,^ OF PRINCE^ iN-7 m T. and T. Clark's Publications. Works by Professor I. A. DORNER. Just ivdilhlicd^ ill demy 8vQ, price lis., SYSTEM OF CHRISTIAN ETHICS. By Dr. I. A. DORNER, PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY, BERLIN. Edited by Dr. A. DORNER. TKANSLATEI) BY PiiOFESsoK C. M. MEAD, D.D., and Rev. R. T. CUNNINGHAM, M.A. 'This Doble book is the crown of the Systematic Theology of tbe author. ... It is a masterpiece. It. is the fruit of a lifetime of profound investigation in the philo- sophical, biblical, and historical sources of theology. The system of Dorner is comprehensive, profound, evangelical, and catholic. It rises into the clear heaven of Christian thought above the strifes of Scholasticism, nationalism, and Mysticism. It is, indeed, comprehensive of all that is valuable in these three types of human thought.' — Professor C. A. Briggs, D.D. ' There rested on his whole being a consecration such as is lent only by the nobility of a thorough sauctification of the inmost nature, and by the dignity of a matured wisdom.' — Professor Wkiss. In Four Volumes, 8vo, price £2, 2s., A SYSTEM OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. ' In all investigations the author is fair, clear, and moderate ; ... he lias .shown that his work is one to be valued, for its real ability, as an important contribution to the litera- ture of theology.' — Scotsman. 'Had it been the work of an entire lifetime, it would have been a monument of marvellous industry and rare scholarship. It is a tribute alike to the genius, the learn- ing, and the untiring perseverance of its author.' — Baptist Magazine. ' The work has many and great excellences, and is really indispensable to all who would obtain a thorough acquaintance with the great problems of theology. It i.s a great benefit to English students that it should be made accessible to them in their own language, and in a"form so elegant and convenient.' — Literary Churchman. In Five Volumes, %vo, price £2, 12«. 6rf., HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST. ' So great a mass of learning and thought so ably set forth has never before been presented to Englisli readers, at least on this subject.' — Journal of Sacred Literature. Just puhlisltcd, in crown 8vo, price is. 6d., THE BIBLE AN OUTGROWTH OF THEOCRATIC LIFE. By D. W. SIMON, PRINCIPAL OF THK Ci>NQREGAT10NAL COLLEGE, EDINBURGH. 'A more valuable and suggestive book has not recently come into our hands.' — British Quarterly Revieio. 'This book will well repay perusal. It contains a great deal of learning as well as ingenuity, and the style is clear." — Guardian. ' A book of absorbing interest, and well worthy of study.' — Methodist New Cunm.cuin Magazine- T. and T. Clark's Publications. PUNJER'S CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION . Just published, in demy 8vo, price 16s., HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION, FROM THE REFORMATION TO KANT By BEENHAED PUNJEE. Translated from the German by W. HASTIE, B.D. With a Preface by Professor FLINT, D.D., LL.D. ' The merits of Piinjer's history are not difficult to discover ; on the contrary, they are of the kind which, as the French say, sautent aux yeux. The lan^'uage is almost everywhere as plain and easy to apprehend as, considering the nature of the matter lonveyed, it could be made. The stjde is simple, natural, and direct; the only sort of style appropriate to the subject. The amount of information imparted is most exten- sive, and strictly relevant. Nowhere else will a student get nearly so much knowledge as to what has been thought and written, within the area of Christendom, on the philo- sophy of religion. He must be an excessively learned man in that department who has nothing to learn from this book.' — Extract from the Preface. 'Piinjer's ''History of the Philosophy of Religion" is fuller of information on its subject than any other book of the kind that I have either seen or heard of. The writing in it is, on tlie whole, clear, simple, and uninvolved. The Translation appears to nie true to the German, and, at the same time, a piece of very satisfactory English. I should think the work would prove useful, or even indispensable, as well for clergymen as for professors and students.' — Dr. Hutchison Stirling. Just published, Vol. I., in demy 8w, piHce 10s. 6d. (Completing Volume in preparation), HANDBOOK BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY. By carl FEIEDEICH KEIL DOCTOR AND PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY. Third Improved and Corrected Edition. Edited by FREDERICK CROMBIE, D.D., rUOFICSSOR OF DIVINITY AND BIBLICAL CRITICISM, ST. ANDREWS. Note. — Tliis third edition is virtually a new book, for the learned Author has made large additions and corrections, bringing it up to the present state of kuowlf dgo. CLARK'S FOREIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY. FOURTH SERIES. VOL. XXXYIIL IRtil on t^t ?3oofe5 of C|ra, ^el^tmi'a^, anlr (E^tTjcr. EDINBUEGH: T. & T. CLARK, 3 8, GEORGE STREET. 1888. PRI^TED BY MORRISON AND GIBB, FOR T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH. LONDON, DUBLIN, HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO. GEORGE HERBERT. NEW YORK, SCRIBNER AND WELFORD. OF BIBLICAL COIIMENTAR^ 'lC;:\i]M st« THE OLD TESTAMENT. C. F. KE[L, D.P., AND F. DELTTZSCH, D.T). PROFESSORS OF THEOLOGY. THE BOOKS OF EZRA, NEIIEMIAH, AND ESTHER, C. F. KEIL. TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN BY SOPHIA TAYLOR. EDINBURGH: T. & T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET. 1888. CONTENTS, EZRA. PAGE § 1. Name and Contents, Object and Plan, . . .1 § 2. Unity and Composition, . . . . .5 § 3. Composition and Historical Character, . . . li I. The Return of the Jews from Babylon under Cvrus; Restoration of the Temple and of the Worship of God AT Jerusalem (Chap, i.-vi.), . . . .19 Chap. i. — 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, . . . . . . 3U 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. — Tlie 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, vil-x.), . . . . . .93 Cliap. vii. — Ezra's Return and Commission, . . .93 Chap. viii. — List of those Heads of Houses Avho returned with Ezra, and Account of the Journey, .... 102 Chap. ix. X. — Ezra's Proceedings in the Severance of the Strange Women from the Congregation of Israel, . .113 N E H E M I A ir. § 1. Contents, Division, and Object, . . . . l."9 § 2. Integrity and Date of Composition, .... 143 I. Nehemiah's Journey to Jerusalem, and the Restoration of the Walls of Jerusalem (Chap, i.-vi.), . . 154 Chap. i. — Nehemiah's Interest in and Prayer for Jerusalem, . 154 CONTEXTS. PAGB Chap. ii. — Neliemiah 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, ....... 17B Chap. V. — Abolition of Usury — ^Nehemiah's Unselfishness, . 207 Chap. vi. — Snares laid for Nehemiah — Completion of the Wall, 215 II. Nehemiah's further Exertions in behalf of the Commu- nity (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, ..... .220 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 Wall of Jerusalem, ..... 265 III. Nehemiah's Operations during his Second Sojourn in Jerusalem (Chap. xii. 44-xiii. 31), . . . . 282 E S T H E E. § 1. Name. Contents, Ol)ject, and Unity, . . . .301 § 2. Historical Character, . . . . . .304 5^ 3. Authorship and Date, . . . . . .312 § 4. Canonicity, . . . . . . .313 Chap. i. — The Banquet of King Ahashveiosh 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 Ciiap. 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. Ilamau's Rage against Mordochai, ..... 355 Chap. vi. — Elevation of Mordochai and Disgrace of Haman, . 358 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 N^TI? in the Hebrew Bible, of "EaSpa'i in the Septuagint, and of Liber Esdrce in the Vulgate, from Ezra, ^IV^^.y 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 tiie 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 tiie Fathers (see the statements of Origen, of the Council of Laodicea, Can. 60, of Cyril, Jerome, and others, in the Lehhxich der Einleitung, § 216, Not. 11, 13), "Ea8pa<; 7rpcoTo, 16-18, 19-22, can have no force of argument except for a criticism which confines its operations to tlie 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 tlie 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 documents and what precedes and follows them as to annul the single authorship of this Chaldee 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 COJirOSITION. H king," and not " king of Persia," as they ai'e 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 Pei-sia" when naming the king. Nor is there any force in the remark that in v. 13 Coresli is called king of Babylon. This epithet, ?32 '•■q, 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.), wliicli is connected with Part i. by the formula of transition H^xn Dna'nn nnx, 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 traivsition 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 lie 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 re asons, then, just discussed are no t of such a natu re as to cas^^ny^real doubt upon the singl e authorship o f this book ; and modern 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 boi)k 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 wiiat justifies the assumption that " Ezra purposed to give an account of all that he effected at Jerusalem'?" 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 liis ministry is spoken of in the book of Nehemiah also, the 14 INTRODUCTION TO TEZ BOOK OF EZ2A. 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 "•^y '^rib^ T3, 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 OF 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 HISTOKICAL CHARACTER. 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- sufhciently 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 ififteen 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 distinctl}^ stated. Such 'a conclusion can, however, only be arrived at by a misconception of the ])assages in question. AVhen it is said, Ezra v. 2, " Then {i.e. when the prophets Haggai and Zechariah prophesied) rose up Zerubbabel and Jeshua . . . and began to build the house of God" (^.^^D? 1''Tv'), there is no need to insist that N33 often signifies to rebuild, but the word may be understood strictly of beginning to build. And 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- ])ancy 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 noio Jiath it been in building" that the building of the temple proceeded loithout 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 LoVd" ('33 n3S^D\b'j;;), into "they began to build;" COMPOSITION AND HISTORICAL CHARACTER. 17 makes Ilagg. ii. 18, by a tautological view of the words ip^ TD^ "iK'w^ Di>n, 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 Chaldee 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 sucii 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 amon^ 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 Judali 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 tiie 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 Lehrh. der Einleitiing, p. 455 ; to which must be adtled, E. Bertheau, die Biicher Esra, Nehemia, iind Ester erkl., Lpz. (being the seventeenth number of the kurzgef. excgcL Ilandbuchs sum A. T.), EXPOSITIOX I.-THE RETURX OF THE JEWS FROM BABYLON UNDER CYRUS. RESTORATION OF THE TEMPLE AND OF THE WORSHIP OF GOD AT JERUSALEM.— Chap. I.-VI. HEN 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 wiiole 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 j)rince and Joshua the high priest, to Jerusalem and Judaea ; the remaining chapters, iii.-vi., of the restoration of the wor- ship of God, and of the rebuilding of the temple. CHAP. r. — THE EDICT OF CYRUS, THE DEPARTURE FROM BABYLOX, THE RESTITUTION OF THE SACRED 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 13 20 THE BOOK OF EZRA. the Jews dwelUncr in tlieir 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 Chron. 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. EJnis is the Hebraized form of the ancient Persian Kurus, as XOpo?, 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"i3 — in the better editions, such as that of Norzi and J. H. Mich., with Pathach under "), and only pointed D"i3 with a graver pause, as with Silluk, iv. 3, in the cuneiform inscriptions Parana — signifies in biblical ])liraseology the Persian empire; comp. Dan. v. 28, vi. 9, etc. ni?3Pj that the word of Jahve might come to an end. n72, to be completed, 2 Chron. xxix. 34. The word of the Lord IS completed when its fulfilment takes place ; hence in the Vulg. ut complerelnr, i.e. nixppp, 2 Chron. xxxvi. 21. Here, liowever, rii73 is more appropriate, because the notion of the hipse 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 f II it initium, Cijri Persarum recjis ; prim Pe.rsiruvi^ idnne aritiqiiiiis, poste'rius Bahyloiilcnm. tie quo Hesdras ; quia dum Cyrus in Perside tantum regnaret, reijnum ejus ad Judxos, qui in Babylonia erant^ nihil adtiiiuit. — Cleric, ad Ear. 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 fourtli year of King Jehoiakim ; see tiie 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 ernpire. Then " Jalive 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""'?J'!!!l, " 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 DJI 3ri3p3j so that the general notion of proclaiming has to be taken from hp "izy, 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 earth ; 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 Ahuramazda (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.ci. the inscription of Elvend in three languages, explained in Joach. Meuant, Expose des elements de la grammaire assyrieinie, Paris 1868, p. 302, whose Aryan text begins thus : Deus inagnus Auramazda, qui maximus deorum, qui lianc terrain creavit, qui hoc caelum creavit, qui homines creavit, qui potentiam (?) dedit hominibus, qui Xerxem regem fecit, etc. An inscription of Xerxes begins in a similar manner, according to Lassen, iu Die altperdschai Keilinschri/ten, Bonn 18oG, p. 172. 22 THE BOOK OF EZRA. remodelled the edict of Cyrus. There is, however, no sufScient 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 tiiat 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. Tliis 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, contained, 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 ; 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 repi'oduced 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 tlie god whom he worshipped as the creator of heaven and earth, the Israehte 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 might 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 Cyrus, — 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 Ahuramazda, but only by means of facts which liad inspired him with reverence for the God of Israel. It is this consideration which bestows upon the statement of Josephus, Aritt. xi. 1. 1, — 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 lield 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 EZRA. concerning Coresh, by Daniel.^ Granting, then, that the edict of Cyrus may have been composed in tlie current lan- guage of the reahn, 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 Cyrus 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 'li1 '•py 1p3j J. H. Mich, well remarks : Mandavit mihi, nimi- rum dudurn ante per Jesajam xliv. 24-28, xlv. 1—13, forte etiam per Danielem, qui annum Jmnc 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 ^ Hence not only ancient expositors, but also in very recent times Pressel {Herzog's Realencyd. iii. p. 232), and A. Koehler, Haggai, p. 9, etc., defend the statement of Josephus, I.e., zctir (viz. the previously quoted prophecy, Isa. xliv. 28) wv dvuyjovTX kxI ^xv/axduuTX to dihu opfiVjTt; i>^x(ii Kxl (piXori/iiioc. Troiiiaon tcc yiypx/>t,uei/ix, 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 th;i,t 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. D33 ^tt, 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. iJSV ''''C%. ^'^^ liis God be with him, is a wish for a blessing: comp. Josh. i. 17; 1 Esdras ii. 5, earco; while in 2 Chron. xxxvi. 23 we find, on the other hand, nin'' for ^n\ 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. 'lJl "iNL."3n-^ril 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 'li1 riiDpari'pzio 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^f^, to assist, like 1 Kings ix. 1. ^^^'] specified, besides gold, silver, and cattle, means moveable, various kinds. nnnan'Dyj with, besides the free-will offering, i.e. as well as the same, and is therefore supplied in ver. 6 by ?y "1??. 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 ?bp 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 ^3 without ^K'X. The thought is : All the Jews were called upon to return, but 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: iroXkol Kare/xeivav iv rrj Ba^vXrovt,, ra KTi^ixaja KaraXtTrelv ov 6eXovTe) „ Gibbar (Gibeon), . 95 95 19. 11 ,, Bethlehem, . 123? 56) 188 20. The men of Netophah, 21. ,, „ Anatboth, . 128 128 22. The sons of Azmaveth (men of Beth- Azmaveth), 42 42 23. ,, ,, Kirjath-arim, Chepbiral 1, and Beeroth, . 743 743 24. n „ Ramah and '^aba, . 621 621 25. The men of Michmas, 122 122 34 THE BOOK OF EZRA. Ezra ii. Ezra ii. Neii. vii. 26. The men of Bethel and Ai, . 223 123 27. Thei sons of Nebo (Acher), 52 52 28. „ Magbish, 156 wanting. 29. „ the other Elara, . . 1254 1254 30. „ Harim, . 320 320 31. „ Lod, Hadid, and One, 725 721 32. „ Jericho, 345 845 33. „ Senaah, , 8630 8930 Total, 24,144 25,406 The differences in the names are unimportant. In ver. 6 the "1 copulative inserted between the names V^^^, and HNV, both in Nehemiah and 1 Esdras, is wanting ; the name ''JB (ver. 10) is written ''=132 in Nehemiah (ver. 15); for nni' (ver. 18), Neh. vii. 24 has ^''1^, evidently another name for the same person, Jorah having a similarity of sound with n^Vj harvest-rain, and ^""1^ with ^"^.n, harvest; for 132 (ver. 20), Neh. vii. 25 more correctly reads f^V^^, the name of the town ; and for Dny n;;"iip (ver. 25), Neh. vii. 29 has the more correct form D^"}^ rin[5 : 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, wliere "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. oG, 37). Lastly, the sons of ]\Iagbish (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) I'eckoned 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. Mer.^ Archiv fur loissensch. Forschaig des A. 7\, No. 3, p. 345, that by the addition "inx in Nehemiah, the Nebo iu Judah is distinguished from the Nebo in Keuben. CHAP. II. 3-35. 35 towns; here, therefore, inhabitants of towns are named. This series is, however, interrupted by Nos. 28-30 ; Harim 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 Harini 320, we have in 1 Esdr. v. 16, in a more appropriate position, viol 'Apo/j, 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 ^Apco/x, and in- serted higher up. The reasons for considering these three statements doubtful have certainly some weight ; but con- sidering the great untrustworthiness 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- miah ;^ 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 n.ot by their personal names, but by that of the house. The names, for the most part, 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 Parosh, Pahath-Moab, Adin, Elam, Shephatiah, Joab, Bebai, Azgad, Adonikam, Bigvai, and, according to the original text (Ezra viii. 8, 10), also the sons of Zattu and Bani. In the lists of tliose who had taken strange wives (chap, x.) we meet with individuals of the sous of Parosh, Elam, Zattu, Bebai, Bani, Pahath-Moab, Harim, Hashum, and of the sons of Nebo. Finally, in the lists of the heads of the people in the time of Nehemiah (Neh. x. 15 sq.) appear the names of Parosh, Pahath- Moab, Elam, Zattu, Bani, Azgad, Bebai, Bigvai, Adin, Ater, Hashum, Bczai, Harif, Harim, Anathoth, together with others which do not occur in the list wc are now treating of. 36 THE BOOK OF EZRA, 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 lists of the inhabitants of Jerusalem (1 Chron, ix. and Neh. xi.) be held as any valid 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 Euth i. 2, Mic. v. 1; Netophah, 2 Sam. xxiii. 28 — see comm. on 1 Chron. ii. 54 ; Anathoth in Josh. xxi. 18, Jer. i. 1 ; Kirjath-jearim, Chephirah, and Beeroth, as cities of the Gibeonites, in Josh. ix. 17 ; Ramah 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 Bitter, Ejxik. xvi. p. 519, that it may be el-PIizme, near Anata, 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, and not 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 (Robinson's Biblical Researches, p. 189), CHAP. II. 30-39. 37 may, as Bertlieau thinks, correspond with this town. Mao-- 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. inn is certainly 'ABtSd (1 Mace. xii. 38, xiii. 13), not far from Lydda, where there is still a place called el-Hadithe, tiijwOs^l (Robinson's Biblical Researches, p. 186). nx3D, ver. 35, is identified by older expositors with Hevvd, vvv MaySaXaeuvdj which Jerome describes as terminus Judcc, in septimo lapide Jerichus contra septentrionalem jylagcon (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 Jklejdel, 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. 3G-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 Jedaiali, of the house of Jeshua, . 973 „ ,, Immer, .... 1052 „ „ Pashur, .... 1247 „ „ Harim, .... 1017 Total, "4289 38 THE BOOK OF EZRA. Jeclaiali 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 be 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 tiie 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 Cliron. 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 pi'iest 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, Ilarim, 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, Nethinim, and Solomon s servants. Comp. Neh. vii. 43-60. CHAP. II. 40-58. 39 Ezra. Xeh. Levites : the sons of Jesliua and Kadraiel, of the sons of Hodaviah, ... . . 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 all, . . 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 (''^^''Pli?'! and n^nin of our text are evi- dently correct readings ; and ''^^''Pli?^ and n^nin^ Keri nnin^^ 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, Tahnon, 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^CDJ, ver. 50, Neh. vii. 52 has D''D*^'l23, a form combined from D''pis: and D^i^'-W. All other variations relate only to differ- 40 THE BOOK OF EZRA. ences of form. Because Ziha (^ i.e. reckoned together; comp. iii. 9, vi. 20) is the same in both texts, as also in 1 Esdras, viz. 42,360 ; the sums of the separate statements being in all three different, and indeed amounting in each to less than the given total. The separate statements are as follow : — According to According to According to Ezra. Nehemiah. 1 Esdras. Men of Israel, . 24,144 25,406 26,390 Priests, 4,289 4,289 2,388 Levites, 341 360 341 NethiDim and servants of Solomon, 392 392 372 Those who could not prove their Israelitish origin, . 652 642 652 Total, 29,818 31,089 30,143 These differences are undoubtedly owing to mere clerical errors, and attempts to reconcile them in other ways cannot be justified. Many older expositors, both Jewish and Christian (Seder olam, Kaschi, Ussher, J. H. Mich., and others), were of opinion that only Jews and Benjamites are enumerated in the separate statements, while the sum- total includes also those Israelites of the ten tribes who returned with them. In opposing this notion, it cannot, indeed, be alleged that no regard at all is had to members of the other tribes (Bertheau) ; for the several families of the men of Israel are not designated according to their tribes, but merely as those whom Nebuchadnezzar had taken away to Babylon ; and among these would certainly be included, as Ussher expressly affirms, many belonging to the other tribes who had settled in the kingdom of Judah. But the very circumstances, that neither in the separate statements nor in the sum-total is any allusion made to tribal relations, 46 THE BOOK OF EZRA. and that even in the case of those families who could not prove their Israelitish origin the only question was as to whether they were of the houses and of the seed of Israel, ex- clude all distinction of tribes, and the sum-total is evidently intended to be the joint sum of the separate numbers. Nor can it be inferred, as J. D. Mich, conjectures, that because the parallel verse to ver. 64 of our present chapter, viz. 1 Esdr. V. 41, reads thus, "And all of Israel from twelve years old and upwards, besides the servants and maids, were 42,360," the separate statements are therefore the numbers only of those of twenty years old and upwards, while the sum-total includes those also from twelve to twenty years of age. The addition " from twelve years and upwards" is devoid of critical value; because, if it had been genuine, the particular " from twenty years old and upwards" must have been added to the separate statements. Hence it is not even probable that the author of the 1st book of Esdras contem- plated a reconciliation of the difference by this addition. In transcribing such a multitude of names and figures, errors could scarcely be avoided, whether through false readings of numbers or the omission of single items. The sum-total being alike in all three texts, we are obliged to assume its correctness. Ver. Qo, etc. " Besides these, their servants and their maids, 7337." npsi is, by the accent, connected with the preceding words. The further statement, " And there were to them (i.e. they had) 200 singing men and singing women," is striking. The remark of Bertheau, that by Ci[}? the pro- perty of the community is intended to be expressed, is in- correct; DH? denotes merely computation among, and does not necessarily imply proprietorship. J. D. Mich., adopting the latter meaning, thought that oxen and cows originally stood in the text, and were changed by transcribers into singing men and singing women, " for both words closely resemble each other in appearance in the Hebrew." Berth., on the contrary, remarks that Q''"!''^, oxen, might easily be exchanged for DnitJ' or nmtJ'b, but that '\VJ has no femi- nine form for the plural, and that rihQj cows, is very CHAP. II. 68-70. 47 different from miiw'o; that hence we are obliged to admit tliat in the original text ti^^vJ stood alone, and that after this word had been exchanged for Dn~l'L^'b, nmC'D was added as its appropriate complement. Such fanciful notions can need no serious refutation. Had animals been spoken of as pro- perty, Dn^ would not have been used, but a suffix, as in the enumeration of the animals in ver. 66. Besides, oxen and cows are not beasts of burden used in journeys, like the horses, mules, camels, and asses enumerated in ver. (^Q, and hence are here out of place. 0111^01 2''"}"}ij^*P are singing men and singing women, in 1 Esdras -^^aXraL koX slraXTwhol^ who, as the Rabbis already supposed, were found among the fol- lowers of the returning Jews, ut Icetior esset IsraelitariLm redltus. The Israelites had from of old employed singing men and singing women not merely for the purpose of en- hancing the cheerfulness of festivities, but also for the sing- ing of lamentations on sorrowful occasions; comp. Eccles. ii. 8, 2 Chron. xxxv. 25 : these, because they sang and played for hire, are named along with the servants and maids, and distinguished from the Levitical singers and players. In- stead of 200, we find both in Nehemiah and 1 Esdras the number 245, which probably crept into the text from the transcriber fixing his eye upon the 245 of the following verse. — Ver. 66. The numbers of the beasts, whether for riding or baggage : horses, 736 ; mules, 245 ; camels, 435 ; and asses, 6720. The numbers are identical in Neh. vii. 68. In 1 Esdr. v. 42 the camels are the first named, and the numbers are partially different, viz., horses, 7036, and asses, 5525. Vers. 68-70. Contributions towards the rebuilding of the temple, and concluding remarks. Comp. Neh. vii. 70-73. — Some of the- heads of houses, when they came to the house of Jahve, i.e. arrived at the site of the temple, brought free-will offerings (3"n3nn ; comp. 1 Chron. xxix. 5) to set it up in its place ("'''pyL'j to set up, i.e. to rebuild ; identical in meaning both here and ix. 9 with Q^ipnj. After their ability (Dni33 ; comp. 1 Chron. xxix. 2) they gave unto the treasure of the work, i.e. of restoring the temple and its services, 48 THE BOOK OF EZRA. 61,000 claries of gold = £68,625, and 5000 mina of silver, above £30,000, and 100 priests' garments. The account of these contributions is more accurately given in Neh. vii. 70-72, according to which some of the heads of houses gave unto the work (J^Vi?*? ^s Dan. i. 2 and elsewhere) ; the Tirshatha gave to the treasure 1000 darics of gold, 50 sacrificial vessels (see on Ex. xxvii. 3), 30 priests' gar- ments, and 500 . . . This last statement is defective; for the two numbers 30 and 500 must not be combined into 530, as in this case the hundreds would have stood first. The objects enumerated were named before 500, and are omitted through a clerical error, D''?^ ^IMl., " and silver (500) mina." And some of the heads of houses (others than the Tirshatha) gave of gold 20,000 darics, of silver, 2200 mina ; and that which the rest of the people gave was — gold, 20,000 darics, silver, 2000 mina, and 67 priests' garments. According to this statement, the Tirshatha, the heads of houses, and the rest of the people, gave together 41,000 darics in gold, 4200 mina in silver, 97 priests' gar- ments, and 30 golden vessels. In Ezra the vessels are omitted ; and instead of the 30 + 67 = 97 priests' garments, they are stated in round numbers to have been 100. The two other differences have arisen from textual errors. In- stead of 61,000 darics, it is evident that we must read with Nehemiah, 41,000 (1000 + 20,000+20,000) ; and in addition to the 2200 and 2000 mina, reckon, according to Neh. vii. 70, 500 more, in all 4700, for which in the text of Ezra we have the round sum of 5000. The account of the return of the first band of exiles concludes at ver. 70, and the narrative proceeds to the subsequent final statement: " So the priests, etc. . . . dwelt in their cities." DVn p\ those of the people, are the men of the people of Israel of ver. 2, the laity as distinguished from the priests, Levites, etc. In Nehemiah the words are transposed, so that oyn p stand after the Levitical door-keepers and singers. Bertheau thinks this position more appropriate ; but we cannot but judge otherwise. The placing of the people, i.e. the laity of Israel, between the consecrated servants of the temple (the CHAP. III. 1-7. 49 priests and their Levitical assistants in the sacrificial service) and the singers and door-keepers, seems to us quite consistent; while, on the other hand, the naming of the D^nyi^^ before the O'^Tib'O in Nehemiah seems inappropriate, because the performance of the choral service of the temple was a higher office than the guardianship of the doors. Neither can we regard Bertheau's view, that Dnnya^ which in the present verse follows D'^yrianij should be erased, as a correct one. The word forms a perfectly appropriate close to the sentence beginning with IS'f'l ; and the sentence following, " And all Israel were in their cities," forms a well-rounded close to the account ; while, on the contrary, the summing up of tlie different divisions by the words ^N"ib'''"i'3 in Nehemiah, after the enumeration of those divisions, has a rather heavy effect.^ CHAP. III. — THE ALTAR OF BURNT-OFFERING ERECTED, THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES CELEBRATED, AND THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE TEMPLE LAID. On the approach of the seventh month, the people assem- bled in Jerusalem to restore the altar of burnt-offering and the sacrificial worship, and to keep the feast of tabernacles (vers. 1-7) ; and in the second month of the following year the foundations of the new temple were laid with due solemnity (vers. 8-13). Comp. 1 Esdr. v. 46-62. Vers. 1-7. The building of the altar, the restoration of the daily sacrifice, and the celebration of the feast of tabernacles. — Ver. 1. When the seventh month was come, and tlie chil- dren of Israel were in the cities, the people gathered them- selves together as one man to Jerusalem. The year is not stated, but the year in which they returned from Babylon is intended, as appears from ver. 8, which tells us that the ^ In 1 Esdr. v. 46, this verse, freely carrying out the texts of Ezra and Nehemiah, with regard also to Neh. xii. 27-30, runs thus : " And so dwelt the priests, and the Levites, and the people, in Jerusalem and in the country, the singers also and the porters, and all Israel iu their villases." 50 THE BOOK OF EZRA. foundations of the temple were laid in the second month of the second year of their return. The words, " and the children of Israel were in the cities," are a circumstantial clause referring to ii. 70, and serving to elucidate what follows. From the cities, in which each had settled in his own (ii. 1), the people came to Jerusalem as one man, i.e. not entirely (Bertheau), but unanimously (^o/xodv/iaSov, 1 Esdr. V. 46) ; comp. Neh. viii. 1, Judg. xx. 1.^ — Ver. 2. Then the two leaders of the people, Joshua the high priest and Zerubbabel the prince (see on ii. 2), with their brethren, i.e. the priests and the men of Israel (the laity), arose and built the altar, to oifer upon it burnt-offerings, as prescribed by the law of Moses, i.e. to restore the legal sacrifices. According to ver. 6, the offering of burnt-offerings began on the first day of the seventh month ; hence the altar was by this day already completed. This agrees with the state- ment, "When the seventh month approached" (ver. 1), therefore before the first day of this month. — Ver. 3. They reared the altar inji3n"by, upon its (former) place ; not, upon its bases. The feminine nii3D has here a like signifi- cation with the masculine form f^^'O, ii. 68, and ™^3D, Zech. V. 11. The Keri inJi^o is an incorrect revision. " For fear was upon them, because of the people of those countries." The ? prefixed to n^''X is the so-called 3 esseii- tice, expressing the being in a condition ; properly, a being in fear had come or lay upon them. Comp. on 2 essentice, Ewald, § 217,/, and 299, b, though in § 295, /, he seeks to interpret this passage differently. The " people of those countries" are the people dwelling in the neighbourhood of the new community ; comp. ix. 1, x. 2. The notion is : They erected the altar and restored the worship of Jahve, for the purpose of securing the divine protection, because fear of the surrounding heathen population had fallen upon them. J. H. Mich, had already a correct notion of the verse when ^ The more precise statement of 1 Esdr. v. 46, tl; to tvpvx,apov toD •Trpurov TTvXuvo; tov 'nrpo; tyi dvciroT^y,, according to wliicli Bertbcau insists upon correcting the text of Ezra, is an arbitrary addition on the part of the author of this apocryphal book, and derived from Neh. viii, 1. CHAP. III. 1-7. 51 he wrote : ut ita pencidi metiis eos ad Dei opem qxmrendam impiderit} Comp. the similar case in 2 Kings xvii. 25 sq., when the heathen colonists settled in the deserted cities of Samaria entreated the king of Assyria to send them a priest to teach them the manner of worshipping the God of the land, that thus they might be protected from the lions wliich infested it. The Chethiv bv'i must be taken impersonally : "one (they) offered;" but is perhaps only an error of transcrip- tion, and should be read w'l. On the morning and evening sacrifices, see on Ex. xxviii. 38 sq.. Num. xxviii. 3 sq. — Ver. 4. They kept the feast of tabernacles as prescribed in the law, Lev. xxiii. 34 sq. " The burnt-offering day by day, according to number," means the burnt-offerings commanded for the several days of this festival, viz. on the first day thirteen oxen, on the second twelve, etc. ; comp. Num. xxix. 13-34, where the words I3S^^b3 D"3SD»|, vers. 18, 21, 24, etc., occur, which are written in our present verse '03 "iSp03, by number, i.e. counted ; comp. 1 Chron. 