. This reading, then, was desired by the assembly. The motive for this request is undoubtedly to be found in the desire of the congregation to keep the new moon of the seventh month, as a feast of thanksgiving for the gracious assistance they had received from the Lord during the building of the wall, and through which it had been speedily and successfully completed, in spite of the attempts of their enemies to obstruct the work. This feeling of thankfulness impelled them to the hearing of the word of God for the purpose of making His law their rule of life. The assembly consisted of men and women indiscriminately CHAP. VIII. 1-8. 229 « (HE'S 1JI) ty^N, like Josh. vi. 21, viii. 25, 1 Sam. xxii. 19, 1 Ohron. xvi. 3), and )^1W? f?? ^?, every one that understood in hearing, which would certainly include the elder children. The first day of the seventh month was distinguished above the other new moons of the year as the feast of trumpets, and celebrated as a high festival by a solemn assembly and a cessation from labour; comp. Lev. xxiii. 23-25, Num. xxix. 1-6. — Ver. 3. Ezra read out of the law " from the light {i.e. from early morning) till mid-day ; " therefore for about six hours. Not, however, as is obvious from the more particular description vers. 4-8, without cessation, but in such wise that the reading went on alternately with instructive lectures on the law from the Levites. " And the ears of all the people were directed to the law," i.e. the people listened attentively. D'lynsP) must be understood according to ytoB*? )Ua 73 of ver. 2. In vers. 4-8 the proceedings at this reading are more nearly described. — Ver. 4. Ezra stood upon a raised stage of wood which had been made for the purpose (13'^?, for the matter). ''IJ^'?, usually a tower, here a high scaffold, a pulpit. Beside him stood six persons, probably priests, on his right, and seven on his left hand. In 1 Esdras, seven are mentioned as standing on his left hand also, the name Azariah being inserted between Anaiah and Urijah, It is likely that this name has been omitted from the Hebrew text, since il» is improbable that there was one person less on his right than on his left hand. " PerJiaps Urijah is the father of the Meremoth of iii. 4, 21 ; Maaseiah, the father of the Azariah of iii. 23; Pedaiah, the individual named iii. 21; the Azariah to be inserted, according to 1 Esdras, the same named iii. 23 ; a Meshullam occurs, iii. 4, 6 ; and a Mal- chiah, iii. 11, 14, 31 " (Bertheau). — Ver. 5. Ezra, standing on the raised platform, was above the assembled people (he was Qy?"'? 'V?). When he opened the book, it was " in the sight of all the people," so that all could see his action ; and " all the people stood up " ('"i^]^)- -'■* cannot be shown from the O. T. that it had been from the days of Moses a custom with the Israelites to stand at the reading of the law, as the Eabbis assert; comp. Vitringa, de Synag, vet. p. 1 67. — Ver. 6. 230 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. -Ezra began by blessing the Lord, the great God, perhaps with a sentence of thanksgiving, as David did, 1 Ohron, xxix. 10, but scarcely by using a whole psalm, as in 1 Chron. xvi. 8 sq. To this thanksgiving the people answered Amen, Amen (comp. 1 Chron. xvi. 36), lifting up their hands (?J)b3 ^[}'^y., with lifting up of their hands ; the form ?yb occurring only here), and worshipping the Lord, bowing down towards the ground. — Ver. 7. And Jeshua, Bani, etc., the Levites, expounded the law to the people (P?!?, to cause to understand, here to instruct, by expounding the law). The 1 copulative before Q?)?i!! must certainly have been inserted in the text by a clerical error ; for the previously named thirteen (or four- teen) persons are Levites, of whom Jeshua, Bani, Sherebiah, and Hodijah occur again, ix, 4, 5. The names Jeshua, Sherebiah, Shabtai, and Jozabad are also met with xii. 14, xi. 16, but belong in these latter passages to other individuals who were heads of classes of Levites. — Ver. 8. "And they (the Levites) read in (out of) the book of the law of God, explained and gave the sense; and they (the assembled audi- tors) were attentive to the reading." The Rabbis under- stand tJinbD = the Chaldee ^l^'O, of a rendering of the law into the vulgar tongue, i.e. a paraphrase in the Chaldee language for those who were not acquainted with the ancient Hebrew. But this cannot be shown to be the meaning of &•&, this word being used in the Targums for the Hebrew 3i?J (^?i^), e.g. Lev. xxiv. 16, and for "isa, Dent. i. 5. It is more correct to suppose a paraphrastic exposition and appli- cation of the law (Pfeiffer, dubia vex. p. 480), but not " a distinct recitation according to appointed rules" (Gusset, and Bertheau). Difc* is injln. abs. instead of the temp, jinit.: and gave the sense, made the law comprehensible to the hearers. NnpD? wajl, not with older interpreters, Luther ("so that what was read was understood "), and de Wette, " and they (the Levites) made what was read comprehensible," which would be a mere tautology, but with the LXX., Vulgate, and others, " and they (the hearers) attended to the reading," or, "obtained an understanding of what was read" (3 Hn, like ver. 12, Dan. ix. 23, x. 11). Vitringa {de syn. vet. p. 420) CHAP. VIII. 9-12. 231 already gives the correct meaning: de doctoribus narratur, quod legerint et dederint intellectum, de auditoribus, quod lec- tum intellexerint. The manner of proceeding with this reading is not quite clear. According to vers. 5-8, the Levites alone seem to have read to the people out of the book of the law, and to have explained what they read to their auditors; while according to ver. 3, Ezra read to the assembled people, and the ears of all were attentive to the book of the law, while we are told in ver. 5 that Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people. If, however, we regard vers. 4-8 as only a more detailed description of what is related vers. 2, 3, it is obvious that both Ezra and the thirteen Levites mentioned in ver. 7 read out of the law. Hence the occurrence may well have taken place as follows : Ezra iiBst read a section of the law, and the Levites then expounded to the people the portion just read ; the only point still doubtful being whether the thirteen (fourteen) Levites expounded in succession, or whether they all did this at the same time to different groups of people. Vers. 9-12. The celebration of the feast of the new moon. — Ver. 9. Then Nehemiah, the Tirshatha (see remarks on Ezra ii. 63), and the priest Ezra the scribe, ,and the Levites who were teaching the people, said to all the people, " This day is holy to the Lord our God. Mourn not, nor weep ; for all the people wept when they heard the words of the law." C^'H. is the new moon of the seventh month. The portion read made a powerful impression upon the assembled crowds. Undoubtedly it consisted of certain sections of Deuteronomy and other parts of the Thorah, which were adapted to con- vict the people of their sin in transgressing the commands of the Lord, and of the punishments to which they had thus exposed themselves. They were so moved thereby that they mourned- and wept. This induced Nehemiah, Ezra, and the Levites, who had been applying what was read to the hearts of their hearers, to encourage them. — Ver. 10. And he said to them (viz. Nehemiah as governor and head of the com- munity, though the fact that his address is mentioned does not exclude the participation of Ezra and the Levites) : 232 THE BOOK OF l^EHEMIAH. "Go, eat the fat, and driak the sweet, and send gifts to them for whom nothing is prepared, for this day is holy to our Lord ; neither be ye sorry, for joy in. Jahve is your refuge." DiJips/D, fatnesses (Xivda-fiaTa, LXX.), fat pieces of meat, not "rich cakes" (Bertheau); comp. I3''J»B' nnB'p, Isa. xxv. 6. CIpFipp, sweetened drinks. The sense is: Make glad repasts on good feast-day food and drink ; and send portions to the poor who have prepared nothing, that they too may rejoice on this festival, nijp, gifts, are portions of food ; Esth. ix. 19, 22 ; 1 Sam. i. 4. Hence we see that it was customary with the Israelites to send portions of food and drink, on festivals, to the houses of the poor, that they too might share in the joy of the day. PJ V^!> for liaj T?? "^f^. (see rem. on 1 Chron. xv. 12), to them for whom nothing is prepared, who have not the means to prepare a feast-day meal. Because the day is holy to the Lord, they are to desire it with holy joy. nin* nnn is a joy founded on the feeling of communion with the Lord, on the consciousness that we have in the LoKD a God long-suffering and abundant in goodness and truth (Ex. xxxiv. 6). This joy is to be to them TiVp, a strong citadel or refuge, because the Almighty is their God ; comp. Jer. xvi. 19. — Ver. 11. The Levites also strove to pacify the people, saying: " Hold your peace, i.e. give over weeping, for the day is holy; neither be ye grieved." — Ver. 12. This address had its effect. The people went their way, some to their houses, some to their lodgings, to partake of festal repasts, and to keep the feast with joy ; " for they gave heed to the words that were declared to them," i.e. they took to heart the address of Nehemiah, Ezra, and the Levites. Vers. 13-18. Celebration of the feast of tabernacles. — Ver. 13. On the second day were gathered together the heads of the houses of all the people, of the priests, and of the Levites to Ezra the scribe, to attend to the words of the law. The infinitive -'''SK'i]? may indeed be taken (as by Bertheau) as the continuation of the finite verb, instead of as infinitive absolute (Ewald, § 352, c) ; this is, however, admissible only in cases where the second verb either states what must be done, or further describes the condition of affairs, while CHAP. VIII. 13-18. 233 P''3B'np here states the purpose for which the heads of the people, etc. assembled themselves unto Ezra. Hence we take ''''3"^[ij' in its usual meaning, and the 1 before it as explicative. ?N ?''?f'i?, as in Ps. xli. 1, expresses taking an attentive interest in anything. They desired to be further and more deeply instructed in the law by Ezra. — Vers. 14, 15. And they found written in the law that the Lord had commanded Moses, that the children of Israel should dwell in booths in the feast of the seventh month ; and that they should publish and proclaim in all their cities, and in Jeru- salem, saying : " Go forth to the mcSunt, and fetch olive branches, etc. to make booths, as it is written." This state- ment is not to be understood as saying that the heads of the people sought in the law, fourteen days before the feast, for information as to what they would have to do, that they might prepare for the due celebration of the feast of taber- nacles (Bertheau). The text only states that the heads of the people again betook themselves to Ezra on the second day, to receive from him instruction in the law, and that in reading the law they found the precept concerning the cele- bration of the festival in booths, i.e. they met with this precept, and were thereby induced to celebrate the approach- ing festival in strict accordance with its directions. The law concerning the feast of tabernacles, of which the essentials are here communicated, is found Lev. xxiii. 39-43. In Dent. xvi. 13 they were only commanded to keep the feast with gladness. The particular of dwelling in booths or bowers is taken from Lev. xxiii. 43 ; the further details in ver. 15 relate to the carrying out of the direction : " Ye shall take you on the first day the boughs of goodly trees, branches of palm trees, and the boughs of thick trees, and willows of the brook " (Lev. xxiii. 43). Go to the mountain, a woody district, whence branches may be obtained, vj?, state constructive plural of npjJ, leaf, foliage, here leafy boughs or branches of trees. !^% the olive, \^f YV, the wild olive (oleaster), the myrtle, the palm, and branches of thick-leaved trees, are here mentioned (the two latter being also named in Leviticus). 3in33 does not relate to the preparation of the 234 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. booths, but to the precept that the feast should be kept in booths. In ver. 16 the accomplishment of the matter is related, presupposing a compliance with the proclamation sent out into all the cities in the land, and indeed so speedy a compliance that the booths were finished by the day of the feast. The object (the branches of ver. 15) must be supplied to =is^3>l from the context. They made them- selves booths, every one upon the roof of his house, and in their courts, and in the courts of the house of God, and in the open space at the water-gate (see on ver. 3), and the open space at the gate of Ephraim. On the situation of this gate, see rem. on iii. 8, p. 179. The open space before it must be thought of as within the city walls. On these two public places, booths were probably made by those who had come to Jerusalem, but did not dwell there ; while the priests and Levites belonging to other places would build theirs in the courts of the temple. — ^Ver. 17. And the whole community that had returned from captivity (comp. Ezra vi. 21) made themselves booths and dwelt in booths; for since the days of Joshua the son of Nun unto that day, had not the children of Israel done so. \~, so, refers to the dwelling in booths ; and the words do not tell us that the Israelites had not celebrated this festival since the days of Joshua, that is, since they had taken possession of Canaan : for, according to Ezra iii. 4, those who returned from captivity kept this feast in the first year of their return ; and a cele- bration is also mentioned after the dedication of Solomon's temple, 2 Chron. vii. 9, 1 Kings viii. 65. The text only states that since the days of Joshua the whole community had not so celebrated it, i.e. had not dwelt in booths. Neither do the words imply that since the days of Joshua to that time no booths at all had been made at the celebration of the feast of tabernacles, but only that this had not been done by the whole congregation. On former occasions, those who came up to Jerusalem may have regarded this precept as non-essential, and contented themselves by keeping the feast with solemn assemblies, sacrifices, and sacrificial feasts, with- out making booths and dwelling in them for seven days. — CHAP. IX. 1-3. 235 Ver. .18. And the book of the law was read from day to day. N'li'M with the subject indefinite, while Kamb. and others supply Ezra. The reading o^ the law was only ordered at that celebration of the feast of tabernacles which occurred during the sabbatical year, Deut. xxxi. 10 sq. The last day was the seventh, for the eighth as a nnsg did not belong to the feast of tabernacles; see rem. on Lev. xxiii. 36. BSB'sa like 2 Chron. iv. 20, and elsewhere. Chap. ix. The day of general fasting and prayer, — On the twenty-fourth day of the month, i.e. two days after the ter- mination of the feast of tabernacles, the children of Israel re-assembled in the temple to humble themselves before God with mourning and fasting, and, after the reading of the law, to confess their own sins and the sins of their fathers (1-3). After the Levites had invited them to praise God (4, 5), a general confession was made, in which the congregation was reminded of all the grace and favour shown by God to His people, from the days of Abraham down to the time then present ; and all the departures of the people from their God, all their rebellions against Him, were acknowledged, to show that the bondage and oppression to which Israel was now subjected were the well-deserved punishment of their sins (6-37). This confession of sin much resembles the confession of the faithfulness of God and the unfaithfulness of Israel in the 106th Psalm, both in its plan and details, but differs from this " Hallelujah Psalm " in the circumstance that it does not rise to the praise of God, to the hallelujah, but stops at the confession that God is righteous and true in all that He has done, and that Israel has done wickedly, without definitely uttering a request for pardon and deliverance from oppression. Vers. 1-3. On the twenty-second of Tishri was the Hazereth of the feast of tabernacles ; on the twenty-fourth the congregation re-assembled in the temple, " with fasting and with sackcloths (penitential garments made of hair ; see rem. Joel i. 8) and e^rth upon them," i.e. spread upon their heads (1 Sam. iv. 12 ; 2 Sam. i. 2 ; Job ii. 12),— the ex- ternal marks of deep mourning and heaviness of heart. — Ver. 2. " And the seed of Israel separated themselves from 236 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. all strangers, and stood and confessed all their sins, and the iniquities of their fathers." This separation from strangers does not specially relate to the dissolution of the marriages contracted with heathen women, nor to any measures taken that only Israelites should be admitted to this assembly (Bertheau). It was rather a voluntary renunciation of con- nection with the heathen, and of heathen customs. — Ver, 3. And they stood up (i.e. remained standing) in their place (comp. viii. 7), and read in the book of the law of the Lord their God, i.e. listened to the reading of the law, a fourth part of the day (about three hours), and a fourth part (the next three hours) they confessed (made a confession of their sins), and worshipped the Lord their God. This confession and worship is more nearly described 4-37. — Vers. 4 and 5. There stood upon the scaffbld of the Levites, i.e. upon the platform erected for the Levites (comp. viii. 4), Jeshua and seven other Levites whose names are given, and they cried with a loud voice to God, and said to the assembled congre- gation, " Stand up, bless the LoED your God for ever and ever ! and blessed be the name of Thy glory, which is exalted above all blessing and praise." The repetition of the names of the Levites in ver. 5 shows that this invitation to praise God is distinct from the crying to God with a loud voice of ver. 4, and seems to say that the Levites first cried to God, i.e. addressed to Him their confessions and supplications, and after having done so, called upon the congregation to worship God. Eight names of Levites being given in both verses, and five of these — Jeshua, Bani, Kadmiel, Shebaniah, and Sherebiah — being identical, the difference of the three others in the two verses — Bunni, Bani, and Ohenani (ver. 4), and Hashabniah, Hodijah, and Pethahiah (ver. 5) — seems to have arisen from a clerical error, — an appearance favoured also by the circumstance that Bani occurs twice in ver. 4. Of the other names in question, Hodijah occurs x. 14, and Pethahiah Ezra x. 23, as names of Levites, but ''?J3 and fiI^??'C| nowhere else. Hence Bunni, Bani, and Chenani (ver. 4), and Hashabniah (ver. 5), may be assigned to a clerical error ; but we have no means for restoring the CHAP. IX. 1-3. 237 correct names. With regard to the matter of these verses, Eam.b. remarks on ver. 4 : constitisse opinor omnes simul, ita ' tamen ut unus tantum eodem tempore fuerit precatus, ceteris ipsi adstantibus atque sua etiam vice Deum orantibus, hence that the eight Levites prayed to God successively; while Bertheau thinks that these Levites entreated God, in peni- tential and supplicatory psalms, to have mercy on His sinful but penitent people. In this case we must also regard their address to the congregation in ver. 5 as a liturgical hymn, to which the congregation responded by praising God in chorus. To this view may be objected the circumstance, that no allusion is made in the narrative to the singing of penitential or other songs. Besides, a confession of sins follows in vers. 6-37, which may fitly be called a crying unto God, without its being stated by whom it was uttered. " This section," says Bertheau, " whether we regard its form or contents, cannot have been sung either by the Levites or the congregation. We recognise in it the speech of an in- dividual, and hence accept the view that the statement of the LXX., that after the singing of the Levites, ver. 4, and the praising of God in ver. 5, Ezra came forward and spoke the words following, is correct, and that the words koX elirev "Ea-Bpa?, which it inserts before ver. 6, originally stood in the Hebrew text." But if Psalms, such as Ps. cv., cvi., and cvii,, were evidently appointed to be sung to the praise of God by the Levites or by the congregation, there can be no reason why the prayer vers. 6-37 should not be adapted both in form and matter for this purpose. This prayer by no means bears the impress of being the address of an individual, but is throughout the confession of the whole congregation. The prayer speaks of our fathers (vers. 9, 16), of what is come upon us (ver. 33), addresses Jahve as our God, and says we have sinned. Of course Ezra might have uttered it in the name of the congregation ; but that the addition of the LXX., ical eiTrev "EaSpa^, is of no critical value, and is a mere conjecture of the translators, is evident from the circumstance that the prayer does not begin with the words nin' K>in nriK of ver. 6, but passes into the form of direct ad- 238 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. dress to God in the last clause of ver. 5 : Blessed be the name of Thy glory. By these words the prayer which follows is evidently declared to be the confession of those who are to praise the glory of the Lord ; and the addition, " and Ezra said," characterized as an unskilful interpola- tion. According to what has now been said, the summons, nini nx una !|»lp, ver. 5, like the introductions to many Hodu and Hallelujah Psalms {e.g. Ps. cv. 1, cvi. 1), is to be re- garded as only an exhortation to the congregation to praise God, i.e. to Join in the praises following, and to unite heartily in the confession of sin. This view of the connec- tion of vers. 5 and 6 explains the reason why it is not stated either in ver. 6, or at the close of this prayer in ver. 37, that the assembled congregation blessed God agreeably to the summons thus addressed to them. They did so by silently and heartily praying to, and praising God with the Levites, who were reciting aloud the confession of sin. On l^iy. R. Sal. already remarks : nunc incipiunt loqui Levitce versus Shechinam s. ad ipsum Deum. The invitation to praise God insensibly passes into the action of praising. If, moreover, vers. 6-37 are related in the manner above stated to ver. 5, then it is not probable that the crying to God with a loud voice (ver. 4) was anything else than the utterance of the prayer subsequently given, vers. 6-37. The repetition of the names in ver. 5 is not enough to confirm this view, but must be ex- plained by the breadth of the representation here given, and is rescued from the charge of mere tautology by the fact that in ver. 4 the office of the individuals in question is not named, which it is by the word D'lpn in ver. 5. For D'vH in ver. 4 belongs as genitive to npjJD, and both priests and lay- men might have stood on the platform of the Levites. For this reason it is subsequently stated in ver. 5, that Jeshua, etc., were Levites ; and in doing this the names are again enumerated. In the exhortation. Stand up and bless, etc., Bertheau seeks to separate " for ever and ever " from the imp. I3"i3, and to take it as a further qualification of Q?''ii^s;. This is, however, unnatural and arbitrary ; comp. 1 Chron. xvi. 26. Still more arbitrary is it to supply " One day all CHAP. IX. 6-8. 239 people " to wna^l, "shall bless Thy name," etc. W1 a»in»1 adds a second predicate to DB': and which is exalted above all bless- ing and praise, i.e. sublimius est quam ut pro dignitate laudari possit (E. Sal.). In ver. 6 this praising of Grod begins with the acknow- ledgment that Jahve, the Creator of heaven and earth, chose Abram and made a covenant with him to give the land of Canaan to his seed, and had performed this word (vers. 6-8). These verses form the theme of that blessing the name of His glory, to which the Levites exhorted. This theme is then elucidated by facts from Israel's history, in four strophes, a. When God saw the affliction of His people in Egypt, He delivered them by great signs and won- ders from the power of Pharaoh, gave them laws and judg- ments on Sinai, miraculously provided them with food and water in the wilderness, and commanded them to take pos- session of the promised land (vers. 9-15). b. Although their fathers rebelled against Him, even in the wilderness, God did not withdraw His mercy from them, but sustained them forty years, so that they lacked nothing ; and subdued kings before them, so that they were able to conquer and possess the land (vers. 16-25). c. After they were settled in the land they rebelled again, and God delivered them into the hand of their oppressors ; but as often as they cried unto Him, He helped them again, till at length, because of their continued opposition. He gave them into the power of the people of the lands, yet of His great mercy did not wholly cast them off (vers. 26-31). d. May He now too look upon the affliction of His people, as the God that keepeth covenant and mercy, although they have deserved by their sins the troubles they are suffering (vers. 32-37). Vers. 6-8. "Thou art Jahve alone; Thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, and all their host, the earth and all that is thereon, tlie sea and all therein ; and Thou givest life to them all, and the host of heaven worshippeth Thee. Ver. 7. Thou art Jahve, the God who didst choose Abram, and broughtest him forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and gavest him the name of Abraham : Ver. 8. And foundest 240 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. his heart faithful before Thee, and madest a covenant with him to give the land of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Jetusites, and the Girgashites, to give to his seed, and hast performed Thy word ; for Thou art righteous." Jahve alone is God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and of all creatures in heaven and on earth. In order duly to exalt the almfghti- ness of God, the notion of heaven is enhanced by the addi- tion "heaven of heavens," as in Deut.x. 14, 1 Kings viii. 27; and that of earth by the addition "the sea and all therein;" comp. Ps. cxlvi. 6. DN3S"?3, Gen. ii. 1, here refers only to heaven. n'riD, to cause to live = to give and preserve life. Dps relates to all creatures in heaven and earth. The host of heaven -who worshipped God are the angels, as in Ps. cxlviii. 2, ciii. 21. This only God chose Abram; comp. Gen. xii. 1 with xi. 31 and xv. 7, xvii. 5, where God bestowed upon the patriarch Abram the name of Abraham. The words, " Thou foundest his heart faithful," refer to rpi^'JH ninia there mentioned. The making of a covenant alludes to Gen. xvii. 5 sq. ; the enumeration of six Canaanitish nations to Deut. vii. 1, Ex. iii. 8; comp. with Gen. xv. 20 sq. This His word God performed (fulfilled), for He is righteous. God is called p'''^^, inasmuch as with Him word and deed correspond with each other ; comp. Deut. xxxii. 4. Vers. 9-15. The fulfilment of this word by the deliverance of Israel from Egypt, and their guidance through the wil- derness to Canaan. — Ver. 9. " And Thou sawest the affliction of our fathers in Egypt, and heardest their cry by the Red Sea: Ver. 10. And showedst signs and wonders upon Pharaoh and all his servants, and on all the people of his land, because Thou knewest that they dealt proudly against them, and madest Thyself a name, as this day. Ver. 11. And Thou dividedst the sea before them, and they went through the midst of the sea on dry land ; and their persecutors Thou threwest into the deeps, as a stone into the mighty, waters." In ver. 9 are comprised two subjects, which are carried out in vers. 10, 11 : (1) the affliction of the Israelites in Egypt, which God saw (comp. Ex. iii. 7), and out of which He CHAP. IX. 9-15. 241 delivered them by the signs and wonders He showed upon Pharaoh (ver. 10) ; (2) the crying for help at the Bed Sea, when the Israelites perceived Pharaoh with his horsemen and chariots in pursuit (Ex. xiv. 10), and the help which God gave them by dividing the sea, etc. (ver. 11). The words in ver. 10a are supported by Deut. vi. 22, on the ground of the historical narrative, Ex. vii.-x. The expression OT\''hy VT^]n 13 is formed according to Cn'hv^ lit IB'N, Ex. xviii. 11. 'PV inri occurs Ex. xxi. 14 in a general sense. On 'IJI DE' ^'? '^VP)], comp. Jer. xsxii. 20, Isa. Ixiii. 12, 14, 1 Chron. xvii. 22. A name as this day — in that the miracles which God then did are still praised, and He continues still to manifest His almighty power. The words of ver. 11 are supported by Ex. xiv. 21, 22, 28, and xv. 19. ps iD3 niiiiVDa are from Ex. XV. 5; D-W a:»3 from Ex. xv. and Isa. xlii'i. 16.— Ver. 12. " And 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 wherein they should go. Ver. 13. And Thou camest down upon mount Sinai, and spakest with them from hea- ven, and gavest them right judgments and true laws, good statutes and commandments : Ver. 14. And madest known unto them Thy holy Sabbath, and commandedst them pre- cepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses Thy servant. Ver. 15. And gavest them bread from heaven for their hunger, and broughtest forth water for them out of the rock for their thirst ; and Thou commandedst them to go in and possess the land, which Thou hadst lifted up Thine hand to give them." Three particulars in the miraculous leading of Israel through the wilderness are brought forward : a. Their beinc guided in the way by miraculous tokens of the divine presence, in the pillar of fire and cloud, ver. 12 ; comp. Ex. xiii. 21, Num. xiv. 14. b. The revelation of God on Sinai, and the giving of the law, vers. 13, 14. The descent of God on Sinai and the voice from heaven agree with Ex. xix. 18, 20, and xx. 1 sq., compared with Deut. iv. 36. On the various designations of the law, comp. Ps. xix. 9, cxix. 43, 39, 142. Of the commandments, that concerning the Sab- bath is specially mentioned, and spoken of as a benefit Q 242 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. bestowed by God upon the Israelites, as a proclamation of His holy Sabbath, inasmuch as the Israelites were on the Sabbath to share in the rest of God; see rem. on Ex. xx. 9-11. c. The provision of manna, and of water from the rock, for their support during their journey through the wilderness on the way to Canaan ; Ex. xvi. 4, 10 sq., Ex. xvii. 6, Num. XX. 8 ; comp. Ps. Ixxviii. 24, 15, cv. 40. mj? «U^ like Deut. ix. 1, 5, xi. 31, and elsewhere. 1"][7^? T}'^f^ is to be understood according to Num. xiv. 30. Vers. 16-25. Even the fathers to whom God had shown such favour, repeatedly departed from and rebelled against Him; but God of His great mercy did not forsake them, but brought them into possession of the promised land. — Ver. 16. "And they, even our fathers, dealt proudly, and hardened their necks, and hearkened not to Thy commandments. Ver. 17. They refused to obey, and were not mindful of Thy wonders that Thou didst amongst them ; and hardened their necks, and 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." In these verses the conduct of the children of Israel towards God is contrasted with His kindness towards this stiff-necked people, the historical confirmation following in ver. 18. DHI. is emphatic, and prefixed to contrast the conduct of the Israelites with the benefits bestowed on them. The contract is enhanced by the 1 explicative before yn^N, even our fathers (which J.D. Michaelis would expunge, from a miscon- ception of its meaning, but which Bertheau with good reason defends). Words are accumulated to describe the stiff- necked resistance of the people. iT'Tn as above, ver. 10. " They hardened their necks" refers to Ex. xxxii. 9, xxxiii. 3, :^xxiv. 9, and therefore already alludes to the worship of the golden calf at Sinai, mentioned ver. 18; while in ver. 17, the second great rebellion of the people at Kadesh, on the borders of the promised land, Num. xiv., is contemplated. The repeti- tion of the expression, " they hardened their hearts," shows that a second grievous transgression is already spoken of in ver. 17. This is made even clearer by the next clause, '1J1 tl'NT wriM, CHAP. IX. 16-25. 243 which is taken almost verbally from Num. xiv. 4: "They said one to another, Let us make a captain (B'NT '"ijli^), and return to Egypt;" the notion being merely enhanced here by the addition QHiaj;?, to their bondage. The comparison with Num. xiv. 4 also shows that QJI^a is a clerical error for '^IIV'??, as the LXX. read ; for Cino3j in their stubbornness, after Dn'iayp, gives no appropriate sense. In spite, however, of their stiff-neckedness, God of His mercy and goodness did not forsake them. riin7P ni?K- a God of pardons; comp. Dan. ix. 9, Ps. cxxx. 4, 'Wl Dinni (Wn is a reminiscence of Ex. xxxiv. 6. The i before ^D^ came into the text by a clerical error. — Ver. 18. "Yea, they even made them a molten calf, and said, This is thy god that brought thee up out of Egypt, and wrought great provocations. Ver. 19. Yet Thou, in Thy manifold mercies, didst not forsake them in the wilderness ; the pillar of the cloud departed not from them by day to lead them, and the pillar of fire by night to show them light in the way wherein they should 'go. Ver. 20. Thou gavest also Thy good Spirit to instruct them, and withheldest not Thy manna from their mouth, and gavest them water for their thirst : Ver. 21. And forty years didst Thou sustain them in the wilderness ; they lacked nothing, their clothes waxed not old, and their feet swelled not." ''3 1f<, also (even this) = yea even. On the worship of the golden calf, see Ex. xxiv. 4. The words " they did (wrought) great provoca- tions " involve a condemnation of the worship of the molten calf ; nevertheless God did not withdraw His gracious pre- sence, but continued to lead them by the pillar of cloud and fire. The passage Num. xiv. 14, according to which the pillar of cloud and fire guided the m^rch of the people through the wilderness after the departure from Sinai, i.e. after their transgression in the matter of the calf, is here alluded to, tJVn "l^isj? is rhetorically enhanced by JIN : and with respect to the cloudy pillar, it departed not ; so, too, in the second clause, tJ'xn IvsrriN ; comp. Ewald, § 277, d. The words, ver. 20, " Thou gavest Thy good Spirit," etc., refer to the occurrence. Num. xi. 17, 25, where God endowed the seventy elders with the spirit of prophecy for the confirmation 244 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. of Moses' authority. The definition "good Spirit" recalls Ps. cxliii. 