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). niVy must be inserted from the context before '^''^'in^ to complete the sense. " And for every one that willingly offered a free-will offering to the Lord." n3"i3 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 * Bertheau, on tbe 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. }i''K'"]3, according to the grant of Cyrus to them, 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. PY"! 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. He7ice it tvas not from the first day of the seventh month, but siilsequently 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 test, but their opposite. In ver. 2, not thank-offerings (DTl^T or D''D^^), but burnt-offerings (ni>J?), 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. air. \ey. ; in Cliaklee and rabbinical Hebrew, Nun and ^tp mean facidtatem habere; and 115^ 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 fhe oversight of the work (the building) of the house of the LoED. 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 Theo- iMl. Antioch. ad Autolic. 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 month, 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. l*T''?i!^ . . . ^^nn^ 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 EZRA. 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 1bi!|;l 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 rr\^r\\^ ^;2 is a clerical error for n^nin (or nnin) -"ja. 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. ''C'^?, 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, whei'e indeed this class is named immediately after the two first, but nnm^ ^p3 is separated from what pre- cedes; and of these min"' ""Jn is made a fourth class, viol ^IcoSd 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 in?f3 after min'' ""Ja 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 ni'ljin 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 Plenadad, but also to the two first classes, 'on nb'y is plural, and only an unusual reading for "'ifV ; 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. ^"^^W followed by an imperf. con- nected by a Vav consecutive, must be construed : When they laid the foundations, then. U'p^b^^ clothed, sc. in their robes of office; comp. 2 Chron. v. i2, xx. 21. ''y. bv as 1 Chron. XXV. 2. On ver. 11, comp. remarks on 1 Chron. xvi. 34, 41, 2 Chron. v. 13, vii. 3, and elsewhere. Older expositors (Clericus, J. H. Mich.), referring to Ex. xv. 21, understand P^nn ^3i;>1 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 13^ 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. "^^il^ ni'nn is repeated in ver. 13 by nnJDb'n njrnn. Ipin bv, on account of the founding, 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 B.C. 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. i1D^3 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 HD*, foundation, occur further on ; but even the following words, " of this house before their eyes," if severed from i'^P^f, have no meaning. Hence (with Aben Ezra, Cler., Berth., and others) we connect i^ip^? with the parenthetical sentence following, '' when the foundation of this house was laid before their eyes ;" and then the suffix of the infinitive iip^ 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. Evv. § 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 loud 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. ">"?'}, 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. pin^jD^ ny as 2 Chron. xxvi. 15. CHAP. IV. 1-5. 57 CHAP. IV. HINDRANCES TO BUILDING THE TEMPLE. ACCUSATIONS AGAINST THE JEWS CONCERNING THE BUILDING OF THE WALLS OF JERUSALEM. Vers. 1-5. The adversaries of the Jews prevent the build- ing of the temple till the reign of Darius (vers. 1, 2). When the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the com- munity Avhich 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 verse 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, nbijn '•pn, sons of the captivity (vi. 19, etc., viii. 35, x. 7, 16), also shortly into npiUHj 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 ^^■^2f iJnJX N?"i are variously explained. Older expositors take the Chethiv N-'l. as a negative, and make D'n3t to mean the offering of sacrifices to idols, both because 58 THE BOOK OF EZRA. i6 is a negative, and also because the assertion that they had sacrificed to Jahve would not have pleased the Jews, quia dejiciente templo non dehuerint sacrijicare; 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 n3T, 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 ih as an unusual form of i?, occurring in several places (see on Ex. xxi. 8), the latter being also substituted in the present instance as Keri. The position also of i^ before ^^HiX points the same way, for the negative would certainly have stood with the verb. On Esarhaddon, see remarks on 2 Kings xix. 37 and Isa. xxxvii. 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." *ini 'iJniX, 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-lsraelitesj 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. G, 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 ^lanasseh, 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 EZRA. 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 ordinances, 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 w-as 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 The opinion of 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), but the priests sent by the Assyrian king to Samaria (2 Kings xvii. 27), has been rejected as utterly unfounded by CHAP. IV. 1-3. 61 rulers of Judah could not, without unfaithfulness to the Lord their God, permit a participation in the building of the Lord's liouse. 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. P'?\! ^J?, 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, ""n^.!! 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. nn^in^ 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 D^n.^^D, the Keri offers D^S:i?9, from hr\2j Piel, to terrify, to alarm, 2 Chron. xxxii. 18, Job xxi. 6, because the verb rhl nowhere else occurs ; but the noun •^'7??) fear, being not uncommon, and presupposing the existence of a verb rh^^ 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). C'l^DT still depends on the "'H'l of ver, 4. 1?D is a later ortho- graphy of 13b', to hire, to bribe. Whether by the hiring of U'^'ilVV 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 tlie same time demonstrates, against Fritzsche on 1 Esdr. V. C5, the identity of the unnamed king of Assyria (2 Kings xvii. 24) with Esarhaddon. 62 THE BOOK OF EZRA. 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 reio-n). Vers. 6-23. Complaints against the Jews to Kings Ahash- 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 rein-n of Ahashverosh, in the beginning of his reign, they wrote an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusa- lem. >^^^'^, not to mention the name of the well. Gen. xxvi. 21, occurs here only, and means, according to its derivation from lOK'j to bear enmity, the enmity ; hence here, the accu- sation. '2^' bv belongs to njtib', not to ^3313 ; 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 njDJi*. The letter to Artach- shasta then follows, 7-16. In his days, i.e. during his reio-n, wrote Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of their companions. ini33, for which the Keri offers the ordinary form I'^'iJa, occurs only here in the Hebrew sections, but more frequently in the Chaldee (comp. iv. 9, 17, 23, v. 3, and elsewhere), in the sense of companions or fellow-citizens; according to Geser.ius, it means those who bear the same surname (Kunje) together with another, though Ewald is of a different opinion ; see § 117, b, note. The singular would be written ri33 (Ewald, § 187, d). And the writing of the letter was written in Aramaean (i.e. with Arama3an cha- racters), and interpreted in (i.e. translated into) Aramaean. ]]mp is of Aryan origin, and connected with the modern Persian ^J^y macishten, to write together ; it signifies in Hebrew and Chaldee a letter ; comp. ver. 18, where ^^J^L'O CHAP. IV. 6-23. 63 1*3 used for N^^JJ? of ver. 11. Bertheau translates 3ri3 n^pV" -^j copy of t^^^ letter, and regards it as quite identical with the Chaklee NJ^TJSN' I^.'f"]?, ver. 11 ; he can hardly, how- ever, be in the right. 3ri3 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 3n3, the copy or writing, but ij^'f'sn, the letter, that is the subject of n"'Onx Onnp, interpreted in Ara- msean. This was translated into the 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 axamcea scripta erat ; in saying which DJnn does not receive the meaning concepit, expressit, but retains its own signification, to interpret, to translate into another langunge. The wTiters of the letter were Samari- tans, who, having sprung 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 Aramjsan, which was sppken at the Babylonian court, and was the official lan- guage of the Persian kings and the Persian authorities in Western Asia. This Aramagan tongue had also its own characters, differing from those of the Hebrew and Samari- tan. This is stated by the words n^p-ix n^na, whence Ber- theau erroneously infers that this Aramaean writing was written in other than the ordinary Aramaean, and perhaps in Hebrew characters. This letter, too, of Bishlam 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 Rehum and Shimshai (ver. 8). 64 THE BOOK OF EZRA. When we consider, however, that the writers named in ver. 8 were high officials 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 nitpi^; 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 Aramasan composition of this letter would have been utterly purpose- less if the Aramsean 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 Aramffian. This conjecture becomes a certainty through the fact that the Aram^an letter follows in ver. 8 without a copula of any kind. If any other had been intended, the i copulative would no more have been omitted here than in ver. 7. The letter itself, indeed, does not begin till ver. 9, 1 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 Aramsean 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" (Ew.), 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 1 adversative, or some other adversative particle. CHAP IV. 8-16. 65 wliile 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 Aram£Ban 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. Rehum is called DVp ?V2^ dominiis consilii v. decreti, by others consiliarius, royal coun- sellor, probably the title of the Persian civil governor (erro- neously taken for a proper name in LXX., Syr., Arab.) ; Shimshai, ^"J^p, the Hebrew "i^iDj scribe, secretary. i<^33 is interpreted by Rashi and Aben Ezra by "10.^53 "iti'SS, as we shall say ; ^^p?. is in the Talmud frequently an abbrevia- tion of "i^S3 or 1'?''^, of like signification with "ibx? : 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 ^TV^. The sentence ought properly to run thus: "Then {i.e. in the days of Artachshasta) Rehum, 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, 66 THE BOOK OF EZRA. LXX. Aeivaloi, — so named, accordinrr to the conjecture of Ewald (Gesch. iii. p. 676), from the Median city long after- wards called Deinaver (Abulf. Geogr. ed. Paris, p. 414) ; the Apharsathcliites, probably the Pharathiakites of Strabo (xv. 3. 12) {nap7]raKT]voi, 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 TaTrovpoi dwelling east of Elymais (Ptol. vi. 2. 6) ; the Apharsites, probably the Persians (S"'D1D with k prosthetic) ; the Ar- chevites, probably so called from the city "^1^55, Gen. x. 10, upon inscriptions Uruk, the modern Warka ; the ^^ vD?, IJabylonians, inhabitants of Babylon ; the Shushanchltes, i.e. the Susanites, inhabitants of the city of Susa ; ^<.1^•^^ in the Iveri ^."'.'1''^, the Dehavites, the Grecians (Adoc, 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 Osnappt'r 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. 'Aaaeva(})dp) and Asar- haddon (LXX. 'AaapaBuu) 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 circumstance 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 2, must be supplied from the preceding |\^7'?? CHAP. IV. 8-15. 67 before H^nj "131? iSfJ': and in tlie rest of the territory, or in the cities of the i*est of the territory, on this side of Euphrates, i^y, 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 tliose west of Euphrates, npysi 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 *^v??, Babylonians ; while the people of Hamatii and Sepharvaim may fitly be included among "the rest of the nations," since certainly but few colonists would liave 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 (J^l^} "^^V.)- All 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. ^•r'"!?} vers. 11, 23, ch. v. 6, vii. 11, and frequently in the Targums and the Syriac, written P'^na Esth. iii. 14 and iv. 8, is derived from the Zendisli ■l>aiti (Sar.scr. praii) and genghana (in Old-Persian ihanhana), and signifies properly a counterword, i.e. counterpart, cop)'. The form with n is either a corruption, or formed from a compound with fra ; comp. Gildeineister in the Zeitschr. fur die Kande des Morgenl. iv. p. 210, and Haug in Ewald's 68 THE BOOK OF EZRA. Uhl Jahrh. ^^ p. 163, etc. — The copy of the letter begins with T"??V, thy servants, the men, etc. The Chethib ■i]"'n3y is the original form, shortened in the Keri into ^'^3V. Both forms occur elsewhere; comp. Dan. ii. 29, iii. 12, and other passages. The n:y3l, 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 t^.in? for ^^1^";J peculiar to biblical Chaldee, 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?? answers to the Hebrew ^^V, and is used like this of the journey to Jeru- salem. " Are come to us, to Jerusalem." ^^VV.^ to us, tiiat 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 ^^1^9 (with Kamets and Metheg under l) the edition of J. H. Mich, has ^^l']^, answering to the stat. ahs. ^"J^^j ^'^^'' -^^j ^'^ *^'® other hand, the edition of Norzi and several codices read ^^l"}'?, the feminine of niiO. For «^l::'■1^^n Norzi has ^^i^f i<3, from K'^i<3, a contraction of C'"'^?3. For ^^^3tr'x "'"I'lK^ must be read, accord- ing to the Keri, ^^b^ '^'^^'^. The Shaphel ^5?3"^, from ^b, means to complete, to finish. pt^X^ bases, foundations. 1t3''nj may be the imperf. Aphel of nin, formed after the example of D^ip;; for H"'!?^., omitting the reduplication, t2''nj. tain means to sew, to sew together, and may, like t THE BOOK OF EZRA. a decision from King Darius, to wliom he adJressecl a writ- ten report of the matter (3-17). Vers. 1 and 2. " The prophets, Hnggai the prophet, and Zechariah the son of Iddo, prophesied to the Jews in Judah and Jerusalem, in the name of the God of Israel upon them." ''S^nn without N, which this word occasionally loses in Hebrew also, comp. 1 Sam. x. 6, 13, Jer. xxvi. 9. The epithet nx>33 added to the name of Haggai serves to distinguish him from others of the same name, and as well as ^'^srij Hagg. i. 1 , 3, 12, and elsewhere, is used instead of the name of his father; hence, after Zechariah is named, the prophets, as designating the position of both, can follow. N'''iin]-/yj they prophesied to (not against) the Jews ; ?V as in Ezek. xxxvii. 4, = -'X, 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, pn^y belongs to npx Dl^'3, 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 buikl 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 first 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 tlie building was recommenced, the governor on this side Euphrates, and other roj'al officials, evidently informed of the undertaking by the adversaries of tlie Jews, made their appearance for the purpose of investi- gating matters on the spot. P^vy nnx, came to them, to the two above-named rulers of the community at Jerusalem. Tatnai (LXX. GavOavat) was nns^ viceroy, in the provinces west of Euphrates, i.e., as correctly expanded in 1 Esdras, of Syria and Phoenicia, to which Judasa with its Feclia 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 S32p here and ver. 13 is remarkable, the infinitive in Chaldee being not XJ3, but W30; compare vers. 2, 17, and vi. 8. Norzi has both times N\J3?, as though the Dagesh forte were compensating for an omitted D- ^^l?^^;', which occurs only here and ver. 9, is variously explained. The Vulgate, the Syriac, and also the Rabbins, 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 1?:*'X, but rather from X^'^, in Chaldee (Vki'X, firm, strong — walls as the strength or firm- ness of the building. The form NJ'iU^'X has arisen from N3'^*X, and is analogous to the form njc'a ' — Ver. 4. Then told we them after this manner (XpJ3, iv. 8), what were the names of the men who were building this building. From ^^"i^^l^ tve said, it is obvious that the author of this account was au eye-witness of, and sharer in, the work of building. There is not a shadow of reason for altering ^, sig- nifies to go to a place (comp. vii. 13), or to come to a per- son. NO^p (DVD) does not here mean commandment, but the matter, causa, which the king is to decide ; just as DJns. vi. 11, means thing, res. The clause I'l^'^ri'! n^^.). still depends upon IV: and till they (the royal officials) then receive a letter, i.e. obtain a decision. In vers. G-17 follows the letter which the royal officials sent to the king. Vers. 6 and 7a form the introduction to this document, and correspond with vers. 8-11 in chap. iv. Copy of the letter (comp. iv. 11) which Tatnai, etc., sent. CHAr. V. 6-17. 79 The senders of the letter are, besides Tatnai, Slietlinr- Buznai and his companions the Apharsachites, the same called iv. 9 the Apharsathchites, who perhaps, as a race specially devoted to the Persian king, took a prominent position among the settlers in Syria, and may have formed the royal garrison. After this general announcement of the letter, follows the more precise statement : They sent the matter to him ; and in it was written, To King Darius, much peace. 03^3 here is not command, but matter ; see above, xpb, its totality, is unconnected with, yet dependent on X»7y' : peace in all things, in every respect. The letter itself begins with a simple representation of the state of affairs (ver. 8): "We went into the province of Judaea, to the house of the great God (for so might Persian officials speak of the God of Israel, after what they had learned from the elders of Judah of the edict of Cyrus), and it is being built with freestone, and timber is laid in the walls; and this work is being diligently carried on, and is prosper- ing under their hands." The placing of wood in the walls refers to building beams into the wall for flooring ; for the building was not so far advanced as to make it possible that this should be said of covering the walls with wainscot- ing. The word N^^Qipx here, and vi. 8, 12, 13, vii. 17, 21, 26, is of Aryan origin, and is explained by Haug in Ew. Janro. v. p. 154, from the Old-Persian us-parna, to mean : carefully or exactly finished, — a meaning which suits all these passages. — Ver. 9. Hereupon the royal officials asked the elders of the Jews who had commanded them to build, and inquired concerning their names, that they might write to the king the names of the leading men (see the remark on 3 and 41). DhK'X'J^ ''"i does not mean, who are at the head of them : but, who act in the capacity of heads. — Ver. 11. The answer of the elders of the Jews. They returned us answer in the following manner (npi07=nbS7): "We are His, the servants of the God of heaven and earth, and build the house which was built many years ago ; and a great king of Israel built and completed it." njT noniJOj of before this, i.e. before the present ; to which is added the more precise de- ^0 THE BOOK OF EZRA. finltion: many years (accusative of time), i.e. many years before tlie present time. — Ver. 12. For this reason (in?), because C'^'I? = "i?-'^'?? ^-g- Isa. xliii. 4) our fathers pro- vok-ed the God of heaven, He gave them into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, the Chaldean, and he (Nebuch.) destroyed this house, and carried the people away into Babylon. For ^5^"^!^^ the Keri requires •^^^"^9?, the ordinary form of the absolute state of the noun in ai. "lOD, Pael, in the sense of destroy, appears only here in biblical Chaldee, but more frequently in the Targums. nsy, its jieople, would refer to the town of Jerusalem ; but Norzi and .[. H. Mich, have nny, and the Masora expressly says that the word is to be written without Mappik, and is therefore the Stat, empliat. for ^W. — Vers. 13, 14. In the first year, however, of Cyrus king of Babylon, King Cyrus made a decree, etc. ; comp. i. 3. The infin. ^p/, like ver. 3. — On vers. 14 and 15, comp. i. 7-11. ^^'O'l, praeter. pass, of Peal : they were given to one Sheshbazzar (is) In's name, i.e. to one of the name of Sheshbazzar, whom he had made pechah. Zerubbabel is also called nriQ, Hagg. i. 1, 14, and elsewhere. — Ver. 15. Take these vessels, go forth, place them in the temple. For ^?^< the Keri reads ?X, according to 1 Chron. xx. 8. nnt^ is imperat. Aphel of rinj. The three imperatives succeed each other without any copula in this rapid form of expression. The last sen- tence, " and let the house of God be built in its place,"' j.e. be rebuilt in its former place, gives the reason for the com- mand to deposit the vessels in the temple at Jerusalem, i.e. in the house of God, which is to be rebuilt in its former place. — Ver. 16. In virtue of this command of Cyrus, this Sheshbazzar came (from Babylon to Jerusalem), and laid then the foundations of the house of God, and from that time till now it has been building, and is not (yet) finished. D'^B', part. pass, of o}V^ often used in the Targums and in Syriac for the Hebrew D^ri ; hence in Dan. v. 2G the Aphel, in the meaning of to finish, and Ezek. vii. 19, to restore. This statement does not exclude the cessation from build- ing from the last year of C} rus to the second of Darius, CHAP. VI. 1-5. 81 narrated Iv. to v. 24, as Bertlieau and others suppose, but only leaves the unmentioned circumstance which had been the cause of the delay. If the section iv. 6-23 does not refer to the building of the temple, then neither is a "forcible inter- ruption " of the building spoken of in chap. iv. ; but it is only said that the adversaries frustrated the purpose of the Jews to rebuild the temple till the time of Darius, and weakened the hands of the people, so that the work of the house of God ceased. — Ver. 17. After thus representing the state of affairs, the royal officials request Darius to cause a search to be made among the archives of the kingdom, as to whether a decree made by Cyrus for the erection of the temple at Jerusalem was to be found therein, and then to commu- nicate to them his decision concerning the matter. "And if it seem good to the king, let search be made in the king's treasure-house there at Babylon, whether it be so, that a decree was made of Cyrus the king." ?V 3^ \[}, like the Hebrew ^V 2)D DS, Esth. i. 19, for which in older Hebrew Sb nin, Deut. xxiii. 17, or n]yV2 nitD, Gen. xix. 8, Judg. x. 15, and elsewhere, is used, i^^l^i H'^zi, house of the treasure, more definitely called, vi. 1, house of the rolls, where also the royal treasures were deposited. Hence it is obvious that important documents and writings were preserved in the royal treasury, nj^n^ there, is explained by " which at Babylon." n^Vl, chald. voluntas, comp. vii. 18. Concerning the behaviour of these officials Brentius well remarks : vides differentiam inter calumniatores et honos etc prohos viros. Una eademque causa erat wdijicii templi, unus idemque popu- lus Judceorum ; attamen hujus jyopuli causa aliter refevtur ah impyiis calumniatoribiis, aliter a bonis viris. CHAP. VI, — THE ROYAL DECREE, THE COMPLETIO^T AND DEDICATION OF THE TEMPLE, AND THE FEAST OF THE PASSOVER. Vers. 1-12. The decision of Darius. — Vers. 1-5. At the command of Darius, search was made in the archives of the F 83 THE BOOK OF EZRA. ruval trensnry ; and in the fortress of Achmetha in Media, was found the roll in whicli was recorded the edict published by Cyrus, concerning the building of the temple at Jeru- salem. — Ver. 1. Search was made in the house of the books where also the treasures were deposited in Babylon, rnni^^j partic. Aphel of nm ; see v. 15. — Ver. 2. " And there was found at Achmetha, in the fortress that is in the land of Media, a roll ; and thus was it recorded therein," In Babylon itself the document sought for was not found ; though, probably, the search there made, led to the discovery of a statement that documents pertaining to the time of Cyrus were pre- served in the fortress of Achmetha, where the record in question was subsequently discovered, ^^^p^^*, the capital of Great J^Iedia — to. 'EK/3dTava, Judith i. 1, 14, or 'Ay^aTuva (Herod, i. 98) — built by Dejokes, was the summer residence of the Persian and Parthian kings, and situate in the neigh- bourhood of the modern Hamadan. Achmetha is pi'obably the Old-^Iedian or Old-Persian pronunciation of the name, the letters DHS on Sassanidian coins being explained as denot- ing this city (Mordtmann in the Zeitschrift der deutsch morgenl. Gesellschaft, viii. p. 14). The citadel of Ecbatana probably contained also the royal palace and the official buildings. For ri|;iJ2 is found in some MSS. and editions i^JJS ; but Norzi and J. H. Mich, have Pathacli under "i as the better au- thorized reading. ^J^i^'l, stat. emph. of P?"^., memorandum, uTTo/xvqfjia, a record of anything memorable. The contents of this document follow, vers. 3-5. First, the proclamation of King Cyrus in the first year of his reign : '' The house of God at Jerusalem, let this house be built as a place where sacrifices are offered." The meaning of the woixls following is doubtful. We translate iV^iD?? N'lil^t^l. : and let them raise up its foundations, i.e. its foundations are to be again raised U|), restored. p'^'5<, foundations (iv. 12) ; pp^iDO, part. Poel of 7?9, to carry, to raise (not to be raised). ??D often stands for the Hebrew t^'fj, to carry, to raise up, to erect ; compare the Samaritan translation of Gen. xiii. 10: pjy ^l^< ^5301, he lifted up his eyes. P*^'^ ''?^D is analogous with 'T ""^pi^ "^^^P, La. Iviii. 12, and signifies to erect buildings upon the foun- CHAP. VI. 1-5. 83 dations.^ Expositors are divided as to the dimensions of the new temple, " its height 60 cubits, and its breadth 60 cubits," which are so given also in LXX., Esdr. gi'., and Joseph. Antiq. xi. 4. 6; while Solomon's temple was but 30 cubits liigh, and, without the side-buildings, only 20 cubits broad. We nevertheless consider the statements correct, and the text incorrupt, and explain the absence of the measure of length simply by the fact that, as far as length was concerned, the old and new temples were of equal dimensions. Solomon's temple, measured externally, inclusive of the porch and the additional building at the hinder part, was about 100 cubits long (see the ground plan in my hihl. Archaeol. Table II. fig. 1). To correspond with this length, the new temple was, according to the desire of Cyrus, to be both higher and broader, viz. 60 cubits high, and as many wide, — measure- ments which certainly apply to external dimensions. Zerub- babel's temple, concerning the structure of which we have no further particulars, was externally of this height and breadth. This may be inferred from the speech of King Herod in Joseph. Ant. xv. 11. 1, in which this tyrant, who desired to be famous for the magnificence of his build- ings, endeavoured to gain the favour of the people for the rebuilding of the temple, which he was contemplating, by the remark that the temple built by their forefathers, on their return froan the Babylonian captivity, was 60 cubits too low, — Solomon's temple having been double that height (sc, according to the height given in 2 Chron. iii. 4, 120 cubits), — and from the fact that Herod made his temple 100 or 120 cubits high. Hence the temple of Zerubbabel, measured externally, must have been 60 cubits high ; and consequently we need not diminish the breadth of 60 cubits, ^ The Vulgate, following a rabbinical explanation, has poiumt fmi- damenta snpportanlia^ which is here unsuitable. The conjecture of Bertheau, who labours, by all sorts of critical combinations of the letters in the words p^aiDO TlitJ'KI to produce the text p:on HSD T^^^ ""HICX^ " its foundation length 180 cubits," is as needless as it is mistaken. The interpretation of the words in the LXX., kuI U/iKiu ?9r«o,M«, and Pseudo-Ezra vi., lici Tzvpos Ivli'hv^ovi, are nothing else than unmeaning suppositious. 84 THE BOOK OF EZRA. also given In this verse, by alterations of the text, because Herod's temple was likewise of this width, but must under- stand the given dimensions to relate to external height and breadth. For in Herod's temple the holy places were but GO cubits high and 20 wide ; the holy place, 40 cubits long, 20 wide, and GO high ; the holy of holies, 20 cubits long, 20 wide, and GO high. And we may assume that the di- mensions of Zerubbabel's temple preserved the same pro- portions, with perhaps the modification, that the internal height did not amount to 60 cubits, — an upper storey being placed above the holy place and the holy of holies, as in Herod's temple ; which would make the internal height of these places amount to only about 30 or 40 cubits.^ In like manner must the 60 cubits of breadth be so divided, that the 5 cubits internal breadth of the side-buildings of Solomon's temple must be enlarged to 10, which, allowing 5 cubits of thickness for the walls, would make the entire building GO cubits wide (5 + 10 + 5 + 20 + 5 + 10 + 5).^ The statement in ver. 4, "three layers of great stones, and a layer of new timber," is obscure. ^3*]3 means row, layer, and stands in the Targums for the Hebrew iltO, " used of a layer of briclis;" see Gesen. Thes. p. 311, and Levy, cliald. ^ While "we acknowledge it possible that the holy and most holy places, measured within, may have been only 40 cubits high, we cannot admit the objection of H. Merz, in Herzog's Reakncycl. xv. p. 613, that 20 cubits of internal breadth is an inconceivable proportion to 60 cubits, this being the actual proportion in Herod's temple, as Merz himself states, p. 51G, without finding it in this instance "inconceivable." 2 The conjecture of Merz in his above-cited article, and of Bertheau, that the dimensions of Zerubbabel's temple were double those of Solomon's, — viz. tlie holy and most holy places 40 cubits liigh and 40 wide, the upper chambers 20 cubits high, the side-chambers each 10 cubits high, and the whole building 120 cubits long, — must be rejected as erroneous, by the consideration that Herod's temple was only the length of Solomon's, viz. 100 cubits, of which the holy of holies took up 20, the holy place 40, the porch 10, the additional building behind 10, and the four walls 20. For Herod would by no means have diminished the length of his build- ing 20, or properly 40 cubits. We also see, from the above-named dimensions, that the CO cubits broad cannot be understood of internal breadth. CHAP. VI. 12. 85 WorterhiicJi, il. p. 93. ?^3 I^NI, stone of rolling, one that is rolled and cannot be carried, i.e. a great building stone. ri*in, novits, as an epithet to V^, is remarkable, it being self- evident that new wood is generally used for a new building. The LXX. translates eh, reading the word nin (ver. o). This statement involuntarily recalls the notice, 1 Kings vi. 36, that Solomon built the inner court, ^itSI n'U ^"i^D nc'^a' D'^PN nhi| ; hence Merz expresses the supposition that " this is certainly a fragment, forming the conclusion of the whole design of the building, which, like that in 1 Kings vi. 3(3, ends with the porch and the walls of the fore-court." Tlius mucli only is certain, that the words are not to be under- stood, as by Fritzsche on 1 Esdr. vi. 25, as stating that the temple walls were built of " three layers of large stones, upon which was one layer of beams," and therefore were not massive ; such kind of building never being practised in the East in old times. "And let the expenses be given out of the king's house." This is more precisely stated iu ver. 8 of the royal revenues on this side the river. ^i^??, the expense (from p33, Aphel, to expend), therefore tlie cost of building. — Ver. 5. " And also let the vessels ... be restored, and brought again to the temple at Jerusalem, to their place, and (thou) shalt place them in the house of God." On the matter of this verse, comp. i. 7 and v. 14. The sing, ^n^ (comp. v. 5) is distributive : it (each vessel) to its place. nnni (comp. nnx v. 15) cannot, according to the sense, be third pers. fem. (neutr.), but only second pers. imperf. Aphel : thou shalt place. None but Sheshbazzar can be addressed (v. 15), though he is not named in ver. 3. The historian is evidently not giving the contents of the document word for word, but only its essential matter ; hence he infers the address to Sheshbazzar from the answer of the Jewish elders (v. 15). Perhaps it was also remarked in the document, that Coresh caused the sacred vessels to be de- livered to Sheshbazzar (i. 8). Vers. 6-12. Acting upon the discovered edict, Darius warned the governor and royal officials on this side the Euphrates, not to hinder the building of the house of God 86 THE BOOK OF EZRA. at Jerusalem. On the contrary, they were to promote it by furnishing what was necessary for the work, and paying the expenses of the buikling out of the royal revenues to the elders of the Jews (vers. 6-8). They were also to provide for the worship of God in this temple such animals as the priests should require for sacrifice (vers. 9, 10), under pain of severe punishment for transgressing this com.mand as also for any injury done to the temple (vers. 11, 12). This decree was undoubtedly communicated to the governor in the form of a written answer to his inquiries (ver. 13). Without, liowever, expressly stating this to be the case, as ver. 1 and iv. 17 would lead us to expect, the historian gives us in ver. 6 sq. the actual contents of the royal edict, and that in the form of a direct injunction to the governor and his associates on this side the river : " Now Tatnai, governor, ... be ye far from thence." The suffix P'lJ?,^^?'!^ and tlieir associates, is indeed unsuitable to the form of an address, of which Tatnai and Shethar-Boznai are the subjects; the narrator, however, in using it, had in mind the title or introduction of the royal letter. On its matter, comp. v. 6. pni and P"'n"|, to be far from, figuratively to keep from anything, e.g. from good, Ps. liii. 2. n?3ri"|0, from thence, from Jerusalem; in other words, trouble yourselves no longer, as, according to v. 3, you have done about what is being done thei'e. — Ver. 7. "Let the work of the house of God alone." \>yy with an accu- sative, to leave anything, to let it go on without hindrance. " Let the Pechah of the Jews (Sheshbazzar, Zerubbabel) and the elders of the Jews build this house of God in its place." The ? to "'3b'7 introduces a second subject with special em- phasis : And as far as regards the elders of the Jews, i.e. the Pechah, and especially the elders. — Ver. 8. "And a decree is (hereby) made by me, what ye shall do to these elders of the Jews, i.e. how you shall behave towards them (DV I^V = Dy nb'y. Gen. xxiv. 12 sq.), to build this house, i.e. that this house may be built : namely, (l expl.) of the royal moneys, of the custom (H-no, 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." vh^lh N'?""''n, 87 that tliere 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 by ne impedlatur 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. fern, of the partic. I^p'O, and is defined by the enumeration which follows. n^O^ pro])erly the anoint- ing, then oil as the means of anointing. On ^)Jp. and i\\|^, see remarks on iv. 12. w ^"^^ 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." PO^'^^? (comp. Dan. ii. 46) are sacrifices agree- able to God, nin^3 nn (Lev. i. 9, 13, and elsewhere), i.e. sacrifices pleasing to God. Cyrus had commanded the re- building of the tejuple 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 migUt rest upon himself and his dynasty. Such an acknowledgment it was possible for the Persian kings to make without a renunciation of their 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 Lord for the life of the king to whom God had caused them to be subject (comp. Jer. xxix. 7). Accordingly we iind 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. Vi^, a piece of wood, a beam. Ti?|, raised on high, is in Syriac the usual word for crucified, and is to be so understood here. xnp, to strike, with ?y, 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- nei-s among different people. Among the Assyrians it generally consisted in the impalement of the delinquent upon a sharp strong wooden post ; comp. Layard, Nineveh mid 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 Babylonians after the cap- ture of their city (aveaKoXoTriae). 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; Nell. 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, ^Yherein 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-lS. 89 commands of Darius. " Because Darius the king sent (i.e. despatched to them the letter, whose contents have just been given, 6—12), they speedily acted accordingly in the manner stated" C^^--?)- — ^^r. 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 Cyrus, 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 Nn'Li'tJ'nniX 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 i^^nDX, 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''i*''u', ac- cording to the Keri "'V"'*^, with the X dropped, is the Shaphel ^ '■''Nam etsl," remarks Calovius ia J. H. Mich., adaotatt. uhcr. ad h. l, " no7i ad structuram templi conduxerit proprie edict urn Artaxcrxis, qux Darii secundo anno incepta et sexto absoluta fuit, v. 15 ad orna- menta tamen et additamenta earn spectasse duhium non est: qugs ah ipso, ceu rege post Cyrum et Darium erga Judosos Persarum omnium henicjnis- simo, profecta Tiic celehralur." Similarly but more briefly explained by Clericus. J10 THE BOOK OF EZHA. of Ni-j to Ijrlng a thing to an end, to finish it. The form K'^VP' is not a participle pass, formed from the Shaphel (Gesen.), for tliis would be ii, 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 THE BOOK OF EZRA. the country to seek Jalive the God of Israel, could eat the passover. P^5^ V.i3 = pxn ^sy^ x. 2, 11, are the heathen races dweilino- in Palestine. The expression is not essentially different from ni^'l^^n ''^V, ix. 1 sq., iii. 3, and is only dis- tinfTuishahle 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 uncleanness 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 pi'iests, 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 dw^ell 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 whh 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 Assyi'ia. With regard to the expression, comp. 2 Chron. xx. 27, Neh. xii. 43. The king of Assiir 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 Pl\i 3 Dnn^j comp. 1 Sam. xxiii. 19. II.— THE RETURN OF EZRA THE SCRIBE FROM BABYLON TO JERUSALEiM, AND HIS ENTRY UPON HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES THERE.— Chap. YII.-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 eeturn and commission. Vers. 1-10 form the introduction to the narrative whicli 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. civinfT, vers. 27, 28, on the part of Ezra, for the merc^ of God bestowed 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 t^^TV 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 i^'jTy XlH. It is all but universally agreed that Artaxerxes Longimanus is intended by Krip'i:'nri"it<5 ; the explanation of this appellation as Xerxes in Joseph. Antiq. xi. 5. 1, for which Fritzsche (on 1 Esdr. viii. 1) has recently decided, being a mere conjecture on the part of that not very critical historian. The fact that the Artach- shasta of the book of Nehemiah (i. 1, v. 14, xiii. G) can be no other thai! Artaxerxes, is decisive of this point : for in Neh. xiii. 6 the thirty-second year of Artachshasta is mentioned ; while according to Neh. viii. 9, xii. 26, 36, Ezra and Nehe- miah jointly exercised their respective offices at Jerusalem.-^ Ezra is called Ben Seraiah, whose pedigree is traced to Eleazar the son of Aaron; Seraiah the son of Azariah, the son of Hilkiah, was the father of Josedec the high priest carried into captivity (1 Chron. v. 40, etc.), and was himself the high priest whom Nebuchadnezzar slew at Eiblah (2 Kings XXV. 18-21). Between the execution of Seraiah in the year 588 and the return of Ezra from Babylon in 458 B.C., there is a period of 130 years. Hence Ezra could have been neither the son nor grandson of Seraiah, but only his great or great-great-grandson. When we consider that Joshua, or Jeshua (ii. 2), the high priest who returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel, w^as the grandson of Seraiah, we cannot but ' Very superficial arc tlie arguments, and indeed the whole pamphlet, Elude Chrdiiolofjirjiie lies livrcs iCEsdrus et de Nehe'mie, Paris 18C8, p. 40, etc., by -which F. de Saulcy tries to show that the Artachshasta of Ezra vii. and of Nehemiah is Artaxerxes n. (Mncmon). CHAP. VII. 1-5. 90 regard Ezra, who returned thence 78 years later, as a great- great-grandson of Seralali. Moreover, we are justified in inferring from the fact that Ezra is not, like Joshua, desig- nated as Ben Josedech, that he did not descend from tliat line of Seraiah in which the high-priestly dignity was heredi- tary, but from a younger son, and hence that his immediate ancestors were not (though his forefathers from Seraiah up- wards were) of high-priestly descent. Hence the names of Ezra's ancestors from Seraiah up to Aaron (vers. 1-5) agree also with the genealogy of the high-priestly race (1 Chron. V. 30-40), with the one deviation that in ver. 3, between Azariah and Meraioth, six members are passed over, as is frequently the case in the longer genealogies, for the sake of shortening the list of names. — In ver. 6 Ezra, for the sake of at once alluding to the nature of his office, is designated 'n3 -i\nD -1210, a scribe skilful in the law of Moses. The word "i2iD means in older works writer or secretary; but even so early as Jer. viii. 8 the lying ])en of the D''"}3b is spoken of, and here tiierefore iSiD has already attained the meaning of one learned in the Scripture, one who has made the written law a subject of investigation. Ezra is, however, the first of whom the predicate "iSiSi!}, o rypafi/jbarev^, is used as a title. He is so called also in the letter of Artaxerxes (ver. 11), be- cause he is said (ver. 9) to have applied his heart to seek out and to do the law of the Lord, and to teach in Israel statutes and judgment, i.e. because he had made the investigation of the law, for the sake of introducing the practice of the same among the congregation, his life-task ; and the king granted him all his desire, according to the hand of the Lord his God upon him. The peculiar expression IvJ? vn^i;? mn"" Ts^ which is found only here and in vers 9, 28, viii. 18, Neh. ii. 8, 18, and in a slightly altered guise in Ezra viii. 22, 31, " according to the good hand of his God, which was over him," means : according to the divine favour or divine care arranging for him ; for the hand of God is nnitan, the good (ver. 9, and viii. 18), or nniD^, viii. 22. nL"i53, the desire, re- quest, demand, occurs only here and in the book of Esther. — Ver. 7. With Ezra went up a number of Israelites, priests, 96 THE BOOK OF EZRA. and Levltes. p partitive : a part of tlie whole. That they went up with Ezra appears from the context, and is expressly stated both in the royal edict (ver. 13) and in the further description of the expedition (ver. 28, viii. 1). They went up in the seventh year of Artaxerxes, and reached Jerusa- lem in the fifth month of that year. — In ver. 8 Ezra is again, as in ver. 6, the subject of the sentence ; tlie intervening seventh verse being really only in apposition with ver. 6. — In ver. 9 the time occupied by the journey is more precisely defined; ''3 is explanatory. Namely, on the first day of the first month, he had appointed the journey from Babylon, etc. The Keri 1p^ 5^^!^ can only mean, ipsum erat fandamentum profectionis, as J. H. Mich, after E. Sal. explains it, for ID'; is pointed as the construct state. The departure of the expedition from the place of meeting occurred, according to viii. 31, on the twelfth day of the first month. Since, however, they encamped three days there, making the final preparations for their journey, eleven days might easily elapse between the period when the whole caravan had assembled, and the day of actual departure. The Keri offers no appropriate signification ; for since X^n can only be taken for the subject, and '^n 'ip\ for the predicate, the sentence would contain an anacoluthon. To translate K^n by ipsum cannot be justified by the usages of the language, for there is no such emphasis on ID'' as to cause X^n to be regarded as an emphatic reference to the following noun. ID'' must be pointed TpJ or IB';, as the third pers. perf. Kal or Piel, mean- ing to arrange, to appoint, and Nin referred to Ezra. On nnitsn vnl^s Ts, comp. ver. 6. The hand of his God gra- ciously arranged for him, for he had prepared his heart to seek and to do the law of Jahve, i.e. to make the law of God liis rule of action, ianjj ^'liT^^^ like 2 Chron. xii. 14, xix. 3, xxx. ID. To teach in Israel statutes and judgments, as both are prescribed in the law of God. Vers. 11-28. T/te commission given by Artachshasta to Ezra (vers. 11-26), ivith a short postscript hy Ezra (vers. 27 and 28).— Ver. 11. The introductory title, "This is the copy of the letter." On |2^"]B, comp. iv. 11, and on Ijn^'J, CHAP. vir. 11-26. . S7 iv. 7. Ezra Is here, as also in the letter itself, vers. 12, 21, and in Neh. viii. 9, xii. 26, called only iSi^L' ][}'^[}, the priest, the scribe ; in other places we find merely one title or the other : either the priest, x. 10, 16, Neh. viii. 2 ; or the scribe, Neh. viii. 4, 13, xii. 36. To designate him according to his rank, as the priest, seems to have subsequently become more customary ; hence in the first book of Esdras he is constantly called 6 'Iep€v*iX1 : I sent them to {?^, according to later usage, for P^) ; the Keri is '^.'IV^!!, I despatched, sent them. Botli readings suit the sense. The place Casiphia is entirely un- known, but cannot have been far from the river Ahava. 108 THE BOOK OF EZRA. Caspin, the region of the Caspian Sea, is out of the question, bL'in<5 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 D^i^nan vnx nx give no intelligible meaning; for vnx 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 tlie 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 to 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 Levites, were induced by Iddo to join the expedition (8-20), requires us thus to understand the words, 'a^ n''n'? D''ri"iL''0, 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,, lield 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 ( ?X lyii^ see vii. 6), in inducing forty Levites, and tw^o hundred and twenty Nethinim, by means of Iddo's influence, to join their fellow-countrymen in their journey to Jerusalem. They brought to us . . . 137 and ^3vy refer to Ezra and his fellow-travellers. ^3L'> i:'^X, a man of understanding, seems to be a proper name, being joined to Sherebiah, the name following, by a ^ 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 Ilashabiah, 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. 21-30. 100 contrary, is not auain met witli in the books of eitlier Ezra or Neliemiah. — Ver. 20. With respect to the Nethinim, ^vhom David and the princes (of Israel) had given for the service of the Levites {i.e. made servants of the temple, to ])erform 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 Chron. 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 witJi the Israelites: Judg. xx. 26; 1 Sam. vii. 6; Joel i. 14: 2 Chron. xx. 3. 'yf^ "n'l.'n, a straight way, a way made level by the removal of obstructions, i.e. a prosperous journey ; comp. Ps. cxii. 7. ^'^, 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. ti'l^i, pos- sessions in cattle and other goods. — Ver. 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 liostile 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 i3>5 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 tiieir Iielp 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 EZRA. God rranted 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 niio-ht take charge of them during the journey, and bring them to Jerusalem. " 1 separated twelve of the chief of the priests," i.e. from the whole company of priests who were journeying with us. The following l^^^Tj'p does not suit the sense, whether we take the p 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 ^'3"lt^''? 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 n^mtJ'? we must read "^^^nKn, and accept the reading of 1 Esdras, koL ^Eaepe^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 ; ?i?*f , to weigh, i.e. to deliver by weight. In the Chethiv '^?ip'^'^^ the O sound is maintained, and consequently the Keri is pointed — . On the other hand, in ver. 2G the i is dropped, and the form pointed with — , though many MSS., followed by J. H. Michaelis, iiave — here also. '?X n^3 ni2T\r} 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 1^'inn the article represents the relative pronoun; see on 1 Chron. xxvi. 28. CX^'pan^ all Israelites who were found, met with, in Babylon, and were not going CHAP. VIII. 31-56. Ill with them to Jerusnlem ; comp. 1 Chron. xxix. 17, 2 Cliron. V. 11. 0*3^ ?y, Hke T ^y, 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 brazen vessels of fine golden brilliancy, precious as gold, ^nvp is an abstract noun, formed from the participle Hophal of 3ny, to glitter like gold, and constructed as a feminine. The word, with its adjective, either depends upon n'^'m^ in the stat. construct.^ or stands in apposition thereto, and is not, as a participle Hophal, used adjectlvely and combined with ri'J'njj for then the two adjectives 3n>*Q and nni'O would not be in different genders. nni!:n, likJnin^nn ^b^] 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 ciiarge 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 niatJ'pn (stat. construct^ is among the incorrectnesses of the later Hebrew. — Ver. 30. Then they took the weight of the silvei', . . . z.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' 11^ THE BOOK OF EZRA, encampment at tlie place of meeting Ezra became aware that no Levites were found among the travellers; upon wliich 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 ariangement of their affairs. On the fourth day, the gifts they had brought with them were delivered in the house of God (^i?'f?, like n^i^^f^, 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. — Yer. 34. '' By number, by weight, as to all," i.e. all was delivered by number and weight ; and the whole weight was written at that time, i.e. an authentic list v.as made at the delivery which then took place. — Ver. 35, After tlie delivery of the dedicated gifts, those who had CHAP. IX. X. 113 come up out of captivity (with Ezra), the sons of the cap- tivity, offered burnt-offerings and sin-offerings, out of gratitude for tlie favour shown by God in the gracious restoration of His people Israeh This is impHed in the words: " burnt-offerings to the God of Israel, twelve bullocks for all IsraeV^ (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 Lord," 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- intj. The sin-offerino;s 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 D^;B-i"nC'nx and niiqQ, see rem. on Dan. iii. 2. The satraps were tiie military chiefs of the province, tiie niinSj the heads of the civil government. t^U'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 OF ISRAEL. AYhen 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. liira (vers. 3, 4). At the evening sacrifice lie 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 brougiit 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 toith the heathen nations of the land hy marriage (vers. 1—4), and Ezras 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 Canaanites; . . . for they have taken (wives) of their daughters for themselves and for tiieir sons, and tiie 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 n>!X rii?33lj 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 tlungs 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 EZRA. must have prececlecl what is related chap. ix. This matter haviiiii; 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 (^''IfL', the princes, are those who give the information, the article being used e.g. like that in t^vsn, Gen. xiv. 13) 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. D.Tnhyha, with respect to their abominations, i.e. as Israel should have done with respect to the abominations of these people. The ? to ■'^y^sp might be regarded as introducing the enumeration of the different nations, and corresponding with ""^yn; it is, however, more likely that it is used merely as a periphrasis for the genitive, and subordinates the names to Dn'^rihyn : 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 I'elapse 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 couutry, 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 Nebuchadnezzar 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 Canaanitish races and of the Moabites and Ammonites, who, escaping the sentence of captivity, remained in the land, ^fr^ij'j is naturally completed by Q'^ti'J from the context; comp. x. 44, 2 Chron. xi. 21, and other passages. The subject of ^^"lynn is the collective V}}, ^"2?^, the holy seed, i.e. the members of the nation called to holiness (Ex. 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 (-'V^, comp. Lev. v. 15), i.e. the princes were the first to transgress ; on the figurative ex- pression, comp. Deut. xiii. 10. Q"'JJD 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 expression 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 ;" !3piC'Pj 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. T^.n, trembling, being terrified, generally construed with ?V or ?X (e.g. Isa. Ixvi. 2, 5), but here with 2 (like verbs of embracing, believing), and meaning to believe with trembling in the word which God had spoken concerning this ?yo, i.e. thinking with terror 118 THE BOOK OF EZRA. of the punishments which such faitliless conduct towards a covenant God involved. Vers. 5-15. Ezrasp^'ai/er and confession for the congrega- fiQn, — Ver. 5. And at the tin\e of the evening sacrifice, I rose up from my mortification (JT'Jliri, humiliation, generally throu(Th fasting, here through sitting motionless in deep afHiction of soul), and rending my garment and my mantle. These words contribute a second particular to ''^pi?, 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 confession 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." ''riL"3 ""^P-i"^"! united, as in Jer. xxxi. 19, comp. Isa. xlv. 16, and other passages. DP33, to be covered with shame, is stronger CHAP. IX. 5-15. 119 tlian na. " For our iniquities are increased over our head," i.e. have grown above our head. ti'Ni npyop, to or over the head. n?;w serves to enhance the meaning of 13^, like 1 Chron. xxiii. 17. "And our guihiness is great, (reacliing) unto the heavens;" comp. 2 Chron. xxviii. 9. — Ver. 7. "Since the daj's of our fathers, have we, our kings, our priests, been dehvered into the hands of the kings of the lands, to the sword, to captivity, to plunder, and to shame of face." The words from ^nriB onwards serve to explain what is meant by being delivered into the hand of strange kings. On the expression D'JS nti'n, comp. Dan. ix. 7, etc., 2 Chron. xxxii. 21. n^n 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 lias been mercy from the Lord 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, Vi"] t^^'P?, 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. HD^Si, 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 tliey might cling, and gain new life and vigour. The infinitive clauses 120 THE BOOK OF EZRA. followinn;, '^''^'f? and l^^^r, are dependent upon the preceding infinitives "i"'^*^''']r and nnS, and state the purpose for which God has given a nail in His house to this remnant. That our God may enhghten our eyes, i.e. may bestow upon us new vitaHty ; comp. Ps. xiii. 4. Suffering and misfortune make the eyes dim, and their h'ght is quenched in death : the enlightened or beaming eye is an image of vital power ; comp. 1 Sam. xiv. 27, 29. n^np «nn^ is not to be trans- lated, lit claret nobis vivijicationem, the suffix to I^J^np being not dative, but accusative. The literal rendering is : that He may make us a slight reviving. n^np, the means of supporting life, restoration to life ; see on 2 Chron. xiv. 13. Ezra adds £2Vp ; 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, Ezek. 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 tiiem 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 cari'ying out of this work ; comp. i. 3, etc., vi. 7-9. The suffix in vninn al- ludes to C'O-'^ n"?. The words of the last sentence are figurative. "^"Ji means the wall of a vineyard, tlie 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. 5-15. 121 them in Jutlah and Jerusalem by the kings of Persia. " The meaning is not tliat 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." (Berthean.) 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." riNT, i.e. such proofs of the divine compassion as have just been men- tioned. The answer which follows commences with ""S, before which "l^^^J 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 Avealth 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 "IJ3N7 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, ^Yit^lOut 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 Kinf'-s xvii. 23, xxi. 10, xxiv. 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 jn-ohibition 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 tliese 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 tlirougli tlie uncleanness of the people, etc., does not read thus either in the Pentateuch or in the prophets, rrnj^ 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 n3"7X nsD, from edge to edge, z.e, from one end to the other, like ns? ns, 2 Kings x. 21, xxi. 16, is taken from vessels filled to their upper rim. nnyi introduces the consequence : and now, this being the case. Tiie pro- hibition '1J1 lirin b^ 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. ^P]^^ IV'P? recalls Deut. xi. 8, and the promise : that ye may eat the good of the land for ever, Isa. i. 19. Q?\^?P ^^'^l^'^'!, find 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 C'''"}in in this sense comp. Judg. xi. 24, 2 Chron. xx. 11. — Ver. 13, etc. And after all, continues Ezra, taking up again the ^^^^^''^^X of ver. 10, — " after all that is come upon 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 tiie words 'li^ nrix ''2^ 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 just 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 THE BOOK OF EZRA. emphatically introduced by "'3 in the sense of ^3 OJ^N. With tliis 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 inti'oductory ^"inK 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 on ver. 14, that the question : should we return to break (i.e. break again) the commands of God ? is an anti- thesis to the exclam.ation. 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. lob, to justify, or rather to limit, the hb in N3n"?3, The "3 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 zmo, yea (comp. Ewald, § 330, b). '» nts^p ^^'^'^, Thou hast checked, hast stopped, beneath our iniquities, "^tr'n is not used intransitively, but 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 tiiam. 13.^'lV^ >^^Pf, ii^fra 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. ^^^^3, as this, viz. this which exists in the community now returned from Babylon to Judaia. This is the circumstance which justifies CHAP. X. 1-5. 125 the question : sliould we, or can we, again (^VlI'J is used ad- verbially) break Thy commandments, and become related by marriage ? (|J?nnn like Deut. vii. 3.) ninyhn nxiVj 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? n?3 ny (comp. 2 Kings xiii. 17, 19) is strengthened by the addition : so that there will be no remnant and no escaping. The question introduced by iii/'n is an expression of certain assurance : He will most certainly consume us. — Ver. 15. " Jahve, God of Israel, Thou art righteous; for we remain an escaped remnant, as (it is) this day. Behold, we are be- fore Thee in our trespass ; for no one can stand before Thy face, because of this." Ezra appeals to the righteousness of God, not to supplicate pardon, as Neh. ix. 33, for the righteousness of God would impel Him to extirpate the sinful nation, but to rouse the conscience of the community, to point out to them what, after this relapse into their old abominations, they had to expect from the justice of God. 5i:"iNt;'J "'3 is confirmatory. God has shown Himself to be just by so sorely punishing this once numerous nation, that only a small remnant which has escaped destruction now exists. And this remnant has again most grievously offended : we lie before Thee in our trespass ; what can we expect from Thy justice ? Nothing but destruction ; for there is no stand- ing before Thee, i.e. no one can stand before Thee, riNr?y, because of this (comp. viii. 23, x. 2), i.e. because of the fresh guilt which we have incurred. Chap. X. T/te separation of the strange zvives from the con- gregation. — Vers. 1-5. While Ezra was making this confes- sion before God, a numerous assemblage gathered around him, and wept aloud. From this point onwards Ezra relates the furtiier course of events in such wise as to cast his own person in the background, and speaks of himself in the third person. The matter of his prayer is more definitely declared by inMinna^^ and his posture in prayer by ^2^noi n33, weeping and casting himself down (lying on his knees, ix. 5). 126 THE BOOK OF EZRA. " Before the house of God," i.e. in the court of the temple. The confirmatory clause : for the people wept much (n3"iri n33, a weeping in mass), furnishes the motive of so great a number of men, women, and children gathering around Ezra. Very many were as distressed as he was at the mar- riao-es with strange wives, and regarded them as a grievous trespass; hence they assembled weeping around him. — Ver. 2, etc. Then one of the sons of Elam, Shecaniah, the son of Jehiel, stood forth from amidst the assembly, and uttered the confession : " We have been unfaithful towards our God by marrying strange wives, but there is yet hope for Israel concerning this thing. We will now make a covenant with God to put away all the strange wives and their children from the congregation, according to the counsel of the Lord, and of those who fear the commandment of our God, that it may be done according to the law." Shecaniah, of the sons of Elam (comp. ii. 7, viii. 7), is a different person from the descendant of Zattu, mentioned chap. viii. 5 ; nor is Jehiel identical with the individual whose name occurs in ver. 26. 3K'31, and have brought home strange wives. Tiy'i^, to cause to dwell (in one's house), said in vers. 10, 14, 17, 18, and Nell. xiii. 23, 27, of bringing a wife home. Shecaniah founds his hope for Israel in this trespass upon the circum- stance, that they bind themselves by a solemn covenant before God to put away this scandal from the congregation, and to act in conformity with the law. To make a covenant with our God, i.e. to bind themselves by an oath with re- spect to God, comp. 2 Chron. xxix. 10. ^''V^'^, to put away — the opposite of y^'Sn. All the wives are, according to the context, all the strange women (ver. 2), and that which is born of them, their children. Instead of ''J'^^? n^i??, according to the counsel of the Lord, De Wette, Bertheau, and others, following the paraphrase in the LXX. and 1 Esdras, read "y^^,, according to the counsel of my lord, i.e. of Ezra. But this paraphrase being of no critical authority, there is no sufficient reason for the alteration. For Shecaniah to call Ezra my lord sounds strange, since usually this title was only given by servants to their master, or subjects to their sove- CHAP. X. 1-5. 1:^7 reign, and Shecaniali afterwards addresses him simply as tlion. Besides, Ezra had given no advice at all in this matter, and still less had he come to any resolution about it with the God-fearing members of the community. ncT after the preceding n''"i3"nn33j we will make a covenant, must be taken as hortative: and let it be done according to the law. n T}J^^ caring for with trembling. — Ver. 4. '' Up ! for this matter concerns thee (thou art called to carry it out), and we are with thee (will assist thee therein) ; be strong (courageous) and do it." — Ver. 5. Then Ezra (who during this speech had continued upon his knees) arose, and made the chiefs of the priests, of the Levites, and of all Israel swear to do according to this word ; and they swore, n'ln "in'in js Shecaniah's pro- posal to put away the strange wives. — Ver. 6. Hereupon Ezra left the place before the house of God, and went into the chamber of Johanan the son of Eliashib, to fast and mourn there for the unfaithfulness (transgression) of them that had been carried away (n?i2n ?yo like ix. 4). Johanan the son of Eliashib cannot actually be Johanan ben Eliashib (Neb. xii. 23) the high priest, however natural it may be to understand by the chamber of Johanan one of the chambers in the out-buildings of the temple, called after the name of some well-known individual. For tlie high priest Eliashib was a contemporary of Nehemiab, and the high priest Johanan was not the son, but, according to the definite state- ment, Neh. xii. 10, the grandson, of Eliashib, and the son of Joiada (the correct reading of Neh. xii. 11 being: Joiada begat Johanan and Jonathan). Now a chamber of the temple could not in Ezra's time have been as yet called after a grandson of Eliashib the contemporary of Nehemiah ;^ and both Johanan and Eliashib being names which frequently occur (comp. vers. 24, 27, 36), and one of the twenty-four ^ This would not, indeed, be impossible, because, as we shall subse- quently show (in our Introduction to the book of Nehemiali, § 2), Elia- shib's grandson Johanan might be already ten years of age at tiie time of the transaction in question ; so that his grandfather, the high priest Eliashib, might have called a chamber of the temple after the name of his grandson. This view is not, however, a very probable one. 128 THE BOOK OF EZRA. ore lers of priests being called after the latter (1 Chron. xxiv. 12), we, with Ewald (Gesch. iv. p. 228), regard the Johanan ben Eliashib here mentioned as an individual of whom nothing furtiier is known, — perhaps a priest descended from the EHashib of 1 Chron. xxiv. 12, and who possessed in the new temple a chamber called by his name. For there is not the slightest reason to suppose, with Bertheau, that a subsequent name of this chamber is used in this narrative, because the narrator desired to state the locality in a manner which should be intelligible to his contemporaries. Cler. and Berth, desire, after 1 Esdr. ix. 1 (kuI avXicrOeU eKet), to change D^ "n^i). into Q^ |?'^1 : and he passed the night there without eating bread or drinking water. But the LXX. having kol iiropevdr] eKel, and the repetition of the same word being, moreover, by no means infrequent, comp. e.g. Qp'1 in vers. 5, 6, and finally Q'^ repeatedly standing for thither, e.g. 1 Sam. ii. 14 (p^ ^'^^'^'}), there are no adequate grounds for an alteration of the text. The paraphrase of 1 Esdr. arises merely from the connection, and is devoid of critical value. To eat no bread, etc., means to fast : comp. Ex. xxxiv. 28, Deut. ix. 9. Vers. 7-17. The resolution carried into execution. — Vers. 7, 8. A proclamation was sent forth throughout Judah and Jerusalem (?ip l''3yn, comp. i. 1) to all the children of the captivity to assemble at Jerusalem under pain of the punish-^ ment, tliat whoever should not come within three days, all his substance should be forfeited and himself excluded from the congregation, according to the decision of the princes and elders, who, as the heads of the community, had taken the matter in hand, and made this announcement. The for- feiture of substance is not its destruction, as prescribed Deut. xiii. 13-17 in the case of a city fallen into idolatry, but its appropriation to the benefit of the temple, after the analogy of Lev. xxvii. 28. — Ver. 9. After three days all the men of Judah and Benjamin assembled at Jerusalem. This took place on the twentieth day of the ninth month. On this statement of time, see the remark on ix. 1. The assembled multitude sat there on the open space of the house of God, CHAP. X. 7-17. 129 i.e. probably the open space (^i^l^) ^^ fi'ont of the water- gate, Neh. viii. 1, 3, 16, at the eastern or south-eastern side, before the temple court; see remarks on Neh. viii. 1. " Trembling" because of this matter, the seriousness of which they might perceive from the heavy penalty attached to their non-appearance within three days, and " because of the rain." The ninth month, corresponding with our December, is in the cold rainy time of the year (conip. ver. 13), "when the rain usually falls in torrents " (Robinson, Phi/s. Geog. p. 287). — Ver. 10. Ezra then stood up and reproved the assembled multitude, saying : You have brought home (^''0'"', comp. ver. 2) strange wives to increase the trespass of Israel (comp. Ezra's confession, ix. 6-15), and exhorted them to give glory to God and to do His pleasure, (viz.) to separate themselves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives. On nnin ^lin, comp. Josh. vii. 19. Separation from the people of the land consisted, under the circumstances, in the dismissal of the strange wives. — Ver. 12. The whole assembly replied with a loud voice, and therefore with firm resolve : According to thy word it is our duty to do. I^vj? must not be drawn to what precedes, as in the Vulgate, jiixta verhum tuum ad nos, sic Jiat, but to what follows, as in ver. 4, Neh. xiii. 13, 2 Sam. xviii. 11. But — they further remark, ver. 13 — the people are many, — i.e. the assemblage is very large to be able to deal immediately with the several cases ; and it is (now) the time of the heavy rains, and there is no power to stand without, — i.e. at the present season we are not able to remain in the open air until the business is discharged; neither is this the work of one day, or of two, for we have transgressed much in this matter, — i.e. one or two days will not suffice to investigate and decide upon all cases, because very many have broken the law in this respect. — Ver. 14. " Let then our rulers stand for the whole congregation, and let all who in all our cities have brought home strange wives come at appointed times, and with them the elders of each city, and the judges thereof, until the fierce wrath of our God be turned away from us, as long as this matter lasts." There were so many cases to deal with, that the rulers, as I 130 THE BOOK OF EZRA. the judicial authonties, must decide in this matter; and those wh.o in all the cities of the land had transgressed, were to appear before these authorities, and submit their individual cases to their jurisdiction. The choice of the verb 11?pV^, to stand or set oneself to discharge some business, here there- fore to give judgment, is occasioned by the preceding "li^il?. The whole community had assembled according to the pro- clamation, and was standing there for the purpose of bring- ing the matter to a close. This they were not, however, able to do, for the reasons stated ver. 13; hence the princes, as rulers of the community, are to remain for the discharge of the business. ^[}\^'}~^^i' is not a genitive dependent on ^^""T^, and explanatory of the suffix of this word — our, viz. the whole congregation's, princes (Bertheau) — an unnatural and superfluous elucidation ; for if the whole congregation say : our princes, it is self-evident that not the princes of a section or portion of the people, but of the whole congregation, must be intended. 