10. The sending of manna is first mentioned Num. xi. 6-9, comp. Josh. v. 12; the giving of water, Num. XX. 2-8. — In ver. 21, all that the Lord did for Israel is summed up in the assertion of Deut. ii. 7, viii. 4, llpn S means the other holy days, the annual festivals, on which, accord- ing to the law. Num. xxviii. and xxix., no work was to be done. To the sanctification of the Sabbath pertained the celebration of the sabbatical year, which is therefore named immediately afterwards. The words 'e'n TO^n-nx sytij, to let the seventh year lie, i.e. in the seventh year to let the land lie untilled and unsown, is an abbreviation taken from the language of the law, Ex. xxiii. 10. IJ'-'a XE'D also de- pends upon B'^3. This expression (S<^?, not i^f^, being the reading of the best editions) is to be explained from Deut. XV. 2, and means the loan, that. which the hand has lent to another ; see rem. on Deut. xv. 2. Vers. 33-40. Agreement to provide for the expenses of the temple and its ministers. — If the community seriously in- tended to walk by the rule of God's law, they must take care that the temple service, as the public worship of the community, should be provided for according to the law and a firm footing and due solemnity thus given to religion. For this purpose, it was indispensable to guarantee the con- tributions prescribed for the necessary expenses of the temple worship, and the support of its ministers. Hence this entering into a solemn agreement to observe the law was regarded as a suitable occasion for regulating the services prescribed by the law with respect to the temple and its ministers, and mutually binding themselves to their observance. — Ver. 33. We ordained for ourselves (^livy, upon us, inasmuch as such things are spoken of as are taken upon one). Ilvl? nn?, to lay upon ourselves the third part of a shekel yearly for the service of the house of our God. It is not said who were to be bound to furnish this contribution, but it is assumed that it was a CHAP. X. 33-40. 253 well-known custom. This appointed payment is evidently only a revival of the Mosaic precept, Ex. xxx. 13, that every man of twenty years of age and upwards should give half a shekel as a noilJii to the ' Lord, — a tribute which yvas still paid in Christ's days,' Matt. xvii. 24. In consideration, however, of the poverty of the greater portion of the com- munity, it was now lowered to a third of a shekel. The view of Aben Ezra, that a third of a shekel was to be paid in addition to the half shekel levied in conformitywith the law, is unsupported by the text. iT^i^JJn, the service of the house of God, is not the building and repairs of the temple, but the regular worship. For, according to ver. 34, the tax was to be applied to defraying the expenses of worship, to supplying the shew-bread, the continual meat and burnt offerings (Num. xxviii. 3-8), the sacrifices for the Sabbaths, new moons (Num. xxviii. 9—15), and festivals (Num. xxviii. 16-29, 38),— for the ^'f^Zj holy gifts, by which, from their position between the burnt-offering and the sin-offer- ing, we may understand the thank-offerings, which were offered in the name of the congregation, as e.g. the two lambs at Pentecost, Lev. xxiii. 19, and the offerings brought at feasts of dedication, comp. Ex. xxiv. 5, Ezra vi. 17, — for the sin-offerings which were sacrificed at every great festival; and finally for all the work of the house of our God, i.e. whatever else was needful for worship (? miist .be supplied from the context before n3S?p"P3). The establishment of such a tax for the expenses of worship, does not justify the view that the contributions promised by Artaxerxes in his edict, Ezra vii. 20 sq., of things necessary to worship had ceased, and that the congregation had now to defray the expenses from their own resources. For it may readily be supposed, that besides the assistance afforded by the king, the congregation might also esteem it needful to furnish a contribution, to meet the increased requirements of worship, and thus to auginent the revenues of the temple, — the royal alms being limited to a certain amount (see Ezra vii. 22). — Ver. 35. " And we cast lots among the priests, the Levites, and the people for the wood-offering, to bring it into the house of our God, after 254 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. our houses, at times appointed, year by year, to burn upon the altar of the LoED our God, as it is written in the law." In the law we merely find it prescribed that wood should be constantly burning on the altar, and that the priest should burn wood on it every morning, and burn thereon the burnt- o£fering (Lev. vi. 12 sq.). The law gave no directions con- cerning the procuring of the wood; yet the rulers of the people must, at all events, have always provided for the regular delivery of the necessary quantity. Nehemiah now gives orders, as he himself tells us, xiii. 31, which mSke this matter the business of the congregation, and the several houses have successively to furnish a contribution, in the order decided by casting lots. The words, " at times ap- pointed, year by year," justify the conclusion that the order was settled for several years, and not that all the different houses contributed in each year.^ — Vers. 36-38. It was also arranged to contribute the first-fruits prescribed in the law. The infinitive N''?^? depends on 'iJlOVrij and is co-ordinate with nn?, ver. 33. The first-fruits of the ground, comp. Ex. xxiii. 19, xxxiv. 26, Deut. xxvi. 2 ; the first-fruits of all fruit trees, comp. Num. xviii. 13, Lev. xix. 23 ; the first- born of our sons who were redeemed according to the esti- mation of the priest. Num. xviii. 16, and of our cattle (i.e. . ^ Josephus (bello Jud. ii. 17. 6) speaks of a t5i/ |uXo Io/sti), which he places on the fourteenth day of the month ASof, i.e. Ab, the fifth month of the Jewish year. From this Bertheau infers that the plural D^JtStD D^fly, here and xiii. 31, denotes the one season or day of delivery in each year. But though the name of this festival is derived from the present verse, the LXX. translating D''2{J?n )3"lp b^, itspl xhvipov |yXo^op/«f, it appears even from what Josephus says oi this feast, ks ^ ■arciani 'idog vM" r^fia/n^i irpot!<^ipiiii, that the feast of wood-carrying does not designate that one day of the year on which the wood was delivered for the service of the altar. According to Mishna Taanit, chap. iv. (in Lightfoot's liorx heiraicx in Matth. i. 1), nine days in the year were appointed for the delivery of wood, viz. IstNisan, 20th Tammuz. 5th, 7th, and 10th Ab, etc. Further particulars are given in Lundius, j'tid. Heilig- tumer, p. 1067 sq. The feast of wood-carrying may be compared with our harvest festival ; and Bertheau's inference is not more conclusive than would be the inference that our harvest festival denotes the one day in the year on which the harvest is gathered in. CHAP. X. 33-40. 255 in the case of the unclean, the required redemption, Ex. xiii. 12 sq., Num. xviii. 15), and the firstlings of the herds and of the flocks, the fat of which was consumed on the altar, the flesh becoming the share of the priests. Num. xviii. 17. In ver. 38 the construction is altered, the first person of the imperfect taking the place of the infinitive : and we will bring the' first-fruits. niD"i5?, probably groats or ground flour ; see rem. on Num. xv. 20, etc. niDliri, heave- offerings, the offering in this connection, is probably that of wheat and barley, Ezek. xlv. 13, or of the fruits of the field, which are suitably followed by the " fruit of all manner of trees." On " the first of the wine and oil," conip. Num. xviii. 12. These offerings of first-fruits were to be brought into the chambers of the house of God, where they were to be kept in store, and distributed to the priests for their sup- port. " And the tithes of our ground (will we bring) to the Levites ; and they, the Levites, receive the tithes in all our country towns. (Ver. 39) And a priest, a son of Aaron, shall be with the Levites when the Levites take tithes; and the Levites shall bring the tithe of the tithes to the house of our God, into the chambers of the treasury." The parenthetical sentences in these verses, D''"ia'Vl3n D^)pn ani and 0*1?!!! 1?'J'3, have been variously understood. "i^'j? in the Piel and Hiphil meaning elsewhere to pay tithe, comp. Deut.. xiv. 22, xxvi. 12, Gen. xxyiii'. 22, many exposi- tors adhere to this meaning in these passages' also, and translate ver. 38 : for they, the Levites, must give again the tenth (to the priests) ; and ver. 39 : when the Levites give the tenth ; while the LXX., Vulgate, Syriac, Eashi, Aben Ezra, Clericus, Bertheau, and others, take "itpy and '^'''^}i^ in these sentences as signifying to collect tithe. We prefer the latter view, as giving a more suitable sense. For the remark that the Levites must give back the tenth (ver. 38) does not present so appropriate a motive for the demand that the tithes should be paid, as that the tithes are due to the Levites. Still less does the addition, in our agricultural towns, suit the sentence: the Levites must give back the tithe to the priests. Again, the fact that it is not said till 256 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. ver. 39 that the Levites have to give the tenth of the tenth to the priests, speaks still more against this view. A priest is to be present when the Levites take the tenth, so that the share of the priests may not be lessened. On " the tenth of the tenth," comp. Num. xviii. 26. Hezekiah had provided store-chambers in the temple, in which to deposit the tithes, 1 Ohron. xxxi. 11. — Ver. 40 is confirmatory of the preceding clause : the Levites were to bring the tithe of the tithes for the priests into the chambers of the temple ; for thither are both the children of Israel and the Levites, to bring all heave-offerings of corn, new wine, and oil : for there are the holy vessels for the service of the altar (comp. Num. iv. 15), and the priests that minister, and the doorkeepers and the singers, for whose maintenance these gifts provide. "And' we will not forsake the house of our God," i.e. we will take care that the service of God's house shall be pro- vided for ; comp. xiii. 11-14. CHAP. Xr. — INCEEASE OF THE INHABITANTS OF JEKUSALEM. LIST OF THE INHABITANTS OF JEKUSALEM, AND OF THE OTHER TOWNS. Vers. 1 and 2 narrate the carrying out of Nehemiah's resolution, chap. vii. 4, to make Jerusalem more populous, and follow viii 5 as to matter, but the end of chap. x. as to time. For while Nehemiah, after the completion of the wall, was occupied with the thought of bringing into the thinly populated capital a larger number of inhabitants, and had for this purpose convoked a public assembly, that a list of the whole Israelite population of the towns of Benjamin and Judah might be taken in hand, the seventh month of the year arrived, in which all the people assembled at Jeru- salem to perform those acts of worship and solemnities (de- scribed viii.-x.) in which this month abounded. Hence it was not till after the termination of these services that Nehe- miah was able to carry out the measures he had resolved on. For there can be no doubt that vers. 1 and 2 of the present chapter narrate the execution of these measures. The state- CHAP. XI. 1, 2. 257 ment that one In ten of all the people was appointed by lot to dwell in Jerusalem, and the remaining nine in other cities, and that the people blessed the men who showed themselves willing to dwell at Jerusalem, can have no other meaning than, that the inhabitants of Jerusalem were in- creased in this proportion, and that this was consequently the measure which God had, according to vii. 5, put it into Nehemiah's heart to take. The statement taken by itself is indeed very brief, and its connection with vii. 5 not very evident. But the brevity and abruptness do not justify Bertheau's view, that these two velrses are not the com- position of Nehemiah himself, but only an extract from a larger context, in which this circumstance was fully ex- plained. For Nehemiah's style not unfrequently exhibits a certain abruptness ; comp. e.g. the commencements of chaps. V. and vi., or the information xiii. 6, which are no less abrupt, and which yet no one has conceived to be mere extracts from some other document. Besides, as the con- nection between vii. 5 and xi. 1 is interrupted by the relation of the events of the seventh month, so, too, is the account of the building of the wall, iv. 17, vi. 15 sq., and vii. 1, inter- rupted by the insertion of occurrences which took place during its progress. The first sentence, ver. 1, " And the rulers of the people dwelt at Jerusalem," cannot be so closely connected with the next, " and the rest of the people cast lots," etc., as to place the rulers in direct contrast to the rest of the people, but must be understood by its retrospect to vii. 4, which gives the following contrast : The rulers of the people dwelt at Jerusalem, but few of the people dwelt there ; to this is joined the next sentence : and the rest of the people cast kts. The "rest of the people" does not mean the assembled people with the exception of the rulers, but the people with the exception of the few who dwelt at Jerusalem. These cast lots to bring («''??|') one of ten to dwell in Jerusalem. The predicate, the holy city, occurs here and ver. 18 for the first time. Jerusalem is so called, on the ground of the prophecies, Joel iii. 17 and Isa. xlviii. 2, because the sanctuary of God, the temple, was there. D'^ya R 258 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. means, in the other cities of Judah and Benjamin, Ca'njrisri, those who showed themselves willing to dwell in Jerusalem, is taken by most expositors in contrast to those who were bound to do this in consequence of the decision of the lot ; and it is then further supposed that some first went to Jeru- salem of their free choice, and that the lot was then cast with respect to the rest. There are not, however, sufficient grounds for this conclusion, nor yet for the assumption that the decision of the lot was regarded as a constraint. The disposal of the lot was accepted as a divine decision, with which all had, whether willingly or unwillingly, to comply. All who willingly acquiesced in this decision might be desig- nated as C^'nanp ; and these departed to Jerusalem accom- panied by the blessings of the people. Individuals are not so much meant, as chiefly fathers of families, who went with their wives and children, ' Vers. 3—36. The inhabitants of Jerusalem and the other cities. — Ver. 3. The title reads: "These are the heads of the province who dwelt at Jerusalem ; and in the cities of Judah dwelt every one in his possession in their cities, Israel, the priests, the Levites, the Nethinim, and the sons of Solomon's servants." nviisn is, as in Ezra ii. 1, the land of Judah, as a province of the Persian kingdom. The repeti- tion of 'i^ty' after nTHT" ''nj)3 is not to be understood as con- : IT T ; "T ; trasting those who dwelt in the cities with the dwellers in Jerusalem in the sense of " but in the cities of Judah dwelt," etc., but is here a mere pleonasm. Even the enumeration of the different classes of inhabitants : Israel, the priests, etc., clearly shows that no such contrast is intended ; for Israel, the priests, etc., dwelt not only in Jerusalem, but also, according to ver. 20, in the other cities of Judah, And this is placed beyond all doubt by the contents of the list follow- ing ; the inhabitants of Jerusalem being enumerated 4r-2i, and the inhabitants of the other cities of Judah and Ben- jamin, 25-36, If, however, this title refers to the whole of the following list, it cannot, as Eambach and others thought, contain only an enumeration of those who, in consequence of the lot, had taken up their residence at Jerusalem, but CHAP. XI. 4-6. 259 must be intended as a list of the population of the whole province of Judah in the times of Ezra and Nehemiah. It seems strange that the title should announce Hi'i'ian ''B'S'i, while in the list of the inhabitants of Jerusalem are given, besides the heads, the numbers of their brethren, i.e. of the individuals or fathers of families under these heads; and that in the list of the inhabitants of the other cities, only inhabitants of Judah and Benjamin are spoken of. Hence this statement refers a potion to the heads, including the houses and families belonging to them, while in the case of the other cities it is assumed that the inhabitants of each locality were under a head. With ver. 4 begins the enume- • ration of the heads dwelling in Jerusalem, with their houses ; and the first clause contains a special title, which affirms .that (ctertain) of the children of Judah and of the children of Benjamin dwelt at Jerusalem. On the parallel list of the inhabitants of Jerusalem before the captivity, 1 Chron. ix. 2-34, and its relation to the present list, see the remarks on 1 Ohron. ix. Vers. 45—6. Of the children of Judah two heads : Athaiah of the children of Perez (comp. 1 Ohron. ii. 4), and Maaseiah of the children of Shela. It has been already remarked on 1 Ohron. ix. 5, that ''pfU is wrongly pointedj and should be read ''i^f'^. fi.tn"?! is a proper name, as in iii. 15. Athaiah and Maaseiah are not further known. There were in all four hundred and sixty-eight able-bodied men of the sons of Perez, i.e. four hundred and sixty-eight fathers of families of the race of Perez, among whom are probably included the fathers of families belonging to Shela, the younger brother of Perez. — Vers. 7-9. Of the Benjamites there were two heads of houses : Sallu, and after him Gabbai-Sallai, with nine hundred and twenty-eight fathers of families. Their chief was Joel the son of Zichri, and Jehuda the son of Sennah over the city- as second .(prefect). — Vers. 10-14. Of the priests: Jedaiah, Joiarib, and Jachin, three hSads of houses, therefore of orders of priests (for |3 before Joiarib probably crept into the text by a clerical error ; see rem. on 1 Chron. ix, 10) ; Seraiah, a descendant of Ahitub, as ruler of 2'60 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. the house of God, aud their brethren, i.e. the eight hundred and twenty-two ministering priests belonging to these three orders. Also Adaiah, of the house or order of Malchiah, and his brethren, two hundred and forty-two fathers of families ; and lastly, Amashai, of the order of Immer, with one hun- dred and twenty-eight brethren, i.e. priests. And their chief was Zabdiel hen Haggedolim (LXX. vios tuv fieyaXwv). nr\'s^ n^p.can scarcely be understood CHAP. XI. 25-36. 263 of a royal commissioner at Jerusalem, but certainly desig- nates an official transacting the affairs of the Jewish commu- nity at the hand of the king, at his court. Vers. 25-36. 21ie inhabitants of the towns of Judah and Benjamin. — The heads who, with their houses, inhabited country districts are here no longer enumerated, but only the towns, with their adjacent neighbourhoods, which were in- habited by Jews and Benjamites ; and even these are but summarily mentioned. — Vers. 25-30. The districts inhabited by the children of Judah. " And with respect to the towns in their fields, there dwelt of the sons of Judah in Kirjath- arba and its daughters," etc. The use of ?X as an introduc- tory or emphatic particle is peculiar to this passage, ? being elsewhere customary in this sense ; comp. Ew. § 310, a. 7iJ denotes a respect to something. D''1?Q, properly enclosures, signifies, according to Lev. xxv. 31, villages, towns, boroughs, without walls. Tfilf, fields, field boundaries.l O''^^-'?; ^^^ villages and estates belonging to a town; as frequently in the lists of towns in the book of Joshua. Kirjath-arba is Hebron, Gen. xxiii. 2. Jekabzeel, like Kabzeel, Josh. xv. 21. '71"5j its enclosed places, the estates belonging to a town, as in Josh. XV. 45 sq. Jeshua, mentioned only here, and unknown. Moladah and Beth-phelet, Josh. xv. 26, 27. Hazar-shual, i.e. Fox-court, probably to be sought for in the ruins of Thaly; see rem. on Josh. xv. 28. Beersheba, now Bir es Seba; see rem. on Gen. xxi. 31. Ziklag, at the ancient Asluj, see Josh. xv. 31. Mekonah, mentioned only here, and unknown. En-rimmon; see rem. on 1 Ohron. iv. 32. Zareah, Jarmuth, Zanoah, and Adullam in the plains (see Josh. XV. 33-35), where were also Lachish and Azekah ; see on 2 Ohron. xi. 9. — In ver. 306 the whole region then inha- bited by Jews is comprised in the words : " And they dwelt from Beer-sheba (the south-western boundary of Canaan) to the valley of Hinnom, in Jerusalem," through which ran the boundaries of the tribes of Benjamin and Judah (Josh. XV. 8). — Vers. 31-35, The dwellings of the Benjamites. Ver. 31. The children of Benjamin dwelt from Geba to Michmash, Aija, etc. Geba, according to 2 Kings xxiii. 8 264 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. and Josh xiv. 10, the northern boundary of the kingdom of Judah, is the half-ruined village of Jibia in the Wady el Jib, three leagues north of Jerusalem, and three-quarters of a league north-east of Eamah (Er Earn) ; see on Josh, xviii. 24. Michmash (ti'030 or DOap), now Mukhmas, sixty- three minutes north-east of Geba, and three and a half leagues north of Jerusalem ; see rem. on 1 Sam. xiii. 2. Aija (NJJ? or njj?, Isa. X. 28), probably one with ''Jfn, Josh. vii. 2, viii. 1 sq., the situation of which is still a matter of dispute. Van de Velde supposing it to be the present Tell el Hadshar, three-quarters of a league south-east of Beitin ; while Schegg, on the contrary, places it in the position of the present Tayi- beh, sis leagues north of Jerusalem (see Delitzsch on Isa. vol. i. p. 277, etc., translation), — a position scarcely according with Isa. X. 28 sq., the road from Tayibeh to Michmash and Geba not leading past Migron (Makhrun),which is not f arfrom Beitin. We therefore abide by the view advocated by Krafft and Strauss, that the ruins of Medinet Chai or Gai, east of Geba, point out the situation of the ancient Ai or Ajja ; see rem. on Josh. vii. 2. Bethel is the present Beitin ; see on Josh. vii. 2, The position of Nob is not as yet certainly ascertained, important objections existing to its identification with the village el-Isawije, between Anata and Jerusalem; comp. Valentiner (in the Zeilschrift d. deutscli. morgld. Gesellscli. xii. p. 169), who, on grounds worthy of considera- tion, transposes Nob to the northern heights before Jerusa- lem, the road from which leads into the valley of Kidron. Ananiah (i^^???!), a place named only here, is conjectured by Van de Velde (after R. Schwartz), Mem. p. 284, to be the present Beit Hanina (UoJ^-^), east of Nebi Samwil ; against which conjecture even the exchange of V and n raises objec- tions ; comp. Tobler, TopograpJiie, ii. p. 414. Hazor of Ben- jamin, supposed by Robinson (Palestine) to be Tell 'Assur, north of Tayibeh, is much more probably found by Tobler, TopograpJiie, ii. p. 400, in Khirbet Arsiir, perhaps Assur, ..^ie eight minutes eastward of Bir Nebula (between Rama and CHAP. XII. 1-26. 265 Gibeon); comp. Van de Velde, Mem, p, 319. Ramah, now er E^m, two leagues north of Jerusalem ; see rem. on Josh, xviii. 25. Githaim, whither the Beerothites fled, 2 Sam. iv. 3, is not yet discovered. Tobler (dritte Wand, p. 175) considers it very rash to identify it with the .village Katanneh in Wady Mansur. Hadid, 'A^ihd, see rem. on Ezra ii. 33. Zeboim, in a valley of the same name (1 Sam. xiii. 18), is not yet discovered. Neballat, mentioned only here, is preserved in Beith Nebala, about two leagues north-east of Ludd (Lydda); comp. Eob. Palestine, and Van de Velde, Mem, p. 336. With respect to Lod and Ono, see rem. on 1 Ohron. viii. 12; and on the valley of craftsmen, comp. 1 Ohron. iv. 14. The omission of Jericho, Gibeon, and Mizpah is the more re- markable, inasmuch as inhabitants of these towns are men- tioned as taking part in the building of the wall (iii. 2, 7). — Ver. 36. The enumeration concludes with the remark, " Of the Levites came divisions of Judah to Benjamin," which can only signify that divisions of Levites who, according to former arrangements, belonged to Judah, now came to Benjamin, i.e. dwelt among the Benjamites, CHAP. XII. 1-43. — LISTS OF PRIESTS AND LEVITES. DEDICA- TION OF THE WALL OF JERUSALEM. The list of the inhabitants of the province, chap, xi., is followed by lists of the priests and Levites (xii. 1-26). These different lists are, in point of fact, all connected with the genealogical register of the Israelite population of the whole province, taken by Nehemiah (vii. 5) for the purpose of enlarging the population of Jerusalem, though the lists of the orders of priests and Levites in the present chapter were made partly at an earlier, and partly at a subsequent period. It is because of this actual connection that they are inserted in the history of the building of the wall of Jerusa- lem, which terminates with the narrative of the solemn dedi- cation of the completed wall in vers. 27-43. Vers. 1-26. Lists of the orders of priests and Levites, — Vers. 1-9 contain a list of the heads of the priests aad 266 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. Levites who returned from Babylon with Zerubhahel and Joshua. Tlie hjgh priests during five generations are next mentioned by name, vers. 10, 11. Then follow the names of the heads of the priestly houses in the days of Joiakim the high priest; and finally, vers. 22-26, the names of the heads of the Levites at the same period, with titles and sub- scriptions. Vers. 1-9. Ver. la contains the title of the first list, vers. 1-9. " These are the priests and Levites who went up .with Zerubbabel . . . and Joshua;" comp. Ezra ii. 1, 2. Then follow, vers. 16—7, the names of the priests, with the subscription : " These are the heads of the priests and of their brethren, in the days of Joshua," D'^l'DXI still depends ori ''^i^l. The brethren of the priests are the Levites, as being their fellow-tribesmen and assistants. Two-and-twenty names of such heads are enumerated, and these reappear, with but slight variations attributable to clerical errors, as names of priestly houses in vers. 12-21, where they are friven in conjunction with the names of those priests who, in the .days of Joiakim, either represented these houses, or occupied as heads the first position in them. The greater number, viz. 15, of these have already been mentioned as among those who, together with Nehemiah, sealed as heads of their respective houses the agreement to observe the law, chap. X. Hence the present chapter appears to be the most appropriate place for comparing with each other the several statements given in the books of Nehemiah and Ezra, con- cerning the divisions or orders of priests in the period im- mediately following the return from the captivity, and for discussing the question how the heads and houses of priests enumerated in Neh. x. and xii. stand related on the one hand to the list of the priestly races who returned with Zerubbabel and Joshua, and on the other to the twenty-four orders of priests instituted by David. For the purpose of giving an intelligible answer to this question, we first place in juxtaposition the three lists given in Nehemiah, chaps, x. and xii. ClfAP. XII. 1-9. 267 Neh. X. 3-9. Neh. XII. 1-7. Neh. XII. 12-21. Priests who sealed the Covenant. Priests who were Heads of their Houses. Priestly Houses, and their respective Heads. 1. Seraiat. 1. Seraliah.* Seraiah, . Meraiah. 2. Azariah. 2. Jeremiah.* Jeremiah, Han an i ah. 3. Jeremiah. 3. Ezra.* • Ezra, Meshnllam. 4. Pashur. 4. Amariah.* Amariah, . Jehohanan. 5. Amariah. 5. Malluoh.* Meluchi, . Jonathan. 6. Malchijah. 6. Hattush.* 7. Hattush. 7. Shecaniah.* Shebaniah, . Joseph. • 8. Shebaniali. 8. Rehum.* Harim, . . Adna. 9. Mallueh. 9. Meremoth.* Meraioth, . Helkai. 10. Harim. 10. Iddo. Idiah, . . Zecariah. 11. Meremoth. 11. Ginn^thon.* Ginnethon, . MeshuUam. 12. Obadiah. 12. Abijah.* Abijah, . . Zichii. 13. Daniel. 13. Miamin.* Miniamin, 14. Ginnetlioii. 14. Maadiah.* Moadiah, . Piltai. 15. Baruch. 15. Bilgah.* Bilgah, . . Shamraua. 16. Meshullam. 16. Shemaiah.* Shemaiah, . . Jehonathan. 17. Abijah. 17. Joiarib. Joiarib, . . . Mathnai. 18. Mijamin. 18. Jedaiah. Jedaiah, , Uzzi. 19. Maaziah. 19. SaHu. Sallai, . . Kallai. 20. Bilgai. 20. Amok. Amok, . . . Bber. 21. Sbemaiah. 21. Hilkiah. Hilkiah, . . . Hashabiah. 22. Jedaiah. Jedaiah, . Nethaneel. When, in the first place, we compare the two series in chap, xii., we find the name of the head of the house of Minjamin, and the names both of the house and the head, Hattush, between Meluchi and Shebaniah, omitted. In other respects the two lists agree both in the order and number of the names, with the exception of unimportant variations in the names, as '^60 (Chethiv, ver. 14) for r^ha (ver. 2); iTHb! (ver. 3) for '"1^032' (ver. 14, x. 6) ; Dm (ver, 3), a transposi- tion of Din (ver.'lS, X. 6); ni^D (ver.' 15) instead of nionD (ver. 3, X.6); S''iy (Chethiv, ver. 16) instead of Ni'ny (ver. 4); pajD (ver. 5) for r»;^D (ver. 17) ; nnjJiD (ver. 17) for n^nva (ver. 4), or, according to a different pronunciation, nnjJD (x. 9); ''^P (ver. 20) for 1^? (ver. 7). — If we next compare the two lists in chap. xii. with that in chap, x., we find that of the twenty-two names given (chap, xii.), the fifteen marked thus * occur also in chap. x. ; nnr}[, x. 4, being evidently a 268 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. clerical error, or another form of N";Ty, xii. 2, ]3. Of the names enumerated in chap, x., Pashur, Malchiah, Obadiah, Daniel, Baruch, and Meshullam are wanting in chap, xii., and are replaced by Iddo and the six last : Joiarib, Jedaiah, Sallu, Amok, Hilkiah, and Jedaiah. The name of Eliashib the high priest being also absent, Bertheau seeks to explain this difference by supposing that a portion of the priests refused their signatures because they did not concur in the strict measures of Ezra and Nehemiah. This conjecture would be conceivable, if we found in chap. x. that only thirteen orders or heads of priests had signed instead of twenty-two. Since, however, instead of the seven missing names, six others signed the covenant, this cannot be the reason for tfie difference between the names in the two docu- ments (chap. X., xii.), which is probably to be found in the time that elapsed between the making of these lists. The date of the list, chap. xii. 1-7, is that of Zerubbabel and Joshua (B.C. 53G) ; that of the other in chap, xii., the times of the high priest Joiakim the son of Joshua, i.e., at the earliest, the latter part of the reign of Darius Hystaspis, perhaps even the reign of Xerxes. Ho\V, then, are the two lists in chap. xii. and that in chap, X., agreeing as they do in names, related to the list of the priests who, according to Ezra ii. 36—39 and Neh. vii. 39—42, returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel and Joshua? The traditional view, founded on the statements of the Talmud,^ 1 In Hieros. Taanith, f. 68a,- Tosafta Taanith, c. 11, in Babyl. Erachin, f. 12b. The last statement is, according to Herzfeld, Gesch. i. p. 393, as follows : "Four divisions of priests returned from captivity, viz. Jedaiah, Charim, Pasohur, and Immer. These the prophets of the returned captives again divided into twenty-four; whereupon their names were written upon tickets and put in an urn, from which Jedaiah drew five, and each of the other three before-named divisions as many : it was then ordained by those prophets, that even if the division Joiarib (probably the first division before the captivity) should return, Jedaiah should nevertheless retain his position, and Joiarib should be "ip ^at3 (associated with him, belonging to him)." Comp. Bertheau on Neh. p. 230, and Oehler in Herzog's Realcncycl. xii. p. 185, who, though refusing tliis tradition the value of independent historical testimony, still give it more weight than it deserves. CHAP. XII. 1-9. 269 is, that the four divisions given in Ezra ii. and Neh. vii., " the sons of Jedaiah, the sons of Immer, the sons of Pashur and Harim," were the priests of the four (Davidic) orders of Jedaiah, Immer, Malchijah, and Harim (the second, six- teenth, fifth, and third orders of 1 Chron. xxiv.). For the sake of restoring, according to the ancient institution, a greater number of priestly orders, the twenty-two orders enumerated in Neh. xii. were formed from these four divi- sions ; and the full number of twenty-four was not immedi- ately completed, only because, according to Ezra ii. 61 and Neh. vii. 63 sq., three families of priests who could not find their registers returned, as well as those before named, and room was therefore left for their insertion in the twenty-four orders : the first of these three families, viz. Habaiah, being probably identical with the eighth class, Abia; the second, Hakkoz, with the seventh class of the same name. See Oehler's before-cited work, p. 184 sq. But this view is decidedly erroneous, and the error lies in the identification of the four races of Ezra ii. 36, on account of the similarity of the names Jedaiah, Immer, and Harim, with those of the second, sixteenth, and third classes of the Davidic division, — thus regarding priestly races as Davidic priestly classes, through mere similarity of name, without reflecting that even the number 4487, given in Ezra ii, 36 sq., is incom- patible with this assumption. For if these four races were only four orders x>i priests, each order must have numbered about 1120 males, and the twenty-four orders of the priest- hood before the captivity would have yielded the colossal sum of from 24,000 to 26,000 priests. It is true that we have no statement of the numbers of the priesthood ; but if the numbering of the Levites in David's times gave the amount of 38,000 males, the priests of that time could at the- most have been 3800, and each of the twenty-four orders would have included in all 150 persons, or at most seventy- five priests of the proper age for officiating. Now, if this number had doubled in the interval of time extending to the close of the captivity, the 4487 who returned with Zerub- babel would have formed more than half of the whole number 270 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. of priests then living, and not merely the amount of four classes. Hence we cannot but regard Jedaiah, Immer, Pashur, and Harim, of Ezra ii. 36, as names not of priestly orders, but . of great priestly races, and explain the occurrence of three of these names as those of certain of the orders of priests formed by David, by the consideration, that the Davidic orders were named after heads of priestly families of the days of David, and that several of these heads, according to the custom of bestowing upon sons, grandsons, etc., the names of renowned ancestors, bore the names of the founders and heads of the greater races and houses. The classification of the priests in Ezra ii. 36 sq. is genealogical, i.e. it follows not the divi- sion into orders made by David for the service -of the temple, but the genealogical ramification into races and houses. The sons of Jedaiah, Immer, etc., are not the priests belong- ing to the official orders of Jedaiah, Immer, etc., but the priestly races descended from Jedaiah, etc. The four races (mentioned Ezra ii. 36, etc.), each of which averaged upwards of 1000 men, were, as appears from Neb. xii. 1-7 and 12, divided into twenty-two houses. From this number of houses, it was easy to restore the old division into twenty- four official orders. That it was not, however, considered necessary to make this artificial restoration of the twenty-four classes immediately, is seen from the circumstances that both under Joiakim, i.e. a generation after Zerubbabel's return (xii. 12-21), only twenty-two houses are enumerated, and under Nehemiah, i.e. after Ezra's return (in Neh. x.), only twenty-one heads of priestly houses sealed the document. Whether, and how the full number of twenty-four was com- pleted, cannot, for want of information, be determined. The statement of Joseph. Ant. vii. 14. 7, that David's division into orders continues to this day, affords no sufficient testi- mony to the fact. According, then, to what has been said, the difference between the names in the two lists of chap. x. and xii. is to be explained simply by the fact, that the names of those who sealed the covenant, chap, x., are names neither of orders nor houses, but of heads of houses living in the days CHAP. XII. 8, 9. 271 of Ezra and Neliemiah. Of these names, a portion coin- cides indeed with the names of the orders and houses, while the rest are different. The coincidence or sameness of the names does not, however, prove that the individuals be- longed to the house whose name they bore. On the contrary, it appears from xii. 13 and 16, that of two Meshullams, one was the head of the house of Ezra, the other of the house of Ginnethon ; and hence, in chap, x., Amariah may have be- longed to the house of Malluch, Hattush to the house of Shebaniah, Malluch to the house of Meremoth, etc. In this manner, both the variation and coincidence of the names in chap, X. and xii. may be easily explained ; the only remaining difSculty being, that in chap. x. only twenty-one, not twenty- two, heads of houses are said to have sealed. This discre- pancy seems, indeed, to have arisen from the omission of a name in transcription. For the other possible explanation, viz. that in the interval between Joiakim and Nehemiah, the contemporary of Eliashib, one house had died out, is very far-fetched. Vers. 8 and 9. The heads of Levitical houses in the time of Jeshua the high priest. — Of these names we meet, chap. x. 10 sq., with those of Jeshua, Binnui, Kadmiel, and Sherebiah, as of heads who sealed the covenant ; while those of Shere- biah, and Jeshua the son (?) of Kadmiel, are again cited in ver. 24 as heads of Levites, i.e. of Levitical divisions. The name-niliT; does not occur in the other lists of Levites in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, and is perhaps miswritten for ri'lin (x. 10, xiii. 7). Mattaniah is probably Mattaniah the Asaphite, the son of Micha, the son of Zabdi, head of the first bai;d of singers (xi. 17) ; for he was ni1>n py^ over the singing of praise. The form Tliljn, which should probably be read according to the Keri nn|n, is a peculiar formation of an abstract noun ; comp. Ewald, § 165, 6. — Ver. 9. Bak- bukiah and Ilnni (CAei/w'u 13^), their brethren, were before them (opposite them) niiDB'DP, at the posts of service, i.e. forming in service the opposite choir. Ver. 24 forbids us to understand niiDB'D as watch-posts, though the omission of the doorkeepers (comp. Ezr^ ii. 42) is remarkable. Bakbu- 272 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. kiah recurs ver. 24 ; the name Unni is not again met with, though there is no occasion, on tliis account, for the inapt conjecture of Bertheau, that the reading should be «yi or Vers. 10 and 11. A note on the genealogy of the high- priestly line from Jeshua to Jaddua is inserted, so to speak, as a connecting link between the lists of Levites, to explain the statements concerning the dates of their composition, — dates defined by the name of the respective high priests. The lists given vers. 1-9 were of the time of Jeshua ; those from ver. 12 and onwards, of the days of Joiakim and his successors. The name t^ji'', as is obvious from vers. 22 and 23, is a clerical error for Jjni'', Johanan, Greek 'loiawi??, of whom we are told, Joseph. Ant. xi. 7. 1, that he murdered his brother Jesus, and thus gave Bagoses, the general of Artaxerxes Mnemon, an opportunity for taking severe mea- sures aaainst the Jews. Vers. 12-21 contains the list of the priestly houses and their heads, which has been already explained in conjunction with that in vers. 1-7. Vers. 22-26. Tlie list of the heads of the Levites, vers. 22 and 24, is, according to ver. 26, that of the days of Joiakim, and of the days of Nehemiah and Ezra. Whence it follows, that it does not apply only to the time of Joiakim ; for though Ezra might indeed have come to Jerusalem in the latter days of Joiakim's high-priesthood, yet Nehemiah's arrival found his successor Eliashib already in office, and the state- ments of vers. 22 and 23 must be understood accordingly. — Ver. 22. " With respect to the Levites in the days of Elia- shib, Joiada, Johanan, and Jaddua were recorded the heads of the houses, and also (those) of the priests during the reign of Darius the Persian." To judge from the Q^pn with which it commences, this verse seems to be the title of the list of Levites following, while the rest of its contents rather seems adapted for the subscription of the preceding list of priests (vers. 12-21). n^^D hv, under the reign. The use of b)l with reference to time is to be explained by the circumstance that the time, and here therefore the reign of Darius, is re- CHAP. XII. 22-26. 273 garded as the ground and soil of that which is done in it, as e.g. eVi vvurl, upon night = at night-time. Darius is Darius Nothus, the second Persian monarch of that name ; see p. 148, where also the meaning of this verse has been already discussed. In ver. 23, the original document in which the list of Levites was originally included, is alluded to as the book of the daily occurrences or events of the time, i.e. the public chronicle, a continuation of the former annals of the kingdom. ''»J l^l, and also to the days of Johanan, the son of Eliashib. So far did the official records of the chronicle extend. That Nehemiah may have been still living in the days of Johanan, i.e. in the time of his .high-priesthood, has been already shown, p. 150. The statements in vers. 22 and 23 are aphoristic, and of the nature of supplementary and occasional remarks.-^ Ver. 24. The names Hashabiah, Shere- biah, Jeshua, and Kadmiel, frequently occur as those of heads of Levitical orders : the two first in x. 12 sq., Ezra viii. 18 sq.; the two last in ver. 8, x. 10, and Ezra ii. 40; . and the comparison of these passages obliges us to regard and expunge as a gloss the [3 before Kadmiel. Opposite to these four are placed their brethren, whose office it was "to praise (and) to give thanks according to the commandment of David," etc. : comp. 1 Chron. xvi. 4, xxiii. 30, 2 Ohron. v. 13 ; and 'T nivpa, 2 Chron. xxix. 25. "'9?'l? najJ? lOB'p, ward opposite ward, elsewhere used of the gatekeepers, 1 Chron. xxvi. 16, is here applied to the position of the companies of singers in divine worship. The names of the brethren, i.e. of the Levitical singers, follow, ver. 25, where the first three names must be sepa- rated from those which follow, and combined with ver. 24. This is obvious from the consideration, that Mattaniah and Bakbukiah are mentioned in xi. 17 as presidents . of two companies of singers, and with them Abda the Jeduthunite, whence we are constrained to suppose that fij']?5' is only another form for N'^^y of xi. 17. According, then, to what has been said, the division into verses must be changed, and ver. 25 should begin with the name of^ti. Meshullam, Tal- mon, and Akkub are chiefs of the doorkeepers ; the two last 274 THE BOOK OF NEHEMUH. names occur as such both in xl. 19 and Ezra ii. 42, and even 80 early as 1 Chron, ix. 17, whence we perceive that these were ancient names of races of Levitical doorkeepers. In Ezra ii. 42 and 1 Ohron. ix. 17, 0,6^, answering to D^TO of the present verse, is also named with them. The combina- tion "lOBiD D''"il)^(i' Dnoy is striking : we should at least have expected "lOB'D DnDE'' D^JJiE', because, while DnjjiE' cannot be combined with "iCilJ'D, Di"i»6J' may well be so; hence we must either transpose the words as above, or read accord- ing to xi. 19, C^W? Q^ipt^. In the latter case, 0'>1Vf^ is more closely defined by the apposition ^^''IVfn 'SDxa : at the doors, viz. at the treasure-chambers of the doors. On Q'3pK, see rem. on 1 Chron. xxvi. 15, 17. — ^Ver. 26 is the final subscription of the two lists in vers. 12-21 and vers. 24, 25. Vers. 27-43. The dedication of the wall of Jerusalem. — The measures proposed for increasing the numbers of ,the inhabitants of Jerusalem having now been executed (vii. 5 and xi. 1 sq.), the restored wall of circumvallation was solemnly dedicated. Vers. 27—29 treat of the preparations for this solemnity. — Ver. 27. At the dedication, (i.e. at the time of, 3 denoting nearness of time) they sought the Levites out of all their places, to bring them to Jerusalem to keep the dedication. Only a portion of the Levites dwelt in Jerusalem (xi. 15-18) ; the rest dwelt in places in the neighbourhood, as is more expressly stated in vers. 28 and 29. nriDB'l, to keep the dedication and joy, is not suit- able, chiefly on account of the following nniriDI, and with songs of praise. "We must either read nO^"?'3, dedication with joy (comp. Ezra vi. 16), or expunge, with the LXX. and Vulgate, the 1 before nilina, 3 must be repeated be- fore DWSD from the preceding words. On the subject, comp. 1 Chron. xiii. 8, xv. 16, and elsewhere. — Vers. 28, 29. And the sons of the singers, i.e. the members of the three Levitical companies of singers (comp. ver. 25 and xi. 17), gathered themselves together, both out of- the Jordan valley round about Jerusalem, and the villages (or fields, ^"'1^.% comp. Lev. xxv. 31) of Netophathi, and from Beth-Gilgal, etc. i|3ili does not mean the district round CHAP. XII. 27-43. 275 Jerusalem, the immediate neighbourhood of the city (Ber- theau). For, according to established usage, 133n is used to designate the Jordan valley (see rem. on iii. 22) ; and chfn\ nuiDD is here added to limit the 133,— the whole extent of the valley of the Jordan from the Dead Sea to the Sea of Galilee not being intended, but only its southern portion in the neighbourhood of Jericho, where it widens considerably westward, and which might be said to be round about Jerusalem. The villages of Neto- phathi (comp. 1 Ohron. ix. 16) are the villages or fields in the vicinity of Netopha, i.e. probably the modern village of Beit Nettif, about thirteen miles south-west of Jerusalem : comp. Eob. Palestine; Tobler, dritte Wand. p. 117, etc.; and V. de Velde, Mem. p. 336. Bertheau regards Beth- Gilgal as the present Jiljilia, also called Gilgal, situate somewhat to the west of the road from Jerusalem to Na- blous (Sichem), about seventeen miles north of the former town. This view is, however, questionable, Jiljilia being apparently too distant to be reckoned among the nla''riD of Jerusalem. " And from the fields of Geba and Azmaveth." With respect to Geba, see rem. on xi. 31. The situation of Azmaveth is unknown ; see rem. on Ezra ii. 24 (p. 30). For the singers had built them villages in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, and dwelt, therefore, not in the before-named towns, but in villages near them. — Ver. 30. The dedication began with the purification of the people, the gates, and the wall, by the priests and Levites, after they had purified them- selves. This was probably done, judging from the analogy of 2 Chron. xxix, 20, by the offering of sin-offerings and burnt-offerings, according to some special ritual unknown to us, as sacrifices of purification and dedication. This was followed by the central-point of the solemnity, a proces- sion of two bands of singers upon the wall (vers. 31-42). — Ver. 31. Nehemiah brought up the princes of Judah upon the wall, and appointed two great companies of those who gave thanks, and two processions. These went each upon the wall in different directions, and stopped opposite each other at the house of God. The princes of Judah are 276 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. the princes of the whole community, — Judah being used in the sense of D'^WI, iii. 34. noin^ ^JJD, upwards to the wall, so that they stood upon the wall. "^V^^, to place, i.e. to cause to take up a position, so that those assembled formed two companies or processions. '"■"3^'^, acknowledgment, praise, thanks, and then thankofPerings, accompanied by the singing of psalms and thanksgivings. Hence is derived the meaning : companies of those who gave thanks, in vers. 31, 38, 40. '^^pnri'!, et processionesj solemn processions, is added more closely to define iTiin. The company of those who gave thanks consisted of a number of Levitical singers, behind whom walked the princes of the people, the priests, and Le- vites. At the head of one procession went Ezra the scribe (ver. 36), with one half of the nobles ; at the head of the second, Nehemiah with the other half (38). The one com- pany and procession went to the right upon the w;all. Before PD*? we must supply, " one band went" (nopin nnsn iTiinn)^ as is evident partly from the context of the present verse, partly from ver. 38. These words were probably omitted by a clerical error caused by the similarity of nbpnn to napin. Thus the first procession went to the right, i.e. in a southerly direction, upon the wall towards the dung-gate (see rem. on iii. 14) ; the second, ver. 38, went over against the first (''''^p), i.e. in an opposite direction, and therefore northwards, past the tower of the furnaces, etc. The starting-point of both companies and processions is not expressly stated, but may be easily inferred from the points mentioned, and can have been none other than the valley-gate, the present Jaffa gate (see rem. on ii. 13). Before a further description of the route taken by the first company, the individuals composing the procession which followed it are enumerated in vers. 32-36. After them, i.e. after the first company of them that gave thanks, went Hoshaiah and half of the princes of Judah. Hoshaiah was probably the chief of the one half of these princes. The seven names in vers. 33 and 34 are un- doubtedly the names of the princes, and the 1 before n^lW is explicative: even, namely. Bertheau's remark, "After the princes came the orders of priests, Azariah," etc., is in- CHAP. XII. 27-43. 277 correct. It is true that of these seven names, five occur as names of priests, and heads of priestly houses, viz. : Azariah, X. 3 ; Ezra, xii. 2 ; Meshullam, x. 8 ; Shemaiah, x. 9 and xii. 6 ; and Jeremiah, xii. 2. But even if these individuals were heads of priestly orders, their names do not here stand for their orders. Still less do Judah and Benjamin denote the half of the laity of Judah and Benjamin, as Bertheau supposes, and thence infers that first after the princes came two or three orders of priests, then half of the laity of Judah and Benjamin, and then two more orders of priests. Ver. 38, which is said to give rise to this view, by no means confirms it. It is true that in this, verse DVn ''VD, besides Nehemiah, are stated to have followed the company of those who gave thanks ; but that Mn in this verse is not used to designate the people as such, but is only a general expression for the individuals following the company of singers, is placed beyond doubt by ver. 40, where Wn is replaced by D^JiDH ^Sn ; while, beside the half of the rulers, with Nehe- miah, only priests with trumpets and Levites with stringed instruments (ver. 41) are enumerated as composing the second procession. Since, then, the priests with trumpets and Levites with musical instruments are mentioned in the first procession (vers. 35 and 36), the names enumerated in vers. 33 and 34 can be only those of the one half of the D-JJip of the people, i.e. the one half of the princes of Judah. The princes of Judah, i.e. of the Jewish community, consisted not only of laymen, but included also the princes, i.e. heads of priestly and Levitical orders ; and hence priestly and Le- vitical princes might also be among the seven whose names are given in vers. 33 and 34. A strict severance, moreover, between lay and priestly princes cannot be made by the names alone ; for these five names, which may designate priestly orders, pertain in other passages to laymen, viz. : Azariah, in iii. 23 ; Ezra, as of the tribe of Judah, 1 Ohron. iv. 17 ; Meshullam, Neh. iii. 4, x. 21, and elsewhere ; She- maiah, Ezra vi. 13, x. 31, 1 Oliron. iii. 22, iv. 37 (of Judah), v. 4 (a Keubenite), and other passages (this name being very usual ; comp. Simonis Onomast. p. 546) ; Jeremiah, 1 Ohron. 278 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. V. 24 (a Manassite), xii. 4 (a Benjamite), xii. 10 (a Gadite). Even the name Judah is met with among the priests (ver. 36), and among the Levites, ver. 8, comp. also xi. 9, and that of Benjamin, iii. 33 and Ezra x. 32. In the pre- sent verses, the two names are not those of tribes, but of individuals, nomina duorum principum (R. Sal.). — Ver, 35. The princes of the congregation were followed bj certain "of the sons of the priests" (seven in number, to judge from ver. 41) with trumpets ; also by Jonathan the son of Zechariah, who, as appears from the subsequent T'^^^., was at the head of the Levitical musicians, i.e. the section of them that followed this procession. His brethren, i.e. the musi- cians of his section, are enumerated in ver. 36, — eight names being given, among which are a Shemaiah and a Judah. " With the musical instruments of David, the man of God :" comp. 2 Ghron. xxix. 26 ;,1 Ohron. xv. 16, xxiii. 5 ; Ezra iii. 10. "And Ezra the scribe before them," viz. before the individuals enumerated from ver. 32, immediately after the company of those who gave thanks, aud before the princes, like Nehemiah, ver. 38. — Ver. 37. After this insertion of the names of the persons who composed the procession, the de- scription of the route it took is continued. From " upon the wall, toward the dung-gate (31), it passed on" to the foun- tain-gate ; and MJ, before them (i.e. going straight forwards ; comp. Josh, V. 6, 20, Amos iv. 3), they went up by the stairs of the city of David, the ascent of the wall, up over the house of David, even unto the water-gate eastward. These statements are not quite intelligible to us. The stairs of the city of David are undoubtedly " the stairs that lead down from the city of David" (iii. 15). These lay on the eastern slope of Zion, above the fountain-gate and the Pool of Siloam. riDinp npijEiri might be literally translated "the ascent to the wall," as by Bertheau, who takes the sense as follows : (The procession) went up upon the wall by the ascent formed by these steps at the northern part of the eastern side of Zion. According to this, the procession would have left the wall by the stairs at the eastern declivity of Zion, to go up upon the wall again by this ascent. There is, however, no reason for CHAP. XII. 27-43. 279 this leaving of the wall, and that which Bertheau adduces is connected with his erroneous transposition of the fountain- gate to the place of the present dung-gate, nttinp npysn seems to be the part of the wall which, according to iii. 19, lay opposite the J?i^i?'?i!' Pp^'] n?J?, a place on the eastern edge of Zion, where the wall was carried over an elevation of the ground, and where consequently was an ascent in the wall. Certainly this cannot be insisted upon, because the further statement T'M tvy? 73/D is obscure, the preposition ? 7^0 ad- mitting of various interpretations, and the situation of the house of David being uncertain. Bertheau, indeed, says : "^J?'! in the following words corresponds with ?V0 .before T'V] JTiap : a wall over the house of David is not intended ; and the meaning is rather, that after they were come as far as the wall, they then passed over the house of David, i.e. the place called the house of David, even to the water-gate." But the separation of •'J?o from T'l'n nu? is decidedly incorrect, ? PVO being in the preceding and following passages always used in combination, and forming one idea ; comp. ver. 31 (twice) and vers. 38 and 39. Hence it could scarcely be taken here in ver. 37 in a different sense from that which it has in 31 and 38- Not less objectionable is the notion that the house of David is here put for a place called the house of David, on which a palace of David formerly stood, and where perhaps the remains of an ancient royal building might still have been in existence. By the house of David IS meant, either the royal palace built (according to Thenius) by Solomon at the north-eastern corner of Zion, opposite the temple, or some other building of David, situate south of this palace, on the east side of Zion. The former view is more probable than the latter. We translate 'l rfJ? 7J;d, past the house of David. For, though HDinp PJJD must undoubtedly be so understood as to express that the procession went upon the wall (which must be conceived 'of as tolerably broad), yet '?^^1?'? ^y?, ver. 38, can scarcely mean that the procession also went up over the tower which stood near the wall. In the case of the gates, too, b ^Vp cannot mean over upon ; for it is inconceivable that this solemn procession should have gone 280 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. over the roof of the gates ; and we conclude, on the contrary, that it passed beside the gates and towers. Whether the route taken by the procession from the house of David to the water-gate in the east were straight over the ridge of Ophel, which ran from about the horse-gate to the water-gate, or upon the wall round Ophel, cannot be determined, the descrip- tion being incomplete. After the house of David, no further information as to its course is given ; its halting-place, the water-gate, being alone mentioned. The route taken by the second company is more particu- larly described. — ^Vers. 38 and 39. " And the second com- pany of them that gave thanks, which went over against, and which I and the (other) half of the people followed, (went) upon the wall past the tower of the furnaces, as far as the broad wall ; and past the gate of Ephraim, and past the gate of the old (wall), and past the fish-gate, and past the tower Hananeel and the tower Hammeah, even to the sheep- gate : and then took up its station at the prison-gate." ?NiDp (in this form with N only here ; elsewhere PiD, Deut. i. 1, or p!|D), over against, opposite, sc. the first procession, therefore towards the opposite side, i.e. to the left ; the first having gone to the right, viz. from the valley-gate northwards upon the northern wail. '1J1 y}'''i^J^ "'^^1 (and I behind them) is a circumstantial clause, which we may take relatively. The order of the towers, the lengths of wall, and the gates, ex- actly answer, to the description in chap. iii. 1-12, with these differences : — a. The description proceeds from the sheep- gate in the east to the valley-gate in the west; while the procession moved in the opposite direction, viz. from the valley-gate to the sheep-gate. b. In the description of the building of the wall, chap, iii., the gate of Ephraim is omitted (see rem. on iii. 8, p. 170). c. In the description, the prison- gate at which the procession halted is also unmentioned, un- doubtedly for the same reason as that the gate of Ephraim is omitted, viz. that not having been destroyed, there was no need to rebuild it. nnean ijja' is translated, gate of the prison or watch : its position is disputed ; but it can scarcely be doubted that nntjen is the court of the prison mentioned CHAP. XII. 27-43. 281 iii. 25 (iTllSffln nvn), by or near the king's house. Starting from the assumption that the two companies halted or took up positions opposite each other, Hupf eld (in his before-cited work, p. 321) transposes both the court of the prison and the king's house to the north of the temple area, where the citadel, >^y^, ^dpi?, was subsequently situated. But " this being forbidden," as Arnold objects (in his before-cited work, p. 628), " by the order in the description of the building of the wall, iii. 25, which brings us absolutely to the southern side," Bertheau supposes that the two processions which would arrive at the same moment at the temple, — the one from the north-east, the other from the south-east, — here passed each other, and afterwards halted opposite each other in such wise, that the procession advancing from the south- west stood on the northern side, and that from the north- west at the southern side of the temple area. This notion, however, having not the slightest support, from the text, nor any reason appearing why the one procession should pass the other, it must be regarded as a mere expedient. In ver. 40 it is merely said, the two companies stood in the house of God ; and not even that they stood opposite each other, the one on the north, the other on the south side of the temple. Thus they may have stood side by side, and to- gether have praised the Lord. Hence we place the prison- gate also on the south-eastern corner of the temple area, and explain the name from the circumstance that a street ran from this gate over Ophel to the court of the prison near the king's house upon Zion, which, together with the gate to which it led, received its name from the court of the prison. Not far from the prison-gate lay the water-gate in the east, near which was an open space in the direction of the temple area (viii. 1). On this open space the two companies met, and took the direction towards the temple, entering the temple area from this open space, that they might offer their thank- offerings before the altar of burnt-offering (ver. 43). Besides, the remark upon the position of the two companies (ver. 40) anticipates the course of events, the procession following the second company being first described in vers. 406-42. At the 282 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. end of ver. 40 the statement of ver. 38 — I and the half of the people behind — is again taken up in the words : I and the half of the rulers with me. The D''^iO are, as in ver. 32, the princes of the congregation, who, with Nehemiah, headed the procession that followed the company of those who gave thanks. Then followed (ver. 41) seven priests with trumpets, whose names are given, answering to the sons of the priests with trumpets (ver. 36a) in the first procession. These names are all met with elsewhere of other persons. These were succeeded, as in ver. 36, by eight Levites — eight in- dividuals, and not eight divisions (Bertheau). And the singers gave forth sound, i.e. of voices and instruments, — whether during the circuit or after the two companies had taken their places at the temple, is doubtful. The president of the Levitical singers was Jezrahiah. — Ver. 43. The solemnity terminated with the offering of great sacrifices and a general festival of rejoicing. In the matter of sacri- ficing, the person of Nehemiah would necessarily recede; hence he relates the close of the proceedings objectively, and speaks in the third person, as he had done when speak- ing of the preparations for them, ver. 27, etc., only using the first (vers. 31, 38, 40) person when speaking of what was appointed by himself, or of his own position. The D^naj were chiefly thankofferings which, terminating in feasting upon the sacrifices, — and these feasts in which the women and children participated, — contributed to the enhancement of the general joy, the joy which God had given them by the success He had accorded to their work of building their wall. For a description of their rejoicing, comp. 2 Chron. xx. 27, Ezra vi. 22, and iii. 13. III.— NEHEMIAH'S OPERATIONS DURING HIS SECOND SO- JOURN IN JERUSALEM.— Chap. xii. 44-xni. 31. The joint efforts of Nehemiah and Ezra succeeded both in restoring the enactments of the law for the performance and CHAP. XII. 44-XIII. 81. 283 maintenance of the public worship, and in carrying out the separation of the community from strangers, especially by the dissolution of unlawful marriages (xii. 44-xiii. 3). When Nehemiah, however, returned to the king at Baby- lon, in the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes, and remained there some time, the abuses which had been abolished were again allowed by the people. During Nehemiah's absence, Eliashib the priest prepared, a chamber in the fore-court of the temple, as a dwelling for his son-in-law Tobiah the Am- monite. The delivery of their dues to the Levites (the first- fruits and tenths) was omitted, and the Sabbath desecrated by field-work and by buying and selling in Jerusalem ; Jews married Ashdodite, Ammonitish, and Moabitish wives ; even a son of the high priest Joiada allying himself by marriage with Sanballat the Iloronite. All these illegal acts were energetically opposed by Nehemiah at his return to Jeru- salem, when he strove both to purify the congregation from foreigners, and to restore the appointments of the law with respect to divine worship (xiii. 4-31). The narration of these events and of the proceedings of Nehemiah in the last section of this book, is ' introduced by a brief summary (in chap. xii. 44-xiii. 3) of what was done for the ordering of divine worship, and for the separa- tion of Israel from strangers ; and this introduction is so annexed to what precedes, not only by the formula ii'^'^\} Di»3 (xii. 44 and xiii. 1), but also by its contents, that it might be regarded as a summary of what Nehemiah had effected during his first stay at Jerusalem. It is not till the connec- tive nip ija^lj "and before this" (xiii. 4), with which the recital of what occurred during Nehemiah's absence from Jerusalem, in the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes, begins, that we perceive that this description of the restored legal appointments relates not only to the time before the thirty- second year of Artaxerxes, but applies also to that of Nehe- miah's second stay at Jerusalem, and bears only the appear- ance of an introduction, being in fact a brief summary of all that Nehemiah effected both before and after the thirty- second year of Artaxerxes. This is a form of statement 284 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. which, as already remarked, p. 152, is to be explained by the circumstance that Nehemiah did not compile this narrative of his operations till the evening of his days. Chap. xii. 44-xiii. 3. The reformations in worship and in social life effected hy Nehemiah. — Vers. 44-47. Appointments concerning divine worship, Ver. 44. And at that time were certain appointed over the chambers of store-places for the heave-offerings, the first-fruits, and the tenths, to ga^ther into them, according to the fields of the cities, the portions ap- pointed by the law for the priests and Levites. Though the definition of time f?inri di^a corresponds with the xwn Disa of ver. 43, it is nevertheless used in a more general sense, and does not refer, as in ver. 43, to the day of the dedication of the wall, but only declares that what follows belongs chiefly to the time hitherto spoken of. di^ means, not merely a day of twelve or twenty-four hours, but very frequently stands for the time generally speaking at which anything occurs, or certum qiioddam temporis spatium ; and it is only from the context that we can perceive whether Di* is used in its narrower or more extended meaning. Hence t5inn Di»a is often used in the historical and prophetical books, da die, or de tempore modo memorato, in contradistinction to Wn D^'flj the time present to the narrator; comp. 1 Sam. xxvii. 6, XXX. 25, and the discussion in Gesen. Thes. p. 369. That the expression refers in the present verse not to any parti- cular day, but to the time in question generally, is obvious from the whole statement, vers. 44-47. nilSiN? DiDB'J are not chambers for the treasures, i.e. treasure-chambers ; but both here and xiii. 12, nil^is signify places where stores are kept, magazines ; hence : these are chambers for store-places for the heave-offerings, etc. ; comp. x. 38-40. With respect to ni3B'J, see rem. on iii. 30. C^Vi^ '"']?'?, according to the fields of the cities, according to the delivery of the tenth of the crop from the fields of the different cities. These contribu- tions necessitated the appointment of individuals to have the care of the store-chambers ; " for Judah rejoiced in the priests and the Levites who were ministering,'' and therefore con- tributed willingly and abundantly " the portions of the law," CHAP. XII. 44-XIII. 3. 285 i.e. the portions prescribed in the law. The form DiWD is exchanged for ni''3D, ver. 47 and xiii. 10. D''1D5)PI is a shorter expression for nini i:s^ tJilDyn, Deat. x. 8 : standing before the Lord, i.e. ministering. — Ver. 45. And they cared fo' the care of their God, etc. ; i.e. they observed all that was to be observed, both with respect to God and with respect to purification, i.e. they faithfully and punctually performed their office. On nnoB'b lOB', see rem. on Gen. xxvi. 5 and Lev. yiii. 35. " And (so also) the singers and doorkeepers," i.e. they, too, observed the duties incumbent on them. This must be mentally supplied from the beginning of the verse. " According to the commandment of David and of Solomon his son;" comp. 2 Chron. viii. 14 and 1 Ohron. xxiv. 26. 1 must be inserted before 3, Public readings of the law frequently took place in those days, as is obvious from chap, viii. and ix,, where we learn that in the seventh month the book of the law was publicly read, not only on the first and second days, but also daily during the feast of tabernacles, and again on the day of prayer and fasting on the twenty-fourth of the month. It appears, how- ever, from WD ''JSp, ver. 4, compared with ver. 6, that the reading vers. 1-3 took place in the interval between Nehe- miah's first and second stay at Jerusalem. This view is not opposed by the facts mentioned vers. 4 sq. and 23 sq. The separation of the 3^V could not be carried out at once ; and hence, notwithstanding repeated resolutions to sever them- CHAP. XIII. 4-31. 