7r\pn-by? is the object of ^IJOV : let them Stand for the whole congregation (p I^V like ? D'lp, Ps. xciv. 16), not instead of, hut for the good of the congregation, and transact its business. In our cities, i.e. including the capital, for there is here no contrast between Jerusalem and the other cities. The article to n"'^nri stands, as is often the case, for the relative IfX, e.g. ver. 17, viii. 25. D'?»TO D^nj;, ap- pointed times, stated terms, used only here and in Neh. x. 35, xiii. 31. l^T is a Chaldaistic expression. With the accused were to come the elders and judges of every city, to furnish thenecessary explanations and evidence, ^^''f? "^V, until the turning away of the fierceness of the wrath (? iy according to the later usage of the language instead of IV only, comp. Ewald, § 315, a, not instead of ? only, as Bertheau seeks, by incorrectly interpreted passages, to prove). Tlie 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, nin "in'n? *iy, offer some difficulty. De AVette and Ber- theau translate them : on account of tliis matter, which p 1^ can by no means signify. We regard p "^i' = IV 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 lusts; 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 archt), 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>] i^^^ ^y is co-ordinate with 2''^n'? ny '"iJI. — 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 ^X, onli/y in the form of a qualifi- cation to the remark that the lohole assembly (ver. 12) made this resolution : nevertheless Jonathan . . . stood up against this. For by ^py, to stand up against, or as elsewhere ^V Dip, comp. 1 Chron. xxi. 1, 2 Chron. xx. 23, Dan, viii. 25, xi. 14, Such also is the view of K.. Sal. and Lightf., while older ex- j)ositors 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.: prcvfecti 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. IG. 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 "I copulative before ^''t^'J^^ has been lost, an asyn- deton seeming in this case inadmissible. Bertheau, on the contrary, unnecessarily changes v"!^*? into v T}P![ after 1 Esdras ix. 16. "And they all by names," comp. viii. 20. ^^*^'i'.!j 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 ti'innp, to inquire into the matter. It is impossible in Hebrew to form t^'in^ from ^'y\, and this word can only arise from JJ'i"'!, as Ewald, 132 THE BOOK OF EZRA. § 239, a, note, Olsliausen, Lehrh. d. heh\ Spr. p. 150, and liottcher, ausf. Lehrh. der hehr. Spr. i. 1, p. 1G2, note, unanimously agree. — Ver. 17. And they made an end with all, with respect to tlie men who had brought home strange wives, bbn (with the article) cannot be so connected with D''r:x, 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 ^''^JS; with all, namely, with the men. Still less can /S?, as Bertheau thinks, be taken in the sense of " in every place," and Q'^'J^. connected as an accusative with ^^3^1 : they finished in every place the men (!) ; for n^3 with an accusative of the person signifies to annihilate, to make an end of, while 3 nps means to finish, to make an end with, comp. Gen. xliv. 12. If, as the accentuation requires, we take 733 independently, C^^^. can only be an accusative of more exact definition : in respect of the men (Q''?'^^^ 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 D''C'3S~7li3, or with Ewald, § 290, c, note 1, to regard C'K'JX ?3Zi as a singular combination. — Till the first day of the first month (of the next year), therefore in three months, their sittings havincr beiiun, according to ver. 13, on the first day of the tenth month. — The account of this transaction closes with — Tlie list of the men loho had tahen strange icives, 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. Vn«, 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 liands, 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, D''»t:'Nlj " and guilty a ram for their trespass," i.e. condemned to bring a ram as a trespass-offer- CHAP. X. 18-44. 133 inrr, D"'Ow'X"i is to be regarded as the continuation of the infinitive chiuse i<''Vin^. As elsewhere, infinitive clauses are continued without anything further in the verb, jinit. (comp. Ewald, § 350) ; so here also does the adjective COK'X follow, requiring that nrnp should be mentally sup- plied. }Nik"P"'i?, a ram of the flock, is, as an accusative of more exact definition, dependent on Q'-O'^'s;. This trespass- offering \vas imposed upon them according to the principle of the law, Lev. v. 14, etc., because they had committed a ^70 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 strange 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. ^^^y. in ver. 29 should, according to the Chethiv, be read fii^"]\ — 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. Bertlieau 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 "J^ "'pno^ 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 Judali, 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, hut 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 'S'l."J seems to be an error of transcription for ^N^''^ (the Keri), which the sense requires. 'IJI DHO t'^i, " and there were among them women who had brought forth sons." ono must be referred to women, notwithstanding the mascu- line suffix. lO""'^), too, can only be referred to Q'^'J, and cannot be explained, as by J. H. Mich. : wide eiitwi filios CHAP. X. 18-14. 135 susceperant seu procreaverant. The gender of the verb is adapted to the form of the word D'w'J, an incorrectness which must be attributed to the increasing tendency of the language to use the masculine instead of the feminine, or to renounce a distinction of form between the genders. There are no adequate reasons for such an alteration of the text as Bertheau proposes ; for the LXX. already had our text before them, and the koX aTreXvaav avTa'i avv jeKvoi^ of 1 Esdr. ix. 36 is a mere conjecture from the context. The remark itself, that among the women who were sent away were some who had already brought children into the world, is not superfluous, but added for the purpose of showing how thoroughly this matter was carried out. Separation from women who already have children is far more grievous, oh communium Uherorum caritatem, than part- ing with childless wives. Strictly as this separation was carried out, this evil was not thereby done away with for ever, nor even for very long. After the arrival of Nehemiah at Jerusalem, when the building of the wall was concluded, the congregation again bound themselves by an oath, on the occasion of a day of prayer and fasting, to contract no more such illegal marriages (Neh. x. 31). Nevertheless, Nehemiah, on his second return to Jerusalem, some five and twenty to thirty years after the .dissolution of these marriages by Ezra, again found Jews who had married women of Ashdod, Moab, and Amnion, and children of these marriages who spoke the tongue of Ashdod, and could not speak the Jews' language, and even one of the sons of the higii priest Jehoiada allied to a daughter of Sanballat the Horonite (Neh. xiii. 23, etc.). Such a phenomenon, however strange it may appear on a superficial view of the matter, becomes comprehensible when we consider more closely the circumstances of the times. The nucleus of the Israelite community in Jerusalem and Judah was formed by those exiles who returned from Babylon witii Zerubbabel and Ezra ; and to this nucleus the remnant of Jewish and Israelite descent which had been left in the land was gradually united, after the rebuilding of the 13G TEE BOOK OF EZRA. temple and the restoration of the worship of Jahve. Those who returned from Babylon, as well as those who remained in the land, had now, however, lived seventy, and some of them one hundred and fifty, years (from the captivity of Jehoiachin in 599, to the return of Ezra in 457) among the heathen, and in the midst of heathen surroundings, and had thus become so accustomed to intercourse with them in civil and social transactions, that the consciousness of the barriers placed by the Mosaic law between Israel, the people of Jahve, and the Gentiles, was more and more obliterated. And this would especially be the case when the Gentiles who entered into matrimonial alliance with Israelites did not flagrantly practise idolatrous worship, i.e. did not offer sacri- fice to heathen deities. Under such circumstances, it must have been extremely difficult to do away entirely with these unlawful unions ; although, without a thorough reform in this respect, the successful development of the new com- munity in the land of their fathers was not to be obtained. Ezra's narrative of his agency in Jerusalem closes with the account of the dissolution of the unlawful marriages then existing. What he subsequently effected for the revival of religion and morality in the re-established community, in conformity with the law of God, was more of an inward and spiritual kind ; and was either of such a nature that no striking results ensued, which could furnish matter for his- torical narrative, or was performed during the period of his joint agency with Nehemiah, of which an account is fur- nished by the latter in the record he has handed down to us (Neh. viii. 10). THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. INTRODUCTION. § 1. CONTEXTS, DIVISION, AND OBJECT OF THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. HIS book, according to its title, contains '''}3T n^pn;^ and in it Neheniiah relates, almost always in the first person, his journey to Jerusalem, and the work which he there effected. '^l''?^i '''?.?!} used as the title of a work, signifies not narratives, but deeds and experiences, and consequently here the history of Nehemiah. Apart from the contents of the book, this title might, in conformity with the twofold meaning of 2^"}^"^, verba and res, designate both the words or discourses and the acts or undertakings of Nehemiah. But ''11^1 means words, discourses, only in the titles of prophetical or didactic books, i.e. writings of men whose vocation was the an- nouncement of the word : comp. e.g. Jer. i. 1, Hos. i. 1, and others. In historical writings, on the contrary, the ""l^T of the men whose lives and acts are described, are their deeds and experiences: thus TH ''nn^, 1 Chron. xxix. 29; nb^'f nn^, written nbV nn^ "lap'^y i Kings xi. 41, comp. 2 Chron. ix. 29, — the history of David, of Solomon ; ^^?1^^ ''!}?"1» 1 Kings xiv. 19, the acts of Jeroboam, wliich are more exactly defined by the addition "^^^ ly^W Dnp3 "iti'X. So, too, in the case of the other kings, when reference is made to his- torical works concernino; their reijins. It is in this sense that the title of the present book must be understood; and hence both Luther and de Wette have correctly translated it : tlie liistory of Nehemiah. Hence the title only testifies to Vd'J 140 INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. the fact, tliat the work at the head of wliich it stands treats of the things, i.e. of the acts, of Nehemiah, and the events that happened to him, without stating anything concerning its author. That Nehemiah was himself the historian of lu's own deeds, appears only from the circumstance that the narrative is written in the first person. The contents of the book are as follows : Nehemiah, the son of Hachaliah, a Jew, of whom nothing further is known, and cupbearer to the Persian king Artaxerxes Longiinanus, is plunged into deep affliction by the account he receives from his brother Hanani, and certain other men from Judah, of the sad condition of those who had returned from Baby- lon, and especially of the state of the ruined walls and gates of Jerusalem. He entreats with fervent supplications the mercy of God (chap, i.), and shortly after seizes a favourable opportunity to request the king to send him to Judah to build the city of his fathers' sepulchres, and to give him letters to the governors on the oilier side of Euphrates, that they may provide him with wood for building from the royal forests. This petition being graciously acceded to by the monarch, he travels, accompanied by captains of forces and horsemen, to Jerusalem, and soon after his arrival rides by night round the city, accompanied by some few com- ])anions, to ascertain the state of the walls. He then commu- nicates to the rulers of the people his resolution to build and restore the walls, and invites them to undertake this work with him (chap. ii.). Then follows in chap. iii. 1-32 a list of the individuals and families who built the several portions of the wall with their gates; and in chap. iii. 33-vi. 19, an account of the difficulties Nehemiah had to overcome in the ])rosecution of the work, viz. : (1) the attempts of the enemies of the Jews forcibly to oppose and hinder the building, by reason of which the builders were obliged to work with weapons in their hands (iii. 33-iv. 17) ; (2) the oppression of the ]>oorer members of the community by wealthy usurers, which Nehemiah put a stop to by seriously reproving their injustice, and by his own great unselfishness (chap, v.) ; and (3) the plots made against his life by his enemies, which he frustrated CONTENTS, DIVISION, AND OBJECT. 141 by the courageous faitli with which he encountered tliem. Thus the building of the wall was, notwithstanding all these difficulties, brought to a successful termination (chap. vi.). — • This work accomplished, Nehemiah directed his efforts to- wards securing the city against hostile attacks by appointing watches at the gates (vii. 1-3), and increasing the numbers of the dwellers in Jerusalem ; in pursuance of which design, he assembled the nobles and people for the purpose of en- rolling their names according to their genealogy (vii. 4, 5). AVhile occupied with this matter, he found a list of those houses of Judah that had returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel and Joshua; and this he gives, vii. 6-73. Then, on the approach of the seventh month of the year, the people assembled at Jerusalem to hear the public reading of the law by Ezra, to keep the new moon and the feast of this month, and, after the celebration of the feast of tabernacles, to observe a day of prayer and fasting, on which occasion the Levites making confession of sin in the name of the congregation, they renewed their covenant with God by entering into an oath to keep the law. This covenant being committed to writing, was sealed by Nehemiah as governor, by the chiefs of the priests, of the Levites, and of the houses of the people, and the contributions for the support of the worship of God and its ministers arranged (viii.-x.). The decision arrived at concerning the increase of the inhabitants of Jerusalem was next carried into execution, one of every ten dwellers in the provinces being chosen by lot to go to Jerusalem and dwell there (xi. 1, 2). Then follow lists, (1) of the houses and races who dwelt in Jerusalem, and in the cities of Judah and Benjamin (xi. 3-36) ; (2) of the priestly and Levitical families who returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel and Joshua, and of the heads of priestly and Levitical families in the days of Joiakim the high priest, Nehemiah, and Ezra (xii. 1-26). These are succeeded by an account of the solemn dedication of the walls (xii. 27-43). Tiien, finally, after some general remarks on certain institu- tions of divine worship, and an account of a public reading of the law (xii. 44-xiii. 3), the book concludes with a brief 142 INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. narration of what Neheniiah effected during his second so- journ there, after his journey to the court in the thirty- second year of Artaxerxes, and his return for the purpose of putting a stop to certain illegal acts which had prevailed during his absence, such as marriages with heathen women, non-payment of tithes and dues to Levites, desecration of the Sabbath b}' field-labour, and by buying and selling (xiii. 4-31). According to what has been stated, this book may be divided into three sections. The first, chaps, i.-vi., treats of the building of the walls and gates of Jerusalem through the instrumentality of Nehemiah; the narrative concerning the occasion of his journey, and the account of the journey it- self (i. 1— ii. 10), forming the introduction. The second, chaps, vii.-xii. 43, furnishes a description of the further efforts of Nehemiah to increase and ensure the prosperity of the community in Judah and Jerusalem, first, by securing Jerusalem from hostile attacks ; then, by seeking to increase the population of the city ; and, lastly, by endeavouring to bring the domestic and civil life of the people into con- formity with the precepts of the law, and thus to furnish the necessary moral and religious basis for the due develop- ment of the covenant people. The third, chap. xii. 44-xiii. 31, states how Nehemiah, during his second sojourn at Jeru- salem, continued these efforts for the purpose of ensuring the permanence of the reform which had been undertaken. Tiie aim of Nehemiah's proceedings was to place the civil prosperity of the Israelites, now returned from exile to the land of their fathers, on a firm basis. Briefly to describe what he effected, at one time by direct personal effort, at another in conjunction with his contemporary Ezra the ])riest and scribe, is the object of his record. As Nehemiah's efforts for the civil welfare of his people as the congrega- tion of the Lord were but a continuation of those by which Zerubbabel the prince, Joshua the high priest, and Ezra the scribe had effected the foundation of the community of returned exiles, so too does his book form the continuation and completion of that of Ezra, and may in this respect be IKTEGniTY AND DATE. 143 regarded as its second part. It is, moreover, not merely similar in kind, to the book of Ezra, especially with regard to the insertion of historical and statistical lists and genea- logical registries, but has also the same historical object, viz. to show how the peoj)le of Israel, after their return from the Babylonian captivity, were by the instrumentality of Nehemiah fully re-established in the land of promise as the congregation of the Lord. § 2. INTEGRITY OF THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH, AND DATE OF ITS COMPOSITION. Nehemiah gives his account of the greater part of his labours for the good of his fellow-countrymen in the first person ; and this form of narrative is not only uniformly maintained throughout the first six chapters (from i. 1-vii. 5), but also recurs in chap. xii. 27-43, and from xiii. 6 to the end. The formula too : Think upon me, my God, etc., peculiar to Nehemiah, is repeated v. 19, vi. 14, xiii. 14, 22, 29, 31. Hence not only has the composition of the larger portion of this book been universally admitted to be the work of Nehemiah, but the integrity of its first section (i.-vi.) has been generally acknowledged. On the composition and authorship of the second section, vii. Tob-x'n. 2(3, on the contrary, the verdict of modern criticism is almost unani- mous in pronouncing it not to have been the work of Nehemiah, but composed from various older documents and records by the compiler of the books of 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah — the so-called chronicler who lived a hundred years later — and by him interpolated in " the record of Nehemiah." This view has been chiefly based upon the facts, that m chaps, viii.-x. the style is different ; that Nehe- miah himself is not the prominent person, Ezra occupying the foreground, and Nehemiah being merely the subject of a passing remark (viii. 9 and x. 2) ; that there is in viii. 14 no reference to Ezra iii. 4 with respect to the feast of tabernacles ; and that Ezra iii. 1 is in verbal accordance with Neh. viii. 1 (Bertheau, Cumm. p. 11, and de AVette-Schrader, 144 INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. Einl. in das A. T. § 23G). Of these reasons, tlie first (the dissimilarity of style) is an assertion arising from a super- ficial examination of these chapters, and in support of which nothiui;; further is adduced than that, instead of JSlohim, and especially the God of heaven, elsewhere current with Nehe- miah when speakino; of God, the names JeJiovah, Adonai, and Elohim are in this section used promiscuously. In fact, however, the name Elohim is chiefly used even in these chapters, and Jahve but seldom ; while in the prayer chap, ix. especially, such other appellations of God occur as Nehemiah, with the solemnity befitting the language of supplication, uses also in the prayer in chap, i.^ The other three reasons are indeed correct, in so far as they are actual facts, but they prove nothing. It is true that in chap, viii.-x. Nehemiah personally occupies a less promi- nent position than Ezra, but this is because the actions therein related, viz. the public reading of the law, and the direction of the sacred festivals, belonged not to the office of Nehemiah the Tirshatha and royal governor, but to that of Ezra the scribe, and to the priests and Levites. Even here, however, Nehemiah, as the royal Tirshatha, stands at the head of the assembled people, encourages them in conjunc- tion with Ezra and the priests, and is the first, as prcecipuwn membrum ecclesice (x. 2), to seal the document of the covenant just concluded. Again, though it is certain that in the de- scription of the feast of tabernacles, viii. 14 sq., there is no express allusion to its former celebration vmder Zerubbabel and Joshua, Ezra iii. 4, yet such allusions are unusual with biblical writers in general. This is shown, e.g., by a com- j)arison of 2 Chron. xxxv. 1, 18 with 2 Chron. xxx. 1, 13-26 ; and yet it has never struck any critic that an argument against the single authorship of 2 Chron. might be found in the fact that no allusion to the earlier passover held under Ilezekiah, 2 Chron. xxx., is made in the description of the passover under Josiah, 2 Chron. xxxv. Finally, the * Compare the exact statement of the case in my Lchrhucli, § 149, note 4, which opponents have ignored, because uotliiug in the way of fuctb can be brought against it. INTEGRITY AND DATE. 145 verbal coincidence of chap. vlil. 1 (properly vii. 735 and viii. 1) with Ezra iii. 1 amounts to the statement that *' when the seventh month was come, all Israel gathered out of their cities as one man to Jerusalem." All else is totally different; the assembly in Neh. viii. pursues entirely different objects and undertakes entirely different matters from that in Ezra iii. The peculiarities, moreover, of Nehemiah's style could as little appear in what is narrated, chaps, viii.-x., as in his description of the building of the wall, iii. 1-32, or in the list of the families who returned from captivity with Zerubbabel and Joshua, chap. vii. — por- tions which no one has yet seriously objected to as integral parts of the book of Nehemiah. The same remark applies to the list of the inhabitants of Jerusalem and the province, xi. 3-36, which even Bertheau and Schrader admit to have originated from the record of Nehemiah, or to have been composed by Nehemiah. If, however, Nehemiah composed these lists, or incorporated them in his record, why should it not also be himself, and not the " subsequent chronicler," who inserted in his work the lists of priests and Levites, xii. 1-26, when the description of the dedication of the wall which immediately follows them is evidently his own com- position ? One reason for maintaining that these lists of priests and Levites are of later origin than the times of Nehemiah is said to be, that they extend to Jaddua the high priest, who was contemporary with Alexander the Great. If this asser- tion were as certain as it is confidently brought forward, then indeed these lists might well be regarded as a subse- quent interpolation in the book of Nehemiah. For Nehe- miah, who was at least thirty years of age when he first came to Jerusalem, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, i.e. B.C. 445, could hardly have lived to witness the overthrow of the Persian monarchy by Alexander, B.C. 330 ; or, even if he did attain the age of 145, would not have postponed the writing of his book to the last years of his life. When, however, we consider somewhat moi'e closely the priests and Levites in question, we shall perceive that vers. 1-9 of K 146 INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOK OF NEHEIIIAH. chap. xii. contain a list of the chiefs of the priests and Levites who returned from captivity with Zerubbabel and Joshua, which consequently descends from the times be- fore Neheniiah; vers. 12-21, a list of the heads of the priestly houses in the days of the high priest Joiakim, the son of Joshua ; and vers. 24 and 25, a list of the heads or chiefs of Levi (of the Levites), with the closing remark, ver. 26 : " These were in the days of Joiakim the son of Joshua, and in the days of Nehemiah and Ezra." Now the high priest Joiakim, the son of Joshua, the contem- porary of Zerubbabel, was the predecessor and father of the high priest Eliashib, the contemporary of Nehemiah. Con- sequently both these lists descend from the time previous to Nehemiah's arrival at Jerusalem ; and the mention of Ezra and Nehemiah along with Joiakim proves nothing more than that the chiefs of the Levites mentioned in the last list were still living in the days of Nehemiah. Thus these three lists contain absolutely nothing which reaches to a period subsequent to Nehemiah. Between the first and second, however, there stands (vers. 10 and 11) the genea- logical notice : Joshua begat Joiakim, Joiakim begat Elia- shib, Eliashib begat Jonathan (correct reading, Johanan), and Jonathan begat Jaddua; and between the second and third it is said, ver. 22 : With respect to the Levites, in the days of Eliashib, Joiada, Johanan, and Jaddua, the heads of houses are recorded, and the priests under the reign of Darius the Persian ; and ver. 23 : With respect to the sons of Levi, the heads of houses are recorded in the book of the Chronicles even to the days of Johanan. From these verses (10, 11, and 22, 23) it is inferred that the lists descend to the time of the high-priesthood of Jaddua, the contemporary of Alexander the Great. To this we reply, that viewing the circumstance that Eliashib was high priest in the time of Nehemiah (iii. 1, xiii. 4, 7), it cannot be an absolute objection that Jaddua was still living in the days of Alexander the Great, since from the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, i.e. from B.C. 433, to the destruc- tion of the Persian empire B.C. 330, there are only 103 INTEGRITY AXD DATE, 147 years, a period for which three high priests, each exercising his office thirty- five years, would suffice. But on the other hand, it is very questionable whether in vers. 11 and 12 Jaddua is mentioned as the officiating high priest, or only as the son of Johanan, and grandson of Joiada the high priest. The former of these views receives no corroboration from ver. 11, for there nothing else is given but the genealogy of the high-priestly line. Nor can it any more be proved from ver. 22 that the words, " in the days of Eliashib, Joiada, Johanan, and Jaddua, were the Levites recorded or enrolled," are to be understood of four different lists made under four successive high priests. The most natural sense of the words, on the contrary, is that one enrolment took place in the days of these four individuals of the high- priestly house. If Eliashib, Joiada, Johanan, and Jaddua w^ere all alive at the same time, this, the most natural view, must also be the correct one, because in each of the other lists of the same chapter, the times of only one high priest are mentioned, and at the close of the list, ver. 26, it is expressly stated that the (previously enrolled) Levites were chiefs in the days of Joiakim, Ezra, and Nehemiah. It is not, moreover, difficult to prove that Eliashib, Joiada, Johanan, and Jaddua v.-ere living contemporaneously. For Eliashib, whom Nehemiah found high priest at his arrival at Jerusalem (iii. 1), being the grandson of Joshua, who returned from Babylon in the year 536 with Zerubbabel, would in 445 be anything but a young man. Indeed, he must then have been about seventy-five years old. More- over, it appears from xiii. 4 and 7, that in 433, when Nehe- miah returned to Artaxerxes, he was still in office, though on Nehemiah's return he was no longer alive, and that he therefore died soon after 433, at the age of about ninety. If, however, this was his age when he died, his son Joiada might then be already sixty-three, his grandson Johanan thirty-six, his great-grandson Jaddua nine, if each were respectively born in the twenty-seventh year of his father's lifetime.^ ^ If Jaddua were on the death of his great-great-grandfather (between 148 INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. The view (of vers. 11, 12, and 22) just stated, is con- firmed both by vers. 226 and 23, and by chap. xiii. 28. According to 22b, the chiefs or heads of the priestly houses vere enrolled under the government of Darius the Persian. Now there is no doubt that this Darius is Darius Nothus, the successor of Artaxerxes Longimanus, who reigned from 424 to 404. The notion that Darius Codomanus is in- tended, rests upon the mistaken view that in ver. 11 Jaddua is mentioned as the high priest already in office. According to ver. 23, the heads of the houses of the Levites were en- rolled in the book of the Chronicles even until the days of Johanan the son of Eliashib. The days of Johanan — that is, the period of his high-priesthood — are here named as tlie latest date to which the author of this book extends the genealogical lists of the Levites. And this well agrees with the information, chap. xiii. 18, that during Nehemiah's absence at Jerusalem, one of the sons of Joiada the high priest allied himself by marriage with Sanballat the Horonite, i.e. married one of his daughters, and was driven away by Nehemiah. If Joiada had even in the days of Nehemiah a married son, Johanan the first-born son of Joiada, the pre- sumptive successor to the high-priesthood, might well have been at that time so long a married man as to have already witnessed the birth of his son Jaddua. To complete our proof that the contents of chap. xii. do not extend to a period subsequent to Nehemiah, we have still to discuss the question, how long he held office in Judaea, and uhen he wrote the book in which he relates what he there effected. Both these questions can be answered with suffi- cient accuracy for our purpose, though the exact year cannot be named. Concerning the time he held office in Jerusalem, he only remarks in his book that he was governor from the 433 and 430 B.C.) about ten years old, he might also live to witness the appearance of Alexander the Great before Jerusalem, 330 B.C. (men- tioned by Josephus, Ant. xi. 8. 4), since he would then have attained the age of 110, which does not seem incredible, when it is considered that Jehoiada, the high priest in the reign of Joash, was 130 when he died (2 Chron. xxiv. 15). INTEGRITY AND DATE. 149 twentieth to the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes, and that in the thirty-second year of that monarch he again returned to the court, and afterwards, Cpj )*[?;', came back to Jeru- salem (v. 14, and xiii. 6). The term C^J Y\?^ is very in- definite ; but the interpretation, " at the end of the year," is incorrect and unsupported. It is quite evident, from the irregularities and transgressions of the law which occurred in the community during his absence from Jerusalem, that Nehemiah must have remained longer than a year at the court, and, indeed, that he did not return for some years. Besides the withholding of the dues to the Levites (xiii. 10 sq.) and the desecration of the Sabbath (xiii. 15 sq.), — trans- jtrressions of the law which might have occurred soon after Nehemiah's departure, — Eliashib had not only the priest fitted up a chamber in the fore-court of the temple as a dwelling for his connection Tobiah (xiii. 4), but Jews had also married women of Ashdod, Amnion, and Moab, and had children by them who spake not the Jews' language, but only that of Ashdod, in the interval (xiii. 23). These facts presuppose an absence of several years on the part of Nehemiah, even if many of these unlawful marriages had been previously contracted, and only came to his knowledge after his return. — Neither are there adequate grounds for the notion that Nehemiah lived but a short time after liis return to Jerusalem. The suppression of these infringements of the law, which is narrated chap. xiii. 7-31, might, indeed, have been accomplished in a few months ; but we are by no means justified in inferring that this was the last of his labours for the welfare of his fellow- countrymen, and that his own life terminated soon after, because he relates nothing more than his procedure against these transgressions. After the removal of these irregulari- ties, and the re-establishment of legal order in divine wor- ship and social life, he might have lived for a long period at Jerusalem without eifecting anything, the I'ecord of which it might be important to hand down to posterity. If we suppose him to have been from thirty-five to forty years of age when, being cupbearer to Artaxerxes, he was sent at 150 INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOK OF NEHEJIIAH. his own request, in the twentieth year of that monarch's reign (445 B.C.), as governor to Judah, he might well have exercised his office in Judah and Jerusalem from thirty-five to forty years, including his journey back to the court in the thirty- second year of Artaxerxes, i.e. till 405 B.C. This would make him live till the nineteenth year of Darius Nothus, and not die till he was from seventy-five to eighty years of age. If we further suppose that he composed this book some ten years before his death, i.e. thirty years after his first arrival at Jerusalem, when he had, as far as lay in his power, arranged the affairs of Judah, it would then be possible for him to relate and describe all that is contained in the canonical book of Nehemiah. For in the year 415 B.C., i.e. in the ninth year of Darius Nothus, genealogical lists of priests and Levites of the time of Joiakim the high priest, reaching down to the days of Johanan the son (grand- son) of Eliashib, and of the time of the reign of Darius iSTothus, might already be written in the book of the Clu'onicles, as mentioned xii. 23, compared with 22 and 26. Then, too, the high priest Joiada might already have been dead, his son Johanan have succeeded to the office, and Jaddua, the son of the latter, have already attained the age of twenty-five. — This book would consequently contain no historical information and no single remark which Nehemiah might not himself have written. Hence the contents of the book itself furnish not the slightest opposition to the view that the whole was the work of Nehemiah. When, however, we turn our attention to its form, that unity of character to which modern criticism attaches so much importance seems to be wanting in the second half. We have, however, already remarked that neither the lack of prominence given to the person of Nehemiah, nor the circumstance that he is in these chapters spoken of in the third person, furnish incontestable arguments against the integrity of this book. For in the section concerning the dedication of the wall, xii. 27-43, Nehemiah's authorship of which no critic has as yet impugned, he only brings him- self forward (31 and 38) when mentioning what he had IXTEGRITY AND DATE. 151 himself appointed and done, while the rest of the narrative is not in the communicative form of speech : we sought the Levites, we offered, etc., which he employs in the account of the making of a covenant, but in the objective form : they souglit the Levites, they offered, etc. (27 and 43). The want of connection between the several sections seems to us far more striking. Chaps, viii.-x. form, indeed, a con- nected section, the commencement of which (vii. 736) by the circumstantial clause, " when the children of Israel dwelt in their cities," combines it, even by a repetition of tlie very form of words, with the preceding list ; but the commence- ment of chap. xi. is somewhat abrupt, while between xi. and xii. and between vers. 26 and 27 of chap. xii. there is nothing to mark the connection. This gives the sections, chaps, viii.- X. and xii. 1-26, the appearance of being subsequent inter- polations or insertions in Neliemiah's record ; and there is thus much of real foundation for this appearance, tliat tliis book is not a continuous narrative or description of Nehe- miah's proceedings in Judah, — historical, topographical, and genealogical lists, which interrupt the thread of the history, being inserted in it. But it by no means follows, that be- cause such is the nature of the book, the inserted portions must therefore have been the subsequent interpolations of another hand, in the record composed by Nehemiah. This inference of modern criticism is based upon an erroneous conception of the nature and intention of this book, which is first of all regarded, if not as a biography or diary of Nehemiah, yet as a " record," in which he noted down only the most important facts concerning his journey to Jeru- salem and his proceedings there. For this preconception, neither the canonical book of Nehemiah, nor a comparison of those sections which are universally admitted to be his, furnish any adequate support. For with regard, first, to these sections, it is obvious from ver. 14, where Nehemiah during the building of the wall reproaches the usurers, say- ing, "From the time that I was appointed to be governor in the land of Judali, from the twentieth to the two-and-thir- tieth year of Artaxerxes, that is, twelve years, I and my 152 INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. brethren have not eaten the bread of the governor," that Xehemiah wrote the account of his labours in Judah from memory after the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes. When we compare with this the manner in which he speaks quite incidentally (xiii. 6 sq.) of his absence from Jerusalem and his journey to the court, in the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes, and connects the account of the chamber vacated for Tobiah in the fore-court of the temple (xiii. 4) with the previous narrative of the public reading of the law and the severance of the strangers from Israel by the formula H'tfp ''3Spi^ '' and before this," making it appear as though this public reading of the law and severance of strangers had followed his re- turn from the court ; and further, consider that the public reading of the law mentioned, xiii. 1, is combined with the section, chap. xii. 44, and this section again (xii. 44) with the account of the dedication of the wall by the formula, "at that time;" it is undoubtedly obvious that Nehemiah did not write his whole work till the evening of his days, and after he had accomplished all that was most important in the labours he undertook for Jerusalem and his fellow- countrymen, and that he makes no decided distinction be- tween his labours during his second sojourn at Jerusalem and those of his former stay of twelve years. If, then, these circumstances indisputably show that the work composed by Nehemiah himself did not bear the form of a diary, the admission into it of the list of those who re- turned from Babylon with Zerubbabel and Joshua (vii. 6- 73) makes it manifest that it was not his intention to give an unbroken narrative of his efforts and their results in Jerusalem. This list, moreover, which he found when occupied with his plan for increasing the population of Jerusalem, is shown by the words, " I found therein writ- ten," to have been admitted by himself into his work, and inserted in his account of what God had put it into his heart to do with respect to the peopling of Jerusalem (vii. 5), and of the manner in which he had carried out his resolution (xi. 1, 2), as a valuable document with respect to the history of the community, although the continuous thread of the INTEGRITY AND DATE. 153 narrative was broken by the interpolation. From his ad- mission of this list, we may infer that he also incorporated other not less important documents, such as the lists of the priests and Levites, xii. 1-26, in his book, without troubling himself about the continuous progress of the historical nar- rative, because it was his purpose not merely to portray his own labours in Jerusalem, but to describe the development and circumstances of the reinstated community under his own and Ezra's leadership.^ This being the case, there can be no reason whatever for denying Nehemiah's authorship of the account of the religious solemnities in chaps, viii.-x., especially as the communicative form in which the narratK'e is written, bears witness that one of the leaders of that assembly of the people composed this account of it, and the expression, " we will not forsake the house of our God," with which it closes (x. 40), is a form of speech peculiar to Nehemiah, and repeated by him xiii. 11. Such considera- tions seem to us to do away with any doubts which may have been raised as to the integrity of the whole book, and the authorship of Nehemiah. For the exegetical literature, see my Lehrh. p. 4G0. Comp. also Ed. Barde, NehSmie etude critique et exegetique, Tubing. 1861, and Bertheau's Commentary already quoted, p. 18. ^ '■'' Nehemie,'''' remarks Ed. Barde in his Etude critique et exegetique, p. 48, '•'• n'' ecrit pas s*")20 ; comp. i. 3. — Ver. 14. "And I went on to tlie fountain-gate, and to the King's pool, and there was no room for the beast to come through under me." Tlie very name of the fountain- or well-gate points to the fountain of Siloah (see rem. on iii. 15) ; hence it lay on the eastern declivity of Zion, but not in the district or neighbourhood of the present Bab el Mogharibeh, in which tradition finds the ancient dung-gate, but much farther south, in the neighbourhood of the pool of Siloah ; see rem. on iii. 15. The King's pool is probably the same which Josephus {bell. Jud. v. 4. 2) calls Xo\oixo)vo''VI}!\}, the principal verb of the verse. It is incomprehensible how Bertheau can say that this statement does not refer to the repairing of the wall, but only declares that the distance from the valley-gate to the dung-gate amounted to one thousand cubits. For the remark, that a section of such a length is, in comparison with the other sections, far too extensive, naturally proves nothing more than that the wall in this part had suffered less damage, and therefore needed less repair. The number one thousand cubits is certainly stated in round numbers. The length from the present Jaffa gate to the supposed site of the dung-gate, on the south-western edge of Zion, is above two thousand five hundred feet. The dung-gate may, however, have been placed at a greater distance from the road leading to Baker. niSC'n is only another form for niapNn (without K prosthetic). Malchiah ben Rechab, per- 184 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. haps a Recliabite, built and fortified tlie dung-gate ; for thoufrh tlie Rechabites were forbidden to build themselves houses (Jer. xxxv. 7), they might, without transgressing this paternal injunction, take part in building the fortifications of Jerusalem (Berth.). This conjecture is, however, de- void of probability, for a Rechabite would hardly be a ])rince or ruler of the district of Beth-haccerem. The name Rechab occurs as early as the days of David, 2 Sam. iv. 5. DHsnTi^B, i.e. the garden or vineyard-house, where, according to Jer. vi. 1, the children of Benjamin were wont to set up a banner, and to blow the trumpet in Tekoa, is placed by Jerome (Comm. Jer. vi.) upon a hill between Jerusalem and Tekoa; on which account Pococke {Beise, ii. p. 63) thinks Beth-Cherem must be sought for on the eminence now known as the Frank mountain, the Dshebel Fureidis, upon which was the Herodium of Josephus. This opinion is em- braced with some hesitation by Robinson {Pal. ii. p. 397), and unreservedly by Wilson {The Holy Citi/, i. p. 396) and v. de Velde, because " when we consider that this hill is the highest point in the whole district, and is by reason of its isolated position and conical shape very conspicuous, we shall find that no other locality better corresponds with the passage cited." Ver. 15. The fountain-gate and a portion of wall adjoin- ing it was repaired by Shallum the son of Col-hozeh, the ruler of the district of Mizpah. nrh"73 occurs again, xi. 5, apparently as the name of another individual. To 133^'' is added 13^?^'!, he covered it, from ?2^, to shade, to cover, an- swering to the iniii^ of vers. 3 and 6, probably to cover with a layer of beams. The position of the fountain-gate is ap- ])arent from the description of the adjoining length of wall wliich Shallum also repaired. This was " the wall of the pool of Shelach (Siloah) by the king's garden, and unto the stairs that go down from the city of David." The word np^ recalls nibtJ'' ; the pool of Shelach can be none other than the pool which received its water through the npti', i.e. mistiio {ciqiioi). By the researches of Robinson {Pal. ii. p. 148 sc[.) and Tobler {die Siloahquelle u. der Oelberg, p. 6 sq.), CHAP. III. 15. 185 it has been shown that the pool of Siloah receives Its water from a subterranean conduit 1750 feet long, cut through the rock from the Fountain of the Virgin, Ain Sitti Minam, on the eastern slope of Ophel. Near to the pool of Siloah, on the eastern declivity of Zion, just where the Tyropoean valley opens into the vale of Kidron, is found an old and larger pool (Birket el Hamrd), now covered with grass and trees, and choked with earth, called by Tobler the lower pool of Siloah, to distinguish it from the one still existing, which, because it lies north-west of the former, he calls the upper pool of Siloah. One of these pools of Siloah, pro- bably the lower and larger, is certainly the king's pool men- tioned ii. 14, in the neighbourhood of which lay, towards the east and south-east, the king's garden. The wall of the pool of Shelach need not have reached quite up to the pool, but may have gone along the edge of the south-eastern slope of Zion, at some distance therefrom. In considering the next particular following, " unto the stairs that go down from the city of David," we must turn our thoughts towards a locality somewhat to the north of this pool, the description now proceeding from the soiith-eastern corner of the wall northward. These stairs are not yet pointed out with cer- tainty, unless perhaps some remains of them are preserved in the " length of rocky escarpment," which Robinson {Pal. ii. p. 102, and' Biblical Researches, p. 247) remarked on the narrow ridge of the eastern slope of the hill of Zion, north of Siloam, at a distance of 960 feet from the present wall of the city, " apparently the foundations of a wall or of some similar piece of building."^ ^ Bertheau's view, that these stairs were situated wliore Jlount Zion, upon which stood the city of David, descends abruptly towards the east, and therefore on the precipice running from south to north, which still rises ninety-one feet above the ground northwards of the now so- called Bab el ^rogharibeh or dung-gate, opposite the southern part of the west wall of the temple area, is decidedly incorrect. For this place is two thousand feet, i.e. more than one thousand cubits, distant from the pool of Siloah, while our text places them immediately after the length of wall by this pool. The transposition of these " steps " to a position within the present wall of the city is, in Bertheau's case, connected with 186 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAn. Vers. lG-19. The wall from the steps leading from the city of David to the angle opposite the armoury. From ver. 16 onwards we find for the most part ''"'"inXj after him, instead of i1^ ^V, 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 Zion, where was probably, as Thenius tlie erroneous notion that the fountain-gate (ver. 15 and ii. 14) stood on the site of the present dung-gate {Bab el Mughuribeh), 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 ICings 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, Avould first arrive at the fountain-gate, and then at the portion of Avail 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 — one 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 Chaldeaua ? CHAP. III. lC-19. 187 endeavours to show in the Zeitschr. of the deutsch morgenl. Gesellsch. xxi. p. 495 sq., an entrance to the buryin^-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 (Topograpliie 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 Keilah, for his district. Keilah, situate, according to Josh. xv. 44 and 1 Sam. x.xiii. 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 13^?^', 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 th^ second half, who were under the rule of Bavai the son of Henadad. — Ver. 19. Next to these re- ])aired Ezer the son of Jeshua, the ruler of Mizpah, another piece (on H'^Jti' rrip, see rem. on ver. 11) opposite the ascent to the armoury of the angle. P0n or pti'^n (in most editions) is probably an abbreviation of P'^'3n"n"'3j arsenal, armoury ; and yi^*i?sn is, notwithstanding the article in ?^'}J}, genitive : for to combine it as an accusative with ni^y, 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 the 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 H'lnn, and conjectures that it should be ^y}[}, " up the hill." But the reason he adduces, viz. that often as the word P''l.nn 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''inr'j hut uniformly standing after it, as also in the present verse. Certainly nnnn can- not here mean either to be angry, or to be incensed, but may without difficulty be taken, in the sense of the Tiphal •^"jn^j 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 ''3T instead of ''?!, probably from Ezra ii. 9, but on insufficient grounds, the name ''3T 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 n73rij termination, at its northern end. On Meremoth, see rem. on ver. 4. — Ver. 22. Farther northwards repaired CnAP. III. 20-25. 189 the priests, the men of the district of Jordan. "I33 does not, as Bertheau infers from xii. 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. "\Ve join PyV'^ to ^'^^^'], though it is also verbally admissible to combine it with ■?ipsn JT'a, " 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 ji yJ^n. 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 (-'^'^jn) 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 ^ Equally devoid of proof is the view of Ewald, Dicstel (in Herzog's Kealencycl. xiii. p. 325), Arnold, and others, that the royal jialace stood upon Moriah or Ophcl on the south side of the temple, iu support of 190 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. to Joseplius, Ant. vlii. 5. 2, opposite the temple (dvriKpv'; evtwi' 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- in c reaches the walls of Ophel, all the localities and build- ings spoken of in vers. 24-2 7a 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 ([na, properly watch-tower) answer to the li'^lf? 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 (njQn); for the section of wall which reached to the nsB 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 w^ater-gate toward the east, and the tower that standeth out. ''•n ^~\)}P\} still depends upon 133 iy. 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 coiiinieutary ou 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 {Rah er Rahme) 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. ^^)»i'[i ^1,'^'^'^ is said by Bertheau to have belonged perhaps to the water-gate towards the east, since, by reason of the statements contained in 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 corner, 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 ^>'i'!] 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 NVi»n biJ-QT}^ 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 NEHEMIAH. tlie 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 Chron. 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 Tyropoean 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 ^VD, " 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) was probably the head of the priestly order of Immer. CHAP. HI. 28-32. 193 Sliemaiah the son of Sliecaniah, the keeper of the east gate, can hardly be tlie same as the Sheniaiah 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 Sliemaiah of 1 Chron. xxvi. 6 sq., if the latter had not been enumerated among the sons of Obed-Edom, Avhose 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 Sliemaiah 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. ou ver. 31.— Ver. 30. ^"jnx here and in ver. 31 gives no appro- priate sense, and is certainly only an error of transcription arising from the scriptio defect, nqx. 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 liardly be intended in the two verses, the one mentioned in ver. 4 being distinguished from others of the same name by the addition hen Meshezabeel. ^tf' for n^Jt^ (vers. 27, 24, and elsewhere) is grammatically incorrect, if not a mere error of transcription, inr^'p IJJ, before his dwelling. HT^j occurs only here and xiii. 7, and in the plural nb'^'^n, xii. 44 ; it seems, judging from the latter passage, only another form for nap-'^j chamber ; while in xiii, 7, on the contrary, nri^'j is distinguished from ns'^Jj^ xiii. 4, 5. Its etymology is obscure. In xiii. 7 it seems to signify dwelling.— Ver. 31. ''ip^^ is not a proper name, but an appellative, son of the goldsmith, or perhaps better, member of the goldsmiths' guild, according to which 'S"isn does not stand for ^l^i^n, 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 l^S^an^ and to the upper chamber N 194 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. of the corner, are obscure. This rendering; is accordInf» to the Masoretic punctuation ; while the LXX., on the con- trary, translate according to a different division of the words : Malcliiah repaired as far as the house of the Ne- tliinim, 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, however, 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 ^?^]^\} ^^"^D^] ; for throughout this long enumeration of forty-two sections of wall, the verb P'IDl' or Ip^nrij or some corresponding verb, always stands either before or after every name of the builders, and even the V")nN 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 ij^srsn. This word is reproduced in the LXX. as a proper name (tov Maitra jyortam judicialem; and hence by Luther, Eathsthor. Tlienius translates {Sfadt, p. 9) : the muster or punishment gate, li^sp does not, however, signify punishment, although the view may be correct that the gate took the name li^SSn from the n;3n npso mentioned Ezek. xliii. 21, where tlie 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 tlie 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 ri^sn Hi^SD 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 Gicra, 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 Jerusalem 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 "IJ.^, (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 ("1.^3) 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 *li^30 was reached. Again, it is evident that the n^^'V 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. n^sn n^pj;, the upper chamber of the corner, was perhaps a vTrepwov of a corner tower, not at the north-eastern corner of the external circumvallation of the temple area (Berthcau), but at the 196 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. south-eastern corner, wliich was formed by the junction at tliis 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 leno-th, 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 (D*]^) iT 7V or ^nnx, 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, liaving remained unharmed, were in need of no restoration. AVe 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 (Vn3) 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 surroundiniT; wall. The wall was only so fai' (lemollshecl 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. Tiie 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 NEHEMIAH. 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 impression that this must have been about the direction of an older wall." So Wolcott and Tipping in Robinson's New Biblical Besearches. 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 Robin- 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, Robinson 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 have 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 soiitliGrn 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 Zlon 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-Nehi-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. 1-0, A. V.). The ridicide of Tohiah and Sanhcdlat. — Vers. 33 and 34. As soon as Sanballat heard that we were building (^"'^3, 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 (?''n, like Esth. i. 3, 2 Kings xviil. 17), — in other words, saying publicly before his associates and subordinates, — " What do these feeble Jews? 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 ?" D^y no, not. What will they do ? (Bertheau), for the participle is present, and does not stand for the future; but. What are they doing? Tiie form 77DX, 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 enougli to render inadmissible the ex- planation offered by older expositors of DH^ ^^}Ti}. : 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 2]V the meaning to shelter : Will they make a shelter for themselves, i.e. will they fortify the town ? But this is quite arbitrary. Bertlieau more correctly compares the passage, Ps. X. 14, D"'"?''?^. ''y ^^?1^, we leave it to God ; but incorrectly infers that here also we must supply U^nbn h]}, 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. 2|y 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? t.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 ^^^T.'}. 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. 1-3. 201 Tlie building-stone of Jerusalem was limestone, which gets softened by fire, losing its durability, and, so to speak, its vitality. This explains the use of tiie verb ^\i}, 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 into a new building (Ges. Lex.). The construction nia^TJ' nisni is explained by the circum- stance that C^^^ is by its form masculine, but by its mean- ing feminine, and that ^1^[} agrees with the form D^33X. — 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 suffice 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'-pn without 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. The attempts of the enemies to hinder the work l>i/ force, and Neliemialis precautions against them. — Vers. 1-8. When the enemies learnt that the restoration of the wail 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 Chron. 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, nyin 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 erransy qui nescit quid agat quove se vertat. — Ver. 3. The Jews, on the other hand, made preparation by prayer, and by setting a watch ("^^^'P, comp. vii. 3, xiii. 30) day and night. We, viz. Nehemiah and the superintendents of the work, prayed and set a watch ^^y.V., against them, to ward off a probable attack. Cin''JS'?, 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 discouraije- ment was increased by the words of their enemies, who said : Tliey (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 Pliilistines (Ashdodites) on the west, iti'^^ before IZVii'n 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 Aranijean usage. "Return to us" Q'V 21^, as in 2 Chron. XXX. 9, for ?X yi^), 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 longer in Jerusalem to take part in the building of the wall. — Ver. 7a 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. Dip^? nrnnnp is a stronger expression for DipG^ ^O'i'P when used to indicate position, and p points out the direc- tion. The sense is : at the lowest places from behind the wall. 2"'nn5:n gives the nature of the places where the people were placed with arms, n'^nv and nn'ny 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 TOVNi is but 204 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. a reiteration of the verb, for the sake of combining it with its object, from which the *T''?J'!i<} at the beginning of the verse was too far removed by the circnmstantial description of the locality/ — Ver. 8. '• And I looked, and rose up, and said." These words can only mean: When I saw the people til us 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 Avould 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. — Ver, 9. When our enemies heard that it (their intention) was known to us, and (tliat) 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 3it^31, '?sn "iD-il belonging to the premiss, in continuation of y^iJ ""S. — Ver. 10. From that day the half of my servants wrought at the work, and the other half of them held the ^ Bertlieau considers the text corrupt, regarding the word ni*nnnD as the object of T'D^X and alters it into nucnp or niJbl^'n engines for hurling missiles (2 Chron. xxvi. 15), or into ni'intOO (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^^nn^*2 conjectunilly by h Tol; aKiTreiuol;. Besides, it is not easy to see how ni33C'n could have arisen from a false reading of DVnnnD; and it should be re- membered that ni3C*no does not mean a machine for hurling, while nVintDD is a mere fabrication. To this must be added, that such machines are indeed placed iipo7i the walls of a fortress to hurl down stones and projectiles upon assaulting foes, and not heJilnd the walls, wliere tliey coidd 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 arms. The servants of Nehemiali are liis personal retinue, ver. 17, V. 10, 16, namely, Jews placed at his disposal as Pechah for official purposes. The ^ before Q'''!'?"?!? ^^'^^ P^°" bably placed before this word, instead of before the C''3;Gri following, by a clerical error ; for if it stood before the latter also, it might be taken in the sense of et — et. QT'ID'?, 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^'^D"^3 originally stood after D"!?^?!!^, and that a fresh sentence begins with D^np"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- ))ons 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'^JUn n^ins 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 CXb'^n and D'^'sn means both; and ?3E)3 Kb'J, 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. iT rinX3, literally, with the one (namely) of his hands that was doing the work. Tlie suffix of iT points to the genitive following, nnxi nriN'j the one and the other hand. ^7^^, 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 Josh. ii. 8, 2 Chron. xxxil. 5. The builders, on the contrary, needed botli hands for their work : hence they had swoi'ds girt to their sides. " And lie 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 tlie 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 tlie 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 ^i^, to us, refers to the whole community separated on the walls, so is iiy^^ ^''i^ to be understood of all the workers, and not of the fighting men only. From ^'i^ 'iiyjl it only ai)pears 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, Q^^^n inisK^ c'\Nt, are very obscure, and give no tolerable sense, whether we ex- plain nw 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. Roediger, in Gesen. Thes. s.v. np^r, seeks to alter n''Dri into n^?, to which Bottc'ier (A^. krk. Aehrenl. iii. p. 219) rightly objects: "how could ST^ have been altered into Dl'sn^ or D^1>0 have got into the text at all, if some portion of it had not been originally there? Wiiat this il^? expresses, would be far more definitely given with tha very slight correction of changing the closing D of D^EHj and reading iron =: I3'pn (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 13 might easily have been changed into D ; and we only differ in this matter from Bottcher, by taking nm 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 sional 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 times, 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 nmst now give their sons and daughters to bondage (vers. 208 THi: DOOK OF NEHEMIAH. 3-5). When these complaints came to tlie 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 '.,hat 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 comjjlain of oppression. — Ver. 1. There arose a great cry of the people and of their wives against their brethren the Jews, t.g., 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 t^'.''.'!, 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 liad no property, nnpa (from '"'i?^), not to take by force, but only to desire that coi'n 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. 3"]y, 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. 1-5. 209 they arc still pledged) ; and (2) nnpj must not be taken liere 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, ^i-ns, too, does not necessarily presuppose a scarcity in consequence of a failure of crops or other circumstances, but only declares that they who had been obliged to pledge their fields were suffering from hun- ger. — Yer. 4. Others, again, complained : We have borrowed money for the king's tribute upon our fields and vineyards. HP means to be dependent, nexiim esse, and transitively to make dependent, like i ^il^® "^^^'s. 9, 19); and 2d, 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 liearkening 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 tipoii 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 fifty-two 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 agrees with the other chronolon-ical 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 w^as 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, GescTi. iv. p. 178, thinks that traces of the correct reading of this verse are found in the statement of Josephus, Ant. xi. 6. 7 sq., that the wall of Jerusalem was finished in two years and four months, and that the word D^nJC'^ may have been omitted fi-om 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 D^niti' is suppUed, no agree- ment with the statement of Josephus is obtained, since the question still remains how four months can be made out of fifty-two days, or 222 THE COOK of nehejuaii. in this case consider, Isf, tlie 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 ; od, 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 VtCre much cast down, and perceived " that this work was effected with the help of our God." The expression C3r'\^.''?^? ^■^r>\ occurs only here, and must be explained according to VJQ VB]^ his countenance fell (Gen. iv. 5), and 27 7B>, 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 Judali were in alliance an*iDj 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 NEHEmAH. divlduals, 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 0^^^,'',, 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 "iven 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 OF THE CITY. MEASURES TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF ITS INHABITANTS. LIST OF 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 ("'iPS'?, prcefici; 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 Chron. ix. 17-19, xxvi. 12-19. The singers and the Levites appointed to assist the priests, on the contrary, CHAP. VII. 1-3. 225 liad, in ordinary times, nothing to do with the service of watching. Under the present extraordinary circumstances, liowever, 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 liis brother Hanani, and of Hananiah the ruler of the citadel. Tliis is expressed by the words, ver. 2 : I gave Hanani . . . and Ilananiah . . . charge ov^er Jerusalem. "^y^n 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 t^'^^{ is tlie so-called Caph veritatis, which ex- presses a comparison with the idea of the matter : like a man whom one may truly call faithful. Q^?"!^ is comparative : more God-fearing than many. — Ver. 3. The Chethiv "10X''1 is both here and v. 9 certainly a clerical error for the Keri ^pNl, though in this place, at all events, we might read "i^^S'lj 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." ^3''^ in Hebrew is used only here, though more frequently in the Talmud, of closing the doors. THX, to make fast, i.e. to lock, as more frequently in Syriac. The injin. ahsol. T'pyn 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- liabitants 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 })art watching before their (each P 226 THE BOOK OF NEIIEMIAH. before his own) house, so as to be at hand to defend the city. Vers. 4-73a. The measures taken hy Nehemiali for in- creasing the number of the inhabitants of Jerusalem. — Ver. 4. Tlie city was spacious and great, and the people few therein, and houses were not built. D^i! ^^D?., 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. !3"'3Jl3ni nnhn are combined, as in ii. 16. On b'n^nn, comp. 1 Chron'. v. 17. While this resolve was under consideration, Nehemiali found the register, i.e. the genealogical registry, of those who came up at first (from Babylon). nji:i=t<'-izi^ at the be- ginning, i.e. with Zerubbabel and Joshua under Cyrus (Ezra ii.), and 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. VIII,-X. — rUBLTC READING OF THE LAW. THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES. A TUBLIC FAST HELD, AND A COVENANT MADE TO KEEP THE LAW. Tiiese three chapters form a connected whole, and describe acts of worship and solemnities conducted by Ezra and other priests and Levites, Nehemiali as the secular governor being only twice mentioned in them (viii. 9, x. 2). The contents of CHAP, viii.-x. 227 tlie three chapters are as follows: On tlie 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, tlie 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 buikling 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 thei'efore occurring subsequently, while all the facts narrated in chap, viii.-xi. might, without any difTi- 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. bi-ation of the feast of tabernacles, and tlie 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 tlie 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 puhlic reading of the laiu. — 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 tlie 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 month, the festal month of the year. For this purpose the people came from the cities and villages of Judah to Jerusalem, and assembled " in fhe 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 liDN'i 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 Ilis law their rule of life. The assembly consisted of men and women indiscriminately CHAP. VIII. 1-3. 229 (nm IV] C'^*, like Josh. vi. 21, viii. 25, 1 Sam. xxii. 19, 1 Chron. xvi. 3), and yj^rp p^p l?ii, everyone 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 ces.>ation from labour; coinp. 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. crnisn must be understood according to V'^'^y T?'? ^'^ 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 iiad been made for the purpose p^'^?, for the matter), ^"njp, 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 Esdias, 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 it is improbable that there was one person less on his right than on his left hand. " Perhaps Urijah is the father of the Meremoth of iii. 4, 21 ; ]\Iaaseiah, the father of the Azariah of iii. 23; Pedaiali, 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 QJ''v'"''3 -'i-'P). 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" C""?)^). It 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 Rabbis assert; comp. Vitringa, de Si/nag. vet, p. 1G7. — Ver. G. 230 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. Ezra began by blessing the Lord, the great God, perhaps with a sentence of thanksgiving, as David did, 1 Chron. 