287 selves from strangers (ix. 2, x. 31), cases to the contrary- might be discovered, and make fresh separations needful. Vers. 4-31. Neliemiah, on his return to Jerusalem, reforms the irregularities that had broken j>ut during his absence. — Vers. 4-9. While Nehemiah was at Babylon with King Ar- taxerxes, Eliashib the high priest had given up to his rela- tive, Tobiali the Ammonite (ii. 10, iii. 35, afld elsewhere), a , large chamber in the temple, i.e. in the fore-court of the temple (ver. 7), probably for his use as a dwelling when he visited Jerusalem (see rem. on ver. 8). On his return, Nehe- miah immediately cast all the furniture of Tobiah out of this chamber, purified the chambers, and restored them to their proper use as a magazine for the temple stores, ''if? njo, before this (comp. Ewald, § 315, c), refers to the before- mentioned separation of the 3'^^ from Israel (ver. 3). Elia- shib the priest is probably the high priest of that name (iii. 1, xii. 10, 22). This may be inferred from the particular : set over (he being set over) the chambers of the house of our God ; for such oversight of the chambers of the temple would certainly be entrusted to no simple priest, though this addition < shows that this oversight did not absolutely form part of the high priest's office. For inj, in the sense of to set, to place over, comp. 1 Kings ii. 35 ; the construction with 3 instead of ^J? is, however, unusual, but may be derived from the local signification of ^, upon, over. Ewald and Bertheau are for reading riba'p instead of the sing. naK*?, because in ver. 5 it is not nSK'^n that is spoken of, but a large chamber. nSOT may, however, be also understood collectively. Eliashib, being a relation of Tobiah (3i"ii^ like Euth ii. 20), prepared him a chamber. The predicate of the sentence, ver. 4, follows in ver. 5 with B'J?*'!., in the form of a conclusion fol- lowing the accessory sentence of the subject. How Tobiah was related to Eliashib is nowhere stated. Bertheau conjec- tures that it was perhaps only through the circumstance that Johanan, the son of Tobiah, had married a daughter of Meshullam ben Berechiah (vi. 18), who, according to iii. 30, was a priest or Levite, and might have been nearly related to the liigh priest. "A great chamber," perhaps made so by 288 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. throwing several chambers into one, as older expositors have inferred from ver. 9, according to which Nehemiah, after casting out the goods of Tobiah, had the chambers (plural) cleansed. The statement also in ver. 5b, that there (in this great chamber) were aforetime laid up not only the meat- offerings {i.e. oil and flour, the materids for them), the incense, and the sacred vessels, but also the tithe of the corn, the new wine, and the oil, and the heave-offerings of the priests, seems to confirm this view. This tenth is designated as Q'ibn niVD, the command of the Levites, i.e. what was apportioned to the Levites according to the law, the legal dues for which tSSB'D is elsewhere usual ; comp. Deut, xviii. 3, 1 Sam. ii. 13. The heave-offering of the priest is the tenth of their tenth which the Levites had to contribute, x. 39. — Ver. 6. In all this, i.e. while this was taking place, I was not in Jerusalem ; for in the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes I went to the king, and after the lapse of some days I entreated the king {^»^i like 1 Sam. xx. 6, 28). What he entreated is not expressly stated; but it is ob'\i)U3 from what follows, "and I came to Jerusalem," that it was permission to return to Judea. Even at his first journey to Jerusalem, Nehemiah only requested leave to make a temporary sojourn there, without giving up his post of royal cup-bearer; comp. ii. 5 sq. Hence, after his twelve years' stay in Jerusalem, he was obliged to go to the king and remain some time at court, and then to beg for fresh leave of absence. How long he remained there cannot be determined, — D''»^ Y&, after the lapse of days, denoting no definite interval ; comp. Gen. iv. 3. The view of several expositors, that Q''!?J means a year, is devoid of proof. The stay of Nehemiah at court must, as already remarked, p. 149, have lasted longer than a year, since so many illegal acts on the part of the community as Nehemiah on his return discovered to have taken place, could not have occurred in so short a time. Artaxerxes is here called king of Babylon, because the Per- sian kings had conquered the kingdom of Babylon, and by this conquest obtained dominion over the Jews. Nehemiah uses this title to express also the fact that he had travelled to CHAP. XIII. 10-u, 289 Babylon. — Ver. 7. At his return he directed his attention to the evil committed by Eliashib in preparing a chamber in the court of the temple (3 pan like Ezra viii. 15) for Tobiah. — Vers. 8, 9. This so greatly displeased him, that he cast out all the household stuff of Tobiah, and commanded the cham- ber to be purified, and the vessels of the house of God, the meat-offering and the frankincense, and probably the tenths and heave-offerings also, the enumeration being here only abbreviated, to be again brought into it. From the words household stuff, it appears that Tobiah used the chamber as a dwelling when he came from time to time to Jerusalem. Vers. 10-14. The payment of dues to the Levites, and the delivery of the tenths and first-fruits, had also been omitted. —Ver. 10. " And I perceived that the portions of the Levites had not been given ; and the Levites and singers who had to do the work, were fled every one to his field." The Levites, i.e. the assistants of the priests, the singers, and also the porters, who are not expressly mentioned in this passage, were accustomed to receive during the time of their ministry their daily portions of the tenths and first-fruits (xii. 47). When then these offerings were discontinued, they were obliged to seek their maintenance from the fields of the towns and villages in which they dwelt (xii. 28 sq.), and to forsake the service of the house of God. This is the mean- ing of the nna, to flee to the fields. — Ver. 11. "Then I con- tended with the rulers, and said, Why is the house of God forsaken ? " It was the duty of the CiJD, the heads of the community (comp. ii. 16), to see that the tithes, etc., were regularly brought to the house of God. Hence Nehemiah rebukes them by asking: Why is the house of God for- saken ? i.e. through the non-delivery of the dues. On atJ^J, comp. X. 40. This rebuke made the impression desired. Nehemiah assembled the Levites and set them in their place (comp. ix. 3, 2 Chron. xxx. 16, xxxv. 10), i.e. he brought them back to the performance of their ofiicial duties, and (ver. 12) all Judah (the -jrhole community) brought the tithe of the corn, etc., into the store-chambers of the temple; comp. X. 38 sq., 2 Chron. xi. 11.— Ver. 13. "And I ap- T 290 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. pointed as managers of the stores (or storehouses, {.e. maga- zines) Sheraaiah the priest," etc. nnsiw, Hiphil, for HTlrtK, is a denominative from llfiK, to set some one over the treasure. Whether Shemaiah and Zadok are the individuals of these names mentioned in iii. 30, 29, cannot be determined, Zadok is called a IS^D, a writer or secretary, not a scribe in the Jewish sense of that word. A Pedaiah occurs viii. 4. t3T i>3;i, and at their hand Hanan, probably as an under- steward. These four were placed in this position because they were esteemed faithful. D^vJ)?, and it. was (incumbent) on them (comp. 1 Chron. ix. 27, Ezra x. 12) to distribute to their brethren, i.e. to the priests and Levites, the portions due to them (ver. 10). Nehemiah concludes his account of this matter with the wish, that God may remember him concern- ing it (comp. V. 19), and not wipe out the kindnesses which he has shown to the house of God and its watches. nDPi, abbreviated from the Hiphil nnan, to cause to wipe out. D'l'ipn like 2 Ohron. xxxv. 26. C'l^B'D (this form occurring only here), properly watches, watch-posts, here the oflSce of attending on the service of the temple. Vers. 15-22. Field-work and trading on the Sabbath done away with. — Ver. 15. In those days, i.e. when he was occu- pied with the arrangements for worship, Nehemiah saw in Judah (in the province) some treading wine-presses on the Sabbath, and bringing in sheaves, and lading asses, and also wine, grapes, and figs, and all kinds of burdens, and bringing it to Jerusalem on the Sabbath-day. The Q^K*?*? is again taken up by the second D''K''3D1, and more closely defined by the addition : to Jerusalem. Robinson describes an ancient wine-pi'ess in his Biblical Researches, p. 178. On N|'a"73, comp. Jer. xvii. 21 sq. "'''J'^3, and I testified (against them), i.e. warned them on the day wherein .they sold victuals. i;v, food, victuals; Ps. cxxxii. 15, Josh. ix. 5, 14. He warned them no longer to sell victuals on the Sabbath-day. Bertheau, on the contrary, thinks that Nehemiah saw how the market people in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem started while it was still the Sabbath, not for the purpose of selling during that day, but for that of being early in the market CHAP. XIII. 15-22. 291 on the next day, or the next but one. The text, however, offers no support to such a notion. In ver. 16 it is expressly said that selling took place in Jerusalem on the Sabbath; and the very bringing thither of wine, grapes, etc., on the Sab- bath, presupposes that the sale of these articles was trans- acted on that day.^Ver. 16. Tyrians also were staying therein, bringing fish and all kind of ware 05^), and sold it on the Sabbath to the sons of Judah and in Jerusalem. aB'J is by most expositors translated, to dwell; but it is im- probable that Tyrians would at that time dwell or settle at Jerusalem : hence 2B>J here means to sit, i.e. to stay awhile undisturbed, to tarry. — Vers. 17, 18. Nehemiah reproved the nobles of Judah for this profanation of the Sabbath, re- minding them how their fathers (forefathers) by such acts (as rebuked e.g. by Jeremiah, chap. xvii. 21 sq.) had brought upon the people and the city great evil, i.e. the misery of their former exile and present oppression; remarking in addition, " and ye are bringing more wrath upon Israel, profaning the Sabbath," i.e. you are only increasing the ' wrath of God already lying upon Israel, by your desecration of the Sabbath. Oomp. on the last thought, Ezra x. 10, 14. He also instituted measures for the abolition of this trespass. — Ver. 19. He commanded that the gates of Jerusalem should be closed when it began to be dark before the Sab- bath, and not re-opened till the Sabbath was over. In the description of this measure the command and its execution are intermixed, or rather the execution is brought forward as the chief matter, and the command inserted therein. " And it came to pass, as soon as the gates of Jerusalem were dark (i.e. when it was dark in the gates) before the Sabbath, I commanded, and the gates were shut; and I com- manded that they should not be opened till after the Sab- bath," i.e. after sunset on the Sabbath-day. ??S, in the sense of to grow dark, occurs in Hebrew only here, and is an Aramasan expression. Nehemiah also placed some of his servants at the gates, that no burdens, i.e. no wares, victuals, etc., might be brought in on the Sabbath. "IB'K is wanting before NU^ vh ; the command is directly alluded to, and, with 292 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. the command, must be supplied before KUJ k?. The placing of the watch was necessary, because the gates could not be kept strictly closed during the whole of the day, and ingress and egress thus entirely forbidden to the inhabitants. — Ver. 20. Then the merchants and sellers of all kinds of ware remained throughout the night outside Jerusalem, once and twice. Thus, because egress from the city could not be refused to the inhabitants, the rest of the Sabbath was broken outside the gates. Nehemiah therefore put an end to this misdemeanour also. — Ver. 21. He warned the merchants to do this no more, threatening them : " If you do (this) again (i.e. pass the night before the walls), I will lay hands on you," i.e. drive you away by force. The form 0*^7 for D''37 occurs only here as a " semi-passive " formation ; comp. Ewald, § 151, b. From that time forth they came no more on the Sabbath. — Ver. 22. A further measure taken by Nehemiah for the sanctification of the Sabbath according to the law, is so briefly narrated, that it does not plainly appear in what it consisted. " I commanded the Levites that they should cleanse themselves, and they should come keep the gates to sanctify the Sabbath-day." The meaning of the words D^Ka DnjJE'n D'lnptJ' is doubtful. The Masoretes have separated CNB from D''"iDB' by Sakeph ; while de Wette, Bertheau, and others combine these words : and that they should come to the keepers of the doors. This translation cannot be justi- fied by the usage of the language; for Nia with an accusative of the person occurs only, as may be proved, in prophetical and poetical diction (Job xx. 22 ; Prov. x. 24 ; Isa. xli. 25 ; Ezek. xxxii. 11), and then in the sense of to come upon some one, to surprise him, and never in the meaning of to come or go to some one. Nor does this unjustifiable translation give even an appropriate sense. Why should the Levites go to the doorkeepers to sanctify the Sabbath? Bertheau thinks it was for the purpose of solemnly announcing to the doorkeepers that the holy day had begun, or to advertise them by some form of consecration of its commencement. This, however, would have been either a useless or unmean- ing ceremony. Hence we must relinquish this connection of CHAP. XIII. 23-29. 293 the words, and either combine ^''IJIE'n la'''!13B!' as an asyndeton with 0*^3 : coming and watching the gates, or : coming as watchers of the gates; and then the measure taken would consist in the appointment of certain Levites to Iteep the gates on the Sabbath, as well as the ordinary keepers, thus consecrating the Sabbath as a holy day above ordinary days. Nehemiah concludes the account of the abolition of this irregularity, as well as the preceding, by invoking a blessing upon himself; comp. rem. on ver. 14. bj? nwn like Joel ii. 17. Vers. 23-29. Marriages with foreign wives dissolved. — Vers. 23 and 24. <' In those days I also saw, i.e. visited, the Jews who had brought Tiome Ashdodite, Ammonite, and Moabite wives ; and half of their children spoke the speech of Ash- dod, because they understood not how to speak the Jews' language, and according to the speech of one and of another people." It is not said, I saw Jews ; but, the Jews who . . . flence Bertheau rightly infers, that Nehemiah at this time found an opportunity of seeing them, perhaps upon a journey through the province. From the circumstance, too, that .a portion of the children of these marriages were not able to speak the language of the Jews, but spoke the language of Ashdod, or of this or that nation from which their mothers were descended, we may conclude with tolerable certainty, that these people dwelt neither in Jerusalem nor in the midst of the Jewish community, but on the borders of the nations to which their wives belonged. ^''E'in like Ezra x. 2. Dn^iDl precedes in an absolute sense : and as for their children, one half (of them) spake, nnw] (comp. 2 Kings xviii. 26, Isa. xxxvi. 11, 2 Ohron. xxxii.18) is the language of the Jewish community, the vernacular Hebrew. The sentence 'Ul D3''N1 is an explanatory parenthesis, QVJ DV f^^^] still depending upon "i?10 : spake according to the language, i.e. spake the language, of this and that people (of their mothers). The speech of Ashdod is that of the Philistines, which, according to Hitzig (Urgeschichte u. Mytliol. der Philistder), belonged to the Indo-Germanic group. The languages, however, of the Moabites and Ammonites were 294 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. undoubtedly Sliemitic, but so dialectically different from the Hebrew, that they might be regarded as foreign tongues. — Ver. 25. With these people also Nehemiah contended (a'l'iK like vers. 11 and 17), cursed them, smote certain of their men, and plucked off their hair (pU^, see rem. on Ezra ix. 3), and made them swear by God : Ye shall not give your daughters, etc.; comp. x. 31. On the recurrence of such marriages after the separations effected by Ezra of those existing at his arrival at Jerusalem, comp. the remark, p. 135 sq. Nehemiah did not insist on the immediate dis- solution of these marriages, but caused the men to swear that they would desist from such connections, setting be- fore them, in ver. 26, how grievous a sin they were com- mitting. " Did not Solomon, king of Israel, sin on account of these? " (n?s ?J?, on account of strange wives). And among many nations there was no king like him (comp, 1 Kings iii. 12 sq., 2 Ohron. i. 12) ; and he was beloved of his God (alluding to 2 Sam. xii. 24), and God made him king over all Israel (1 Kings iv. 1) ; and even him did foreign women cause to sin (comp. 1 Kings xi. 1-3). " And for you is it heard to do (that ye do) all this great evil, to transgress against our God, and to marry strange wives ? " Bertheau thus rightly understands the sentence: "If the powerful King Solomon was powerless to resist the influence of foreign wives, and if he, the beloved God, found in his relation to God no defence against the sin to which they seduced him, is it not unheard of for you to commit so great an evil ? " He also rightly explains VDB'^n according to Deut. ix. 32 ; while Gesenius in his Thes. still takes it, like Rambach, as the first person imperf . : nohisne morem geramus faciendo ; or : Should we obey you to do so great an evil ? (de Wette) ; which meaning — apart from the consideration that not obedience, but only toleration of the illegal act, is here in question — greatly weakens, if it does not quite destroy, the contrast be- tween Solomon and DSj". — ^Ver. 28. Nehemiah acted with greater severity towards one of the sons of Joiada the high priest, and son-in-law of Sanballat. He drove him from him C????, that he might not be a burden to me). The reason for CHAP. XIII. 28-29. 295 tins is not expressly stated, but is involved in the fact that he was son-in-law to Sanballat, i.e. had married a daughter of Sanballat the Horonite (ii. 10), who was so hostile to Nehe- miah and to the Jewish community in general, and would not comply with the demand of Nehemiah that he should dismiss this wife. In this case, Nehemiah. was obliged to interfere with authority. For this marriage was a pollution of the priesthood, and a breach of the covenant of the priest- hood and the Levites. Hence he closes the narrative of this occurrence with the wish, ver. 29, that God would be mind- ful of them (D'^J, of those who had done such evil) on account of this pollution, etc., i.e. would punish or chastise them for it. vsa, stat. constr.pl. from 7X3, pollution (plurale tant.). It was a pollution of the priesthood to marry a heathen woman, such marriage being opposed to the sacredness of the priestly office, which a priest was to consider even in the choice of a wife, and because of which he might marry neither a whore, nor a feeble nor a divorced woman, while the high priest might marry only a virgin of his own people (Lev. xxi. 7, 14). The son of Joiada who had married a daughter of Sanballat was not indeed his presumptive suc- cessor (Johanan, xii. 11), for then he would have been spoken of by name, but a younger son, and therefore a simple priest; he was, however, so nearly related to the high priest, that by his marriage with a heathen woman the holiness of the high-priestly house was polluted, and therewith also "the covenant of the priesthood," i.e. not the covenant of the everlasting priesthood which God granted to Phinehas for his zeal (Num. xxv. 13), but the covenant which God con- cluded with the tribe of Levi, the priesthood, and the Levites, by choosing the tribe of Levi, and of that tribe Aaron and his descendants, to be His priest (i? I^nsp, Ex. xxviii. 1). This covenant required, on the part of the priests, that they should be " holy to the Lord " (Lev. xxi. 6, 8), who had chosen them to be ministers of His sanctuary and stewards of His grace. Josephus (Ant. xi. 7. 2) relates the similar fact, that Manasseh, a brother of the high priest Jaddua, married 296 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. Nikaso, a daughter of the satrap Sanballat, a Ciithite ; that when the Jewish authorities on that account excludedhim from the priesthood, he established, by the assistance of his father- in-law, the temple and worship on Mount Gerizim (xi. 8. 2-4), and that many priests made common cause with him. Now, though Josephus calls this Manasseh a brother of Jaddua, thus making him a grandson of Joiada, and transposing the establishment of the Samaritan worship on Gerizim to the last years of Darius Oodomannus and the first of Alex- ander of Macedon, it can scarcely be misunderstood that, notwithstanding these discrepancies, the same occurrence which Nehemiah relates in the present verses is intended by Josephus. The view of older theologians, to which also Petermann (art. Samaria in Herzog's Eealenc. xiii. p. 366 sq.) assents, that there were two Sanballats, one in the days of Nehemiah, the other in the time of Alexander the Great, and that both had sons-in-law belonging to the high-priestly family, is very improbable ; and the transposition' of the fact by Josephus to the times of Darius Oodomannus and Alex- ander accords with the usual and universally acknowledged incorrectness of his chronological combinations. He makes, e.g., Nehemiah arrive at Jerusalem in the twenty-fifth year of Xerxes, instead of the twentieth of Artaxerxes, while Xerxes reigned only twenty years. Vers. 30 and 31. Nehemiah concludes his work with a short summary of what he had effected for the community. " I cleansed them from all strangers " (comp. ver. 23 sq., ix. 2, xiii. 1 sq.), " and appointed the services for the priests and Levites, each in his business, and for the wood-offering at times appointed (x. 35), and for the first-fruits " (x. 36 sq.). The suffix to Q''fi"in^1 refers to the Jews. 13?., strange, means foreign heathen customs, and chiefly marriages with heathen women, ver. 23 sq., ix. 2, xiii. 1. ninpB'p I'pSJi}, properly to set a w^atch, here used in the more general sense of to appoint posts of service for the priests and Levites, i.e. to arrange for the attendance upon those offices which they had to perform at their posts in the temple, according to the law ; comp. x. 37, 40, xii. 44-46, xiii. 13. I?")!^^' and CHAP. XIII. 30, 31. 297 nnoa^l, ver. 31, still depend on nSiafa nyam : I appointed the attendance for the delivery of the wood for the altar at appointed times (comp. x. 35), and for the first-fruits, i.e. for bringing into the sanctuary the heave-offering for the priests. The C^QH are named as pars pro toto, instead of all the nioinn prescribed by the law. On the arrangements connected with these two subjects, viz. the purification from heathen practices, and the restoration of the regular per- formance of divine worship, was Nehemiah's whole energy concentrated, after the fortification of Jerusalem by a wall of circumvallation had been completed. He thus earned a lasting claim to the gratitude of the congregation of his fellow-countrymen that returned from Babylon, and could conclude his narrative with the prayer that God would remember him for good. On this frequently-repeated sup- plication (comp. vers. 14, 22, and v. 19) Eambach justly remarks : magnam Nehemim pietatem spirat. This piety is, however — as we cannot fail also to perceive — strongly per- vaded by the legal spirit of post-Babylonian Judaism. THE BOOK OF ESTHER. 299 THE BOOK OF ESTHER. § I. NAME, CONTENTS, OBJECT, AND UNITY OF THE BOOK OF ESTHER. |HIS book bears the name of "iRpK or "i^DK n^ja, book of Esther, also briefly that of n^jo with the Rabbis, from Esther the Jewess, afterwards raised to the rank of queen, to whom the Jews were indebted for their deliverance from the destruction with which they were threatened, as related in this book. Its contents are as follows : — Ahashverosh, king of Persia, gave, in the third year of his reign, a banquet to the grandees of his kingdom at Susa; and on the seventh day of this feast, when his heart was merry with wine, required the Queen Vashti to appear before his guests and show her beauty. When she refused to come at the king's command- ment, she was divorced, at the proposal of his seven coun- sellors ; and this divorce was published by an edict through- out the whole kingdom, lest the example of the queen should have a bad effect upon the obedience of other wives to their husbands (chap. i.). When the king, after his wrath was appeased, began again to feel a tenderness towards his divorced wife, the most beautiful virgins in the whole king- dom were, at the advice of his servants, brought to the house of the women at Susa, that the king might choose a wife at his pleasure. Among these virgins was Esther the Jewess, the foster-daughter and near relative of Mordochai, a Benjamite living in exile, who, when brought before the king, after the customary preparation, so pleased him, that he chose her for his queen. Her intercourse with Mordochai continued after her reception into the royal palace; and 801 302 THE BOOK OF ESTHER. during his daily visits in the gate of the palace, he jdis- covered a conspiracy against the life of the king, and thus rendered him an important service (chap. ii.). Ahashverosh afterwards made Haman, an Agagite, his prime minister or grand vizier, and commanded all the king's servants to pay him royal honours, i.e. to bow down before him. When this ■was refused by Mordochai, Haman's indignation was so great, that he resolved to destroy all the Jews in the whole empire. For this purpose he appointed, by means of the lot, both the month and day ; and obtained from the king permission to prepare an edict to all the provinces of the kingdom, appoint- ing the thirteenth day of the twelfth month for the ex- termination of the Jews throughout the whole realm (chap, iii). Mordochai apprised Queen Esther of this cruel com- mand, and so strongly urged her to apply to the king on behalf of her people, that she resolved, at the peril of her life, to appear before him unbidden. When she was so favourably received by him, that he promised beforehand to grant whatever she had to request, even to the half of his kingdom, she first entreated that the king and Haman should eat with her that day. During the repast, the king inquired concerning her request, and she answered that she would declare it on the following day, if the king and Haman. would again eat with her (iv. 1-8). Haman, greatly elated at this distinction, had the mortification, on his departure from the queen, of beholding Mordochai, who did not rise up before him, in the gate of the palace ; and returning to his house, formed, by the advice of his wife and friends, the resolution of hanging Mordochai next day upon a gallows ; for which purpose he immediately caused a tre'e fifty cubits high to be prepared (v. 9-14). Next night, however, the king, being unable to sleep, caused the records of the king- dom to be read to him, and was thereby reminded of the obligation he was under to Mordochai. When, on this occa- sion, he learnt that Mordochai had as yet received no reward for this service, he sent for Haman, who had resorted thus early to the court of the palace for the purpose of obtaining the royal permission for the execution of Mordochai, and NAME, CONTENTS, OBJECT, AND UNITY. 303 asked him what should be done to the man whom the king desired to honour. Haman, thinking this honour concerned himself, proposed the very highest, and was by the king's command obliged, to his extreme mortification, himself to pay this honour to Mordochai, his wife and friends interpret- ing this occurrence as an omen of his approaching ruin (vi.). When the king and Haman afterwards dined with Esther, the queen begged for her life and that of her people, and pointed to Haman as the enemy who desired to exterminate the Jews. Full of wrath at this information, the king went into the garden of the palace ; while Haman, remaining in the room, fell at the feet of the queen to beg for his life. When the king, returning to the banquet chamber, saw Haman lying on the queen's couch, he thought he was offering violence to the queen, passed sentence, of death upon him, caused him to be hanged upon the gallows he had erected for Mordochai (vii.), and on the same day gave his house to the queen, and made Mordochai his prime minister in the place of Haman (viii. 1, 2). Hereupon Esther earnestly entreated the reversal of Haman's edict against the Jews ; and since, according to ■ the laws of the Modes and Persians, an edict issued by the king and sealed with the seal-royal could not be repealed, the king commanded Mordochai to prepare and publish throughout the whole kingdom another edict, whereby the Jews were permitted, to their great joy and that of many other inhabitants of the realm (viii. 3-17), not only to de- fend themselves against the attacks of their enemies on the appointed day, but also to kill and plunder them. In con- sequence of this, the Jews assembled on the appointed day to defend their lives against their aciversaries ; and being supported by the royal officials, through fear of Mordochai, they slew in Susa 500, and in the whole kingdom 75,000 men, besides 300 more in Susa on the day following, but did not touch the goods of the slain. They then cele- brated in Susa the fifteenth, and in the rest of the kingdom the fourteenth, day of the month Adar, as a day of feasting and gladness (ix. 1-19). Hereupon Mordochai and Queen Esther sent letters to all the Jews in the kingdom, in which 304 THE BOOK OF ESTHEE. they ordered the yearly celebration of this day, by the name of the feast of Purim, i.e. lots, because Haman had cast lots concerning the destruction of the Jews (ix, 20-32). In con. elusion, the documents in which are described the acts of Ahashverosh and the greatness of Mordochai, who had exerted himself for the good of his people, are pointed out (chap. x.). From this glance at its contents, it is obvious that the object of this book is to narrate the events in remembrance of which the feast of Purim was celebrated, and to trans- mit to posterity an account of its origin. The aim of the entire contents of this book being the institution of this festival, with which it concludes, there can be no reason- able doubt of its integrity, which is also generally admitted. Bertheau, however, after the example of J. D. Michaelis, has declared the sections ix. 20-28 and 29-32 to be later additions, incapable of inclusion in the closely connected narrative of chap, i.-ix. 19, and regards chap. x. as differing from it both in matter and language. The sections in question are said to be obviously distinct from the rest of the. book. But all that is adduced in support of this assertion is, that the words D.>i?, to institute (ix. 21, 27, 29, 31), fi^iD, to come to an end, to cease (ix. 28), the plural niaix, fasts (ix. 31), and an allusion to the decree in a direct manner, occur only in these sections. In such a statement, however, no kind of consideration is given to the circumstance that there was no opportunity for the use of D.*i? i^iB and the plur. ni»iv in the other chapters. Hence nothing remains but the direct in- troduction of the decree, which is obviously insufficient to establish a peculiarity of language. Still weaker is the proof offered of diversity of matter between ix. 20-32. and chap, i.— ix. 19 ; Bertheau being unable to make this appear in any way, but by wrongly attributing to the word 0*5 the meaning : to confirm a long-existing custom. § II. niSTOEICAL CHAEACTER OF THE BOOK OF ESTHEE. The feast of Purim is mentioned, 2 Mace. xv. 36, under the name of MapSo'^alK'q ^/lepa, as a festival existing in the UISTOKICAL CHAEACtAr. 305 time of Nicanor (about 160 B.C.) ; and Josephus tells us, Ant. xi. 6. 13, that it was kept by the Jews during a whole week. Now the institution of this festival must have been based upon an historical event similar to that related in this book. Hence even this is sufficient to show that the asser- tion of Semler, Oeder, and others, that this book contains a fictitious parable (confictam esse universam parabolam), is a notion opposed to common sense. For if this festival has been from of old celebrated by the Jews all over the world, it must owe its origin to an occurrence which affected the whole Jewish people, and the names Purim and Mordochai's day are a pledge, that the essential contents of this book are based upon an historical foundation. The name Purim (i.e. lots), derived from the Persian, can be suitably explained in no other manner than is done in this book, viz. by the cir- cumstance that lots were cast on the fate of the Jews by a Persian official, who contemplated their extermination, for the purpose of fixing on a favourable day for this act ; while the name, Mordochai's day, preserves the memory of the individual to whom the Jews were indebted for their deli- verance. Hence all modern critics admit, that at least an historical foundation is thus guaranteed, while a few doubt- the strictly historical character of the whole narrative, and assert that while the feast of Purim was indeed celebrated in remembrance of a deliverance of the Jews in the Persian empire, it was the existence of this festival,' and the accounts given by those who celebrated it, which gave rise to the written narrative of the history of Esther (thus Bertheau). On the other hand, the historical character of the whole narrative has been defended not only by Havernick (Einl.), M. Baumgarten (defide libri JEsthercB, 1839), and others, but also, and upon valid grounds, by Staehelin (spes. Einl. in die kanon. BB. des A. T. § 51 sq.). The objections that have been raised to its credibility have arisen, first from the habit of making subjective probability the standard of historical truth, and next from an insufficient or imperfect attention to the customs, manners, and state of affairs at the Persian court on the one hand, or an incorrect view of the meaning u 306 THE BOOK OF ESTHER. of the text on the other. When, e.g., Bertheau as well as Bleek {Einleit. p. 286) says, "The whole is of such a nature ■ that the unprejudiced observer cannot easily regard it as a purely historical narrative," Cleric, (dissert, de scriptoribus librr. hist. § 10) far more impartially and correctly decides : Mirabilis sane est et 7ra/>a8o|o? (quis enim neget?) historia, sed multa mirabilia et a moribus nostris aliena olim apud orien- tales ut apud omnes alios populos contigerunt. The fact that King Ahashverosh should grant his grand vizier Haman permission to publish an edict commanding the extermination of the Jews throughout his empire, is not challenged by either Bleek or Bertheau; and, indeed, we need not go so far as the despotic states of the East to meet with similar occurrences ; the Parisian massacre of St. Bartholomew being a sufficient proof that the apparently incredible may be actual reality.' And all the other statements of this book, however seemingly unaccountable to us, become conceivable when we consider the character of King Ahashverosh, i.e., as is now generally admitted, of Xerxes, who is described by Greek and Roman historians as a very luxurious, voluptuous, and at the same time an extremely cruel tyrant. A despot who, after his army had been hospitably entertained on its march to Greece, and an enormous sum offered towards defraying the expenses of the war, by Pythius tbe rich Lydian, could be betrayed into such fury by the request of the latter, that of his ^ Eosenmiiller (bibl. Altertumsk. i. 1, p. 379) calls to mind Mithri- dates king of Pontas, who, when at war with the Romans, secretly issued an order to all the satraps and local authorities of his realm, to assassinate aU Bomans, without distinction of age or sex, on an appointed day, in consequence of which 80,000 perished on one day ; also the pasha of Zaid Mehmed in the sixteenth century, who surprised the nation of the Druses, and put to death all whom he met with (comp. Arvieux, merkw. Nachr. i. p. 391) ; and then continues : " It is almost more in- credible that a ruler should, from the blindness of religious zeal, either execute or drive out of his realm 100,000 of his most diligent and prosperous subjects; yet the history of modern Europe offers us, in Ferdinand the Catholic, who chased 300,000 Jews from Spain, and Louis XIV., who, after putting some thousands of Protestants to death, banished hundreds of thousands from France, examples of such incre- dible events." HISTORICAL CHARACTER. 