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'bn ^\}^y.i with lifting up of their hands ; the form ?yb occurring only here), and worshipping the Lord, bowing down towards the ground. — Yer. 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 D'vn 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 K'^b'^ = t^^6 Chaldee ^1^^, 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 C^'iS, this word being used in the Targums for the Hebrew 2p_2 (3315), e.g. Lev. xxiv. 16, and for "1S3, Deut. i. 5. It is more correct to suppose a paraphrastic exposition and appli- cation of the law (Pfeiffer, ditbia vex. p. 480), but not " a distinct recitation according to appointed rules" (Gusset, and Bertheau). Dib' is injin. ahs. instead of the temp, finit.: and gave the sense, made the law comprehensible to the hearers. NiiPE? I3''3»i, 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 X2'r\^ 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, qxiod legerint et dederint vttellectum, de auditoribus, quod lec- ium iniellexerint. 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 tliey read to their auditors; while accoi'ding to ver. 3, Ezra read to the assembled people, and the ears of all were attentive to the book of the law, wliiie 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 first 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 tiie people wept when they heard the words of the law." QVn 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 NEHEMIAH. "Go, eat the fat, and drink 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." D^iiOC'p, fatnesses (Xiirda^aTa, LXX.), fat pieces of meat, not ''rich cakes" (Bertheau); comp. Q''^'3*^ nn^'p, Isa. xxv. 6. D''iprirpOj 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. ni:o, 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. p33 '{"^b for ii33 pi^ "^'^'^y. (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. t^^'^'' rinn is a joy founded on the feeling of communion with the Lord, on the consciousness that we have in the Lord a God long-suffering and abundant in goodness and truth (Ex. xxxiv. 6). This joy is to be to them liy^, a strong citadel or refuge, because the Almighty is their God; comp. Jer. xvi. 19. — Ver. 11. The Levites also strove to pacify tiie people, saying: " Hold your peace, i.e. give over weeping, for the day is holy; neither be ye grieved." — Yer. 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 witii 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. Celehration of the feast of tahernacles. — 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 ''''S^'n? 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 ill cases where the second verb either states what must be done, or further describes the condition of affairs, while cnAP. VIII. 13-18. 233 7''3b'np here states tlie purpose for wliicli the heads of tlie people, etc. assembled themselves unto Ezra. Hence we take ^'sb-n^ in its usual meaning, and the 1 before it as explicative. 7^ ''"'?"f'?, 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 tlie 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 mount, 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 tlie due celebration of the feast of taber- nacles (Bertheau). The text only states that the heads of the people again betook themselves to Ezia 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 witli its directions. The law concerning the feast of tabernacles, of which the essentials are here communicated, is found Lev. xxiii. 39—43. lu Deut. 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). Goto the mountain, a woody district, whence branches may be obtained, vj;, state constructive plural of npy, leaf, foliage, here leafy boughs or branches of trees, nn, the olive, l^i^ fV, 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). 2in3| does not relate to the preparation of the 234 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. booths, but to tlie 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 ^^''^Jl 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. )2j 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 tlie book of the law was read from day to day. N'^p'l with the subject indefinite, while liainb. and others supply Ezra. The reading of 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 nivy did not belong to the feast of tabernacles ; see rem. on Lev. xxiii. 3l). I23;;'r33 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 oj)pression 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-fourtli the congregation re-assembled in the temple, " with fasting and with sackcloths (penitential garments made of hair; see rem. Joel i. 8) and earth 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 23G THE BOOK OF NEIIEMIAH. all strangers, and stood and confessed all their sins, and the iniquities of their fathers." Tiiis 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 scaffold 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 Lord 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 Chenani (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 ''?33 and •^'^^^C! nowhere else. Hence Bunni, Bani, and Chenani (ver. 4), and Plashabniah (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 tlie matter of tliese verses, Eamb. remarks on ver. 4 : constitisse opinor omnes simid, ita tamen tit unus tantum eochm tempore fuerit precatns, ceteris ipsi adstantihus atque sua etiam vice Deum orantibus, hence that the ei^ht 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 koI elirev ''EaSpa<;, 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 iis (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., Kul elirev ^'EaBpa<;, 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 niiT' Kin nns 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 Tliy 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, nin^ nx ^D"}3 ^Olp, 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 ''3")^"''! R. Sal. already remarks : iiunc incipiunt loqui Levitce versus Shecliinam s. ad ipsum Deinn. 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'vH in ver. 5. For D'l^n jn J •■:,- ••li- ver. 4 belongs as genitive to npj?o, 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. ^3"i3, and to take it as a further qualification of D?'i?^{<. This is, however, unnatural and arbitrary ; comp. 1 Gin-on. xvi. 26. Still more arbitrary is it to supply " One day all CHAP. IX. 6-8. 239 people " to ^a-iTI, "shall bless Thy name," etc. 131 a»no^ acUls a second predicate to Q?f': and which is exalted above all bless- ing and praise, i.e. suhliinius est quam ut pro dignitate laudari possit (R. Sal.). In ver. 6 this praising of God 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, the 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 Chaldces, and gavest him the name of Abraham: Ver. 8. And foundest 240 THE COOK OF NEHEMIAH. liis heart faithful before Thee, and niadest a covenant with liim to give tlie land of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Jebusites, and the Girgashites, to give to his seed, and hast performed Thy Avord ; for Thou art rigliteous." Jahve alone is God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and of all creatures in heaven and on earth. In oider duly to exalt the almighti- 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. ^i^^V"''?, Gen. ii. 1, here refers only to heaven, n'no, to cause to live =r to give and preserve life. D?3 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 T^^.'] rnn''3 there mentioned. The making of a covenant alludes to Gen. xvii. 5 sq. ; the enumeration of six Cauaanitish nations to Deut. vii. 1, Ex. iii. 8; comp. with Gen. xv. 20 sq. This His word God performed (fulfilled), for Pie is righteous. God is called P''"^V, 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 uj)on Pharaoh and all his servants, and on all the peoj)le 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 tlie 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 deliverefl them by the signs and wonders Ho showed ui^on Pharaoh (ver. 10) ; (2) the crying for help at the Red Sea, when the Israehtes perceived Pharaoh with his horsemen and chariots in pursuit (Ex. x'lv. 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. Tlie expression Di^vy n^n '•3 is formed according to OHvP HT "i^'X, Ex. xviii. 11. hv Trn occurs Ex. xxi. 14 in a general sense. On 'l31 DK^ ^? '^'^^], comp. Jer. xxxii. 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. I^^5 iM ni^ivnn are from Ex. XV. 5; ^"IV D^.D3 from Ex. xv. and Isa. xliii. 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 being 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 NEHEMIAII. l)esto-\vecl hy 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. ntrn^ KuJ) like Dent. ix. 1, 5, xi. 31, and elsewhere. T!,^^?? riKL"3 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 contrast is enhanced by the 1 explicative before 'i3''ribx, 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. ^T'fn as above, ver. 10. " They hardened their necks" refers to Ex. xxxii. 9, xxxiii. 3, xxxiv. 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, 'lil C'Ni iJn'ji, CHAP. IX. 16-25. 243 which is taken almost verbally from Num. xiv. 4: "They saiil one to another, Let us make a captain (K'Xi njria)^ and return to Egypt;" tlie notion being merely enhanced here by tlie addition oniij;?, to their bondage. The comparison with Nam. xiv. 4 also shows that ^lyp^ is a clerical error for D^nypn, as the LXX. read ; for 0^103, in their stubbornness, after Dn"i3yp, gives no appropriate sense. In spite, however, of their stiff-neckedness, God of His mercy and goodness did not forsake tliem. nin'-pip riiXs*, a God of pardons; comp. Dan. ix. 9, Ps. cxxx. 4. 'ui Din"]1 |i3n is a reminiscence of Ex. xxxiv. 6. The ) before "IDH 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 ^^^ 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 march 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. ]^V[} niJSy is rhetorically enhanced by nx : and with respect to the cloudy pillar, it departed not ; so, too, in the second clause, K'Xn nii^rnx ; 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, 1"ipn xb ; see the explanation of these passages. — Vers. 22-25. The Lord also fulfilled His promise of giving the land of Canaan to the Israelites notwithstanding their rebelliousness. Ver. 22. "And Thou gavest them kingdoms and nations, and didst divide them by boundaries ; and they took possession of the land of Sihon, both the land of the king of Heshbon, and the land of Og king of Bashan. Ver. 23. And Thou didst multiply their children as the stars of heaven, and bring them into the land which Thou hadst promised to their fathers, that they should go in to possess. Ver. 24. And the children went in and possessed the land, and Thou subduedst before them the inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites, and gavest them into their hands, both their kings and the people of the land, to do with them according to their pleasure. Ver. 25. And they took fortified cities, and a fat land, and took possession of houses filled with all kinds of goods, wells digged, vineyards and olive gardens, and fruit trees in abun- dance; and they ate and became fat, and delighted themselves in Thy great goodness." '"l^??? ^i?'?'?'"?!! is variously explained. Aben Ezra and others refer the suffix to the Canaanites, whom God scattered in multos angulos or varias mundi partes. Others refer it to the Israelites. According to this view, Eamb. says : fecisti eos per omnes terra' Cananoem angulos hahitare ; and Gusset. : distrihuisti eis ierram usque ad angii- hun h. I. nulla vel minima regiomim parlicula excepta. But phn, Piel, generally means the dividing of things ; and when used of persons, as in Gen. xlix. 7, Lam. iv. 16, to divide, to scatter, sensu malo, which is here inapplicable to the Israelites. P?n signifies to divide, especially by lot, and is used chiefly concerning the partition of the land of Canaan, in Kal, Josh, xiv. 5, xviii. 2, and in Piel, Josh. xiii. 7, xviii. 10, xix. 51. The word nx3 also frequently occurs in Joshua, in the sense of a corner or side lying towards a certain quarter of the CHAP. IX. 26-31, 245 heavens, and of a boundary; comp. Josh. xv. 5, xviii. 12, 14, 15, 20. According to this, Bertheau rightly takes the words to say : Thou didst divide them (the kingdoms and nations, i.e. the land of these nations) according to sides or boundaries, i.e. according to certain definite limits. Sihon is the king of Heshbon (Deut. i. 4), and the I before P?"n? 'n 'd is not to be expunged as a gloss, but regarded as expli- cative : and, indeed, both the land of the king of Heshbon and the land of Og. The conquest of these two kingdoms is named first, because it preceded the possession of Canaan (Num. xxi. 21-35). The increase of the children of the Israelites is next mentioned, ver. 23 ; the fathers having fallen in the wilderness, and only their children coming into the land of Canaan. The numbering of the people in the plains of Moab (Num. xxvi.) is here alluded to, when the new generation was found to be twice as numerous as that which marched out of Egypt; while the words ntJ'"}? ^<^27, here and in ver. 15, are similar to Deut. i. 10. The taking pos- session of Canaan is spoken of in ver. 24. V^^^] recalls Deut. ix. 3. QJiiJ"!?, according to their pleasure, comp. Dan. viii. 4. Fortified cities, as Jericho and Ai. Vers. 26-31. But even in that good land the fathers were disobedient : they rejected the commands of God, slew the prophets who admonished them, and were not brought back to the obedience of God even by the chastisements inflicted on them, till at length God delivered them into the hands of Gentile kings, though after His great mercy He did not utterly forsake them. — Ver. 26. "And they were disobedient, and rebelled against Thee, and cast Thy law behind their backs, and slew Thy prophets which testified against them to turn them to Thee, and they wrought great provocations. Ver. 27. And Thou deliveredst them into the hand of their oppressors, so that they oppressed them ; and in the time of their oppression they cried unto Thee. Then Thou heardest them from heaven, and according to Thy manifold mercies Thou gavest them deliverers, who delivered them out of the hand of their oppressors. Ver. 28. And when they had rest, they again did evil before Thee. Then Thou deliveredst 24G THE BOOK OF NEHEJIIAH. them into the hand of their enemies, so that they had do- minion over them ; and they cried again unto Thee, and Thou heardest from heaven, and didst deliver them according to Tliy great mercy, many times." — Ver. 26 again contains, like ver. 16, a general condemnation of the conduct of the children of Israel towards the Lord their God during the period between their entrance into Canaan and the captivity, which is then justified by the facts adduced in the verses fol- lowing. In proof of their disobedience, it is mentioned that they cast the commands of God behind their back (comp. 1 Kings xiv. 19, Ezek. xxiii. 35), and slew the prophets, e.g. Zechariah (2 Chron. xxiv. 21), the prophets of the days of Jezebel (1 Kings xviii. 13, xix. 10), and others who rebuked their sins to turn them from them. 3 T'yn, to testify against sinners, comp. 2 Kings xvii. 13, 15. The last clause of ver. 26 is a kind of refrain, repeated from ver. 18. — Vers. 27 and 28 refer to the times of the judges; comp. Judg, ii. 11-23. DT^'iO are the judges whom God raised up to deliver Israel out of the power of their oppressors ; comp. Judg. iii. 9 sq, with ii. 16. CJ''riy nisn, multitudes of times, is a co-ordinate accusative : at many times, frequently ; nin"i like Lev. xxv. 51. — Ver. 29. " And testifiedst against them, to bring them back again to Thy law ; yet they hearkened not to Thy com- mandments, and sinned against Thy judgments, which if a man do he shall live in them, and gave a resisting shoulder, and hardened their neck, and would not hear. Ver. 30. And Thou didst bear with them many years, and didst testify against them by Thy Spirit through Tliy prophets; but they would not hearken, therefore Thou gavest them into the hand of the people of the lands. Ver. 31. Nevertheless in Thy great mercy Thou didst not utterly consume them, nor for- sake them ; for Thou art gracious and merciful." — Vers. 29 and 30 treat of the times of the kings. Dnn nyril is the testimony of the prophets against the idolatrous people ; comp. ver. 26. 'T'^^p'P?^ is emphatically prefixed, and taken up again by D3. The sentence, which if a man do he shall live in them, is formed upon Lev. xviii. 5, comp. Ezek. xx. 11. On the figurative expression, they gave a resisting shoulder, CHAP. IX. S2-37. 247 comp. Zecli. vii. 11 . The simile is taken from tlie ox, who rears against the yoke, and desires not to hear it; comp. Hos. iv. 16, The sentences following are repeated from ver. 16. Qi!)vS^ '^'C'f2n is an ahhreviated expression for *l?n Tj'^'D, Ps. xxxvi. 11, cix. 12, Jer. xxxi. 3, to draw out, to extend for a long time favour to any one : Thou hadst patience with them for many yeai's, viz. the whole period of kingly rule from Solomon to the times of the Assyrians. The delivering into the power of the people of the lands, i.e. of the heathen (comp. Ps. cvi. 40 sq.), began with the invasion of the Assyrians (comp. ver. 32), who destroyed the kingdom of the ten tribes, and was inflicted upon Judah also by means of the Chaldeans. — Ver. 31. But in the midst of these judgments also, God, accord- ing to His promise, Jer. iv. 27, v. 10, 18, xxx. 11, and else- where, did not utterly forsake His people, nor make a full end of them ; for He did not suffer them to become extinct in exile, but preserved a remnant, and delivered it from captivity. Vers. 32-37. May then, God, who keepeth covenant and mercy, now also look upon the affliction of His people, though kings, rulers, priests, and people have fully deserved this punishment ; for they are now bondmen, and in great afflic- tion, in the land of tlieir fathers. Ver. 32. " And now, our God, the great, the mighty, and the terrible God, wlio keepest covenant and mercy, let not all the trouble that hath come upon us, on our kings, our princes, our priests, our prophets, and our fathers, and on all Thy people, since the times of the kings of Assyria unto this day, seem little to Thee. Ver. 33. Thou art just in all that is come upon us ; for Thou hast done right, but we have done wickedly. Ver. 34. And our kings, our princes, our priests, and our fathers have not kept Thy law, nor hearkened to Thy commandments and Thy testimonies, wherewith Thou didst testify against them. Ver. 35. And they have not served Tliee in their kingdom, and in Thy great goodness that Thou gavest them, and in the large and fat land which Thou gavest up to them, and have not turned from their wicked works. Ver. 36. Behold, we are now bondmen : and the land that Thou jravest 248 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. unto our fathers to eat the fruit thereof, and the good thereof, behold, we are bondmen in it. Ver. 37. And it yieldeth much increase unto the kings whom Thou hast set over us because of our sins ; and they have dominion over our bodies, and over our cattle at their pleasure, and we are in great distress." The invocation of God, ver. 32, like that in i. 5, is similar to Deut. x. 17. T?.^? ^VP) ^^ stands indepen- dently, the following clause being emphasized by HS, like e.g. ver. 19 : Let not what concerns all our trouble be little before Thee; comp. the similar construction with tsyo in Josh. xx. 17. What seems little is easily disregarded. The pra3'er is a litotes ; and the sense is, Let our affliction be regarded by Thee as great and heavy. The nouns 13''3^D?, etc., are in apposition to the suffix of I^HN^'D, the object being continued by p. — Ver. 33. Thou art just : comp. ver. 8, Deut. xxxii. 4, Ezra ix. 15. ''3 ^V, npon all, i.e. concerning all that has be- fallen us ; because their sins deserved punishment, and God is oidy fulfilling His word upon the sinners. In ver. 34, nx again serves to emphasize the subject. In the enumeration of the different classes of the people, the prophets are here omitted, because, as God's witnesses, they are not reckoned among these who had transgressed, though involved (ver. 32) in the sufferings that have fallen on the nation. — Ver. 35. on are the fathers who were not brought to repentance by God's goodness. DmDp03, in their independent kingdom. nin "l^^to, Thy much good, i.e. the fulness of Thy goodness, or " in the midst of Thy great blessing " (Bertheau). The predicate "^^n^n, the wide, extensive country, is derived from Ex. iii. 8. In ver. 36 sq., the prayer that God would not lightly regard the trouble of His people, is supported by a statement of the need and affliction in which they still are. They are bondmen in the land which God gave to their fathers as a free people, bondmen of the Persian monarchs; and the increase of the land which God appointed for His ])eople belongs to the kings who rule over them. The rulers of the land dispose of their bodies and their cattle, by carry- ing off both men and cattle for their use, e.g. for military service. DJiV"]3 like ver. 24. CHAP. X. 1-28. 249 Chap. X. A covenant made (1-32), and an engagement entered into, to furnish iv hat was needed for the maintenance of the temple, its services, and ministers (vers. 33-40). — Vers. 1-28. For the purpose of giving a lasting influence to this clay of prayer and fasting, the assembled people, after the confession of siu (given in chap, ix.), entered into a written agreement, by which they bound themselves by an oath to separate from the heathen, and to keep the com- mandments and ordinances of God, — a document being pre- pared for this purpose, and sealed by the heads of their different houses. — Ver. 1. And because of all this we make and write a sure covenant ; and our jn-inces, Levites, and priests sign the sealed (document). riNr73Zi does not mean jiost omne hoc, after all that we have done this day (Schmid, Bertheau, and others) ; still less, in onini hoc malo, quod nobis ohtigerat (Rashi, Aben Ezra), but upon all this, i.e. upon the foundation of the preceding act of prayer and penitence, we made "^59^' ^'•^' ^ settlement, a sure agreement (the word recurs xi. 23) ; hence T\~\'3 is used as with ^''y^, ix. 8. ■^^9^- may again be taken as the object of D'^^nb, we write it ; Dinnn 7V\ be understood as "our princes sealed." Dinnn is the sealed document; comp. Jer. xxii. 11, 14. Q^nnn bv means literally, Upon the sealed document were our princes, etc.; that is, our princes sealed or signed it. Signing was effected by making an impression with a seal bearing a name ; hence originated the idiom Dinnn ?y nji'N, " he who was upon the sealed document," meaning he who had signed the document by sealing it. By this derived signification is the plural D-rpinnn bv (ver. 2), '• they who were upon the document," explained : they who had signed or sealed the document. — Ver. 2. At the head of the signatures stood Nehemiah the Tirshatha, as governor of the country, and Zidkijah, a high official, of whom nothing further is known, perhaps (after the analogy of Ezra iv. 9, 17) secretary to the governor. Then follow (in vers. 3-9) twenty-one names, with the ad- dition : these, the priests. Of these twenty-one names, fif- teen occur in chap. xii. 2-7 as chiefs of the priests who came up with Joshua and Zerubbabel from Babylon, and in xii. 250 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. 11-20 as heads of priestly houses. Hence it is obvious that all the twenty-one names are those of heads of priestly classes, who signed the agreement in the names of the houses and families of their respective classes. Seraiah is probably the prince of the house of God dwelling at Jerusalem, men- tioned xi. 11, who signed in place of the high priest. For further remarks on the orders of priests and their heads, see xii. 1 sq. — Vers, 10-14. The Levites who sealed were : Jeshua the son of Azaniah, Binnui of the sons of Henadad, Kadmiel, and their brethren, fourteen names. Sons of Jeshua and Kadmiel returned, together with seventy-four other Levites, with Zerubbabel and Jeshua ; Ezra ii. 4 ; Neh. vii. 42. Jeshua, Binnui, Kadmiel, and Siierebiah are also named in xii. 8 as heads of orders of Levites. Of the rest nothing further is known, but we may regard them as heads of Levitical houses. — Vers. 15-28. The heads of the people. Forty-four names, thirteen of which are found in the list (Ezra ii.) of the kindreds who returned with Zerubbabel ; see Ezra ii. The rest are names either of the heads of the different houses into which these kindreds were divided, or of the elders of the smaller towns of Benjamin and Judah. The fact that, while only thirty-three kindreds and places are enumerated in Ezra ii., forty-four occur here, — although names of kindreds mentioned in Ezra ii., e.g. Shephatiah, Arah, Zaccai, etc., are wanting here, — is to be explained partly by the circumstance that these kindreds in- cluded several houses whose different heads all subscribed, and partly by fresh accessions during the course of years to the number of houses. Vers. 29-32. All the members of the commnnity acceded to the agreement thus signed by the princes of the people, and the heads of the priests and Levites, and bound them- selves by an oath to walk in the law of the Lord, and to separate themselves from the heathen. — Vers. 29 and 30. And the rest of the people, the priests, the Levites, the door- keepers, the singers, the Nethinim, and all that had separated tliemselves from the people of the lands unto the law of God, their wives, their sons, and their daughters, all who CHAP. X. 29-32. 251 liad knowledcre aii.cl understanding, held with tlieir bretliren, their nobles, and entered into an oath and curse, etc. D'i?nno is the predicate of the subjects in ver. 29 : they were holding with their brethren, i.e. uniting with them in this matter. " The rest of the people, the priests," etc., are the members of the community, exclusive of tlie princes and heads of the priestly and Levitical orders. The Nethinim, to whom be- longed the servants of Solomon (see rem. on Ezra ii. 43 sq.), ^vere probably also represented in the assembly by the heads of the Levites. To these are added all who had separated themselves, etc., i.e. the descendants of those Israelites who had been left in the land, and who now joined the new com- munity ; see rem. on Ezra vi. 21. The connection of ^^33 with nnin-?s* is significant : separated from the heathen \o the law of God, i.e. to live according thereto : comp. Ezra vi. 21. Not, however, the men only, but also women and chil- dren of riper years, acceded to the covenant, p?? Hi'"^?, every one knowing, understanding (p^O and V'})^ being con- nected as an asyndeton, to strengthen the meaning), refers to sons and daughters of an age sufficient to enable them to understand the matter. Onn^^s^ their nobles, is connected in the form of an apposition with DH'^nN, instead of the ad- jective nn^^xn. The princes and the heads of the community and priesthood" are intended. nhi^2 Nia, to enter into an oath, comp. Ezek. xvii. 13. rhi^ is an oath of self-impreca- tion, grievous punishments being imprecated in case of transgression ; ^J!Ul^'■, a promissory oath to live conformably with the law. We hence perceive the tenor of the agree- ment entered into and sealed by the princes. Non suhscrip- sit quidem populus, remarks Clericus, sed ratum Iiabiut, quid- quid nomine totius pojndi a p)rocerihus factum erat, juravitque id a se ohservatum iri. Besides the general obligation to observe all the commandments, judgments, and statutes of God, tw^o points, then frequently transgressed, are specially mentioned in vers. 31 and 32. In ver. 31 : that we would not give our daughters to the people of the lands, etc.; see rem. on Ezra ix. 2. In ver. 32 : that if the people of the land brought wares or any victuals on the Sabbath-day, 252 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. to sell, we would not buy it of them on the Sabbath, or on a holy day ; and would let the seventh year lie, and the loan of every hand. The words 'iJI p^v' ''^V are prefixed absolutely, and are aftervvai'ds subordinated to the predicate of the sentence by DHO. Dinj^^j wares for sale, from nj^7, to take, in the sense of to buy, occurs only here. ono ni^3, to take from them, i.e. to buy. K^tlP ^^^ beside ri2^ 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 '^^ ^J^l""^^ '<^V^, 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 lano'uao'e of the law, Ex. xxiii. 10. T'xS t^ti'O also de- O O _ / _ T T T - pends upon ^'^^. This expression {^f^, not Nf??, 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 airreement 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 (ij^y, upon us, inasmuch as such things are spoken of as are taken upon one). 13vy 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-knowTi custom. This appointed payment is evidently only a revival of the Mosaic precept, Ex. xxx. 13, that every man of twenty j'ears of age and upwards should give half a shekel as a nc^in to the Lord, — a tribute which was 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 conformity with the law, is unsupported by the text. '^'3^2^'^, 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 D^^7^^, holy gifts, by which, from Sheir 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 (? must be supplied from the context before DDsbp'bs). 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 augment 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 Lord 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 morninfr, and burn thereon the burnt- offering (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 make 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 ^'^^'J? depends on ^^ipyn, and is co-ordinate with rin?, 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. 1 Josephus (bello Jud. ii. 17. 6) speaks of a zuu ^v'ho ■7rpo(j(pipsiu, 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 Liglitfoot's Jiorx hthraiae in Matih. i. 1), nine days in the year were appointed for the delivery of wood, viz. IstNisan, 20th Tammuz, 5th, 7th, and 10th Ah, etc. Further particulars are given in Lundius, jiid. IleiMr/- tiuner, 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 th3 one day iu the year on which the harvest is gathered in. CHAP. X. 33-40. 255 in the case of the unclean, tlie required redemption, Ex. xiii. 12 sq.. Num. xviii. 15), and the firsthngs of the herds and of the flocks, tlie fat of whicli 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. i^iD')^, probably groats or ground flour; see rem. on Num. xv. 20, etc. ni?onri, 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- jiort. " 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^'ib'ypn Q>"ipn dhi and Dnrp "'?r'V?j have been variously understood. ib'y in the Piel and Hiphil meaning elsewhere to pay tithe, comp. Deut. xiv. 22, xxvi. 12, Gen. xxviii. 22, many exposi- tors adiiere 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, Rashi, Aben Ezra, Clericus, Bertheau, and others, take "'b'V and "^'^'JJ} 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 tlie tenth," comp. Num. xviii. 26. Hezekiah had provided store-cliambers in the temple, in which to deposit the tithes, 1 Chron. 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 lieave-oiferings 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. XI. — INCREASE OF THE INHABITANTS OF JERUSALEM. LIST OF THE INHABITANTS OF JERUSALEM, 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 vii. 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 v/as able to carry out the measures he had resolved on. For there can be no doubt that vers. 3 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 tiiemselves 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 tlie 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 verses 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 lots. 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 ('^''^v'?) 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. Q^nVB 258 THE BOOK OF NEIIEMIAH, means, in the other cities of Judah and Benjamin. D'^n'^amrtj 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 complv. All who willingly acquiesced in this decision might be desig- nated as D''a'n]rin ; and these departed to Jerusalem accom- panied by the blessings of the people. Individuals are not so nmch 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." n^nsn is, as in Ezra ii. 1, the land of Judah, as a province of the Persian kingdom. The repeti- tion of ^3t^''^ after nnin^ i-iyzi is not to be understood as con- 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 4-24, 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 Jerusa.em, but CHAP. XI. -l-GL 259 iniist be Intended as a list of the ]inpnlation of the whole province of Judah in the times of Ezra and Nehemiah. It seems strange that the title should announce •^J''")'?'? '''^'^1, 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 j^otiori to the heads, including the houses and families belonn-ino; 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 (certain) 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 Chron. ix. Vers. Ab—Q. Of the children of Judah two heads : Athaiah of the children of Perez (comp. 1 Chron. ii. 4), and Maaseiaii of the children of Sliela. It has been already remarked ou 1 Chron. ix. 5, that ''pp^ is wrongly pointed, and should be read ^wv?. l^.fn'Pa 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 Imndred 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 heads of houses, therefore of orders of priests (for 13 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 2G0 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAII. the lionse of GoJ, and their brethren, i.e. the eiglit hundred and t\ventv-t\vo ministering priests belonging to these three orders. Also Adaiali, of the house or order of Malchiah, and Ids 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 ben Haggedolim (LXX. ut'o? rcov fieyaXoyv). on^y refers to all the before-named priests. ^USp Q'y'^'J? heads of fathers, i.e. of families, ver. 13, is striking, for the brethren of Adaiah (1"'^^), in number two hunch-ed and forty-two, couid not be heads of houses, but only fathers of famihes. Tlie words seem to have come into the text only by comparing it with 1 Chron. ix. 13. If they were genuine, we should be obHged to understand niDSp W^pun of fathers of famihes, contrary to general usage. — Vers. 15-18. Of Levites, Shemaiah, a descendant of Bunni, with the members of his house ; Shabbethai and Jozabad, " of the heads of the Levites over the outward business of the house of God," i.e. two heads of the Levites who had the care of the out- ward business of the temple, probably charged with the preservation of the building and fui'niture, and the office of seeing that all things necessary for the temple worship were duly delivered. The names Shabbethai and Jozabad have already occurred, viii, 7, as those of two Levites, and are liere also personal names of heads of Levites, as the addition D-pn ''^'S'lD informs us. As the office of these two is stated, so also is that of those next following in ver. 17 ; whence it appears that Shemaiah, of whom no such particular is given, was head of the Levites charged with attending on the priests at the sacrificial worship (the ^''^i'^.'^ ^''i^ ^^5^^?^, ver. 22). The three named in ver. 17, Mattaniah an Asaphite, Bakbukiah, and Abda a Jeduthunite, are the chiefs of the three Levitical orders of singers. Mattaniah is called npnnn K'NI, head of the beginning, which gives no meaning ; and should probably, as in the LXX. and Vulgate, be read n^nrin C'ni : head of the songs of praise, — he praised for who praised, i.e. sounded the Ilodn for prayer; comp. 1 Chron. x\i. 0, where As;iph is called the chief of tlie band of CHAP. XI. 20-21. 