307 five sons who were in the army the eldest might be released, to be the comfort of his declining years, as to command this son to be hewn into two pieces, and to make his army pass between them (Herod, vii. c. 37-39 ; Seneca, de ira, vii. 17) ; a tyrant who could behead the builders of the bridge over the Hellespont, because a storm had destroyed the bridge, and command the sea to be scourged, and to be chained by sinking a few fetters (Herod, vii. 35) ; a debauchee who, after his return from Greece, sought to drive away his vexa- tion at the shameful defeat he had undergone, by revelling in sensual pleasures (Herod, ix. 108 sq.) ; so frantic a tyrant was capable of all that is told us in the book of Esther of Ahashverosh. Bleek's objections to the credibility of the narrative con- sist of the following points : a. That it is inconceivable that if the Persian despot had formed a resolution to exterminate all the Jews in his kingdom, he would, even though urged by a favourite, have proclaimed this by a royal edict pub- lished throughout all the provinces of his kingdom twelve months previously. In advancing this objection, however, Bleek has not considered that Haman cast lots for the appointment of the day on which his project was to be carried into execution ; the Persians being, Recording to Herod, iii. 128, Cyrop. i. 6. 46, frequently accustomed to resort to the lot ; while not only in Strabo's time, but to the present day also, everything is with them decided according to the dicta of soothsayers and astrologers. If, then, the lot had declared the day in question .to be a propitious one for the matter contemplated, the haughty Haman would not reflect that the premature publication of the edict would afford a portion of the Jews the opportunity of escaping destruction by flight. Such reflections are inconsistent with absolute confidence in the power of magical decisions i and even if what was pos- sible had ensued, he would still have attained his main object of driving the Jews out of the realm, and appropriating their possessions. — I. That at this time Judea, which was then almost wholly reinhabited by Jews, was among the provinces of Persia, and that hence the king's edict commanded the 308 THE BOOK OF ESTHER. extermination of almost all the population of that country. This, he says, it is difficult to believe ; and not less so, that when the first edict was not repealed, the second, which granted the Jews permission to defend themselves against their enemies, should have resulted everywhere in such suc- cess to the Jews, even though, from fear of Mordochai the new favourite, they were favoured by the royal officials, that all should in all countries submit to them, and that they should kill 75,000 men, equally with themselves subjects of the king. To this it may be replied: that Judea was, in relation to the whole Persian realm, a very unimportant province, and in the time of Xerxes, as is obvious from the book of Ezra, by no means " almost wholly," but only very partially, inhabited by Jews, who were, moreover, regarded with such hostility by the other races dwelling among them, that the execution of the decree cannot appear impossible even here. Witli regard to the result of the second edict, the slaughter of 75,000 .men, this too is perfectly compre- hensible. For since, according to Medo-Persian law, the formal repeal of a royal edict issued according to legal form was impracticable, the royal officials would understand the sense and object of the second,- and not trouble themselves much about the execution of the first, but, on the contrary, make the second published by Mordochai, who was at that time the highest dignitary in the realm, their rule of action for the purpose of ensuring his favour. Kound numbers, moreover, of the slain are evidently given; i.e. they are given upon only approximate statements, and are not incre- dibly high, when the size and population of the kingdom are considered. The Persian empire, in its whole extent from India to Ethiopia, must have contained a population of at least 100,000,000, and the number of Jews in the realm must have amounted to from two to three millions. A people of from two to three millions would include, moreover, at least from 500,000 to 700,000 capable of bearing arms, and these might in battle against their enemies slay 75,000 men. Susa, the capital, would not have been less than the Stam- boul of the present day, and would probably contain at least HISTORICAL CHARACTER. 309 lialf a million of inhabitants ; and it by no means surpasses the bounds of probability, that in such a town 500 men should be slain in one day, and 300 more on the following, in a desperate street fight. Nor can the numbers stated be looked upon as too high a computation. The figures are only rendered improbable by the notion, that the Jews themselves suffered no loss at all. Such an assumption, however, is by no means justified by -the circumstance, that such losses are unmentioned. It is the general custom of the scriptural histo- rians to give in their narratives of wars and battles only the numbers of the slain among the vanquished foes, and not to mention the losses of the victors. We are justified, however, in supposing that the war was of an aggravated character, from the fact that it bore not only a national, but also a religious character. Haman's wrath against Mordochai was so exasperated by the information that he was a Jew, that he resolved upon the extermination of the people of Mordochai, i.e. of all the Jews in the realm (iii. 4—6). To obtain the consent of the king, he accused the Jews as a scattered and separated people, whose laws were different from the laws of all other nations, of not observing the laws of the king. This accusation was, "from the standpoint of Parseeism, the gravest which could have been made against the Jews " (Haev. Einl. ii. 1, p. 348). The separation of the Jews from all other people, a consequence of the election of Israel to be the people of God, has at all times inflamed and nou- rished the hatred of the Gentiles and of the children of this world against them. This hatred, which was revived by the edict of Haman, could not be quenched by the counter-edict of Mordochai. Though this edict so inspired the royal officials with fear of the powerful minister, that they took part with, instead of against the Jews, yet the masses of the people, and especially the populations of towns, would not have paid such respect to it as to restrain their hatred against the Jews. The edict of Mordochai did not forbid the execution of that of Haman, but only allowed the Jews to stand up for their lives, and to slay such enemies as should attack them (viii. 11). The heathen were not thereby restrained from under- 310 THE BOOK OF ESTHER. taking that fight against the Jews, in which they were eventually the losers. — When, however, c. Bleek finds it " utterly unnatural " that, after the Jews had slain 500 of their foes in one day in Susa, the king should, at the request of Esther, whose vengeance and thirst of blood were not yet appeased, have granted an edict that the slaughter should be renewed on the following day, when no attack upon the Jews was permitted, his objection rests upon a sheer misunder- standing of the whole affair. The queen only requested that " it should be granted to the Jews in Susa to do to-morrow also, according to the decree of to-day " (ix. 13), i.e. " to stand for their lives, and slay all who should assault them " (viii. 11). This petition presupposes that the heathen popu- lation of Susa would renew the attack upon the Jews on the next day. Hence it is evident that Bleek's assertion, that the heathen were not allowed on that day to renew their attack upon the Jews, is an erroneous notion, and one at variance with the text. Together with this erroneous assumption, the reproach of vengeance and bloodthirstiness raised against Esther is also obviated. Her foresight in securing the lives of her people against renewed attacks, betrays neither revenge nor cruelty. Unless the heathen population had attacked the Jews on the second day, the latter would have had no oppor- tunity of slaying their foes. How little, too, the Jews in general were influenced by a desire of vengeance, is shown by the fact so repeatedly brought forward, that they laid not their hand on the spoil of the slain (iK. 9, 15), though this was granted them by the royal edict (viii. 11). — d, Bkek's remaining objections are based partly upon misrepresenta- tions of the state of affairs, and partly upon erroneous notions of Eastern customs.^ ^ E.g. the remark that, though all Susa was thrown into consternation by the edict of Haman, it rejoiced greatly at the second ; where Bleek has inserted all to make the matter appear incredible by exaggeration. In the text we only read " the city of Susa was perplexed " (iii. 15), " the city of Susa rejoiced and was glad " (viii. 15) ; i.e., in the city of Susa there was in the one instance perplexity, in the other rejoicing. Also that the king published a special decree in all the provmces of his kingdom, that every man should be master in his own house, — a misin- HISTORICAL CHARACTER. 311 If, then, all the objections raised against the credibility of the narrative may be thus disposed of, we are perfectly justi- fied in adhering to a belief in the historical character of the whole book, since even Bleek cannot deny, that some at least of " the customs and arrangements of the Persian court are both vividly and faithfully depicted." To this must be added the statement of the names of the individuals who take part in the narrative, e.g. the courtiers, i. 10 ; the seven princes of Persia, i. 14 ; the keeper of the women's houses, ii. 8 and 14 ; the ten sons of Haman, ix. 7-9, and others ; and the reference to the book of the chronicles of the Medes and Persians, as the documents in which not only the acts of Ahashverosh, but also the greatness of Mordochai, were written (x. 2). As the numerous and otherwise wholly un- known names could not possibly be invented, so neither can the reference to the book of the chronicles be a mere literary fiction. When, therefore, Bertheau thinks, that the writer of this book, by thus bringing forward so many small de- tails, by stating the names of otherwise unknown individuals, and especially by giving so much accurate information con- cerning Persian affairs and institutions, — the correctness of which is in all respects confirmed both by the statements of classical authors and our present increased knowledge of Oriental matters, — certainly proves himself acquainted with the scene in which the narrative takes place, with Persian names and affairs, but not possessed also of an historical knowledge of the actual course of events ; we can perceive terpretation of the passage i. 22 ; see the explanation of this verse. Finally, the difficulty that Esther, as queen-consort, should have con- cealed her nationality so long as is stated in the narrative, can exist only for those unacquainted with the state of affairs in the harem of an Oriental prince. The Persian monarchs, who had a fresh concubine for each day, would certainly be ignorant of the descent of each ; and though, according to Herod, iii. 84, the queens were generally of the race of the Aohsemenides, yet the same historian also relates (iii. 31) of Cambyses, that the royal lix.»aT»i declared to him, with respect to his marriage with a sister, that : tu fixcu'hsvoiiTi Tlepaiau t^sivcir voikm to ctv /SouTijjT*;. The case, too, of a concubine being raised to the rank of queen by a Persian monarch is not inconceivable. 312 THE BOOK OF ESTHER. in this last inference only the tinsupported decision of a subjectivistic antipathy to the contents of the book. § III. AUTHORSHIP AND DATE OF THE BOOK OF ESTHEK. No certain information concerning the author of this book is obtainable. The talmudic statement in Baha hathr. 15. 1, that it was written by the men of the Great Synagogue, is devoid of historical value ; and the opinion of Clem. Al., Aben Ezra, and others, that Mordochai was its author, as is also inferred from ix. 20 and 23 by de Wette, is decidedly a mistaken one, — the writer plainly distinguishing in this passage between himself and Mordochai, who sent letters concerning the feast of Purim to the Jews in the realm of Persia. Other conjectures are still more unfounded. The date, too, of its composition can be only approximately de- termined. The opinion that in ix. 19 the long existence of the feast of Purim is presupposed, cannot be raised to the rank of a certainty. Nor does the book contain allusions pointing to the era of the Greek universal monarchy. This is admitted by Stahelin, who remarks, p. 178: "The most seemingly valid argument in support of this view, viz. that Persian customs are explained in this book, i. 1, 13 (for vii. 8, usually cited with these passages, is out of the question, and is the king's speech in answer to viii. 5), is refuted by the consideration, that the book was written for the informa- tion of Palestinian Jews ; while Havernick, ii. 1, p. 361, refers to a case in Bohaeddin, in which this biographer of Saladin, p. 70, though writing for Arabs, explains an Arabian custom with respect to prisoners of war." On the other hand, -both the reference to the chronicles of the Medes and Persians (x. 2), and the intimat^ acquaintance of the writer with Susa and the affairs of the Persian monarchy, decidedly point to the fact, that the date of its composition preceded the destruction of the Persian empire, and may perhaps have been that of Artaxerxes i. or Darius Nothus, about 400 B.C. The omission, moreover, of all reference to Judah and Jerusalem, together with the absence not only of theo- ITS CANONICITY. 313 cratic notions, but of a specially religious view of circum- stances, favour the view that the author lived not in Pales- tine, but in the more northern provinces of the Persian realm, probably in Susa itself. For though his mode of represent- ing events, which does not even once lead him to mention the name of God, is not caused by the irreligiousness of the author, but rather by the circumstance, that he neither wished to depict the persons whose acts he was narrating as more godly than they really were, nor to place the whole occurrence — which manifests, indeed, the dealings of Divine Providence with the Jewish people, but not the dealings of Jahve with the nation of Israel — under a point of view alien to the actors and the event itself, yet a his- torian acquainted with the theocratic ordinances and rela- tions of Judah would scarcely have been capable of so entirely ignoring them. § IV. THE CANOOTCITT OF THE BOOK OP ESTHER. The book of Esther has always formed a portion of the Hebrew canon. It is included also among the twenty-two books which, according to Josephus, c. Ap. i. 8, were ac- knowledged by the Jews as St/eawas ireincrTevfi.eva. For Josephus, who repeatedly asserts, that the history of the Hebrews from Moses to Artaxerxes was written by the pro- phets and worthy to be believed, relates also in his Jewish Antiquities (I. xi. c. 6) the history of Esther, Mordochai, and Haman. Certain critics have indeed desired to infer, from the statement in the Talmud, Jeruslu Megill. 70. 4, that " among the eighty elders who contended against the insti- tution of the feast of Purim by Esther and Mordochai as an innovation in the law, there were more than thirty prophets," that the Jews did not formerly attribute the same authority to the book of Esther as to the other Scriptures (Movers, loci quidam historiw canonis V. T. p. 28 ; Bleek, Einl, p. 404) ; but even Bertheau doubts whether this passage refers to the whole book of Esther. For it treats unambiguously only of the fact chap. ix. 29-32, which is very specially stated 314 THE BOOK OF ESTHER. to have been an institution of Esther and Mordochai, and concerning which differences of opinion might prevail among the Rabbis. The further remark of Movers, I.e., that the oldest patristic testimonies to the inclusion of this book in the canon are of such a nature, ut ex Us satis verisimiliter effici possit, eum tunc recens canoni adjectum esse, because it occupies the last place in the series of O. T. writings given by Origen, Epiphanius, and Jerome, according to Jewish authority, and because the canons of the Greek Church, which more accurately enumerate the books received by the syna- gogue, do not contain the book of Esther, is also incorrect. For (1.) the lists of the canonical books of the O. T. given by Origen (in Euseb. hist. eccl. vi. 25) and Epiphanius give these books not according to their order in the Hebrew canon, but to that of the Alexandrinian version, while only Jerome places the book of Esther last. (2.) In the lists of the Greek Church this book is omitted only in that given in Euseb. hist. eccl. iv. 26, from the eclogce of Melito, Bishop of Sardis, and in that of Gregory of Nazianzen, while it is included in those of . Origen and Cyril of Jerusalem ; a circumstance which leads to the supposition that it might have "been omitted by an oversight in transcription in those of Origen and Epiphanius. Only Athanasius (in his epist. fest.), Amphilochius (in the Jambi ad Seleuc), and the author of the Synopsis Athanasius, who is supposed not' to have lived till the tenth century, reckon it among the apocryphal books ; while Junilius (of the sixth century) re- marks that there were many in his days who doubted the canonicity of the book of Esther. From this it is suf- ficiently obvious, that these doubts were not founded upon historical tradition, but proceeded only from subjective reasons, and were entertained because offence was taken, first at the non-mention of the name of God in this book, and then at the confessedly apocryphal additions mingled with this book in the Alexandrinian translation. The author of the Synopsis Aili., moreover, expressly says that the Hebrews regarded this book as canonical. The well- known harsh judgments of Luther in his work de servo ar- ITS CANONIOITY. 315 hitrio : liber Esther, quamvis hunc hdbent in canone, dignior omnibus, me judice, qui extra canonem haberetur, and in his Table Talk, are purely subjective.^ Luther could never re- concile himself to this book, because he felt that the saving truths of Scripture were absent from it. The later Jews, on the contrary, exalted it even far above the Thorah and the prophets.^ Later Protestant theologians, too, have, in their efforts to justify the canonicity of this book, over-estimated its canonical value, and attributed to the history therein related, Messianic references which are foreign to its meaning (comp. the verdict given upon it in Carpzov's Introd. in V. T. p. 369 sq.). The moderate opinion of Brentius is : Jiic liber utilis est ad docendam fidem et timorem Dei, ut pii non frangantur adversis, sed invocantes nomen Domini ex fide, accipiant spem salutis ; impii vera alieno supplicio terreantur et ad pietaiem convertantur. This opinion is one far better founded than the depreciatory decision of modern critics, that this book breathes a spirit of revenge and pride (de Wette-Schrader) ; or of Bertheau, that " Esther and Mordochai are full of a spirit of revenge and hostility not to Gentile ways, but to the Gentiles themselves, of cruelty, and of ungodly con- fidence in a victory over the world, by worldly power and the employment of worldly means," and that this book " belongs to the historical records of the revelation made to Israel, only in so far as it helps to fill up the chasm between the times of the prophets and the days of our Lord." " The book itself and its position in the canon plainly testify, that the people to whom the victory over the world was promised, sepa- rated themselves farther and farther from communion with the holy God, trusted to their own arm and to worldly power, and could not, therefore, but be worsted in their contest 1 " And while the Doctor was correcting the second book of Maccabees he said : I am so hostile to this book and that of Esther, that I wish they did not exist ; they are too Judaizing, and contain many heathenish improprieties." 2 Comp. the collection of rabbinical eulogies of this book in Aug. Pfeiffer, ihes. herm. p. 597 sq., and in Carpzov's introd. i. p. 366. 316 THE BOOK OF ESTHER. with the empire of the times." Such a verdict is justified neither by the circumstance, that the Jews, who reject Christ's redemption, understand and over-estimate this book in a carnal manner, nor by the fact, that the name of God does not once occur therein. With respect to the first point, the book itself is not to blame for being misused by Jews who have not accepted the redemption which is by Christ, to nourish a fanatical hatred of all Gentiles. Even if Esther and Mordochai were filled with a spirit of revenge toward the Gentiles, no reproach could in consequence be cast on the book of Esther, which neither praises nor recommends their actions or behaviour, but simply relates what took place without blame or approval. But neither are the -accusations raised against Esther and Mordochai founded in truth. The means they took for the deliverance and preservation of their, people were in accordance with the circumstances stated. For if the edict promulgated by Haman, and commanding the extermination of the Jews, could not, according to the prevailing law of the Medo-Persians, be repealed, there was no other means left to Mordochai for the preservation of his countrymen from the destruction that threatened them, than the issue of a counter-edict permitting the Jews to fight for their lives against all enemies who should attack them, and con- ceding to them the same rights against their foes as had been granted to the latter against the Jews by the edict of Haman. The bloodshed which might and must ensue would be the fault neither of Mordochai nor Esther, but of Haman alone. And though Mordochai had irritated the haughty Haman by refusing him adoration, yet no Jew who was faithful to the commands of his God could render to a man that honour and adoration which are due to the Lord only. Besides, even if the offence of which he was thereby guilty against Haman might have incited the latter to punish him indi- vidually, it could offer no excuse for the massacre of the entire Jewish nation. As for the second point, viz. the non-mention of the name of God in this book, we have already remarked, § 3, that this omission is not caused by a lack of devoutness or reverence, the narrative itself ITS CANONICITY. 317 presenting features which lead to an opposite conclusion. In the answer which Mordochai sends to Esther's objection to appear before the king unbidden, " If thou holdest thy peace, there shall arise help and deliverance for the Jews from another place," is expressed the assured belief that God would not leave the Jews to perish. To this must be added, both that the Jews express their deep sorrow at the edict of Haman by fasting and lamentation (iv. 1-3), and that Queen Esther not only prepares for her difficult task of appearing before the king by fasting herself, but also begs to be assisted by the fasting of all the Jews in Susa (iv. 16). Now fasting was a penitential exercise, and the only form of common worship practised by Jews dwelling among Gentiles ; and this penitential exercise was always combined with prayer even among the heathen (comp. Jon. iii. 5 sq.), though pray6r and calling upon God might not be expressly mentioned. Finally, the occasion of this conflict between Jews and Gentiles was a religious one, viz. the refusal of adoration to' a man, from fear of transgressing the first commandment. All these things considered, we may with Stahelin appropriate what Lutz in his bihl. Uermeneutik, p. 386, says concerning this book : "A careful survey will suffice to show, that the religious principle predominates in the book of Esther, and that there is a religious foundation to the view taken of the occurrence. For it is represented as providential, as an occurrence in which, although the name of God is unmentioned, a higher Power, a Power on the side of Israel, prevails. Even in single features a closer inspection will plainly recognise a religious tone of feeling, while the whole book is pervaded by religious moral earnestness." It is this religious foundation which has obtained and secured its position in the canon of the inspired books of the O. T. The book is a memorial of the preservation of the Jewish people, during their subjection to a universal empire, by means of a special and providential disposition of secular events, and forms in this respect a supplement to the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, which relate the restoration of the Jewish community to the land of their fathers. 318 THE BOOK OF ESTHER. On the additions to the book of Esther in the Alexan- drinian version, which Luther, after the example of Jerome, excluded from the book and relegated to the Apocrypha under the title of Stucke in Esther, comp. my Lehrh. der JEinleitung, § 237, and O. F. Fritzsche's kurzgef. exeget. Hdb. zu den Apohryphen des N. T. p. 68 sq. For the exegetic literature, see Lehrh. der Einl. v. § 150. Comp. also E. Ph. L. Calmberg, liber Esterce interpretatione latina hrevique commentario illustr., Hamb. 1837, 4, and Ber- theau's Commentary, quoted p. 18. EXPOSITION. CHAP. I. — THE BANQUET OF KING AHASHVEEOSH AND THE DIVORCE OF QUEEN VASHTI. |HASHVEK0SH, king of Persia, gave, in the third year of his reign, a banquet to the grandees of his kingdom then assembled in Susa, for the pur- pose of showing them the greatness and glory of his kingdom ; while the queen at the same time made a feast for the women in the royal palace (vers. 1-9). On the seventh day of the feast, the king, " when his heart was merry with wine," sent a message by his chief courtiers to the queen, commanding her to appear before him, to show the people and the princes her beauty, and on her refusal to come, was greatly incensed against her (vers. 10-12). Upon inquiring of his astrologers and princes what ought in justice to be done to the queen on account of this disobedience, they advised him to divorce Vashti by an irrevocable decree, and to give her dignity to another and better ; also to publish this decree throughout the whole kingdom (vers. 13-20). This advice pleasing the king, it was acted upon accordingly (vers. 21 and 22). Vers. 1-8. The banquet. Vers. 1-3 mark a period. nna'D ny, which belongs to '•n*!, does not follow till ver. 3, and even then the statement concerning the feast is again interrupted by a long parenthesis, and not taken up again and completed till ver. 5. On the use of 'n'.l in historical narra- tives at the beginning of relations having, as in the present instance and Kuth i. 1, no reference to a preceding narrative, 819 320 THE BOOK OF ESTHER. see the remark on Josh. i. 1. Even when no express refer- ence to any preceding occurrence takes place, the historian still puts what he has to relate in connection with other historical occurrences by an " and it came to pass." Ahash- verosh is, as has already been remarked on Ezra iv. (p. 73), Xerxes, the son of Darius Hystaspis, Not only, does the name tyilwriN point to the Old-Persian name Ks'ayars'a (with N prosthetic), but the statements also concerning the extent of the kingdom (chap. i. 1, x. 1), the manners and customs of the country and court, the capricious and tyrannical character of Ahashverosh, and the historical allu- sions are suitable only and completely to Xerxes, so that, after the discussions of Justi in Eichhorn's Repert. xv. pp. 3- 38, and Baumgarten, de fide, etc., pp. 122—151, no further doubt on the subject can exist. As an historical background to the occurrences to be delineated, the wide extent of the kingdom ruled by the monarch just named is next described : " He is that Ahashverosh who reigned from India to Ethiopia over 127 provinces." ™''T9 • • • ^-?' '^ °°* ^° accusative dependent on T]7b, he ruled 127 provinces, for =1??, to reign, is construed with ?y or 3, but is annexed in the form of a free apposition to the statement: " from India to Oush ;" as also in chap. viii. 9. Wn is in the Old-Persian cuneiform inscriptions, Hidhu ; in Zend, Hendu ; in Sanscrit, Sindhu, ix. dwellers on the Indus, for Sindhu means in Sanscrit the river Indus ; comp. Roediger in Gesenius, Thes. Append, p. 83, and Lassen, Indische Alterthumsh. i. p. 2. E'=i3 is Ethiopia. This was the extent of the Persian empire under Xerxes, Mardonius in Herod, vii. 9 names not only the Sakers and Assyrians, but also the Indians and Ethiopians as nations subject to Xerxes. Comp. also Herod, vii. 97, 98, and viii. 65, 69, where the Ethiopians and Indians are reckoned among the races who paid tribute to the Persian king and fought in the army of Xerxes. The 127 Hiyip, provinces, are governmental districts, presided over, according to chap. viii. 9, by satraps, pechahs, and rulers. This state- ment recalls that made in Dan. vi. 2, that Darius the Mede set over his kingdom 120 satraps. We have already shown CHAP, I. 1-8. 321 in our remarks on Dan. vi. 2 that this form of administration is not in opposition to the statement of Herod, iii. 89 sq., that Darius Hystaspis divided the kingdom for the purpose of taxation into twenty apj(aL which were called aarpawijiai. The satrapies intci which Darius divided the kingdom' gene- rally comprised several provinces. The first satrapy, e.g., included Mysia and Lydia, together with the southern part of Phrygia ; the fourth, Syria and Phoenicia, with the island of Cyprus. The Jewish historians, on the other hand, designate a small portion of this fourth satrapy, viz. the region occupied by the Jewish community (Judah and Benjamin, with their chief city Jerusalem), as nr^D, Ezra ii. 1, Neh. i. 3, vii. 6, xi. 3. Consequently the satrapies of Darius mentioned in Herodotus differ from the medinoth of Dan. vi. 2, and Esth. i. 1, viii. 9. The 127 medinoth are a division of the kingdom into geographical regions, according to the races inhabiting the different provinces ; the list of satrapies in Herodotus, on the contrary, is a classification of the nations and provinces subject to the empire, determined by the tribute imposed on them. — Ver. 2. The words: in those days, take up the chronological statement of ver. 1, and add thereto the new particular : when King Ahashverosh sat on the throne" of his kingdom in the citadel of Susa. niE' does not involve the notion of quiet and peaceable possession after the termination of wars (Clericus, Rambach), but thut of being seated on the throne with royal authority. Thus the Persian kings are always represented upon a raised seat or throne, even on journeys and in battle. According to Herod, vii. 102, Xerxes watched the battle of Thermopylae sitting upon his throne. And Plutarch {Themistocl. c. 13) says the same of the battle of Salamis. Further examples are given by Baumg. I.e. p. 85 sq. On the citadel of Susa, see Neh. i. 1, and remarks on Dan. viii. 2. — ^Ver. 3. " In the third year of his reign he made a feast to all his princes and his servants, when the forces of Persia and Media, the nobles and princes of the provinces, were before him." nriE'ip nK^y, to make, to prepare, i.e. to give, a feast; comp. Gen. xxi. 8. The princes and the servants are, all who were assembled about him in X 322 THE BOOK OF ESTHER. Susa. These are specified in the words which follow as ?'rt 'a. We might supply b before l'''n from the preceding words, (viz.) the forces, etc.; but this would not suit the l^^QP at the end of the verse. For this word shows that an independent circumstantial clause begins with P'n, which is added to call attention to the great number of princes and servants assem- bled at Susa (Bertheau): the forces of Persia . . . were before him : when they were before him. By P^n, the host, the forces, Bertheau thinks the body-guard of the king, which, according to Herod, vii. 40, consisted of 2000 selected horse- men, 2000 lancers, and 10,000 infantry, is intended. There is, however, no adequate reason for limiting ?)n to the body- guard. It cannot, indeed, be. supposed that the whole military power of Persia and Media was with the king at Susa; but ?)n without bh can only signify an elite of the army, perhaps the captains and leaders as representing it, just as " the people" is frequently used for " the representa- tives of the people." The Persians and Medes are always named together as the two kindred races of the ruling nation. See Dan. vi. 9, who, however, as writing in the reign of Darius the Mede, places the Medes first and the Persians second, while the contrary order is observed here when the supremacy had been transferred to the Persians by Cyrus. On the form D"]S, see rem. on Ezra 1. i. After the mention of the forces, the Partemim, i.e. nobles, magnates (see on Dan. i. 3), and the princes of the provinces are named as the chief personages of the civil government. — Ver. 4. "When he showed the glorious riches of his kingdom and the excellent honour of his greatness many days, one hundred and eighty days." This verse has been understood by most expositors as stating that the king magnificently and splendidly enter- tained all the grandees mentioned in ver. 3 for a full half- year, and gave them a banquet which lasted 180 days. Clericus supposes proceedings to have been so arranged, that the proceres omnium provinciarwn were not entertained at one and the same time, but alii post alios, because all could not be absent together per sex menses a suis provinciis. Bertheau, however, thinks that the historian did not purpose CHAP. I. t-8. 