2G1 singers. He is followed by Bakbukiah as second, that is, leader of the second band (VnsD mp-'o like ^nyj'p, 1 Cliron. xvi. 5) ; and Abda the Jeduthunite, as leader of the third. All the Levites in the holy city, i.e. all who dwelt in Jeru- salem, amounted to two hundred and eighty-four indivi- duals or fathers of families. The number refers only to the three classes named vers. 15-17. For the gatekee})ers are separately numbered in ver. 19 as one hundred and seventy- two, of the families of Akkub and Talmon. Certain special remarks follow in vers. 20-24. — Ver. 20 states that the rest of the Israelites, px-iests, and Levites dwelt in all the (other) cities of Judah, each in his inherit- ance. These cities are enumerated in ver. 25 sq. — Ver. 21. The Nethinim dwelt in Ophel, the southern slope of Mount Moriah ; see rem. on iii. 26. Their chiefs were Zihah and Gispa. nn^y occurs Ezra ii. 43, followed by J^SVCn, as head of a division of Levites ; whence Bertheau tries, but unsuc- cessfully, to identify the latter name with ^^^y'^ For it does not follow that, because a division of Nethinim was descended from Hasupha, that Gislipa, one of the chiefs of those Nethinim who dwelt on Ophel, nmst be the same individual as this Hasupha. — Ver. 22. And the overseer (chief) of the Levites at Jerusalem was Uzzi, the son of Bani, of the sons of Asaph, the singers, in the business of the house of God. The n3S?0 of the house of God was the duty of the Levites of the house of Shemaiah, ver. 15. Hence the remark in the present verse is supplementary to ver. 15. The chiefs or presidents of the two other divisions of Levites — of those to whom the outward bu.siness was entrusted, and of the singers — are named in vers. 16 and 17; while, in the case of those entrusted with the business of the house of God, ver. 15, the chiefs are not named, probably because they were over the singers, the sons of Asaph, who in ver, 15 had not as yet been named. This is therefore done afterwards in ver. 22. ^9^v? ""vv: > <^oram opere, i.e. circa ea negotia, qiice coram in templo exigenda erant (Burm. in Ramb.), does not belong to DniK'pn, but to D^vH 1"'p2 : Uzzi was overseer of the Levites in respect of their business in the house of God, i.e. of those 2G2 THE DOOK OF NEHEMIAH. Levites wlio had the charge of this bushiess. The reason of this is thus given in ver. 23: " for a command of the king was over them, and an ordinance was over the singers concerning the matter of every day." on vy refers to the Levites. '' A command of the king was over them" means: the king had commanded them. This command was concerning Di'' "i^T V3i''3, the matter of every day. The words stand at the end of the verse, because they refer to the two subjects ^?^n and n^OS. njos is an arrangement depending upon mutual agreement, a treaty, an obh'gation entered into by agreement; comp. X. 1. The meaning of the verse is: Tlie every-day matter was laid upon the Levites by the command of the king, upon the singers by an agreement entered into. Di'' "I21 iDVli, pensum qiiotidianum, is correctly explained by Schmid : de rebus necessariis in singulos dies. That we are not to un- derstand thereby the contribution for every day, the rations of food (Eamb., Berth.), but the duty to be done on each day, is obvious from the context, in which not provisions, but the business of the Levites, is spoken of; and Uzzi the Asaphite was placed over the Levites in respect of their business in the house of God, and not in respect of food and drink. The business of the Levites in the liouse of God was deter- mined by the command of the king ; the business of the singers, on the contrary, especially tiiat one of the singers sliould exercise a supervision over the services of the Levites in worship, was made the matter of an '"ij'f^j ^^ agreement entered into among themselves by the different divisions of Levites. Tiie king is not David, who once regulated the services of the Levites (1 Chron. xxiii. 4 sq.), but the Per- sian king Artaxerxes, who is mentioned as ^^BH in ver. 24 ; and TjPJ^n nivp undoubtedly refers to the full power bestowed by Artaxerxes upon Ezra to order all tliat concerned the worship of God at Jerusalem ; Ezra vii. 12 sq. — Ver. 24. Finally, the official is named who had to transact with the king the affairs of the people, i.e. of the whole Jewish com- munity in Judah and Jerusalem. Pethahiah, a Jew of the descendants of Zerah, was at the king's hand in all matters concerning the people. "^PJsri Tj? can scarcely be understood CHAP. XI. 25-3G. '203 of a royal commissioner at Jerusalem, but certainly desig- riates an official transacting the affairs of the Jewish commu- nity at the hand of the king, at his court. Vers. 25-36. 27ie inhabitants of the towns of Jndah and Benjamin. — The heads who, with their houses, inhabited country districts are here no longer enumerated, but only the tow^ns, 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 daufrhters," etc. The use of ?5< as an introduc- es " _ ■•■ » , tory or emphatic particle is peculiar to this ])assage, p being elsewhere customary in this sense ; eomp. Ew. § 310, a. ^^ denotes a respect to something. C!n)»'n, properly enclosures, signifies, according to Lev. xxv. 31, villages, towns, boroughs, without walls, ^i"'^, fields, field boundaries. C''^^^?j the 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. ^''1"^.' 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-couri, 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 Chron. iv. 32. Zareali, Jarmuth, Zanoah, and Adullam in the plains (see Josh. XV. 33-35), where were also Lacliish and Azekah ; see on 2 Chron. xi. 9. — In ver. 30^ the whole region then inha- bited by Jews is comprised in the words: "And they dwelt from Beer-slieba (the south-western boundary of Canaan) to the valley of Hinnom, in Jerusalem," through wiiich ran the boundaries of the tribes of Benjamin and Judah (Josh. XV. 8). — Vers. 31-35. The dwellings of the Benjamites. Ver. 31. Tlie children of Benjamin dwelt from Geba to Michmash, Aija, etc. Geba, according to 2 Kings xxiii. 8 2G4 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. and Josli xlv. 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 Ramah (Er Ram) ; see on Josh, xviii. 24. Michmash (^^^^ or D^3p), 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 (X^'J? or n'y, Isa. X. 28), probably one with '•yn^ 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, six 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 far from Beitin. We therefore abide by the view advocated by Krafft and Strauss, that the ruins of Mediuet 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 Zeilsclirift d. deutsch. morgld. Gesellsch. 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^^^^y), a place named only here, is conjectured by Van de Velde (after R. Schwartz), Mem. p. 284, to be the present Beit Hanina (UuJ^~^), east of Nebi Samwil ; against which conjecture even the exchange of V and n raises objec- tions ; comp. Tobler, Topographie, 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, TopograpJde, ii. p. 400, in Khirbet Arsiir, perhaps Assur, ^^-^ eight minutes eastward of Bir Nebala (between Rama and CHAP. XII. 1-26, 2G5 Gibeoii); comp. Van de Yekle, Mem. p. 310. Ramali, now er Ram, 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, ^Ahthd, 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 Chron. viii. 12; and on the valley of craftsmen, comp. 1 Chron. 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- TIOX 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 and 2G6 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. Levites wlio returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel and Joshua. The high 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 frst 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. 15-7, the names of the priests, with the subscription : " These are the heads of the priests and of their brethren, in the days of Joshua." Q^'T'^l still depends on ''tf'^'"]. 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 given 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 caj)tivity, and for discussing the question how the heads and houses of priests enumerated in Neh. x. and xii. stand related on the one liand to the list of the priestly races who returned with Zerubbabel and Joshua, and on the other to tiie 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. CH.VP. XII. 1-9. 267 Xeh. X. 3-9. Xeh. XII. 1-7. Neii. XII. 12-21. Priests who sealed the Covenant. Priests who were Heads of their Houses. Priestly Houses, and their respective Heads. 1. Seraiah. 1. Seraiali.* Seraiah, . . ]\reraiah. 2. Azariah. 2. Jeremiah.* Jeremiah, . Hananiah. 3. Jeremiah. 3. Ezra.* Ezra, . . . Meshullam. 4. Pashur. 4. Amariah.* Amariah, . . Jehohanan. 5. Amariah. 5. Malluch.* Meluchi, . Jonathan. 6. iAfalchijah. 6. Hattush.* 7. Hattush. 7. Shecaniah.* Shebaniah, . . Joseph. 8. Shebaniah. 8. Rehuni.* Harim, . . Adna. 9. Malluch. 9. ^feremoth.* Meraioth, . . Helkai. 10. Harim. 10. Iddo. Idiah, . . . Zecariah. 11. JMeremoth. 11. Ginnethon.* Ginnethon, . . ^leslmllam. 12. Obadiah. 12. Abijah.* Abijah, . . . Zichri. 13. Daniel. 13. Miamin.* Miniamin, . 14:. Ginnethon. 14. Maadiah.* Moadiah, . . Piltai. 15. Baruch. 15. Bilgah.* Bilgah, . . . Shammna. 16. Meshullam. 16. Shemaiah.* Shemaiah, . . Jehonathan. 17. Abijah. 17. Joiarib. Joiarib, . . . Mathnai. 18. Mijamin. 18. Jedaiah. Jedaiah, . Uzzi. 19. Maaziah. 19. Sallu. Sallai, . . . Kallai. 20. Bilgai. 20. Amok. Amok, . . . Eber. 21. Shemaiali. 21. Hilkiah. Hilkiah, . . . Hashabiah. 22. Jedaiah. Jedaiah, , Nethaneel. When, iu the first place, we compare the two series in cliap. 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 Siiebaniah, 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 "'3vO (ChetJdv, ver. 14) for T]^?^ (ver. 2); '"""jat' (ver. 3) for n^J^y' (ver. 14, x. 6) ; cn"! (ver. 3), a transposi- tion of DI'T (ver. 15, X. 6); nino (ver.'lo) instead of nvjnp (ver. 3, x.'g); ^'^V {Chethiv, ver.' 16) instead of X^V (ver. 4)'; ]'Djp (ver. 5) for P^^^r? (ver. 17) ; nnj)io (ver. 17) for n;nj,*o (ver. 4), or, according to a different pronunciation, nni'p (x. 9) ; "'2? (ver. 20) for i^D (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. ; nniy^ x. 4, being evidently a 2G8 THE BOOK OF KEHEMIAn. clerical error, or another form of i^yv, xii. 2, IS. Of the names enumerated in chap, x., Pashur, Malchiah, Obadiali, 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 the 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 tiiese 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. How, 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. Taauith, f. 68a; Tosafta Taanith, c. 11, in Babyl. Eracliin, f. 121. The last statement is, according to Herzfeld, Gesch. i. p. 393, as follows: "Four divisions of priests returned from captivity, viz. Jedaiah, Charim, Paschur, 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 "i^ ^Dt3 (associated with him, belonging to him)." Comp. Bertheau on Neh. p. 230, and Oehler in Herzog's Reahncycl. xii. p. 185, who, though refusing this tradition the value of independent historical testimony, still give it more weight than it deserves. CHAP. XII. 1-9. 2G9 is, tliat the four divisions given in Ezra ii. and Neli. vii., "the sons of Jedaiah, the sons of Immer, the sons of Pasliur and Harim," were the priests of the four (Davidic) orders of Jedaiah, Immer, Malchijah, and Ilarim (the second, six- teenth, fifth, and third orders of 1 Chron. xxiv.). For the sake of restoring, according to the ancient institution, a greater nuniher 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. Habaiali, 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 of priests, each order must have numbered about 1120 males, and the twenty-four orders of the priest- liood 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 nmount of four classes. Hence we cannot but regard Jedaiah, Inimer, Pashur, and riarim, of Ezra ii. 3G, 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 j)riestly 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 Neh. 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 Neliemiali. Of these names, a portion coin- cides indeed with the names of the orders and houses, while the rest are different. Tlie coincitlence 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 MeshuUams, one was tlie 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 difficulty 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. TJie heads of Levitical houses hi tlie time of Teshua the high priest. — Of these names we meet, chap. x. iO sq., with those of Jeshua, Binnui, Kadmiel, and Siierebiah, as of heads wlfo sealed the covenant ; while those of Shere- biah, and Jeshua the son (?) of Kiulmiel, are again cited in ver. 24 as heads of Levites, i.e. of Levitical divisions. The name niin'; does not occur in the other lists of Levites in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, and is perhaps miswritten for nnin (x. 10, xiii. 7). Mattaniah is piobiibiy Mattaniah the Asaphite, the son of Micha, the son of Zabdi, head of the first band of singers (xi. 17) ; for he was niTn bv^ over the singing of praise. The form ni"'''^, which should probably be read according to the Keri ^l^^^J is a peculiar formation of an abstract noun ; comp. Ewald, § 165, b. — Ver. 9. Bak- bukiah and Unni (C'At^^/a'y liJ.y), their brethren, were before them (opposite them) nn?X'p^, at the posts of service, i.e. forming in service the oj)posite choir. Ver. 24 forbids us to understand nnprp as watch-posts, though the omission of the doui keepers (comp. Ezra ii. 42) is renuukable. Bakbu- 272 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. kiah recurs ver. 24 ; the name Unni is not again met with, though there is no occasion, on this account, for the inapt conjecture of Bertheau, that the reading should be ^^V] or Vers. 10 and 11. A note on the geneahgy 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 iriji\ as is obvious from vers. 22 and 23, is a clerical error for Ijnv, Johanan, Greek 'IcoawT^?, of whom we are told, Joseph. Ant. xi. 7. 1, that he murdered liis brother Jesus, and thus gave Bagoses, the general of Artaxerxes JNInemon, an opportunity for taking severe mea- sures against the Jews. Vers. 12-21 contains the list of the ]-)riesthj 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 oflfice, 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 D^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 ada})ted for the subscription of the preceding list of priests (vers. 12-21). n^S^O hv, under the reign. The use of bv 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 tliat which is done in it, as e.g. eVt vuktl, upon ni^ht = 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. ""O^ 1i?1., 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 Chron. v. 13 ; and 't niV03, 2 Chron. xxix- 25. i^'^P nay^ ""^r'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 sejia- 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 Jednthunite, whence we are constrained to suppose that nnaj? is only another form for N^^V 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 oW'O. Moshullam, Tal- mon, and Akkub are chiefs of the doorkeepers ; the two last 274 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. names occur as sucli both in xl. 19 and Ezra ii. 42, and even so 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 Chron. ix. 17, DvK', answering to D>>^b of tlie present verse, is also named with them. The combina- tion "lO'f? ^^"l^^^ Dnpb' is striking : we should at least have expected "i»fp' D^^m' n'^'\y^^, because, while D^nyiB' cannot be combined with "i^'^^, D''"ipb' may well be so ; hence we must either transpose the words as above, or read accord- ing to xi. 19, DnvK'a W^im. in the latter case, ^^10^ is more closely defined by the apposition D''"}i'^^? "'??P^!? : at the doors, viz. at the treasure-chambers of the doors. On Ci''Sp^», 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 I^evites dwelt in Jerusalem (xi. 15-18) ; the rest dwelt in places in the neighbourhood, as is more expressly stated in vers. 28 and 29. "^^^^'1., to keep the dedication and joy, is not suit- able, chiefly on account of the following nninni, and with songs of praise. We must either read nnot^'3j dedication with joy (comp. Ezra vi. 16), or expunge, with the LXX. and Vulgate, the 1 before riilina. 3 must be repeated be- fore D^liipy^ 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, ^'lyi!, comp. Lev. xxv. 31) of Netophathi, and from ■|33n does not mean tlie district round CHAP XII 2--i3 275 Jerusalem, the immediate neighbourhood of the city (Bor- theau). For, according to established usage, 133n is used to designate the Jordan valley (see rem. on iii. 22); and ^k'f^"^] nin^no 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 onlv 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 Chron. 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 Betii- Gilgal as the present Jihjilia, 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 nn''3p 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 sino;ers had built them villa£i;es in the neiglibourhood 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 NEHEBIIAH. the princes of the whole community, — Judah behig used in the sense of D^^^n^^, iii. 34. nnin^ ^jjo, upwards to the wall, so that they stood upon the waU. '^V}!^}, to place, i.e. to cause to take up a position, so that those assembled formed two companies or processions. '"1"]^^, acknowledgment, praise, thanks, and then thankofferings, accompanied by the singing of psalms and thanksgivings. Hence is derived the meaning : companies of those who gave thanks, in vers. 31, 38, 40. '^^ri^'?1» ^^ processiones, solemn processions, is added more closely to define niin. 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 wall. Before pp^p we must supply, " one band went" (J^3?in nnxn nninn), 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 ribPnri to ri3?in. 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 nnry 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 Dyn "'Vn, besides Nehemiah, are stated to have followed the company of those who gave thanks ; but that ^V'^ 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 ^V^ is replaced by D-J^sn ""yn ; 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-Jjp 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 Cliron. iv. 17; IMeshullam, Neh. iii. 4, x. 21, and elsewhere; She- maiah, Ezra vi. 13, x. 31, 1 Cliron. iii. 22, iv. 37 (of Judah), V. 4 (a Eeubenite), and other passages (this name being veiy usual; comp. Simonis Onomast. p. 546); Jeremiah, 1 Chron. 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 diiorum principum (R. Sal.). — Ver. 35. The princes of the congregation were followed by 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 Vnxi, was at the head of the Levitical musicians, i.e. the section of them that followed this procession. His brethren, i.e. tlie 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 Chron. xxix. 26; 1 Chron. 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, and 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 C^iJ, 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. noinp Thvj^r} 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. 270 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, nnin^ ^)!>)P^ seems to be the part of the wall which, according to iii. 11), lay opposite the yi^'p'?Li pl^'^n n'inj^, a place on the eastern etige 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'}^ n'^n? pyo is obscure, the preposition ^ ^VP ad- mitting of various interpretations, and the situation of the house of David being uncertain. Bertheau, indeed, says: " lyi in the following words corresponds with ^'O before T'n JT'np : 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 ?yp from T'n IT'ap is decidedly incorrect, p bv^ 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 't iT'n? pyo, past the house of David. For, though noinp pyo must undoubtedly be so understood as to express that the procession went upon the wall (which must be conceived of as tolerably broad), yet ^"^Jjip^ by^, 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, ^ ^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." PNIDp (in this form with N only here ; elsewhere ^io, Deut. i. 1, or b'^^), 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 wall. 'li1 '7'''']ns ''JXTi (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 tlie 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. 'T^tfi'?^' "^V^ is translated, gate of the prison or watch : its position is disputed ; but it can scarcely be doubted that nntijan is the court of the prison mentioned CHAP. XII. 27-43. 281 ill. 25 (n"}ti3l3n nyn)^ by or near the king's house. StartiM^r from the assumption that the two companies halted or took up positions opposite each other, Hupfekl (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, nn"'3, /3apt9, was subsequently situated. But " this being forbidden," as Arnokl 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 soutli- 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 mot, 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. 40^-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''J3D are, as in ver. 32, the princes of the congregation, who, with Nehemiah, headed the procession tliat 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 I^'^nnr 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, III.— NEHEMIAH'S OPERATIONS DURING HIS SECOND SO- JOURN IN JERUSALEM.—CiiAP. xn. U-xm. 31. The joint efforts of Nehemiah and Ezra succeeded both in restoring the enactments of the law for the performance and CHAP. XII. 41-xiir. SI. 283 maintenance of the public worsliip, and in carrying out tlic separation of tlie community from strangers, especially by the dissolution of unlawful marriages (xii. 44-xiii. 3). AVhen 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-\vork 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 wdiat precedes, not only by the formula N'lnn arn (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 np ""JS^I^ "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 ah'eady 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 loorsliip and in social life effected by Nehemiah. — Vers. 44-47. Appointments concerning divine ivorship. 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 gather 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 i^i^^ ^^. 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 D'^? for D'i? occurs only here as a "semi-passive" formation; comp. Evvald, § 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 Sabbatli-day." The meaning of the words D'XB nnyti'n nnob' is doubtful. The Masoretes have separated D"'S3 from D'l'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 Ni3 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 relinc^^uish this connection of CHAP. XIII. 23-29. 293 tlie words, and either combine ^'IV^^ Dntfe? as an asyndeton with Q"'^5^: 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 keep the gates on the Sabbath, as well as the ordinary keepers, tlius 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. bv np^n like Joel ii. 17. Vers. 23-29, Marriages idtli foreign wives dissolved. — Vers. 23 and 24. " In those days I also saw, i.e. visited, the Jews who had brought home 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 . . . Plence 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. y^Z'^n like Ezra x. 2. Dn\33i precedes in an absolute sense : and as for their children, one half (of them) spake, nnin^ (comp. 2 Kings xviii. 26, Isa. xxxvi. 11, 2 Chron. xxxii. 18) is the language of the Jewish community, the vernacular Hebrew. The sentence 'li1 ^^'^] is an explanatory parenthesis, OV) DV n«^??l still depending upon i^io : 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 riiilistines, which, according to Ilitzig (Urgeschic/de u. }[ijlhol. der Fhilistder), belonged to the Indo-Germanic group. The lancniaf'es, 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 (nn^ like vers. 11 and 17), cursed them, smote certain of their men, and plucked off their hair {^1^, 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 Avere com- mitting. " Did not Solomon, king of Israel, sin on account of these? " (npt? ?V, on account of strange wives). And amoni^ many nations there was no king like him (comp. 1 Kings iii. 12 sq., 2 Chron. 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 V^'^Ji?. according to Deut. ix. 32 ; while Gesenius in his Thes. still takes it, like Kambach, 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 03^. — 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 (?V'?5 ^^^^^ ■^^^ might not be a burden to me). The reason for CHAP. XII I. 23-29. 295 this is not expressly stated, but is involved in the fact that he was son-in-law to Sanbahat, i.e. had married a daughter of Sanballat the Horonite (ii. 10), who was so hostile to Neiie- niiah 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 obli, of those who had done such evil) on account of this pollution, etc., i.e. would punish or chastise them for it. vXa^ stat. constr.pl. from ^N*3, pollution (plurcde taiit.). It vras 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 ])o]luted, ami 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^HPr, Ex. xxviii. 1). This covenant required, on the part of the priests, that they should be "holy to the Lord" (Lev. x.\i. 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 prie>t Jaddua, married 296 THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. Nikaso, a dausjliter of tlie satrap Sanballat, a Cntliite ; that when the Jewish authorities on that account excludedhim from tlie priesthood, he estabhshed, 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 Codomannus 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 Realenc. 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 Codomannus 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 D^rrintp"! refers to the Jews. "133, strange, means foreign heathen customs, and chiefly marriages with heathen women, ver. 23 sq., ix. 2, xiii. 1. nii^tTD '^^I^VJIj, properly to set a watch, 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. Il"]pp^ and CHAP. XIII. 30, .31. 207 Dn«2h, ver. 31, still depend on nnO'J'O riy^Vii) : T apprunted 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 pi-iests. The D'''}i3n are named as pars pro toto, instead of all the nionn 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. lie 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) Rambach justly remarks : magnam Nehemice pietatem spiral. 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, THE BOOK OF ESTHER. I. NAME, CONTEXTS, OBJECT, AND UNITY OF THE BOOK OF ESTHER. HIS book bears the name of inps* or i^iDX n^W, 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 (cliap. i.). When the king, after his wrath \vents ; we can perceive terpretation of the passage i. 22 ; see the explanation of this verse. Finally, the difficulty that Esther, as queen-cousort, 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 au 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 Achsemenides, yet the same historian also relates (iii. 31) of Cambyses, that the royal oiKxaTot-i declared to him, with respect to his marriage with a sister, that: tu jiuoi'KivovTt Hipaiuu iishui touuv to «!/ /36iiA»T«/. 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 unsupported decision of a subjectivistic antipathy to the contents of the book. § III. AUTHORSHIP AND DATE OF THE BOOK OF ESTHER. No certain information concerning the author of this book is obtainable. The talmudic statement in Baha bathr. 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 writh 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 w ith respect to prisoners of war." On the other hand, both the reference to the chronicles of the Medes and Persians (x. 2), and the intimate 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 CAXONICITY. 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 narratinti- 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 CAXONICITY OF THE EOOK OF 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- knovv'ledged by the Jews as ScKaia}<; Treirta-Tevfj-eua. For Josephus, who repeatedly asserts, that the history of the Hebrew^s from Moses to Artaxerxes was written by the pro- phets and worthy to be believed, relates also in his Jewish Antiquities (1. xi. c. 6) the history of Esther, Mordochai, and Haman. Certain critics have indeed desired to infer, from the statement in the Talmud, Jerush. 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 proi)hots," that the Jews did not formerly attribute the same authority to the book of Esther as to the other Scriptures (Movers, loci quidam historice 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 lis satis verisimiliter ejlcl j)ossit, eum tunc recens canoni adjectiim 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. /est.), 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, iirst 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 Ath., 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 CANOXICITY. 315 hltrio : liber Esther, quamvis hitnc hahent 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 tliis book, because he felt that the saving truths of Scripture were absent fi-om 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 vipon it in Carpzov's Introd. in V. T. p. 3G9 sq.). The moderate opinion of Brentius is : hie liber xdilis est ad docendam fidem et timorem Dei, ict pii non frangantur adversis, sed invocantes nomen Domini ex fide, accipiant span saluiis ; impii vero alieno supplicio terreantur et ad pietatem 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 Llordochai 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 witli the holy God, trusted to their own arm and to worldly power, and could not, therefore, but be worsted in their contest ^ " And while the Doctor was correcting the second book of Nfaccabeea he said : I am so hostile to this book and that of Esther, that I wish they did not exist ; thej' are too Judaizing, and contain many heathenish improprieties." 2 Comp. the collection of rabbinical eulogies of this book in Aug. Pfeiffer, tlies. lierm. p. 597 sq., and in Carizov's intrvd. i. p. 366. 316 THE BOOK OF ESTIIEn. 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 wliich 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 CANOXICITY. 317 presenting features which lead to an opposite condusion. In the answer which Mordocliai sends to Esther's objection to appear before the king unbidden, " If thou hoklest thy peace, tliere 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. IG). 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 prayer 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 bibl. Ilermeneutik, 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 au occurrence in which, although the name of God is unmentioned, a higher Powder, 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 Stilcke in Esther, comp. my Lehrh. der Einleitung^ § 237, and O. F. Fritzsche's kurzgef. exeget. Hdb. zu den Apokryphen des N. T. p. 68 sq. For the exegetic literature, see Lehrh. der Einl. v. § 150. Comp. also E. Ph. L. Calmberg, liber EstercB interpretatioiie latina brevique commentario illustr., Hamb. 1837, 4, and Ber- theau's Commentary, quoted p. 18. EXPOSITION. CHAP. I.— THE EAXQUET OF KIXG AHASHVEROSn AND THE DIVORCE OF QUEEN VASHTI. HASHVEROSH, king of Persia, gave, in the third year of his reign, a banquet to the grandees of his kingdom then assembled in Susa, for tlie pur- pose of sluawing 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 seventii 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 befbre 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. nriK'ip nb>i?, which belongs to ''^\], 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 'H^ in historical narra- tives at the beginning of relations having, as in the present instance and Ruth i. 1, no reference to a preceding narrative, 819 320 THE BOOK OF ESTIIEH. 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 t^ii.l^'nx point to the Old-Persian name Ks'ayars'a (with X 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." nri^p . . . V^f is not an accusative dependent on "^?b, he ruled 127 provinces, for ■^1^9, to reign, is construed with pV or 3, but is annexed in the form of a free apposition to the statement : " from India to Cush ;" as also in chap. viii. 9. ^"^'n is in the Old-Persian cuneiform inscriptions, Hidhu ; in Zend, Hendu ; in Sanscrit, Sindhu, i.e. dwellers on the Indus, for Sindhu means in Sanscrit the river Indus ; comp. Eoediger in Gesenius, Thes. Append, p. 83, and Lassen, Indische Alterthumsk. i. p. 2. {-'13 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. Go, 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 rii^ntp, 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 satrnps. We have already shown CHAP. I. 1-8. 321 in our remarl^s on Dan. vi. 2 tliat 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 ap'^al which were called a-aTpaTn)tai. Th.e satrapies into which Darius divided the kingdom gene- rally comprised several provinces. The first satrapy, e.fj., 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 n^-'-iDj Ezra ii. 1, Neh. i. 3, vii. 6, xi. 3. Consequently the satrapies of Darius mentioned in Herodotus differ from the medinolh 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 j)rovinces; 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. riTJ' does not involve the notion of quiet and peaceable possession after the termination of wars (Clericus, Rambach), but that 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." nrirp nb'V, 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 322 THE BOOK OF ESTHER. Susa. These are specified in the words which follow as P''n 'd. We might supply ^ before ?''n from the preceding words, (viz.) the forces, etc.; but this would not suit the VJDp at the end of the verse. For this word shows that an independent circumstantial clause begins with 7n, 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 ?''^, 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 ?]^ 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 bb can only signify an elite of the army, perhaps the captains and leaders as representing it, j[ist as " the people" is frequently used for " the I'epresenta- 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"|3, see rem. on Ezra 1. i. After the mention of the forces, the Parteinim, 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 prociiiciarum 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. 1-8. 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, w liich combines 'l^l iriNinzi with i^rn^'P i^fV of ver. 8, 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 m:de inhabitants of Susa Avere also entertained in a precinct of the palace garden, the women being feasted by Vasliti 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 presupj)0ses, that the peo[)le 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, i^'vj'3 n^NVp^n □yn"i'3 does not signify " all the inhabitants of Susa," but all then present, i.e. then assem- bled in the citadel of Susa. D'Nff^n used of persons means, those who for some purpose are found or present in any 324 THE BOOK OF ESTHEH. place, in distinction from its usual inliabitants ; comp. 1 Cliron. xxix. 17, 2 Chron. 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. I^i? '^^"! ''^''?'?r) moreover, does not mean old and young, but high and low, the greater and lesser servants (Q^l^y) 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 irik"in3 cannot be translated, as in the Vulgate, by ut csten- deret, because, as Bertheau justly remarks, 2 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 i^^^P which the king, according to ver. 3, gave to his D''1^ and ^''']^V., and that the text, 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 tiie misconcep- tion, by which ver. 5 is understood to speak of a second banquet differing from the ^^>^'^ 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 lias 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. 1-3. 