323 to give an exact and graphic description of the proceeding, but only to excite astonishment, and that they who are astonished will not inquire as to the manner in which all took place. The text, however, does not say, that the feast lasted 180 days, and hence offers no occasion for such a view, which is founded on a mistaken comprehension of ver. 4, which combines 'Wl insnna with nriB'p T\e>V of ver. 3, while the whole of ver. 4 is but a further amplification of the cir- cumstantial clause : when the forces, etc., were before him ; the description of the banquet not following till ver. 5, where, however, it is joined to the concluding words of ver. 4 : " when these (180) days were full, the king made a feast to all the people that were found in the citadel of Susa, from great to small, seven days, in the court of the garden of the king's house." This verse is thus explained by Bertheau : after the soldiers, nobles, and princes of the district had been entertained for six months, all the male inhabitants of Susa were also entertained in a precinct of the palace garden, the women being feasted by Vashti the queen in the palace (ver. 9). It is, however, obvious, even from ver. 11, which says that on the seventh day of this banquet the king commanded the queen to appear " to show the people and the princes her beauty," that such a view of the occurrence is inadmissible. For this command presupposes, that the people and princes were assembled at the king's banquet; while, according to the view of Bertheau and older expositors, who insist on two banquets, one lasting 180 days, the other seven, the latter was given to the male inhabitants of Susa only. The princes and people of the whole' kingdom did not, however, dwell in Susa. These princes and people, to whom the queen was to show her beauty, are undoubtedly the princes and servants of the king, the forces of Persia and Media, and the nobles and princes of the provinces enumerated in ver. 3. With this agrees also the description of the guests invited to the seven days feast. IB'IB'3 CNSoari nyrri'a does not signify " all the inhabitants of Susa," but all then present, i.e. then assem- bled in the citadel of Susa. D''NSD3n used of persons means, those who for some purpose are found or present in any 324 THE BOOK OF ESTHER. place, in distinction from its usual inhabitants; coinp. 1 Ohron. xxix. 17, 2 Ohron. xxxiv. 32, Ezra viii. 25 ; and Dyn does not here signify people in the sense of population, but people who are met in a certain place, and is used both here and Neh. xii. 38 of an assembly of nobles and princes. IDi? lj)l ^"^130^, moreover, does not mean old and young, but high and low, the greater and lesser servants (Q^I^J^) of the king, and informs us that of those assembled at Susa, both princes and servants participated without exception in the banquet. — This view of 3-5 is confirmed by the consideration, that if the seven days banquet were a different one from that mentioned in ver. 3, there could be no reason for naming the latter, which would then be not only entirely unconnected with the narrative, but for which no object at all would be stated ; for ins"ina cannot be translated, as in the Vulgate, by ut osten- deret, because, as Bertheau justly remarks, a cannot indicate a purpose. From all these reasons it is obvious, that the feast of which further particulars are given in 5-8 is the same firiB'D which the king, according to ver. 3, gave to his ff'll' and ^''15?!) ^^^ tli^t t'l® *^^^ rightly understood, says nothing of two consecutive banquets. The sense of vers. 3-5 is accordingly as follows : King Ahasuerus gave to his nobles and princes, when he had assembled them before him, and showed them the glorious riches of his kingdom and the magnificence of his greatness for 180 days, after these 180 days, to all assembled before him in the fortress of Susa, a banquet which lasted seven days. The connection of the more particular description of this banquet, by means of the words : when these (the previously named 180) days were over, following upon the accessory clause, ver. 4, is anacolu- thistic, and the anacoluthon has given rise to the misconcep- tion, by which ver. 5 is understood to speak of a second banquet differing from the firiE'D of ver. 3. The purpose for which the king assembled the grandees of his kingdom around him in Susa for a whole half-year is not stated, because this has no connection with the special design of the present book. If, however, we compare the statement of Hercd. vii. 8, that Xerxes, after the re-subjection of Egypt, summoned the chief CHAP. I. 1-8. 325 men of his kingdom to Susa to take counsel with them con- cerning the campaign against Greece, it is obvious, that the assembly for 180 days in Susa, of the princes and nobles mentioned in the book of Esther, took place for the purpose of such consultation. When, too, we compare the statement of Herod, vii. 20, that Xerxes was four years preparing for this war, we receive also a corroboration of the particular mentioned in ver. 3, that he assembled his princes and nobles in the third year of his reign. In this view "the riches of his kingdom," etc., mentioned in ver.. 4, must not be under- stood of the splendour and magnificence displayed in the entertainment of his guests, but referred to the greatness and resources of the realm, which Xerxes descanted on to his assembled magnates for the purpose of showing them the possibility of carrying into execution his contemplated cam- paign against Greece. The banquet given them after the 180 days of consultation, was held in the court of the garden of the royal palace. }n''3 is a later form of iV^, which occurs only here and vii. 7, 8. "ivn, court, is the space in the park of the royal castle which was prepared for the banquet. The fittings and furniture of this place are described in ver. 6. " White stuff, variegated and purple hangings, fastened with cords of byssus and purple to silver rings and marble pillars ; couches of gold and silver upon a pavement of malachite and marble, mother-of-pearl and tortoise-shell." The description consists of mere allusions to, or exclamations at, the splendour of the preparations. In the first half of the verse the hang- ings of the room, in the second, the couches for the guests, are noticed, "iin from IIH means a white tissue of either linen or cotton. Bertheau supposes that the somewhat larger form of n is intended to denote, even by the size of letter employed, the commencement of the description. 03*13, occurring in Sanscrit, Persian, Armenian, and Arabic, in Greek Kapiraao';, means originally cotton, in Greek, according to later autho- rities, a kind of fine flax, here undoubtedly a cotton texture of various colours. ^^5'!', deep blue, purple. The hangings of the space set apart were of these materials. Blue and white were, according to Curtius vi. 6. 4, the royal colours of the 326 THE BOOK OF ESTHEE. Persians; comp. M. Duncker, Gesc'li. des Alterthums, ii. pp. 891 and 951 of the third edition, in which is described also the royal table, p. 952. The hangings were fastened (ttHK) with cords of white byssus and purple to rings and pillars of white marble. n^isD, couches (divans) of gold and silver, i.e. covered with cloth woven of gold and silver thread, wera prepared for the guests at the feast. These couches were placed upon a tesselated, mosaic-like floor ; the tesselation being composed of stones of various colours. tiHi, in Arabic a mock stone, in LXX. aiJMpar/hl.T7]<;j a spurious emerald, i.e. a green-coloured stone resembling the emerald, probably malachite or serpen- tine. t^B' is white marble ; 1% Arabic j, ^ j, pearl, LXX. m-LvvLvo^ 'KiBo'i, a pearl-like stone, perhaps mother-of-pearl. ^!!'I"'j 3, kind of dark-coloured stone (from "ino = "iriE'j to be dark), black, black marble with shield-like spots (all three words occur only here). — Ver. 7. The entertainment : " And drinks poured into vessels of gold ! and vessels differing from vessels, and royal wine in abundance, according to the hand of a king. (Ver. 8) And the drinking was according to law; none did compel : for so the king had appointed to all the officers of his house to do according to every one's pleasure." nipB'rij inf. Hiph., to give to drink, to hand drinks, is used substantively. The golden drinking vessels were of various kinds, and each differing in form from another. Great variety in drinking vessels pertained to the luxury of Per- sians; comp. Xenoph. Cyrop. viii. 8, 18. niapD p'; is wine from the royal cellar, therefore costly wine. Many inter- preters understand it of the Ghalybonian wine, which the Persian kings used to drink. See rem. on Ezek. xxvii. 18. ^?.?0 T?, according to the hand of the king, i.e. according to royal bounty ; comp. 1 Kings x. 13. The words : " the drinking was according to law, none did compel," are gene- rally understood to say, that the king abolished for this banquet, the prevailing custom of pledging his guests. Ac- cording to Grecian information (see Baumgarten, p* 12 sq.), an exceedingly large quantity of wine was drunk at Persian banquets. This sense of the words is not, however, quite CHAP. I. 9-12. 327 certain. The argument of Baumgarten, Si hie mos vulgaris fuisset in epulis regiis, sine dubio licec omnia non commemorata essent, no more holds good than his further remark : formu- lam illam DJJ{ ps n^3 non puto adhibitam fuisse, nisi jam altera contraria D3X Tm solemnis esset facta. The historian can have noticed this only because it was different from the Jewish custom. Bertheau also justly remarks: " We are not told in the present pdssage, that the king, on this occasion, exceptionally permitted moderation, especially to such of his guests as were, according to their ancestral customs, addicted to moderation, and who would else have been compelled to drink immoderately. For the words with which this verse concludes, while they imply also a permission to each to drink as little as he chose, are specially intended to allow every one to take much. ?5J IB^., to appoint concerning, i.e. to enjoin, comp. 1 Chron. ix. 22. r\]2 3"i, those over the house, i.e. the court officials. Vers. 9-12. Vashti the queen also gave a banquet to the women in the royal house (palace) which belonged to King Ahashverosh, probably in the royal apartments of the palace, which were placed at her disposal for this great feast to be given to the women. The name Vashti may be compared with the Old-Persian valiista, i.e. optimus. In Persian ^J^j means a beautiful woman. This statement serves as an introduction to the scene which follows. Vers. 10 and 11. On the seventh, i.e. the last day of the banquet, when the king's heart was merry with wine, he commanded his seven chamberlains to bring Vashti the queen before him, with the royal crown, to show her beauty to the people and princes. '1J1 3p 3iD3, when the heart of the king was merry through wine, i.e. when the wine had made him merry, comp. 2 Sam. xiii. 28, Jud. xvi. 25. It was the office of the seven eunuchs who served before the king (''pSTlX n'iB'D like 1 Sam. ii. 18) to be the means of communication between him and the women, and to deliver to them messages on the part of the monarch. Their number, seven, was connected with that of' the Amshaspands ; see rem. on ver. 14. ■ The attempts made 328 THE BOOK OF ESTHEE, to explain their several names are without adequate fouuda- tion ; nor would much be gained thereby, the names being of no significance with respect to the matter in question. In the LXX. the names vary to some extent. The queen was to appear with the crown on her head ("ins, Klhapi}\ : and con- tempt and wrath will be according to abundance. '''O is a litotes for : more tham enough. The object of n3"i»Nn must be supplied from the context : it — that is, what the queen said to her husband. In the former verse Memucan was speaking of all women ; here (ver. 18) he speaks only of the princesses of the Persians and Medes, because these are staying in the neighbourhood of the court, and will im- mediately hear of the matter, and " after the manner of the court ladies and associates of a queen will quickly follow, and appeal to her example" (Berth.). — Ver. 19. After this argu- ment on the queen's conduct, follows the proposal: "If it please the king (?V 3it3 like Neh. ii. 5), let there go from him a word of the kingdom (i.e. a royal edict), and let it be written (entered) in the laws of the Persians and the Medes, CHAP. I. 21, 22. 331 and not pass away, that Vashti come no more before King Ahashverosh ; and let the king give her queenship (her royal rank) to another who is better than she." An edict issued by the king, entered among the laws of the Persians and Medes, and sealed with the royal signet (viii. 8), does not pass away, i.e. remains in force, is irrevocable (comp. Dan. vi. 9). The counsellors press for the issue of such an edict, for the purpose of making it impossible to the king to take Vashti again into favour, lest they should experience her vengeance on the restoration of her influence, nniyi, her companion, is any other woman, Vashti being here regarded merely as a woman, n^itsn includes both beauty and good behaviour (Berth.). By this means, add the counsellors in ver. 20, all the ill effects of Vashti's contumacy will be obviated. " And when the king's decree, which he shall make, is heard in his whole kingdom, for it is great, all wives shall give honour to their husbands, from great to small." DJna is according to the Keri to be pointed as the constructive state, DJns. The expression HB'j; Djna is explained by the circumstance, that DJns signifies not only edict, decree, but also thing (see on Dan. iii. 16): to do a thing. In the present verse also it might be so understood : when the thing is heard which the king will do in his whole kingdom. The paren- thetical clause, for it is great, is intended to flatter the king's vanity, and induce an inclination to agree to the proposal. " From great to small " signifies high and low, old and young. Vers. 21 and 22. The saying pleased the king and the princes, and the king carried it into execution. He sent letters into all his provinces to make known his commands, and to let all husbands know, that they were to bear rule in their own houses. " In every province according to its writ- ing, and to every people according to their speech" (comp. viii. 9), that his will might be clearly understood by all the subjects of his wide domain, who spoke different languages and used different alphabetical characters. The contents of these letters follow in 'Ul Jii'^p^ that every man should be master in his own house. These words state only the' chief matter and object of the edict; but they presuppose that 332 THE BOOK OF ESTHER. the fact which gave rise to the decree, viz. the refusal of Vashti, and her consequent deposition, were also mentioned. The last words : " and that he shall speak according to the language of his people," are obscure. Older expo- sitors understand them to mean, that every man was to speak only his native language in his house, so that in case he had a foreign wife, or several who spoke other languages, they might be obliged to learn his language, and to use that alone. Bertheau, on the other hand, objects that such a sense is but imported into the words, and in no wise harmonizes with the context. Both these assertions are, however, unfounded. In the words, the man shall speak according to the language of his people, i.e. he shall speak his native tongue in his house, it is implied that no other language was to be used in the house, and the application of this law to foreign wives is obvious from the context. The rule of the husband in the house was to be shown by the fact, that only the native tongue of the head of the house was to be used in the family. Thus in a Jewish family the Ashdodite or any other lan- guage of the wife's native land could not have been used, as we find to have been the case in Judasa (Neh. xiii. 23). All other explanations are untenable, as has been already shown by Baumgarten, p. 20; and the conjecture set up after Hitzig by Bertheau, that instead of iBV Pt^?? we should read isy n'i'B'"?3j every one shall speak what becomes him, gives not only a trivial, and not at all an appropriate thought, but is refuted even by the fact that not Oy niB*, but only ? HIB' (comp. iii. 8) could bear the meaning: to be becoming to any one. Such a command may, indeed, appear strange to us ; but the additional particular, that every man was to speak his native tongue, and to have it alone spoken, in his own house, is not so strange as the fact itself that an edictr should be issued commanding that the husband should be master in the house, especially in the East, where the wife is so accus- tomed to regard the husband as lord and master. Xerxes was, howevei', the author of many strange facts besides this. CHAP. II. 1-4 333 CHAP. II. — ELEVATION OF ESTHER TO THE THRONE. SERVICE RENDERED BT MORDOCHAI TO THE KING. When the wrath of King Ahashverosh was appeased, and he remembered his harsh treatment of Vashti, his courtiers proposed that he should send to fetch fair young virgins from all parts of his realm to the house of the women in Susa, that he might choose a new queen from among them. This proposal pleasing the king,- was acted upon (vers. 1-4). In the fortress of Susa, however, there dwelt one of the Jews who had been carried into captivity from Jerusalem, and whose name was Mordochai. This man had brought up Esther, his uncle's daughter, as his own child (vers. 5—7). When, then, in pursuance with the king's commands, many maidens were gathered together in Susa, Esther also was brought into the king's house, and found favour with the keeper of the women while, according to order, she was going through a course of purification and anointing (vers. 8—14). When her turn came to be 'brought before the king, she found favour in his sight above all the other maidens, and was chosen by him to be queen in the place of Vashti. By Mordochai's command, however, she disclosed her race and lineage to no one (vers. 15-20). At the same time two courtiers conspired against the life of the sovereign. jTheir. conspiracy being discovered by Mordochai, was by him revealed to Esther, who gave information of it to the king, whereupon the matter was investigated, and found to have been correctly stated. The offenders were punished, and the event duly registered in the chronicles of the kingdom. Vers. 1-4. When, after these things, the wrath of King Ahashverosh was laid (ti'B', from '^'^f, to be sunk, spoken of wrath to be laid), he remembered Vashti and what she had done, and what was decreed against her ("if3, to determine, to decree irreVbcably; comp. nnM, Dan. iv. 14); a desire for reunion with her evidently making itself felt, accompanied perhaps by the thought that she might have been too harshly treated. To prevent, then, a return of affection for his re- jected wife ensuing, — a circumstance which might greatly 334 THE BOOK OF ESTHER. endanger all who had concurred in effecting her repudia- tion, — the servants of the king, i.e. the court officials who were about him, said: "Let there be young maidens, virgins fair to look on, sought for the king." niTina, virgins, is added to nilW, the latter word signifying merely young women of marriageable age. Ver. 3. "And let the king appoint pips^l is the continuation of iB'ipnp officers in all the provinces of his kingdom, that they may gather together every virgin who is fair to look on to the citadel of Susa, to the house of the women, unto the hand of Hega the king's eunuch, the keeper of the women, and let them appoint their things for purification ; and let the maiden which pleaseth the king be queen instead of Vashti." To the hand of Hega, i.e. to his care and superintendence, under which, as appears from ver. 12, every maiden received into the house of the women had to pass a year before she was brought before the king. Hega (called Hegai, vers. 8 and 15) was an eunuch, the keeper of the women, i.e. superin- tendent of the' royal harem, linj'i is the in/in. abs., used instead of the verb. Jin. to give prominence to the matter : let them appoint. Q''i?!pp)ii, from PI'O, to rub, to polish, signifies purification and adornment with all kind of precious oint- ments ; comp. ver. 12. This speech pleased the king, and he acted accordingly. Vers. 5-7. Before relating how this matter was carried into execution, the historian introduces us to the two per- sons who play the chief parts in the following narrative. Ver. 5. There was (dwelt) in the citadel of Susa a Jew of the name of Mordochai (''3'niD, in more correct editions ''3n"iD)j the son- of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish, a Benjamite C^''*?] ^""^ like 1 Sam. ix. 1). Jaii-, Shimei, and Kish can hardly mean the father, grandfather, and great- grandfather of Mordochai. On the contrary, if Jair were perhaps his father, Sliimei and Kish may have been the names of renowned ancestors. Shimei was probably the son of Gera, well known to us from the history of David, 2 Sam. xvi. 5 sq. and 1 Kings ii. 8, 36 sq., and Kish the father of Saul, 1 Ohron. viii. 33, 1 Sam. ix. 1 ; for in CHAP., II. S-7. 335 genealogical series only a few noted names are generally given ; comp., e.g., 1 Chron. ix. 19, vi. 24 sq. Upon the ground of this explanation, Josephus {Ant, xi. 6) makes Esther of royal descent, viz. of the line of Saul, king of Israel ; and the Targum regards Shimei as' the Benjamite who cursed David. The name Mordochai occurs in Ezra ii. 2 and Neh. vii. 7 as that of some other individual among those who returned from captivity with Zerubbabel, but can hardly be connected with the Persian ^$^^, little man. Aben Ezra, Lightfoot, and others, indeed, are of opinion that the Mordochai of the present book really came up with Zerubbabel, but subsequently returned to Babylon. Iden- tity of name is not, however, a sufficient proof, of identity of person. The chronological statement, ver. 6 : who had been carried away from Jerusalem with the captives who had been carried away with Jeconiah, king of Judah, etc., offers some difficulty. For from the captivity of Jeconiah in the year 599 to the beginning of the reign of Xerxes (in the year 486) is a period of 113 years ; henee, if the IK'S is referred to Mordochai, he would, even if carried into captivity as a child by then, have reached the age of from 120 to 130 years, and as Esther was not made queen till the seventh year of Xerxes (ii. 16), would have become prime minister of that monarch at about the age of 125. Rambach, indeed, does not find this age incredible, though we cannot regard it as probable that Mordochai should have become minister at so advanced an age.-^ On this account Olericus, Baumgarten, and others refer the relative IK'S to the last name, Kish, and understand that he was carried away with Jeconiah, while his great-grandson Mordochai was born in cap- tivity. In this case Kish and Shimei must be regarded as the great-grandfather and grandfather of Mordochai. We grant the possibility of this view ; nevertheless it is more ^ Baumg. aptly remarks, I.e., p. 125 : Etsi concedendum est, non esse contra naturam, si Mordechxus ad illam xtatem pervenerit, et siimma hac constitutus senectiite gravissimis negotiis perficiendis par fuerit, tamen est hoc rarissimum et nisi accedit certum testimonium, difficile ad credendum. 336 THE BOOK OF ESTHER. in accordance with the Hebrew narrative style to refer IK'N to the chief person of the sentence preceding it, viz. Mor- dochai, who also continues to be spoken of in ver. 7. Hence we prefer this reference, without, however, attributing to Mordochai more than 120 years of age. For the relative clause : who had been carried away, need not be so strictly understood as to assert that Mordochai himself was carried away ; but the object being to give merely his origin and lineage, and not his history, it involves only the notion that he belonged to those Jews who were carried to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar with Jeconiah, so that he, though born in captivity, was carried to Babylon in the persons of his forefathers. This view of the passage corresponds with that formerly presented by the list of the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of Jacob who went down with him to Egypt ; see the explanation of the passage in question.^ "Ver. 7. Mordochai was JDN, keeper, bringer up, i.e. foster- father, to Hadassah (tOK constructed as a participle with nx). nBin means a myrtle (Din in the Shemitish), like the Greek name Mvpria, Mvppivq. " That is Esther," the queen known by the name of Esther. The name IPIDK is the Old-Persian stara with X prosthetic, and corresponds with the Greek aaTrjp, star, in modern Persian sitareh. She was ^I'vna, daughter of his father's brother, and adopted by Mordochai after the death of her parents ; we are told, moreover, that she had a fine figure and beautiful countenance. Her father, whose name, according to ver. 15, was'Abihail, was uncle to Mordochai, and hence Esther was his cousin. Vers. 8—11. When, then, the king's commandment and decree was heard, i.e. proclaimed throughout the kingdom, and many maidens gathered together in Susa, Esther also 1 Baumgarten also considers this view admissible, rightly remarking, p. 127 : Scriptoribus sacris admodum familiare est singulos homines non per se et sepositos spectare, sedfamilias etgentes ut corpora quasi individua complecti, ita ut posteri majorum personis quasi eontenti et inclusi, majores vero inposteris ipsi suhsistere et vioere ezistimentur. Ex hac ratione Mor- dechseus captus esse did potest, quamvis ipse satis diu post Jechonix tempora ex iis, qui a Nebucadnezaro ahducti sunt, natus/uerit. CHAP. II. 8-11. 337 was received into the royal harem, under the keeping of Hegai. The maiden pleased him and won his favour (NB'3 IDHj to bear away love, i.e. to obtain favour, synonymous with ID SB'J, ver. 15 and chap. v. 2). 'Ul '?[}'?% and he hastened to give her her ointments for purification, and the seven maidens appointed to her from the king's house. The in- finitives fo nn? are, according to the Aramaean idiom, placed after their objects and dependent on 7^3^ On D''p'non, see on ver. 3. nuD^ portions, are here portions of food, as in chap. ix. 19, 22, and 1 Sam. i. 4. The seven maidens (nilWI with the article) are the maids appointed to wait upon a young virgin selected for the king. The participle ni'NT: chosen for a particular purpose, — in the Talmud and rab- binical Hebrew '1S"1, » -mav ho;. Comp. Strabo, XV. 3. 17. 358 THE BOOK OF ESTHER. Vei-. 14. His wife and all his friends advise : " Let a tree be made (set up) fifty cubits high, and to-morrow speak to the king, that Mordochai may be hanged thereon (i.e. impaled ; see on n^n ii. 23) ; and then go in merrily with the king to the banquet." The counsellors take it for granted that the king will without hesitation agree to Haman's proposal to execute Mordochai, and therefore advise him at once to make the necessary preparations, so that the hated Jew may be hanged on the morrow before the banquet, and Haman may then go with the king to the feast prepared by the queen, free from all annoyance, '3J yv nE'^j to make, i.e. to erect a high tree. The higher the stake, the farther would it be seen. The 3d pers. plu. Vi>^_ stands instead of • the passive : let them make = let . . be made. So too vH'. for let . . be hanged. This speech pleased Haman, and he caused the stake to be erected. CHAP. VI. — ELEVATION OF MORDOCHAI AND DISGRACE OF HAMAN. The next night the king, being unable to sleep, caused the chronicles of the kingdom to be read to him. The account of the conspiracy discovered by Mordochai, which was written therein, was thus brought before him, and he inquired of his servants whether this man had been rewarded (vers. l-3a). On receiving a negative answer, the king sent to inquire who was in the court ; and Haman being found there thus early, he had him summoned, and asked him : what should be done to the man in whose honour the king delighteth. Haman, supposing that the king could intend to honour no one but himself, voted for the very highest public mark of respect (vers. 3J-9), and was then obliged at the king's command to pay the pi-oposed honour to Mordochai (vers. 10, 11). From this humiliation his wife and friends prognosticated his speedy downfall (vers. 12-14). Vers. 1-11. An unexpected turn of affairs. Ver. 1. On that night between Esther's first and second banquet, the king's sleep fled, and he commanded to bring the book of records of CHAP. VI. 1-11. 359 the chronicles and to read therefrom. Onn^y-iain nBD, comp., Ezra iv. 15. The title is here more particularly stated than in ii. 23, where the book is briefly called : The book of the chronicles. D'f5^i?3 vri'l, and they (the chronicles) were read before the king. The participle denotes the. long continuance of this reading. — Ver. 2. And it was found written therein among other matters, that Mordochai had given information concerning the two courtiers who were plotting against the king's life. This is the conspiracy related ii. 21-23. The name Bigthana is in ii. 21 written Bigthan. — Ver. 3. On this occasion the king asked: What honour and greatness hath been done to Mordochai for this? <^J~^y, for giving this information. And the king's servants answered : Nothing Ijas been shown him. M i^^S, to show any one something, e.g. favour; comp. 2 Sam. ii. 6, iii. 8, and elsewhere. n?>n|ij greatness, i.e. promotion to honour. — Ver. 4. To repair this deficiency, and to do honour to the man who had done good service to the king — as the Persian monarchs were accustomed, comp. Brisson. de reg. Pers. princ. i. c. 135 — he asked, "who is in the court?" i.e. whether some minister or state functionary were there with whom he might consult concerning the honour due to Mordochai. Those who desired an audience with the king were accustomed to appear and wait in the outer court, until they were summoned into the inner court to present themselves before the monarch. From this ques- tion of the king it appears that it was already morning. And Haman, it is parenthetically remarked, was come into the outer court to speak to the king, to hang Mordochai on the tree which he had prepared. — Ver. 5. The attendants inform the king that Haman is in the court ; whereupon the king commands : NilJ, let him come in. — ^Ver. 6. As soon as he enters the king asks : What is to be done to the man in whose honour the king delighteth ? i.e. whom he delights to honour. And Haman, thinking (13^3 IDK, to say in one's heart, i.e. to think) to whom will the king delight to show honour more than to me Casa ini', projecting before me, surpassing me, hence adverbially, beyond me, e.g. Eccles. xii. 12, comp. ii. 15, vii. 11, 16) ? votes immediately for the greatest possible mark 360 THE BOOK OF ESTHER. of honour, and says, ver. 7 sq. : " As for the man in whose honour the king delighteth, let them bring the royal apparel with which the king has been clothed, and a horse on which the king has ridden, and the king's crown "upon his head, and let them deliver this apparel and horse to one of the chief princes of the king, and let them array (i.e. with the royal apparel) the man in whose honour the king delighteth, and cause him to ride upon the horse through the streets of the city, and proclaim before him : Thus shall it be done to the man in whose honour the king delighteth." 'U1 IB'K B^'K, ver. 7, precedes absolutely, and the predicate does not follow till >iB'''3pnij ver. 9, where the preceding subject is now by an anacoluthon taken up in the accusative (E'^KHTIS). Several clauses are inserted between, for the purpose of enumerating beforehand all that appertains to such a token of honour : a royal garment, a royal steed, a crown on the head, and one of the chief princes for the carrying out of the honour awarded. The royal garment is not only, as Bertheau justly remarks, such a one as the king is accustomed to wear, but, as is shown by the perf. B'apj one which the king has himself already put on or worn. Hence it- is not an ordinary state-robe, the so- called Median apparel which the king himself, the chief princes among the Persians, and those on whom the king bestowed such raiment were wont to appear in (Herod, iii. 84, vii. 116 ; Xenoph. Cyrop. viii. 3. 1, comp. with the note of Baelir on Her. iii. 84), but a costly garment, the property of the sovereign himself. This was the highest mark of honour that could be shown to a subject. So too was the riding upon a horse on which the king had ridden, and whose head was adorned with a royal crown. \TK{ is perf. Niph., not 1st pers. pi. imperf. Kal, as Maurer insists ; and iB'N^3 nB'K refers to the head of the horse, not to the head of the man to be honoured, as Clericus, Rambach, and most ancient expositors explain the words, in opposition to the natural sense of — 11?^ lE'S ityNna. We do not indeed find among classical writers any testimony to such an adornment of the royal steed ; but the circumstance is not at all improbable, and seems to be cor- roborated by ancient remains, certain Assyrian and ancient CHAP. VI. 12-14. 361 Persian sculptures, representing the horses of the king, and apparently those of princes, with ornaments on their heads terminating in three points, which may be regarded as a kind of crown. The infin. absol. linJI is a continuation of the preceding jussive 1S''3^ : and they shall give, let them give the garment — to the hand of a man, i.e. hand or deliver to him. The garment and horse are to be delivered to one of the noblest princes, that he may bring them to the individual to be honoured, may array him, in the garment, set him on the horse, and proclaim before him as he rides through the city, etc. On D''Dnianj comp. i. 4, and on the matter itself. Gen. xl. 43. 3im_ is either an open square, the place of public assemblage, the forum, or a collective signifying the wide streets of the city. rwV] n33 as in Deut. xxv. 9 and else- where. — Vers. 10, 11. This honour, then, the haughty Haman was now compelled to pay to the hated Jew. The king commanded him : " Make haste, take the apparel and the horse, as thou hast said," i.e. in the manner proposed by thee, " and do even so to Mordochai the Jew, that sitteth at the king's gate ; let nothing fail of all that thou hast spoken," i.e. carry out your proposal exactly. How the king knew that Mordochai was a Jew, and that he sat in the king's gate, is not indeed expressly stated, but may easily be supplied from the conversation of the king with his servants concerning Mordochai's discovery of the conspiracy, vers. 1-3. On this occasion the servants of the king would certainly give him particulars concerning Mordochai, who by daily frequenting the king's gate, ii. 19, v. 9, would certainly have attracted the attention of all the king's suite. Nor can doubt be cast upon the historical truth of the fact related in this verse by • the question : whether the king had forgotten that all Jews were doomed to destruction, and that he had delivered them up to Haman for that purpose (J. D. Mich.). Such forget- fulness in the case of such a monarch as Xerxes cannot surprise us. Vers. 12-14. After this honour had been paid him, Mordochai returned to the king's gate ; but Haman hasted to his house, " sad and with his head covered," to relate to 362 THE BOOK OF ESTHER. his wife and friends all that had befallen him. A deeper mortification he could not have experienced than that of being obliged, by the king's command, publicly to show the highest honour to the very individual whose execution he was just about to propose to him. The covering of the head is a token of deep confusion and mourning ; comp. Jer. xiv. 4, 2 Sam. xv. 30. Then his wise men, and Zeresh his wife, said to him : " If Mordochai, before whom thou hast begun to fall, be of the seed of the Jews, thou wilt not pre- vail against him, but wholly fall before him." i? ?3in N?, non prcevalebis ei, comp. Gen. xxxii. 26. ^SF\ 7123 with an emphatic in/in. absol. : wholly fall. Instead of the 1''5l!''} '''''??0 are here named, or to speak more correctly, the friends of Haman are here called his wise men (magi). Even in V. 14 Haman's friends figure as those with whom he takes counsel concerning Mordochai, i.e. as his counsellors or advisers ; hence it is very probable that there were magi among their number, who now "come forward as a genus sapientum et doctururn (Cicero, divin. i. 23)" (Berth.), and predict his overthrow in his contest with Mordochai. The ground of this prediction is stated : " If Mordochai is of the seed of the Jews," i.e. of Jewish descent, then after this pre- liminary fall a total fall is inevitable. Previously (v. 14) they had not hesitated to advise him to hang the insignificant Jew ; but now that the insignificant Jew has become, as by a miracle, a man highly honoured by the king^ the fact that the Jews are under the special protection of Providence is pressed upon them. Ex fato populorum, remarks Grotius, de singulorum fatis judicabant. Judcei gravissime oppressi a Cyri temporibus contra spent omnem resurgere caeperant. We cannot, however, regard as well founded the further remark : de A malecitis audierant oraculum esse, eos Judceorum manu perituros, which Grotius, with most older expositors, derives from the Amalekite origin of Haman. The revival of the Jewish people since the times of Cyrus was sufficient to induce, in the minds of heathen who were attentive to the signs of the times, the persuasion that this nation enjoyed divine protection. — Ver. 14. During this conversation certain CHAP. VII. 1-6. 363- courtiers had already arrived, who hastily brought Haman to the banquet of the queen, to which he would certainly go in a less happy state of mind than on the preceding day. CHAP. VII. — HAMAN's downfall AND RUIN. At this second banquet the king again inquired of the queen what was her petition, when she entreated that her life and that of her people might be spared, for that she and her people were sold to destruction (vers. 1-4). The king, evidently shocked at such a petition, asked who was the originator of so evil a deed, and. Esther named the wicked Haman as the enemy (vers. 5, 6). Full of indignation at such a crime, the king rose from the banquet and went into the garden; Haman then fell down before the queen to entreat for his life. When the king returned to the house, he saw Haman lying on the couch on which Esther was sitting, and thinking that he was offering violence to the queen, he passed sentence of death upon him, and caused him to be hanged on the tree he had erected for Mordochai (vers. 7-10). Vers. 1-6. The king and Haman came to drink i.e. to partake of the nriE'Dj in the queen's apartment. — Ver. 2. At this banquet of wine the king asked again on the second day, as he had done on the first (chap. v. 6) : What is thy petition. Queen Esther, etc. I Esther then took courage to express her petition. After the usual introduc- tory phrases (ver. 3 like v. 8), she replied : " Let my life be given me at my petition, and my people at my request." For, she adds as a justification and reason for sucb a peti- tion, " we are sold, I and my people, to be destroyed, to be slain, and to perish. And if we had been sold for bondmen and bondwomen, I had been silent, for the enemy is not worth the king's damage." In this request ''BJ? is a short expression for : the life of my people, and the preposition 3, the so-called ? pretii. The request is conceived of as the price which she offers or presents for her life and that of her people. The expression 13"]3»3, we are sold, is used by 364 THE BOOK OF ESTHEE. Esther with reference to the offer of Haman to pay a large sum into the royal treasury for the extermination of the Jews, iii. 9, iv. 7. 'i?'*, contracted after Aramjean usage from V OS, and occurring also Eccles. vi. 6, supposes a case, the realization of which is desired, but not to be expected, the matter being represented as already decided by the use of the perfect. The last clause, 'W1 "isn fS ''3, is by most expositors understood as a reference, on the part of Esther, to the financial loss which the king would incur by the exter- mination of the Jews. Thus Eambach, e.g., following E. Sal. ben Melech, understands the meaning expressed to be : hostis nulla modo cequare, compensare, resarcire potest pecunia sua damnum, quod rex ex nostra excidia patitur. So also Oler. and others. The confirmatory clause would in this case refer not to '''j'B'nnn, but to a negative notion needing comple- tion : but I dare not be silent ; and such completion is itself open to objection. To this must be added, that ni^E' in Kal constructed with 3 does not signify compensare, to equalize, to make equal, but to be equal ; consequently the Piel should be found here to justify the explanation proposed. niB* in. Kal constructed with 3 signifies to be of equal worth with something, to equal another thing in value. Hence Gese- nius translates : the enemy does not equal the damage of the king, i.e. is not in a condition to compensate the damage. But neither when thus viewed does the sentence give any reason for Esther's statement, that she would have been silent, if the Jews had been sold for slaves. Hence we are constrained, with Bertheau, to take a different view of the words, and to give up the reference to financial loss. pH, in the Targums, means not merely financial,, but also bodily, personal damage ; e.g. Ps. xci. 7, Gen. xxvi. 11, to do harm, 1 Ohron. xvi. 22. Hence the phrase may be understood thus: For the enemy is not equal to, is not worth, the damage of the king, i.e. not worthy that I should annoy the king with my petition. Thus Esther says, ver. 4 : The enemy has determined upon the total destruction of my people. If he only intended to bring upon them grievous oppression, even that most grievous oppression of slavery, I CHAP. VIL 7-10. 365 would have been silent, for the enemy is not worthy that I should vex or annoy the king by my accusation. — Ver. 5. The king, whose indignation was excited by what he had just heard, asks with an agitation, shown by the repetition of the 10'<'!l : " Who is he, and where is he, whose heart hath filled him (whom his heart hath filled) to do so?" Evil thoughts proceed from the heart, and fill the man, and impel him to evil deeds : Isa. xliv. 20 ; Eccles. viii. 11 ; Matt.,xv. 19. — Ver. 6. Esther replies : " The adversary and enemy is this wicked Haman." Then was Haman afraid before the king and the queen. T)y2i as in- 1 Chron. xxi. 30, Dan. viii. 17. Vers. 7—10. The king in his wrath arose from the ban- quet of wine, and went into the garden of the house (QP is here a pregnant expression, and is also combined with • n|3"7X) ; but Haman remained standing to beg for his life to Queen Esther (?V K'isa as in iv. 8), " for he saw that there was evil determined against him by the king" (|1?3, completed, i.e. determined ; comp. 1 Sam. xx. 7, 9, xxv. 17, and elsewhere) ; and hence that he had no mercy to expect from him, unless the queen should intercede for him. — Ver. 8. The king returned to the house, and found Haman fall- ing (723 as in Josh. viii. 10, Deut. xxi. 1, and elsewhere) at or on the couch on which Esther was (sitting), i.e. falling as a suppliant at her feet ; and crediting Haman in the heat of his anger with the worst designs, he cried out : " Shall also violence be done to the queen before me in the house?" The iw/£m. tyiaap after the interrogatory particle signifies : Is violence to be done, i.e. shall violence be done? as in 1 Chron. XV. 2 and elsewhere ; comp. Ewald, § 237, c. 1^33, to tread under foot, to subdue, used here in the more general sense, to offer violence. Without waiting for an explana- tion, the king, still more infuriated, passes sentence of death upon Haman. This is not given in so many words by the historian, but we are told immediately that : " as the word went out of the king's mouth, they covered Haman's face." nn'nn is not the speech of the king just reported, but the judicial sentence, the death warrant, i.e. the word to punish Haman with death. This is unmistakeably shown by the 366 THE BOOK OF ESTHER. further statement : they covered Haman's face. The subject is indefinite : the attendants present. To cover the face was indeed to begin to carry the sentence of death into execution. With respect to this custom, expositors appeal to Curtius, vi. 8. 22 : Philetam — capite velato in regiam addii- cunt; and Cicero, ^ro C. Rabirio iv. 13 : Ilictor, colliga manus, caput obnubito, arbori infelid suspendito. — Ver. 9. Then said Harbonah (already mentioned i. 10), one of the eunuchs before the king, i.e. who held office before the king: " Behold also the tree which Plaman made (comp. v. 14) stands in the house of Haman," 03 points to the fact that the other eunuchs had already brought forward various par- ticulars concerning Haman's crime. Mordochai, who had spoken good for the king, viz. when he gave information of the conspiracy, ii. 22, vi. 2. On this tree the king ordered that Haman should be hanged, and this sentence was exe- cuted without delay. — " And the king's wrath was pacified." With this remark the narrative of this occurrence is closed, and the history pursues its further course as follows. CHAP. VIII. — MOEDOCHAI ADVANCED TO HAMAN'S POSITION. COUNTER-EDICT FOR THE PRESERVATION OF JEWS. The king bestowed the house of Haman on Esther, and advanced Mordochai to Haman's place of prime minister (vers. 1 and 2). Esth'er then earnestly besought the king for the abolition of the edict published by Haman against the Jews, and the king permitted her and Mordochai to send letters in the king's name to all the Jews in his king- dom, commanding them to stand for their life, and to slay their enemies, on the day appointed for their own extermi- nation (vers. 3-14). These measures diffused great , joy throughout the kingdom (vers. 15-17). Vers. 1 and 2. By the execution of Haman, his property was confiscated, and the king decreed that the house of the Jews' enemy should be given to Esther. The " house of Haman" undoubtedly means the house with all that pertained to it. " And Mordochai came before the king, for Esther had CHAP. vni. 3-14. 367 told him what he was to her," viz, her kinsman and foster- father, ii. 7. This information effected Mordochai's appear- ance before the king, i.e. his reception into the number of the high dignitaries who beheld the face of the king, i.e. were allowed personal access to him ; comp. i. 10, 14, vii. 9. — Ver. 2. And the king took off his seal-ring which he had taken from Haman (comp. iii. 10), and gave it to Mordochai. t^ "'''^^vj to cause to go from some one, i.e. to take away. By this act Mordochai was advanced to the post of first minister of the king ; comp. Gen. xli. 42, 1 Mace. vi. 15. The king's seal gave the force of law to royal edicts, the seal taking the place of the signature. See rem. on ver. 8 and iii. 10. Vers. 3-14. The chief 'enemy of the Jews was now de- stroyed ; but the edict, written in the king's name, sealed with the royal seal, and published in all the provinces of the kingdom, for the destruction of all the Jews on the 13th day of the twelfth month, was still in force, and having been issued in due legal form, could not, according to the laws of the Persians and Medes, be revoked. Queen Esther there- fore entreated the king to annul the designs of Haman against the Jews. Vers. 3 and 4. " Esther spake again before the king, and fell down at his feet, and wept, and besought him to do away with ("'^?.?{!]', to cause to depart) the mischief of Haman the Agagite, and his device that he de- vised against the Jews. And the king held out his golden sceptre towards Esther, and Esther arose and stood before the king." This verse gives a summary of the contents of Esther's speech, which is reported verbally in vers. 5 and 6, so that we must translate the imperfects I.^nnni 'JI3Pl1-T-?aW : She spoke before the king, falling at his feet and beseeching him with weeping, that he w^ould do away with t^v" ^^1f the evil that Haman had done, and -his device against the Jews. The king stretched out his sceptre (comp. chap. iv. 11) as a sign that he would graciously grant her petition ; whereupon she arose, stood before the king, and made known her request. Yer. 5. The introductory formula are in part similar to those used chap. i. 19, v. 4, 8, vii. 3 ; but the petition referring to a great and important matter, they are strength- 368 THE BOOK OF ESTHER. ened by two new phrases : " If the thiog is advisable ("iK'l, proper, convenient, advantageous, a later word occurring again only Eccles. xi. 6, x. 10, — in ii. 21, iv. 4, 5, 10, of the same book, lii?'?) before the king, and if I be pleasing in his eyes, let it be written (let a writing be issued, like chap, iii. 9), to frustrate {^''^Q?, i-e. to put out of force) the letters, the device of Haman . . . which he wrote to destroy the Jews, who are in all the provinces of the king." 10? ^'^^^^, the device, the proposal of Haman, is added to Q^ISBn, briefly to characterize the contents of the letters. On the matter itself, comp. iii. 8 sq. and 12 sq. " For how shall I endure to see the destruction of my people V The verbs ''fl^^^ni 735X are so combined that the second is governed- by the first, ''n'^ni standing instead of the infinitive ; comp. Ew. § 285, c. riKT cons. 3 denotes an interested beholding, whether painful or joyous, of something ; comp. Gen. xliv. 34. TlPiD in paral- lelism with Dy denotes those who are of like descent, the family, members of a tribe. — ^Yers. 7 and 8. The king could not simply revoke the edict issued by Haman in due legal form, but, ready to perform the request of the queen, he first assures her of his good intentions, reminding her and Mordochai that he has given the house of Haman to Esther and hanged Haman, because he laid hand on the Jews (pp\ inXj him they have executed) ; and then grants them permission, as he had formerly done to Haman, to send letters to the Jews in the king's name, and sealed with the king's seal, and to write 03''?.*^^? ^^f^?? " as seems good to you," i.e. to give in writing such orders as might in Esther's and Mordochai's judgment render the edict of Haman harmless. " For," he adds, " what is written in the king's name and sealed with his seal cannot be reversed." This confirmatory clause is added by the king with reference to the law in general, not as speaking of himself objectively as " the king.'-' y'^rb pN refers to Esther's request : ^'^rb ana* (ver. 5). DinnJI, injin. abs. used instead of the perfect. — Vers. 9-14. These letters were prepared in the same manner as those of Haman (chap. iii. 12-15), on the 23d day of the third month, the month Sivan, and sent into all the pro- CHAP. VIII. 3-14. 369 vinces. " And it was written according to all that Mordochai commanded." They were sent to the Jews and to the satraps, etc., of the whole wide realm from India to Ethiopia (see i. 1), while those of Haman had been issued only to the satraps, etc. The rest coincides with chap. iii. 12. Si^?^!!, and he (Mordochai) wrote. To show the speed with which the let- terswere despatched, (messengers) "on horseback,on coursers, government coursers, the sons of the stud," is added to Cy^^ X^. ^y^, is a collective, meaning swift horses, coursers ; comp. 1 Kings V. 8. 12''3"iriB'ns (vers. 11 and 14) answers to the Old-Persian kschatrana, from kschatra, government, king, and means government, royal, or court studs. So Haug in Ewald's bibl. Jahrb. v. p. 154. The older explanation, mules, on the other hand, is founded on the modern Persian estar, which, to judge from the Sanscrit agvatara^ must in ancient Persian have been agpatara. D''3fii"i, cfK. Xey. from ■^^"1, answering to the Syriac ]nVii, herd, especially a herd of horses, arid to the Arabic i^ , stud, is explained by Bertheau as a superlative form for the animal who excels the rest of the herd or stud in activity, perhaps the breeding stallion, while others understand it of the stud in general. The con- tents of the edict follow in vers. 11 and 12 : " that the king allows the Jews in every city to assemble and to stand for their life (i.e. to fight for their lives, comp. Dan. xii. 1), to destroy, to slay, and to cause to perish all the power (?)n, military power) of the people and province that should assault them, children and women, and to plunder their property, upon a certain day," etc. The appointed time is thus stated as in chap. iii. 13. The Jews were thus authorized to attack and destroy all enemies who should assault them on the day appointed for their extermination. Ver. 13 coincides with chap. iii. 146, with this difference, that the Jews are to be ready on this day to avenge themselves on their enemies. Ver. 14 also is similar to chap. iii. 15, except that the ex- pression is strengthened by an addition to C3''V'in as in ver. 10, and by that of D''ain'n, urged on, to Qvil?*?, hastened, to point out the utmost despatch possible. 2 a 370 THE BOOK OF ESTHER. Vers. 15-17. The joy experienced throughout the kingdom at these measures. Ver. 15. After transacting with the king this measure so favourable to the Jews, Mordochai went out from the king in a garment of deep blue and white material (comp. i. 6), and with a great crown of gold, and a mantle of byssus and purple. T)^f}, air. \ey., in the Aramaean S3''"]3ri, a wide mantle or covering. The meaning is not, as Bertheau remarks, that he left the king in the garment which had been, according to chap. vi. 8 sq., presented to him, nor that he left him with fresh tokens of his favour, clothed in a garment, crown, and mantle just bestowed on him, but that he left him in a magnificent state garment, and other- wise festally apparelled, that he might thus show, even by his external appearance, the happiness of his heart. Of the^e remarks, the first and last are quite correct ; the second, however, can by no means be so, because it affords no answer to the question how Mordochai had obtained crown and mantle during his stay with the king and in the royal palace. The garments in which Mordochai left the king are evidently the state garments of the first minister, which Mor- dochai received at his installation to his office, and, as such, no fresh token of royal favour, but only his actual induction in his new dignity, and a sign of this induction to all who saw him issue from the palace so adorned. " The city of Susa rejoiced and was glad," i.e. rejoiced for gladness. The city, i.e. its inhabitants on the whole. — Ver. 16. The Jews {i.e. in Susa, for those out of the city are not spoken of till ver. 17) had light and gladness, and delight and honour." ITiis (this form occurs only here and Ps. cix. 12), light, is a figurative expression for prosperity. '^\>\, honour — in the joy manifested by the inhabitants of Susa at the prevention of the threatened destruction. — Ver. 17. And in every province and city . . . there was joy and a glad day, a feast day, comp. chap. ix. 19, 22, while Haman'sedict had caused grief and lamentation, chap. iv. 3. " And many of the people of the land (i.e. of the heathen inhabitants of the Persian empire) became Jews, for the fear of the Jews fell upon them." C^D^r"?, to confess oneself a Jew, to become a Jew, a denominative formed from '''l^n';, CHAP. IX. 371 occurs only here. On the confirmatory clause, conip. Ex. XV. 16, Deut. xi. 25. This conversion of many of the heathen to Judaism must not be explained only, as by Qlericus and Grotius, of a change of religion on the part of the heathen, ut sibi hoo modo securitatem et reginw favorem para- rent, metuentes potentiam Mardechcei. This may have been the inducement with some of the inhabitants of S'usa. But the majority certainly acted from more honourable motives, viz. a conviction, forced upon them by the unexpected turn of affairs in favour of the Jews, of the truth of the Jewish religion ; and the power of that faith and trust in God manifested by the Jews, and so evidently justified by the fall of Haman and the promotion &f Mordochai, contrasted with the vanity and misery of polytheism, to which even the heathen themselves were not blind. When we consider that the same motives in subsequent times, when the Jews as a nation were in a state of deepest humiliation, attracted the more earnest-minded of the heathen to the Jewish religion, and induced them to become proselytes, the fact here related will not appear surprising. CHAP. IX. THE JEWS AVENGED OF THEIR ENEMIES. THE FEAST OF PUEIM INSTITUTED. On the day appointed by both edicts, the Jews assembled in the towns and- provinces of the kingdom to slay all who sought their hurt, and being supported by the royal officials, inflicted a great defeat upon their enemies (vers. 1-10). At the queen's desire, the king granted permission to the Jews in Susa to fight against their enemies on the following day also (vers. 11-15), while in the other towns and districts of the kingdom they fought for their lives only on the 13th of Adar ; so that in these places they rested on the 14th, but in Susa not till the 15th, and consequently kept in the latter the one day, in the former the other, as a day of feasting and rejoicing (vers. 16-19). The observance of this day of resting as a festival, under the name of Purim, by all the Jews in the Persian monarchy, was then instituted by Esther and Mor- dochai (vers. 20-32). 372 THE BOOK OF ESTHER. Vers. 1-10. The Jews avenged of their enemies. — Ver. 1. , In the twelfth month, on'the thirteenth day of the same — the Jews, gathered themselves together in their cities, etc. Several parenthetical clauses succeed this definition of time, so that the statement of what then took place does not follow till 'i^npJ, ver. 2. These parenthetical clauses state not only the meaning of the day just named, but also give a general notice of the conflict between the Jews and their enemies. The first runs : "when the word of the king drew nigh and his decree to be done," i.e. when the execution of the royal decree approached. The second is: "on the day that the enemies of the Jews hoped to have the mastery of them, and it was changed (i.e. the contrary occurred), that the Jews had the mastery over them that hated them." 3 13pB', to rule, to have the mastery over. 'Hisni is infin. ahs., used instead of the imperf. Nin is referred by Bertheau to Di'' : the day was' changed from a day of misfortune to a day of prosperity for the Jews, alluding to ver. 22 ; but it is not a change of the day which is here spoken of, but a change of the hope of the enemies into its opposite ; hence we must regard Nin as neuter: it was changed, i.e. the contrary occurred. The pronoun nen serves to emphasize the subject ; comp. Ewald, § 314, a, who in this and similar cases takes Kin, nan in the sense of ipse, ipsi. — Ver. 2. Dn''']y3, in their cities, i.e. the cities in which they dwelt in all the dominions of the king. 1J U?^?, to stretch out the hand (as also in ii. 21, iii. 6, for the purpose of killing) against those who sought their hurt, i.e. sought to destroy them. " And no one stood before them C.JSa "TDJJ, like Josh. X. 8, xxi. 42, and elsewhere), because the fear of them fell upon all people (see rem. on viii. 17). And all>the rulers of the provinces, and the satraps and governors (comp. viii. 9), and those that did the king's business (naxptsn '•'^J?, see rem. on iii. 9), supported the Jews (Sfe'J like Ezra i. 4), because the fear of Mordochai fell upon them." — Ver. 4. " For Mor- dochai was great in the king's house (was much esteemed by the king), and his fame went through all the provinces (iym as in Josh. vi. 27, ix. 9, Jer. vi. 24) ; for this man Mordochai became continually greater;" comp. 2 Chron. CHAP. IX. 11-19. 373 xvii. 12, where the partic. P^S stands instead of tha infin. abs. ?iia. — Ver. 5. Thus supported, the Jews inflicted defeat upon their enemies with the sword, and with slaughter and destruction, nan with 3, to deal a blow upon or against some one, to cause or bring about upon enemies a defeat; comp, e.g. 2 Sam. xxiii. 10, xxiv. 17, Num. xxii. 6. The notion is strengthened by 'lJ1 3"]n"ri3»j literally, to strike a stroke of the sword, and of slaughter, and of destruction, in accordance with the decree, viii. 11. " And did according to their will to those that hated them," i.e. retaliated upon their enemies at their discretion. — Ver. 6. In the citadel of Susa they de- stroyed (in round numbers) 500 men. — Vers. 7-10. Also they slew the ten sons of Haman, whose names are given, 7—9;^ but on the spoil they laid not their hand, though this was allowed to them, viii. 11, as it had been commanded to their enemies by Haman's edict, iii. 13, ut ostenderent, se non aliud quam vitcB sum incolumitatem qucerere ; Jianc enim per- dere valebant ii qui occidehanf.ur. C. a Lapide. Vers. 11-19. When on the same day an account was given to the king of the result of the conflict, and the num- ber of those slain in Susa reported, he announced to Queen Esther : the Jews have slain in the citadel of Susa 500 men and the ten sons of Haman ; " what have they done in the rest of the king's provinces ? " i.e. if they have killed 500 men in Susa, how many may they not have slain in other parts of the kingdom ? and then asked her what else she wished or required. With respect to the words, comp. v. 6 and vii. 2. 1 The peculiar position of the names of the sons of Haman in editions of the Bible, grounded as it is upon the ancient mode of writing, must originally have been intended merely to give prominence to the names, and facilitate their computation. The later Kabbis, however, have en- deavoured to discover therein some deeper meaning. This mode of writing the names has been said to be signum voti, ut a ruina sua nun- quam amplius resurgant, or also a sign quod sicut hi decern fMi in lineaper- pendiculari, unus supra alterum, guspensi fuerint. Comp. Buxtorf, Syna- gogajud. pp. 157-159 of the Basle edit. 1580. What is indicated by the smaller forms of the letters n, E', and f, in the first, seventh, and tenth names, is not known ; the larger "i in the tenth may have been meant to give prominence, by the character employed, to this name as the last. 374 THE BOOK OF ESTHER. — Ver. 13. Esther requested : " let it be granted to the Jews which are in Susa to do to-morrow also according to the de- cree of to-day {i.e. exactly as to-day), and let the ten sons of Haman be hanged upon the tree," i.e. their dead bodies nailed on crosses — majoris inf amice causa, according to Hebrew and Persian custom ; comp. Deut. xxi. 22 and the explanation of Ezra vi. 11. On the motive for this request, see above, p. 310. — Ver. 14. The king commanded it so to be done. " Then was a decree given at Susa, and they hanged the ten sons of Haman." The decree given in Susa does not refer to the hanging of the sons of Haman, but to the permis- sion given to the Jews to fight against their enemies on the morrow also. This is required not only by a comparison of viii. 13, but also by the connection of the present verse ; for in consequence of this decree the Jews assembled on the 14th Adar (comp. vni?>l, then they assembled themselves, ver. 15), while the hanging of the sons of Haman, on the contrary, is related in an accessory clause by a simple perfect, vJJ. — Ver. 15. On this second day the Jews slew 300 more; comp. ver. 10. — Ver. 16. The rest of the Jews in the provinces, i.e. the Jews in the other parts of the kingdom, assembled themselves and stood for their lives, and had rest from their enemies, and slew of their foes 75,000, but upon the spoil they laid not their hand. ^V ipj? like viii. 11. The nnu;sp m\ inserted between 'i 7V Ibyi and JiiQl is striking; we should rather have expected the resting or having rest from their enemies after the death of the latter, as in vers. 17 and 18, where this is plainly stated tp have taken place on the day after the slaughter. The position of these words is only explained by the consideration, that the narrator desired at once to point out how the matter ended. The narrative continues in the in/in. abs. instead of expressing this clause by the injin. constr., and so causing it to be governed by what precedes. Thus — as Ew. § 351, c, remarks — all the possible hues of the sentence fade into this grey and formless termination (viz. the use of the inJin. absol. instead of the verb. fin.). This inaccuracy of diction does not justify us, however, in assum- ing that we have here an interpolation or an alteration in the CHAP. IX.'20-32. 375 text. The statement of the day is given in ver. 17, and then the clause following is again added in the inf. absol.: "and they rested on the 14th day of the same (of Adar), and made it a day of feasting and gladness." — Ver. 18. The Jews in Susa, on the other hand, who were both on the 13th and 14th Adar still fighting against their enemies, and did not ■rest till the 15th, made this latter their day of rejoicing. — In ver. 19 it is again stated that the Jews in the country towns and villages made the 14th their day of gladness, and this statement is appended by J3"?y to make this appear the result of what precedes. The Chethiv D''Ii"isn is perhaps an Aramaic expression for D\ns, Deut. iii. 5 and 1 Sam. vi. 18. 'tiia means the inhabitants of the open, i.e. unfortified, towns and villages of the plains in contrast to the fortified capital ; see on Deut. iii. 5. On flins, compare Ezek. xxxviii. 11, Zech, ii. 8. 'U1 niJ» ryhfa^ and of mutual sending of gifts, i.e. portions of food ; comp. Neh. viii. 10, 12. Vers. 20-32. The feast of Purim instituted by letters from Mordochai and Esther. Ver. 20. Mordochai wrote these things, and sent letters to all the Jews, etc. '"ipKH C'la^n does not mean the contents of the present book, but the events of the last days, especially the fact that the Jews, after over- coming their enemies, rested in Susa on the 15th, in the other provinces on the 14th Adar, and kept these days as days of rejoicing. This is obvious from the object of these letters, ver. 21 : 'U1 ^''fV Q'i??, to appoint among them " that they should keep the 14th day. of the month Adar and the 15th day of the same yearly, as the days on which the Jews rested from their enemies, and as the month which was turned unto them from sorrow to joy, and from mourning into sf glad day, that they should keep them as days of feasting and joy, and of mutual sending of portions one to another, and gifts to the poor." Di'' nB'V, to keep, to celebrate a day. The W'^'S ni^'^P, ver, 21, is after long parentheses taken up again in DDiS nityp. D'jp, to establish a matter, to authorize it, comp. Kuth iv. 7. Both the 14th and 15th Adar were made festivals because the Jews on them had rest from their enemies, and celebrated this rest by feasting, some on the 376 THE BOOK OF ESTHER. former, some on the latter day. — Ver. 23. And the Jews, undertook to do as they had begun, and as Mordochai had written to them. They had begun, as ver. 22 tells us, by keeping both days, and Mordochai wrote to them that they should make this an annual custom. This they agreed to do in consequence of Mordochai's letters. The reason of their so doing is given in vers. 24 and 25, and the name of this festival is explained, ver. 26, by a brief recapitulation of the events which gave rise to it. Then follows, vers. 266 and 27, another wordy statement of the fact, that it was by reason of this letter, and on account of what they had seen, i.e. ex- perienced, that the annual celebration of this feast was instituted for a perpetual memorial to all Jews at all times (vers. 28 and 29). — Ver. 24. For Haman, the enemy of all the Jews, had devised against the Jews to destroy them, (comp. iii. 1, 6 sq.), and had cast Pur, that is the lot (see on iii. 7), to consume them aiid to destroy them. Don, mostly used of the discomfiture with which God destroys the enemies, Ex. xiv. 24, Deut. ii. 15, and elsewhere. — Ver. 25. i^?33l, and when it (the matter), not when she, Esther, came before the king, — for Esther is not named in the context, — he com- manded by letters (viii. 8), i.e. he gaVe the written order : let the wicked device which he devised against the Jews return upon his own head ; and they hanged him and his sons upon the tree. — Ver. 26. Wherefore they called these days Purim after the name Pur. This first I?"?!? refers to what precedes and states the reason, resulting from what has just been mentioned, why this festival received the name of Purim. With the second \3~by begins a new sentence which reaches to ver. 28, and explains how it happened that these feast-days became a general observance with all Jews; namely, that because of all the words of this letter (of Mordochai, ver. 20), and of what they had seen concerning the matter (naa-pj?^ concerning so and so), and what had come upon them (therefore for two reasons : (1) because of the written injunction of Mordochai; and (2) because they had them- selves experienced this event), the Jews established, and took upon themselves, their descendants, and all who should join CHAP. IX. 29-32. 377 themselves unto them (proselytes), so that it should not fail (i.e. inviolably), to keep (to celebrate) these two days according to the writing concerning them- and the time appointed there- by year by year. — Yer. 28. And that these days should be remembered and kept throughout every generation, every family, every province, and every city; and these days of Purim are not to pass away among the Jews, nor their re- membrance to cease among their seed. The participles n^B'j;?] D''l3n still depend on niNH^, ver. 27. Not till the last clause does the construction change in 1irij;;| N? to the temp, finit. linjj;; vb\ is a periphrasis of the adverb : imperishably, inviolably. 05^33, secundum scriptum eorum, i.e. as Mordochai had written concerning them (ver. 23). Qjors, as he had ap- pointed their time, ip ^110, to come to an end from, i.e. to cease among their descendents. Vers. 29-32. A second letter from Queen Esther and Mordochai to appoint fasting and lamentation on the days of Purim. Ver. 29. And Esther the queen and Mordochai the Jew wrote with all strength, that is very forcibly, to appoint this second letter concerning Purim, i.e. to give to the contents of this second letter the force of law. nwn refers to what follows, in which the contents of the letter are briefly intimated. The letter is called r\''iWn with reference to the first letter sent by Mordochai, ver. 20 sq. — Ver. 30. And he (Mordochai) sent letters, i.e. copies of the writing mentioned ver. 29, to all the Jews in the 127 provinces (which formed) the kingdom of Ahashverosh, words of peace and truth, i.e. letters containing words of peace and truth (ver. 31), to appoint these days of Purim in their portions of tim.e according as Mordochai the Jew and Esther the queen had appointed, and as they (the Jews) had ap- pointed for themselves and for their descendants, the things (or words =: precepts) of the fastings and their lamentations. Dn\3Df3, in their appointed times ; as the .suffix relates to the days of Purim, the CiiDT can mean only portions of time in these days. The sense of vers. 29-31 is as follows : Ac- cording to the injunctions of Esther and Mordochai, the Jews appointed for themselves and their descendants times also of 378 THE BOOK OF ESTHER. fasting and lamentation in the days of Purim. To make this appointment binding upon all the Jews in all provinces of the Persian monarchy, Esther and Mordochai published a second letter, which was sent by Mordochai throughout the whole realm of King Ahashverosh. To this is added, ver. 32, that the decree of Esther appointed these matters of Purim, i.e. the injunction mentioned vers. 29-31, also to fast and weep during these days, and it was written in ^ the book. ISBH, the book in which this decree was written, cannot mean the writing of Esther mentioned ver. 29, but some written document concerning Purim which has not come down to us, though used as an authority by the author of the present book. The times when the fasting and lamentation were to take place in the days of Purim, are not stated in this verse ; this could, however, only be on the day which Haman had ap- pointed for the extermination of the Jews, viz. the l3th Adar. This day is kept by the Jews as iriDK mVF}, Esther's fast.^ CHAP. X. — THE POWER AND GREATNESS OF MORDOCHAI. Ver. 1. And King Ahashverosh laid a tribute upon the land, and upon the isles of the sea, Ver. 2. And all the acts of his power and of his might, and the statement of the greatness ' of Mordochai to which the king advanced him, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia? The Chethiv mmn is a clerical error for E'l.'itJ'ns. The word DD, service, 1 According to 2 Mace. xv. 36, the victory over Nicanor was to be celebrated on the 13th Adar, but, according to a note of Dr. Cassel in Grimm's kurzgef. exeget. Handb. zu den Apokryphen, on 2 Mace. xv. 36, the festival of Nioanor is mentioned in Jewish writings, as Megillat Taanit, c. 12, in the Babylonian Talmud, ir. Taanit, f. 186, in Massechet So/rim 17, 4, but has been by no means observed for at least the last thousand years. The book Scheiltot of R. Acha (in the 9th century) speaks of the 1 3th Adar as a fast-day in memory of the fast of Esther, while even at the time of the Talmud the " Fast of Esther " is spoken of as a three days fast, kept, however, after the feast of Purim. From all this it is obvious, that a diversity of opinions prevailed among the Rabbi^ con- cernmg the time of this fast of Esther. CHAP. X. 379 here stands for tribute. As the provinces of the kingdom paid the imposts for the most part in natural produce, which they had reared or obtained by the labour of their hands, their labour (agriculture, cattle-keeping, etc.) was to a certain extent service rendered to the king. The matter of ver. 1 seems extraneous to the contents of our book, which has hitherto communicated only such informa- tion concerning Ahashverosh as was necessary for the com- plete understanding of the feast of Purim. " It seems " — re- marks Bertheau — " as though the historian had intended to tell in some further particulars concerning the greatness of King Ahashverosh, for the sake of giving his readers a more accurate notion of the influential position and the agency of Mordochai, the hero of his book, who, according to ix. 4, waxed greater and greater ; but then gave up his intention, and contented himself with referring to the book of the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia, which contained information of both the power and might of Ahashverosh and the greatness of Mordochai." There is not, however, the slightest probability in such a conjecture. This matter may be simply explained by the circumstance, that the author of this book was using as an authority the book of the chronicles alluded to in ver. 2, and is quite analogous with the mode observed in the books of Kings and Chronicles by historians both of Babylonian and post-Babylonian days, who quote from the documents they maTse use of such events only as seem to them important with regard to the plan of their own work, and then at the close of each reign refer to the documents themselves, in which more may be found concerning the acts of the kings, at the same time frequently adding supplementary information from these sources, — comp. e.g. 1 Kings xiv. 30, xv. 7, 23, 32, xxii. 47-50, 2 Kings xv. 37, 2 Chron. xii. 15, — with this difference only, that in these instances the supplementary notices follow the mention of the documents, while in the present book the notice precedes the citation. As, however, this book opened with a description of the power and glory of King Ahashverosh, but yet only mentioned so 380 THK BOOK OF ESTHER. much concerning this rulerof 127 provinces as was connected with the history of the Jews, its author, before referring to his authorities, gives at its close the information contained in ver. 1, from the book of the chronicles of the kingdom, in which probably it was connected with a particular descrip- tion of the power and greatness of Ahashverosh, and pro- bably of the wars in which he engaged, for the sake of briefly intimating at the conclusion whence the king derived the means for keeping up the splendour described at the commencement of the book. This book of the chronicles contained accounts not only of the power and might of Ahashverosh, but also a na'ia, a plain statement or accurate representation of the greatness of Mordochai wherewith the king had made him great, i.e. to which he had advanced him, and therefore of the honours of the individual to whom the Jews were indebted for their preservation. On this account is it referred to. For Mordochai was next to the king, i.e. prime minister of the king (p^.f^, comp. 2 Chron. xxviii. 7), and great among the Jews and acceptable to the multitude of his, brethren, i.e. he was also a great man among the Jews and was beloved and esteemed by all his fellow-country- men (oD' ''^sn, comp. Deut. xxiii. 24), seeking the good of his people and speaking peace to all his race. This description of Mordochai's position with respect both to the king and his own people has, as expressive of an exalted frame of mind, a rhetorical and poetic tinge. Hence it contains such ex- pressions as Vns 3h, the fulness of his brethren, 3iD K'n'i; comp. Ps. cxxii. 9, Jer. xxxviii. 4. On tiW 13'=], comp. Ps. Ixxxv. 9, XXXV. 20, xxviii. 3. ij?"!? in parallehsm with isjj is not the descendants of Mordochai, or his people, but his race. Comp. on this signification of VIT, 2 Kings xi. 1, Isa. Ixi. 9. The meaning of the two last phrases is : Mordochai procured both by word and deed the good and prosperity of his people. And this is the way in which honour and fortune are attained, the way inculcated by the author of the 34th Psalm in vers. 13-15, when teaching the fear of the Lord. mjt moxu 0f St attgustm EDITED BY THE EEV. MARCUS DODS, M.A. SUBSCRIPTION: Four Volumes for a Guinea, payable in advance (24s. when not paid in advance). First Yeae — THE ' City of God.' Two Volumes. Writings in connkction -with the Donatist Controversy. One Volume. The anti-Pelagian v^orks of St. Augustine. Vol. I. , Second Yeae— ' LETTERS.' Vol. I. Treatises against Faustus the Manich^an. One Volume. To be Published in May. The harmony of the evangelists, and the Sermon on the Mount. One Volume. On the Trinity. One Volume. Messrs. Claek believe this wiU prove not the least valuable of their various Series, and no pains will be spared to make it so. The Editor has secured a most competent staff of Translators, and every care is being taken to secure not only accuracy, but elegance. The Works of St. Augustine to be included in the Series are (in addi- tion to the above) — All the Treatises in the Pelagian, and the four leading Treatises in the Donatist Gonteoversy. The Treatises against Faustus the Manichsean ; on Christian Doctrine ; the Trinity ; the Harmony of the Evangelists ; the Sermon on the Mount. Also, the Lectures on the Gospel of St. John, the Confessions, a Selection from the Letters, the Retractations, the Soliloquies, and Selections from the Practical Treatises. All these works are of first-rate importance, and only a small proportion of them have yet appeared in an English dress. The .Sermons and the Commentaries on the Psalms having been already given by the Oxford Translators, it is not intended, at least in the first inst^ce, to publish them. The Series will include a Life of St. Augustine, by Robert Rainy, D.D., Professor of Church History, New College, Edinburgh. The Series will probably extend to Sixteen or Eighteen Volumes. The Publishers will be glad to receive the Names of Subscribers as early as possible. It is understood that Subscribers are bound to take at least the books of the first two years. Each Volume wiU be sold separately at (on an average) 10s. 6d. each Volume. T. and T. Clark's Ptiblications. In Twenty-four Handsome ?>vo Volumes, Subscription Price ^6, 6s. od., ^nte=Nicene (tf)xiBtm\ ILitiratg. A COLLECTION OF ALL THE WOEKS OF THE FATHEES OF THE CHEISTIAN CHUECH PEIOE TO THE COUNCIL OF NIC^A EDITED BY THE REV. ALEXANDER ROBERTS, D.D., AND JAMES DONALDSON, LL.D. MESSRS. CLARK are now happy to annoimce the completion of this Series. It has been received with marked approval by all sections of the Christian Church in this country and in the United States, as supplying what has long been felt to be a want, and also on account of the impartiality, learn- ing, and care with which Editors and Translators have executed a very difficult task. The Publishers do not bind themselves to continue to supply the Series at the Subscription price. ^ The Works are arranged as follow : — FIRST YEAR. APOSTOLIC FATHEES, oomprisiDg Clement's Epistles to tlie Corinthians ; Polycarp to the, Ephesians ; Martyr- dom of Polycarp ; Epistle of Barnabas ; Epistles of Ignatius (longer andshorter, and also the Syriao version) ; Martyr- dom of Ignatius ; Epistle to Diognetus ; Pastor of Hermas ; Papias ; Spurious Epistles of Ignatius. In One Volume. JUSTIN MAETYE; ATHBNAGOEAS. In One Volume, TATIAN ; THEOPHILUS ; THE CLE- mentineEecognitions. In One Volume. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, Volume First, comprising Exhortation to Hea- then ; The Instructor ; and a portion of the Miscellanies. SECOND YEAR. HIPPOLYT0S, Volume First; Eefutatiqn of all Heresies and Fragments from his Commentaries. lEEN^US, Volume First. TBETULLIAN AGAINST MAECION. CYPEIAN, Volume First; the Epistles, and some of the Treatises. THIRD YEAR. lEENJEUS (completion) ; HIPPOLTTUS (completion) ; Fragments of Third Century. In One Volume. ORIGEN: Do Prinoipiis ; Letters; and portion of Treatise against Celsus. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDEIA, Volume Second ; Completion of Miscellanies. TEETULLIAN, Volume First: To the Martyrs; Apology; To the Nations, etc. FOURTH YEAR. CYPRIAN, Volume Second (completion); Novatian ; Minucius Felix ; Fragments. METHODIUS; ALEXANDER OF LY- copolis ; Peter of Alexandria ; Auato- lius ; Clement on Virginity ; and Fragments, TEETULLIAN, Volume Second. APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS; ACTS AND Revelations, comprising all the very curious Apociyphal Writings of the first Three Centuries. FIFTH YEAR. TEETULLIAN, Volume Third (comple- ' tion). • CLEMENTINE HOMILIES; APOSTO- lical Constitutions. In One Volume. .4EN0RIUS. DIONYSIUS; GEEGOEY THAUMA.- turgus; Syrian Fragments. In Ong Volume. SIXTH. YEAR. LACTANTIUS ; Two Volumes. OEIGEN, Volume Second (comp'letion). 12s. to Non-Subscribers. EAELY LITUEGIES AND EEMAIN- ing Fragments. 9s. to Non-Subscri- bers. Single Years cannot be had separately, unless to complete sets ; but any Volume maybe had separately, price lOs. 6d.,— with the exception of Okigen, Vol. II., 12s.; and the Early Litukqies, 9s. T. and T. Clark's Publications. NEW AND CHEAPER EDITION OF LANGE'S LIFE OF CHRIST. Now complete, in Four Volumes demy 8to, price 28s. {Subscription Price), THE LIFE OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST: A COMPLETE CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE ORIGIN, CONTENTS, AND CONNECTION OF THE GOSPELS. iranslatfb from tlje ^zxmnn ai J. P. LANGE, D. D., PBOFESSOE OF DIVINITY IN THE UHTIVEESITT OP SONN. EDITED, WITH ADDITIONAL NOTES, BY THE REV. MARCUS DODS, M. A. %* This valuable Work has been out of print for some time, but has been much in demand. The Six Volumes now occupy Four ; and whilst the whole matter is retained, it is published at a little cheaper price. EXTRACT FROM EDITOR'S PREFACE. ' The work of Dr. Lange, translated in tlie accompanying volumes, holds among books the honourable position of being the most complete Life of our Lord. There are other works which more thoroughly investigate the authenticity of the Gospel records, some which more satisfactorily discuss the chronological difficulties involved in this most important' of histories, and some which present a more formal and elaborate exegetical treatment of the sources ; but there is no single work in which all these branches are so fully attended to, or in which ■ so much matter bearing on the main subject is brought together, or in which so many points are elucidated. The immediate object of this comprehensive and masterly work was to refute those views of the life of our Lord which had been propagated by Negative Criticism, and to substitute that authentic and consistent history which a truly scientific and enlightened criticism educes from the Gospels.' Z! and T. Clark's Publications. Eeoently published, in Two Volumes, 8to, price 21s., History of Protestant Theology, particularly in Germany, viewed according to its Fundamental Government, and in connection with the Religious, Moral, and Intellectual Life. Translated from the German of Dr. J. A. DoENEB, Professor of Theology at Berlin. With a Preface to the Translation by tlie Author. ' Dr. Dorner is distinguished by a massive breaSth of thought, ... by scholarly research, general appreciation of all forms of culture, and a well-balanced judgment, swayed by a spirit of fairness to those who differ from him. . . . The work is in every way deserving of care- ful examination now, as it is likely to be afterwards valued as one deserving the highest confidence as a book of reference, on account of its ample research amongst materials on which competent judgment must rest. . . . We regard with satisfaction the appearance of such a woi'k. The highest interests are promoted by a treatise at once scholarly and eminently suggestive, which deals with theology at once scientifically and historically.' — Contempo7'ary Hevieiv. |Just published, in One thick Volume, price 14s., Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek. By . Hermann Geemek, Professor of Theology in the University of Greifswald. Translated from the German by D. W. Simon, Ph.D., and William Ubwick, M.A. This work comprises such words as have their ordinary classical meaning changed or modified in Scripture, tracing their history in their transference from the Classics into the Septuagint and thence'into the New Testament, and the gradual deepening and elevation of their meaning tUl they reach the fulness of New Testament thought. ' A close inspection of many of the terms which are representative of the leading doc- trines of the New Testament, enables us to offer the assurance that Professor Cremer's Lexicon may both safely and with high advantage be employed by students of theology for the formation of their doctrinal views, as well as for the other and more common uses of a New Testament dictionary. . . . It is distinguished by critical ability and ex- haustive research.' — Record. Just published, in One Volume Demy 8vo, price 9s., The Old Catholic Church ; or, The History, Doctrine, Worship, and Polity of the Christians, traced from the Apostolic Age to the Estab- lishment of the Pope as a Temporal Sovereign, a.d. 755. By TT. D. KiLLEN, D.D., Belfast. ' This valuable work embraces about one half of the interval between the birth of Christ and the Eeforraation. The author has bestowed much pains in consulting authorities, has condensed the history very .carefully, and has written with much clearness and vivacity. . . , We recommend Dr. Killen's work as a very admii'able and useful com- pendium of the ecclesiastical period of which he treats.' — Evangelical Magazine. Just published, in One Volume, Handsomely Bound, crown 8vo, price 7b. 6d., The Footsteps of Christ. Translated from the German of A. Gaspers. By A. E. Rodham. 1. Christ.for us ; 2. Christ in us ; 3. Christ before us; 4. Christ through us. 'The papers are short, but not too short for a profitable devout meditation They are admirably suited for that purpose ; indeed, that is their sole aim and end. We close by .simply recommending any and every reader, who may be in quest of a really fresh devotional volume, to stop here at this one,' — Weekly lieview. ' There is much deeply experimental truth and precious spiritual lore in Gaspers' book. I do not always agree with his theology, but I own myself much profited by his devout utterances.' — Eev. C. H. Spukgeon. WORKS PUBLISHED BY MESSRS. T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET, EDINBURGH. (TEMPORARY) CHEAP RE-ISSUE OF STIER'S WORDS OF THE LORD JESUS. To meet a very general desire that the now -well-linown Work of Dr. Stiek, THE WORDS OF THE LORD JESUS, shotild be brought more within the reach of all classes, both Clergy and Laity, MSssrs. Clauk have resolved to issue the Uight Volumes, handsomely bound in Four, for TWO GUINEAS. This can be only offered for a limited period ; and as the al- lowance to the trade must necessarily be smaU, orders sent either direct, or through booksellers, must in every case be accompanied with a Post Office Order for the above amount. ' The whole work is a treasuiy of thoughtful exposition. Its measure of practical and spiritual application, with exegetical criticism, commends it to the use of those whose duty it is to preach as well as to understaind the Gospel of Christ.* — Guardian. ' Every page is fretted and studded with lines and forms of the most alluring beauty. At every step the reader is constrained to pause and ponder, lest he should overlook one or other of the many precious blossoms that, in the most dazzling profusion, are scattered around his path. We venture to predict that his Words of Jesus are destined to produce a great and happy revolu- tion in the interpretation of the New Testament in this country.' — British and Foreign Evangelical Review. T. and T. Clark's Publications. LANG E'S COMMENTARIES ON THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. Messes. CLARK have now pleasure in intimating their arrangements, under the Editorship of Dr. Philip Schaff, for the Publication of Translations of the Commentaries of Dr. Lange and his Colldborateurs on the Old and New Testaments. There are now ready (in imperial 8vo, double columns), price 21s. per Volume, OLD TESTAMENT, Six Volumes: COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OF GENESIS, in One Volume. COMMENTARY ON JOSHUA, JUDGES, AND RUTH, in One Volume. COMMENTARY ON THE BOOKS OF KINGS, in One Volume. COMMENTARY ON THE PSALMS, in One Volume. COMMENTARY ON PROVERBS, ECCLESLASTES, AND THE SONG OF SOIOMGN, in One Volume. COMMENTARY ON JEREMIAH AND LAMENTATIONS, in One Volume. . The other Books of the Old Testament are in active preparation, and will be announced as soon as ready. NEW TESTAMENT, Ten Volumes: COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF ST. MATTHEW, in One Volume. COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPELS OF ST. MARK and ST. LUKE, in One Volume. COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN, in One Volume. COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, in One Volume. COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL TO THE BOMANS, in One Volume. COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLES OF ST. PAXTL TO THE COBINTHIANS, in One Volume. COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL TO THE GAIATIANS, EPHESIANS, PHILIPPIANS, and COLOSSIANS, in One Vol. COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLES TO THE THESSA- LONIANS, TIMOTHT, TITTJS, PHILBMON, and HEBEEWS, in One Volume. COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLES OF JAMES, PETER, JOHN, and JUDE, in One Volume. COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OF REVELATION, in One Volume (in the press). The price to Subscribers to the Foreign Theological Library, St. Augustine's Works, and Ante-Nicene Library, or to Purchasers of Complete Sets of the Commentary (so far as published), will be FIFTEEN SHILLINGS PEE VOLUME. Dr. Lange's Oommentary on the Gospels and Acts (without Dr. Schaff's Notes) is also published in the Foreign Theological Libraey, in Nine Volumes demy 8vo, and may be had in that form if desired. (For particulars, see List of Foreign Theological Library.) T. and T. Clark's Publications. BIBLICO-THEOLOGICAL LEXICON OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. Ceemer. Demij 8uo. Price 14s. GRAMMAE OP NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. Winer. (Translated by Rev. W. P. J^oulton, one of the New- Testament Revision ■ Company.) Demy 8«o. Pri^e 15«. HISTORY OP CHRISTIAN COUNCILS, TO a.d. 325. Hefele. Second Edition, Demy 8bo. Price 12s. HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, a.d. 1—600. Schaff. Three Volumes, Royal 8vo. Price £1, 16*. TRIPARTITE NATURE OP MAN. Heaed. Third Edition, Crown 8vo. Price 6s. HISTORY OP PROTESTANT THEOLOGY. Doknek. Two .Volumes, Demy 8vo. Price £1, Is. TRAINING OP THE TWELVE. Beuce. Demy 8i)o. Price 10s. 6d. COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS. Gloag. Two Volumes, Demy 8vo. Price £1, Is. OLD CATHOLIC CHURCH. Killen. Demy 8vo. Price 9s. ARGUMENT OF EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. Steward. Demy 8vo. Price 10s. 6d. KRUMMACHER : An Autobiography. Cheap Edition, Crown 8vo. Piice 6s. LIGHT FROM THE CROSS. Tholuck. Third Edition, Crown 8vo. Price 5s. SINLESSNESS OP JESUS. Ullmann. Third Edition, Crown 8vo. Price 6s. BIBLICAL STUDIES ON ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL. Bessee. Two Volumes, Crown 8vo. Price 12s. OUR LORD'S SECOND ADVENT! Brown. Sixth Edition, Crown 8vo. Price 7s. Gd. METAPHYSIC OP ETHICS. Kant. 1 Third Edition, Crown 8vo. Price 6s. APOCALYPSE, TRANSLATED AND EXPOUNDED. Glasgow. Demy 8vo. Price Us. ■ CHURCH OF CHRIST. Bannerman. Two Volumes, Demy 8vo. Price £1, Is. T. and T. Clark's Publications. M E YE R'S Commentary on the New Testament. M ESSRS. CLARK beg to announce that they have in course of preparation a Translation of the well-known and justly esteemed CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT, By Dp. H. A. "W. MEYER, Oberconsistorialrath, Hanover, Of which they hope to publish in October — ROMANS, Vol. I. GALATIANS, One Volume. The Subscription will be 21s. for Four Volumes Demy 8vo. By arrangement with Dr. Meyee, Messrs. Clark have obtained the sole right of translation into English, and they will also have the very great advantage of Dr. Meyer's latest emendations. In order to secure perfect accuracy, the Publishers have placed the whole work under the editorial care of Rev. Dr. Dickson, Professor of Biblical Criticism in the University of Glasgow. The Volumes will vary in number of pages according to the size of the origina;i, but an average of about 400 pages may be assumed. Each Volume wiS be sold separately at (on an average) 10s. 6d. to Non-Subscribers. It is obvious that the Series cannot be published with the regularity of the Foreign Theological Library, as in many cases the PubUshers must wait for Dr. Meter's Notes. Intending Subscribers will be kind enough to fill up the accompanying Form, which may be returned, either direct to the Publishers at 38 George Street, Edinburgh, or through their own Booksellers. BOOKSELLER, Will please enter my Name as a Subscriber, and forward, as published, the above Translation of MEYER'S COMMENTARIES. T. and T. Clark's Publications. In One Volume, Demy 8vo, Price 14s., THE APOCALYPSE, TRANSLATED AND EXPOUNDED. BY JAMES GLASGOW, D.D., IRISH GENERAL ASSEMBLY'S PROFESSOR OF ORIENTAL LANGUAGES. 'A book which sober scholars will not despise, and which intelligent Christians wiU highly value. . . . It has substantial merits, and cannot be read without great profit.'— Watchman. ' This is a most elaborate work, tha result of careful thought, wide reading, and patient industry. ... We must give the author the highest praise for the intelligent devout- ness and the critical acumen which he has brought to bear upon his i&sk:— English ' A devout and scholarly commentary. . . . The most important addition to English apocalyptic literature that has appeared for some time, and merits the careful perusal of all who would study the great Christian prophecy.' — Freeman. . 'A very patient and scholarly attempt to interpret the book of Eevelatioa. . . . To those who accept the "historical" rather than the " spiritual " interpretation of St John's mystic symbols, we can heartily commend Dr. Glasgow's work as the most im- portant contribution of recent years to their view of the great Christian prophecy.' — NoncoTiforTTiigt. 'This volume will doubtless find its way into the library of every student of unfulfilled prophecy. The learning and ingenuity displayed fit it for taking its place over against Ellicot.' — British and Foreign Evangelical Review. 'A very learned and admirable volume. ... It deserves the special attention of students, and of all interested in the signs of the times.' — Watchword. ' We have sincere pleasure in welcoming the work as a really valuable contribution to the exposition of a difficult portion of Scripture ; and if any of our ministerial readers happen to be in want of a tool to help them in opening up that portion of God's Word to their people, we are sure they will not be disappointed if they add to their libraries the work of Dr. Glasgow.' — Presbyterian. ' A goodly volume . . . replete with the fruits of learning and profound research. . . . characterized by independence of thought, originality and even singularity of view, and decision in grasping and enunciating results.' — Evangelical Witness. 'Pull of learning and good sense . . . unaffected by any fanciful theory. . . . Those who feel deeply interested in the subject will study the book for themselves ; and this we have much pleasure in recommending them to do, for we are certain they will not find their labour lost.^ — Edinburgh Courant. 'I have read through your volume on the Apocalypse with care, and I cannot avoid expressing my gratitude to you for it. It is a very valuable production. Its scholarship is real and satisfactory. The style is simple and good, expressing the mightiest truths in the most artless language. Its learning is most extensive.' — Extract of letter from Dr. Morgan to Dr. Glasgow. T. and T. Clark's Publications. WORKS OF PATRICK FAIRBAIRN, D.D„ PKINOIPAL AND PE0FES30R OF THEOLOOY IN THE FKEE CHURCH COLLEGE, GLASGOW. In Two Volumes, demy 8to, price 2l8., Fifth Edition, THE TYPOLOGY OP SCRIPTURE, Viewed in connection with the whole Series of the Divine Dispensations. 'As the product of the labours of an original thinker and of a sound theologian, who has at the same time scarcely left unexamined one previous writer on the subject, ancient or modem, this work wiU be a most valuable accession to the library of the theological student. As a whole, we believe it may, with the strictest truth, be pronounced the best work on the subject that, has yet been published.' — Record. ' A work fresh and comprehensive, learned and sensible, and full of practical religious feeling.' — British and Foreign JEixmgelicai Revieio. In demy 8vo, price 10s. 6d., Third Edition, EZEKIEL, AND THE BOOK OF HIS PROPHECY: An Exposition ; With a New Translation. ' A work which was greatly wanted, and which will give the author no mean place among the Biblical expositors of his country and language, for in it he has cast con- siderable light on one of the obscurest portions of God's Word.' — Journal of Saored Literature. In demy 8vo, price 10s. 6d., Second Edition, PROPHECY, Viewed in its Distinctive Nature, its Special Functions, and Proper Interpretation. ' We would express our conviction that if ever this state of things is to end, and the Church is blest with the dawn of a purer and brighter day, it will be through the sober and well-considered efforts of such a man as Dr. Pairbaim, and through the general acceptance of some such principles as are laid down for our guidance in this book.' — Chrutian Advocate. In demy 8vo, price 10s. 6d., HERMENEUTICAL MANUAL; or. Introduction to the Exegetical Study of the Scriptures of the New Testament. ' Br. Eairbairn has precisely the training which would enable him to give a fresh and suggestive book on Hermeneutics. Without going into any tedious detail, it presents the points that are important to a student. There is a breadth of view, a clearness and manlinees of thought, and a ripeness of learning, which make the work one of peculiar freshness and interest. I consider it a very valuable addition to every student's library.' — Bev. Dr. Moore, Avthor of the aile Commentary on ' The Prophets of the EestoroHoTi.' In demy 8vo, price 10s. 6d., THE REVELATION OF LAW IN SCRIPTURE, considered with respect both to its own Nature, and to its relative Place in Succes- sive Dispensations. (The Third Series of the ' Cunningham Lectures.') ' Dr. Fairbairn is well known as a learned and painstaking writer, and these lectures will bear out his reputation. . , . They are the writing of a man who is a laborious student of the Bible, and patient readers will find that they can learn something from him.' — Guardian. ' The tone and spirit of this volume are admirable. The lectures are carefully elabo- rated, the arguments and scriptural illustrations seem to have passed each one under the author's scrutiny ; so that, besides unity of purpose in the lectures as a whole, we mark the conscientiousness that has sought to verify each separate statement , . . It is an excellent book.' — Nonconformist. T. and T. Clark's Publications. This day, in Two Volumes crown 8vo, price 128. 6d., Christian Ethics. Translated from the German of Dr. Adolf Wcttke, late Professor of Theology in Halle. Vol. I. History of EtMcs ; Vol. II. Pure Ethics. This work, so well known in Germany, has been translated at the recommendation of Dr. Tholuok ; and all critics accord in testifying that the author was a man singularly endowed with keenness of philosophic insight and with devontness of Christian faith. ' Wuttke's Ethics should have a place in every pastor's library.' — Dr. ffengstenberg. WORKS BY DR. C. E. LUTHARDT. In One Volume crown 8vo (in the Press), Apologetic Lectures on the Morality of Christianity.' CONTENTS. Chapter I. The Nature of Christian Morality. II. Man. III. The Christian and the Christian Virtues. IV. The Devotional Life of the Christian and his Attitude towards the Church. Chapter V. Christian Marriage. VI. The Christian Home. VII. The State and Christianity. VIII. The Life of the Christians in the State. IX. Culture and Christianity. X. Humanity and Christianity. In One Volume crown 8vo, price 6s., Apologetic Lectures on the Saving Truths of Christianity. Second English, from Third German Edition. 'An eloquent and powerful exposition of the truth. . . . Whilst the author walks in the old trodden paths, there is, along with a remarkable clearness of apprehension and accuracy of judgment, a freshness and originality of thought and a singular beauty of language, under the spell of which we read these lectures with unflagging interest. . . . They traverse a wide field of theological inquiry.' — British and Foreign Evangelical Revieu). ' We commend his lectures as very able. His scholarship is adequate, his spirit evan- gelical and devout, and he speaks lucidly, pointedly, and tersely.' — British Quai^terly Review. In One Volume crown 8vo, Third Edition (in the Press), Apologetic Lectures on the Fundamental Truths of Christianity. 'We have never met with a volume better adapted to set forth the evidences of Christianity in a form suited to the wants of our day. The whole of the vast argument is illustrated by various and profound learning ; there is no obscurity in the thoughts or in the style; the language is simple, the ideas clear, and the argument logical, and generally, to our mind, conclusive.' — Guardian. ' Luthardt is the very man to help those entangled in the thickets of modem rationalism ; we do not know just such another book as this ; it is devout, scholarly, clear, forcible, penetrating, comprehensive, satisfactory, admirable.' — Evangelical Magazine. T. and T. Clark's Publications. Just Published, in Crown 8vo, Price 4s. 6d., THE WORDS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. AS ALTERED BY TRANSMISSION, AND ASCERTAINED BY MODERN CRITICISM. FOR POPULAR USE. BY REV. WILLIAM MILLIGAN, D.D., PBOFESSOE OF DIVINITT AND BIBLICAL CRITICISM, ABERDEEN, AND REV. ALEXANDER ROBERTS, D.D., PROFESSOR OF HUMANITT, ST. ANDREWS. In Two Handsome Volumes, Demy 8to, Price 17s., COMMENTARY ON THE PROPHECIES OF ISAIAH. BY JOSEPH ADDISON ALEXANDEE, D.D., PRINCETON, AUTHOR OF COMMENTARIES ON THE PSALMS, MARK, ACTS, ETC. New and Revised Edition. EDITED, WITH A PREFACE, BY JOHN EADIE, D.D., LLD. 'I regard Dr. Joseph Addison Alexander as incomparably tlie greatest man I ever knew, — as incomparably the greatest man our Oliuroli has ever produced.' — Dr. Hodge. ^