325 men of liis kingdom to Susa to take counsel with them con- ceriiinrr 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 reahn, 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. |ri^3 is a later form of n^?, which occurs only here and vii. 7, 8. l^fn^ court, is the space in the park of the royal castle which was prei)ared for the banquet. The fittings and furniture of this place are described in ver. G. " 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. T,n from l^in means a white tissue of either linen or cotton. Bertheau supposes that the somewhat larger form of n is intended to denote, even by tlie size of letter employed, the commencement of the description. DS^S, occurring in Sanscrit, Persian, Armenian, and Arabic, in Greek KapiraaoSy means originally cotton, in Greek, according to later autho- rities, a kind of fine flax, here undoubtedly a cotton texture of various colours, ribn, deep blue, purple. Tlie hangings of the space set apart were of these materials. IJhie and wiiite were, according to Curtius vi. G. 4, the ruyal colours of the 326 THE BOOK OF ESTHER. Persians; comp. M. Duncker, Gescli. cles AUerfhims, u. pp. 891 and 951 of tlie third edition, in wiiich is described also the royal table, p. 952. The hangings were fastened (T^^S) with cords of white byssus and purple to rings and pillars of white marble, nitarp, couches (divans) of gold and silver, i.e. covered with cloth woven of gold and silver thread, were prepared for the guests at the feast. These couclies Avere placed upon a tesselated, mosaic-like floor; the tesselation being composed of stones of various colours. ^^'^, in Arabic a mock stone, in LXX. a-fiapaySLT7](;, a spurious emerald, i.e. a green-coloured stone resembling the emerald, probably malachite or serpen- tine. ^^ is white marble ; ">% Arabic , j, i; \, pearl, LXX. irivvivo^ XiOo'i, a pearl-like stone, perliaps mother-of-pearl. nnnbj a kind of dark-coloured stone (from "inp r= "in*^, 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." nip'^'H, 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. HO^O r."; is wine from the royal cellar, therefore costly wine. Many inter- preters understand it of the Chalybonian wine, which the Persian kings used to drink. See rem. on Ezek. xxvii. 18. r(p'&n T3, 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. Tlie argument of Baumgarten, Si lac mos vuhjaris fnisset in epulis regiis, sine dithio luvc omnia non conunemorata essent, no more holds good than his further remark : formn- 1(1711 illam d:s* px rrns non pnto adhibitam fuisse, nisi jam altera contraria D3N n"i3 solemnis esset facta. The historian can have noticed tliis only because it was different from the Jewish custom. Bertheau also justly remarks: " We are not told in the present passage, that the king, on this occasion, exceptionally pern)itted 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. ?y IB^., to appoint concerning, i.e. to enjoin, comp. 1 Chron. ix. 22. T)''3. 2~\^ 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 vaJiistaj i.e. optimus. In Persian jc-^-^jj means a beautiful woman. This statement serves as an introducti(5n 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. 'lJl nb 2iD3, 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 ('?.S"nx niL'-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 Amshaspauds; see rem. on ver. 1-1. The attempts made 328 THE BOOK OF ESTHEK. to explain their several names are without adequate founda- 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 ("in?, KtSapi<; or Kirapv^, a high turban terminating in a point), and, as is self-evident, otherwise royally apparelled. The queen was accustomed on ordinary occasions to take her meals at the king's table; com p. Herod, ix. 110. There is, however, an absence of historical proof, that she was present at great banquets. The notice quoted from Lucian in Brissonius, de regio Pers. pi'inc. i. c. lOo, is not sufficient for the purpose. — Ver. 12. The queen refused to appear at the king's command as delivered by the eunuchs, because she did not choose to stake her dignity as a queen and a wife before his inebriated guests. The audacity of Persians in such a condition is evident from the history related Herod, v. 18. Vers. 13-15. The king, greatly incensed at this disobedi- ence to his behest, inquired of his wise men what was to be done to Queen Vashti according to law. These wise men are ver. 13 designated as those " who knew the times," i.e. astrologers and magi, who give counsel according to celestial phenomena ; comp. the wise men of Babylon, Dan. ii. 27, V. 15 ; Isa. xliv. 25, xlvii. 13; Jer. 1. 35. Of these he inquires, " for thus was the business of the king con- ducted before all that knew law and judgment." "i3T here does not signify word or speech, but matter, business; and the meaning of this parenthetical sentence is, that in every matter, the king, before deciding, applied to those who were skilled in law and judgment to hear their opinions concerning it. With this is joined a second explanatory parenthetical sentence, ver. 14 : " And those next him were Carshena, etc., the seven princes of the Persians and Medes, who behold the king's countenance, who hold the first seat in his kinffdom." L • • • • . V?K nnj^n is indefinite, and may be understood as expressing the plural. It is perhaps questionable how this clause should be combined with what precedes, whether with p) HT ''yi''"i'3, before all that knew law and judgment and those next him, CHAP. I. 16-20. 339 or witli Q'03np, ver. 13 : he spoke to the wise men . . . and those next him. In any case the sense is, that the sevL-ii princes of the Persians and Medes were also numbered either among the wise men who knew the times, or those who were skilled in the law. These seven princes are the seven kind's counsellors of Ezra vii. 14, and by their number of seven form a counterpart to the seven Amshaspands. They who see the face of the king, i.e. are allowed direct intercourse with him. Herod, iii. 84 relates of the seven princes who conspired the overthrow of the pretended Smerdis, that they resolved, that it should be permitted them to present tliem- selves unannounced before the future king. Hence many ex- positors identify these seven princes with the authorities called the seven counsellors, but without sufficient grounds. The number seven frequently recurs, — conip. the seven eunuchs, ver. 5, the seven maidens who waited on Esther, ii. 9, — and refers in the present case to the seven Amshaspands, in others to the days of the week, or the seven planets. njb'ST C^'J^'^n, who sit first, i.e. in the highest place, i.e. constitute the highest authority in the realm. What the king said (ver. 13) does not follow till ver. 15 : " According to law, what is to be done to Queen Vashti, because she has not done the word of the king," i.e. not obeyed his command by the eunuchs? 0*13, ac- cording to law, legally, is placed first because it is intended emphatically to assert that the proceeding is to be in con- formity with the law. nb'J? with 2, to inflict something on any one. Vers. 16-20. The counsel of the wise men. Ver. 10. Memucan, who was the last mentioned in ver. 14, comes forward as spokesman for the rest, and declares before the king and the princes, i.e. in a solemn assembly, and evidently as the result of a previous joint consultation : Vashti tiie queen has not done wrong to the king alone, but also to all the princes and all the people, because the example of tiie queen will lead all the Median and Persian wives to despise their husbands. Therefore an irrevocable edict is to be published decreeing the divorce of Queen Vashti, and this law published throughout the whole realm, that all wives may 330 THE BOOK OF ESTHER, show honour to tlieu' husbands. Vashti has not transgressed against the king alone (ver. 16), but against all the princes and people in all the provinces of King Ahashverosh (ver. 16.) In what respect, then, is the latter assertion true ? We are told vers. 17 and 18. "For the deed of the queen will come abroad to (/V for ?^) all women, to bring their husbands into contempt in their eyes (the wjln. ^innp stating the re- sult), while they will say," etc. (the suffix of D'JPN3 relates to the women, who will appeal to the disobedience of the queen). Ver. 18. " And this day {i.e. already) the princesses of the Persians and Medians, who hear of the act of the queen ("i^^, not the word, but the thing, i.e. her rejection of her husband's command), will tell it to all the princes of the king, and (there will be) enough contempt and provocation. fl)>i?. is an outburst of anger ; here, therefore, a provocation to wTath. Bertheau makes the words 'p1 'D ""n^l the object of njiONn^ which, after the long parenthesis, is united to the copula by 1, and for, " to speak contempt and wrath," reads : to speak contemptuously in wrath. But this change cannot be substantiated. The expression, to speak wrath, is indeed unexampled, but that is no reason for making ^y:^ stand for ^>'i?3, the very adoption of such an ellipsis showing, that this explanation is inadmis- sible. The words must be taken alone, as an independent clause, which may be readily completed by tT'li'' : and con- tempt and wrath will be according to abundance. ''13 is a litotes for : more than enough. The object of n^noxn 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 (?y 2iL2 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 Kiiii^ Ahashverosh ; and let tlie king give her queenship (her royal rank) to another who is better than she." An edict issued by the king, entered among tlie 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 tlie 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. nri^VI, her companion, is any other woman, Vashti being here regarded merely as a woman, nniisn 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." DJns is according to the Keri to be pointed as the constructive state, 2303. The expression nb'J? DJHS is explained by the circumstance, that DJriD 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. lie 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 '"1 nvn^, 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- fTuao-e of the wife's native land could not have been used, as we find to have been the case in Judaea (Neh. xiii. 23). Ail 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 il^V pt^v^ we should read isy n'ib'"73, 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 QV "^J^j but only ? ny^ (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 edict 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, however, the author of many strange facts besides this. CHAI'. II. 1-4. 333 CHAP. II. — ELEVATION OF ESTHER TO THE THRONE. SERVICE RENDERED BY MORDOCIIAI TO THE KlXfJ. When the wrath of King Ahashverosh was appeased, and lie remembered his harsh treatment of Vashti, his courtiers proposed that he sliould 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). AVhen, 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. Their 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. AVhen, after these things, the wrath of King Ahashverosh was laid {T\'^, from "^y^^ to be sunk, spoken of wrath to be laid), he remembered Vashti and what she had done, and what was decreed against her (1I3, to determine, to decree irrevocably; comp. nnT3, Dan. iv. 14); a desire for reunion with her evidently making it.self felt, accompanied perhaps by the thought that she might have been too harshly treated. To prevent, then, a return of affection for his re- I'ected 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." nip^na, virgins, is added to I^^"i>'^, the latter word signifying merely young women of marriageable age. Ver. 3. "And let the king appoint CP.?!!'! is the continuation of Vki'ipl'') 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 tlie king's eunuch, the keeper of the women, and let them appoint their things for purification ; and let the maiden Avhich 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. Ilega (called Hegai, vers. 8 and 15) was an eunuch, the keeper of the women, i.e. superin- tendent of the royal harem. liriJI is the injin. ahs., used instead of the verb. fin. to give prominence to the matter : let them appoint. D'iP^-^, from P"!», 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 ("'^'^l^? ^^ more correct editions ""^innn), the son of Jair, the son of Sliimei, the son of Kish, a Benjamite ("'^''Pl ^''''^ like 1 Sam. ix. 1). Jair, Shimei, and Kish can hardly mean the father, grandfather, and great- grandfather of Mordochai. On the contrary, if Jair were })erhaps his father, Shimei 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 Chron. viii. 33, 1 Sam. ix. 1 ; for in CHAP. II. 5-7. 335 genealogical series only a few noted names are generally given ; conip., e.g., 1 Cliron. ix. 19, vi. 21 sq. Upon the ground of this explanation, Josephus {Ant. xi. G) makes Esther of royal descent, viz. of tiie line of Saul, king of Israel; and the Targum regards Shiinei as the Benjaiiiite 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 S-^r^-, little man. Aben Ezra, Lightfoot, and otliers, 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 fiwm 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 ; hence, if the "itr*?^ is referred to Mordochai, he would, even if carried into caj)tivity 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 Clericus, Baumgarten, and others refer the relative T^i< 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 Sliimei must be regarded as the great-grandfather and grandfather of Mordochai. A^ e grant the possibility of this view ; nevertheless it is more ' Baumg. aptly remarks, I.e., p. 125 : Etsi concedcmlum est, turn esse contra naturam, si Mordechxus ad illam setatem pervinerit, et siimtwi hac constitutu.t seneciitte f/mvissimis jief/nlii^ perficicudis par fner'U, tamm est hoc rarissimumet iiuii accedit certain tC!dra or pare, piece (morceau, piece), and ^^, behvy behre, and i^^^, he/we, lot, share, fate ; comp. Zenker, Turco- Arabic and Persia?! Lexicon, pp. 162 and 229. Tiie words " from day to chiy, from month to the twelfth month," must not be understood to say, that lots were cast day by day and month by month till the twelfth ; but that in the first month lots were at once cast, one after the other, for all the days and months of tiie year, that a favourable day might be obtained. We do not know the manner in whicii this was done, "the way of casting lots being unknown to us." The words : from month to the twelfth month, are remarkable ; we should expect from month to month till the twelfth month. Bertheau supposes that the words r]^hf DV hv ^lijn ^b^i rih^ "iby were omitted after UlhJ2^ throuizh the eve of the tran- scriber passing on from the first ?^'^np to the second. The text of the LXX. actually contains such words, and the possibility of such an oversight on the part of a transcriber must certainly be admitted. In the book of Esther, however, the LXX. translation is no critical authority, and it is just as possible that the author of the Hebrew book here expresses himself briefly and indefinitely, because he was now only concerned to state the month determined by lot for the undertaking, and intended to mention the day subsequently. — Ver. 8. Haman having by means of the lot fixed upon a favourable day for the execution of the massacre, betook himself to the king to obtain a royal decree for the purj)()se. He represented to the monarch : " There is a people scattered abroad and dispersed among the peoples in all the provinces of thy kingdom, and their laws are different from all other 346 THE BOOK OF ESTHER. people (i.e. from the laws of all other people), and they keep not the laws of the king, and it is not fitting for the king to leave them alone. Ver. 9. If it seem good to the king, let it be written (i.e. let a written decree be published) to destroy them ; and I will weigh ten thousand talents of silver to those who do the business, that they may bring them into the treasuries of the king." This proposal was very subtilly cal- culated. First Haman casts suspicion on the Jews as a nation scattered abroad and dwelling apart, and therefore un- sociable, — as refractory, and therefore dangerous to the state ; then he promises the king that their extermination will bring into the royal treasury a very considerable sum of money, viz. the property of the slaughtered. Ten thousand talents of silver, reckoned according to the Mosaic shekel, are £3,750,000, according to the civil shekel £1,875,000; see rem. on 1 Chron. xxii. 14. n^XPlsn "'b'y, those who execute a work, builders in 2 Kings xii. 12, are here and ch. ix. 3 the king's men of business, who carry on the king's business with respect to receipts and disbursements, the royal financiers. — Ver. 10. The king agreed to this proposal. He drew his signet ring from his hand, and delivered it to Haman, that he might prepare the edict in the king's name, and give it by the impression of the royal seal the authority of an irre- vocable decree; see rem. on viii. 8. ''To the enemy of the Jews" is added emphatically. — Ver. 11. Lest it should appear as though the king had been induced by the prospect held out of obtaining a sum of money, he aw^ards this to Haman. " The silver be given to thee, and the people to do to them (let it be done to them) as seemeth good to thee." ^VT\) pre- cedes absolutely: as for the people of the Jews, etc. Vers. 12-15. Haman, without delay, causes the neces- sary writings to be prepared, and sent into all the provinces of the kingdom. Ver. 12. '' Tiien were called the king's scribes in the first month, on the thirteenth day of it (i3, in it, in the said month); and there was written according to all that Haman commanded, to the satraps of the king, and to the governors who (were placed) over every province, and to the rulers of every people, to each several province accord- CHAP. III. 12-15. 347 ing to Its writing, and to each difforont people aceonliiii^ to tlieir language (comp. rem. on i. 22) ; in the name of Kin^' Ahashverosh was it written, and sealed with the king's seal." ^''^7''lTfri?< and niHQ placed in juxtaposition, as in Ezra viii. 36, are the imperial officials. Beside these are also named the D''^f of every people, the native princes of the different races. The writing was finished on the thirteenth day of the month, because this day of the month had been fixed upon as propitious by the lot. — Ver. 13. And the letters were sent (f^-'p'^, injin. ahs. NipJi. instead of the verb, fin.) by posts. Q'V^n are the post-riders, the aggaroi, who were stationed on the liigh roads of the realm, generally four parasangs apart, to transmit with the more speed the royal letters and messages. Herod. V. 14, viii. 98 (Berth.), comp. Brisson. de reg. Pers. princ. i. c. 238 sq. 'ui "'^P^!??, to destroy, to kill, and cause to perish all Jews from the youth to the old man, ciiiUh'en and women, in one day, on the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, and to deprive them of their spoil. The three verbs are combined to give strength to the expression, cbbl^' [$ their property, which is called spoil because it was delivered up to plunder. Ham an having held out the prospect of a large sum as the result of exterminating the Jews, and the king having bestowed this upon Haman, the plundering of the Jews, thus permitted to all the inhabitants of the king- dom who should assist in exterminating them, must be understood as implying, that they would have to deliver a portion of the booty thus obtained to Haman. — Ver. 14. The copy of the writing, that the law might be given in every province, was opened to all people, that they might be ready by this day. This verse does not announce a copy of the j-oyal decree that had been prepared and sent by the posts, which would in that case be replaced by a mere allusion to its contents (Bertiieau). The words contain no trace of an announcement such as we find in Ezra iv. 11, vii. 11, but the historical notice, that the copy of the writing which was sent as a law into the provinces was '1^3, opened, i.e. sent imclosed or unsealed to all peojjle. ""^^a is the jn-edicate to the subject 'lil kv!T'? (comp. on this word the note to Ezra 348 THE BOOK OF ESTHER. iv. 14), and between the subject and predicate is inserted tlie infinitive clause 'li1 HT insnp for the purpose of once moie briefly mentioning the contents and destination of the 2ri3 : that a law might be given in every province. To attain tliis object the more certainly, the copy of the decree, which was brought into every province by the posts, was open or unsealed, that all people might read its contents, and keep themselves in readiness for the execution of what was therein commanded on the appointed day. n^tn Di'7 is the thirteenth day of the twelfth month named in the letter. — Ver. 15. The posts went forth hastening (^n"^ like 2 Chron. xxvi. 20) at the king's commandment, and the decree was given (promulgated) in tiie citadel of Susa, — an explana- tory clause; and the king and Haman sat down to drink while the messengers went forth with the decree, but the city of Susa, in which it was first published, was in per- plexity (on n3i33 comp. Ex. xiv. 3, Joel i. 18). The cruel measure could not but fill all peace-loving citizens with horror and anxiety. — Here the question is forced upon us, why the decree should have been so prematurely pub- lished. The scribes were summoned to prepare it on the thirteenth day of the first month. For this purpose, even though many copies had to be made in different languages, no very long time would be required in a well-appointed government oflfice. As soon as the scribes had finished their work, the decree was sent out by the posts into all quarters of the realm, and would arrive in even the most distant pro- vinces in three weeks at furtliest. This would place almost eleven, and in the remotest parts about ten months between the publication and execution of the decree. What then was the motive for such an interval ? Certainly so long a time could not be required for preparing to carry it out, nor is this hinted at in the text, as Bertheau supposes. Nor could it be intended that the Jews should suffer a long period of anxiety. On the contrary, the motive seems to have been, as Clericus and others have already conjectured, to cause many Jews to leave their property and escape to other lands, for tlie sake of preserving their lives. Thus CHAP. IV. 1-3. 310 Ilanian would attain his object. He would be relieved of the presence of the Jews, and be able to enrich liiniself by the appropriation of their possessions (comp. p. 307). On the other hand, the providence of God overruling the event in the interest of the Jews, is unmistakeably evident both in Haman's haste to satisfy his desire for vengeance, and in the falHng of the lot upon so distant a day. It was only .because there was so long an interval between the publica- tion of the decree and the day appointed by lot for its exe- cution, that it was possible for the Jews to take means for averting the destruction with which they were threatened, as the further development of the history will show. CHAP. IV. — MOEDOCHAl's MOURNING ON ACCOUNT OF THE DECREE FOR THE ASSASSINATION OF THE JEWS, AND HIS ADMONITION TO ESTHER TO INTERCEDE FOR HER PEOPLE. When Mordochai heard what had happened, he went mourning and lamenting about the city, and even to the king's gate ; and the decree of Ilaman occasioned great lamentations among the Jews in all the provinces of the kingdom (1-3). When Queen Esther heard through her maids and courtiers of Mordochai's mourning, she sent him raimenf that he might put off his mourning garb, but he refused to do so. She then sent an eunuch to him to in- quire more particularly as to its cause. Mordochai informed him of all that had happened, giving him a copy of the decree to show to Esther, and charging her to entreat the king's favour for her people (4-8). The queen, however, expressed her hesitation to go in unto the king unsum- moned, but upon Mordochai's repeated admonition, resolved to make the desired attempt, at the peril of her life (D-IT). Vers. 1-3. Mordochai learnt all that was done,— not only what had been openly proclaimed, but, as is shown by ver. 7, also the transaction between the king and llaman. Then he rent his garments, put on sackcloth and ashes, and went out into the midst of the city, making loud and bitter lamenta- 350 THE BOOK OF ESTHER. tion. Comp. on the last words, Gen. xxvii. 34. The combi- nation of ii?5< with PK' C'np"' is an abbreviation for : put on a liairy garment and spread ashes upon his head, in sign of deep grief; comp. Dan. ix. 3, Job ii. 12, and elsewhere. — Ver. 2. And came even before the king's gate, i.e., according to ver. 6, the open space before the entrance to the royal palace ; for none might enter wearing mourning, t^in? p5<, there is no entering, i.e. none may enter; comp. Ewald, § 321, c. — Ver. 3. Also in every province whither the king's decree arrived, there arose a great mourning among the Jews. "iti'X DipO is an adverbial accusal, loci in apposition to nr"iO"733 : in every place to which the word of the king and his decree reached, i.e. arrived. " Sackcloth and ashes were spread for many," i.e. many sat in hairy garments upon the earth, where ashes had been spread ; comp. Isa. Iviii. 5. The meaning is : All the Jews broke out into mourning, weeping, and lamentation, while many manifested their grief in the manner above described. Vers. 4-8. The matter was made known to Esther by her maids and eunuchs, i.e. by her attendants. The Chethiv '^J''^?i2n does not elsewhere occur after 1 consecutive, hence the sub- stitution of the Keri n:xi3ri. The object of ^'^^^l : what they told her, is evidently, from what follows, the circumstance of Mordochai's appearance in deep mourning before the gate of the palace. On receiving this information the queen fell into convulsive grief (?npnnn, an intensive form of Sn, to be seized with painful grief), and sent to Mordochai raiment to put on instead of his sackcloth, evidently for the purpose of enabling him to enter the palace and give her the particulars of what had happened. But Mordochai did not accept the raiment. — Vers. 5-7. Then Esther sent Hatach, one of the eunuchs whom the king had set before her, i.e. appointed to attend her, to Mordochai to learn " what this, and why this," i.e. what was the meaning and the cause of his thus going about in mourning. When Hatach came forth to him in the open place of the city before the king's gate, Mordochai told him all that had happened, and the amount of the money which Haman had promised to weigh to the king's treasures CHAP. IV. 9-17. 351 {i.e. to pay into the royal treasury) for the Jews, to destroy tliem, i.e. that it might be permitted him to destroy the- Jews. '"'^■JS, properly a determined, accurate statement, from una in the sense of to determine clearly (see rem. on Lev. xxiv. 12); here, according to the context: amount, sum. This promise of Ilaman is liere emphatically mentioned as the chief point, not so much for the purpose of raising the indignation of Esther to the highest pitch (Bertheau), as to show the resentment and eagerness with which Ilaman hatl urged the extermination of the Jews. The Chetldv Q'?"!^^'. is the rarer form for Q^l^i^^, and is repeated viii. 1, 7, 13, ix. 15, 18. — Yer. 8. Mordochai also gave Hatach a copy of the decree ])ublished in Susa ("f^'-? i^?, like iii. 15) to show it to the queen. The '"H^ I"'?'!'?'! following is more correctly drawn towards the subsequent niiypi, as by Bertheau, than connecteil according to the accentuation w^ith what precedes. Before this infinitive must be supplied from the context, especially from ver. 7 : and Mordochai commissioned him or told him (Hatach): to declare unto her and to command her (Esthei-) to go in unto the king, to entreat him and to make request before him for her people, ^y L"ip3j to beg, to make request for something, like Ezra viii. 23, and chap. vii. 7. i^^y 7i', concerning her people, i.e. in this connection : for them. Vers. 9-17. When Hatach brought this information to Esther, she sent word by him to Mordochai, that she might not go in unto the king unsummoned. 'o ^^ ^•^i'.V^, she ordered or commissioned him to Mordochai, viz. to tell him what follows, ver. 11: "All the king's servants and the people of the king's provinces {i.e. all the officers and subjects of the king) know, that with respect to every man or woman that shall come in unto the king, into the inner court, that is not called— one (the same) law (i.s) for him : to put (him) to death, except him to whom the king shall iiold out the golden sceptre, that he may live." nt'Nl :;'\S-b precede as mmnnativi absoL; these are followed by two relative clauses, which are succeeded by the anacoluthic predicate im nnx : one and the same law is for him (in^, the law concerning iiim, the unsum- moned appcarer, the matter of which is brielly stated by 352 THE BOOK OF ESTHER. ri"'Jpn7). In the inner court dwelt the king, seated on his throne (comp. v. 1). The law, that every one entering un- bidden should be put to death, was subject to but one excep- tion: '131 l?f'^

i o' ctvr/i «7765.-dtxT«/, fitji ro ,a«x'- ad»t uvxi ci'/cidoi/, o; on/ xo'K'Kov; u-oH^v} Tzxthot;' rifi Os tov; TrXtiarot/; oi-7roaiix.yvvTi, oupx SKTrifiTrn 6 iixat>~:ij; di>x 'ttxv tro;. Comp. Strabo, XV. 3. 17. 358 THE BOOK OF ESTHER. Ver. 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 npn 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 Plaman may then go with the king to the feast prepared by the queen, free from all annoyance. '33 yv nb'y, to make, i.e. to erect a high tree. The higher the stake, the farther would it be seen. The 3d pers. plu. ^^'T stands instead of the passive : let them make = let . . be made. So too viT 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 deliiihteth. Haman, supposing that the king could intend to honour no one but himself, voted for the very highest public mark of respect (vers. 3Z^-9), and was then obliged at the king's command to pay the proposed honour to Mordochai (vers. 10, 11). From this humiHation his wife and friends prognosticated his speedy downfall (vers. 12-14). Vers. 1-11. An unexpected turn of affairs. Ver. ]. 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 tlie chronicles and to read therefrom. On niihan isp, conip. Ezra iv. 15. Tlie title is here more particularly stated than in ii. 23, where the book is briefly called : The book of the chronicles. Q'X'Jp? Vnn, and tliey (the chronicles) were read before the king. Tlie participle denotes the lonsr 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 liath been done to Mordochai for this? 'T^V, for giving this information. And the king's servants answered : Nothing has been shown him. UV ^^V, to show any one something, e.g. favour; comp. 2 Sam. ii. G, iii. 8, and elsewhere, ^^^"i?, 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. Fers. 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. Tliose 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 tliemselves 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 : i<). 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 onl}', as Bertheau justly remarks, such a one as the king is accustomed to wear, but, as is shown by the perf. ti'??, 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 Baehr 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. IJ?^ is perf. Niph., not 1st pers. ])1. imperf. Kal, as Maurer insists ; and it^'N13 "lt^'X refers to the I lead 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 — \'^} "ltf'^^ iC'Nia. 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. 3GI Persian sculptures, representing the liorses of tlie kinrr, and apparently those of princes, with ornaniLMits on their iieads terminating in three points, whicii may be regarded as a kind of crown. The in/in. absol. \\r\y\ is a continuation of the preceding jussive ^J<^T : 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'on-ian^ comp. i. 4, and on the matter itself, Gen. xl. 43. -inn is either an open square, the place of public assemblage, the forum, or a collective signifying the wide streets of the city. nL"y'' nriz) as in Deut. xxv. ami else- where. — Vers. 10, 11. Thishonour, then, the haughty Hainan 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 attracteil 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. Ills wife and friends all that had befallen liim. A deeper mortification he could not have experienced than that of being obliged, by the king's command, publicly to show the liighest honour to the very individual whose execution he w^as 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 wliom thou hast be^un to fall, be of the seed of the Jews, thou wilt not pre- vail against him, but wholly fall before him." v 73in N?, non prcpvalehis ei, comp. Gen. xxxii. 26. ?isri ?iS3 with an emphatic infin. ahsol. : wholly fall. Instead of the "l''?!!|^5, V)D3n 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 geyius sapientum et doctorum (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 mii-acle, 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 popidorum, remarks Grotius, de singulorum fatis judicabant. Judcei gravissime oppressi a Cyri temporihus contra spem omnem res^irgere cosperanf. We cannot, however, regard as well founded the further remark : de Amalecitis audierant oracuhcm esse, eos Judceorum manu perituros, which Grotius, with most older expositors, derives from the Amalekite origin of Ilaman. The revival of the Jewish peoj)le since the times of Cyrus was sufficient to induce, in tlie 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, 3(;3 courtiers had already arrived, who hastily brouf^ht Hainan tr the banquet of tiie queen, to which he would certainly go in a less happy state of mind than on the preceding day. CHAP. VII. — HAMAN's downfall AXD 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 (riinL'9), i.e. to partake of the i^^'^Vj 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.? 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 such a peti- tion, " we are sold, I and my peoj)le, 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 '^V is a short expression for: the life of my people, and the preposition 3, the so-called 3 pretii. The request is conceiA'ed of as the price which she offers or presents for her life and that of her people. The expression =iJ"i|^^, we are sold, is used by 364 THE BOOK OF ESTHER. Esther witli reference to the offer of Hamaii to pay a larn;e sum into the royal treasury for the extenninatioii of the Jews, iii. 9, iv. 7. i?^^, contracted after Aramaean usage from V DX, 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 ah'eady decided by the use of the perfect. The last clause, 'lJl ii*n px "'Zi, 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 Rambach, e.g., following R. Sal. ben Melecli, understands the meaning expressed to be : hostis nullo modo cequare, compensare, resarcire potest pecunia sua damnum, quod rex ex nostra excidio patitur. So also Cler. and others. The confirmatory clause would in this case refer not to ""^^inn, 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, tliat ni^^" in Kal constructed with ^ 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, nv^ 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 damnge 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. Pp., in the Targums, means not merely financial, but also bodily, personal damage; e.g. Ps. xci. 7, Gen. xxvi. 11, to do harm, 1 Chron. 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. VII 7-10. 3G5 would have been silent, for the enemy is not worthy that I should vex or annoy the king by my accusation. — Ver. 6. The king, whose indignation was excited by what he liad just heard, asks with an agitation, shown by the repetition of the "IOX'1 : " Who is he, and where is he, whose lieart hath filled him (whom his iieart liath 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 tliis wicked Haman." Then was Haman afraid before the king and the queen. nj?33 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 (DP is here a pregnant expression, and is also combined with n3a"?X) ; but Haman remained standing to beg for his life to Queen Esther (^y tl*p3 as in iv. 8), " for he saw that there was evil determined against him by the king" (n7Zi, 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 (^2J 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~^vitll the worst designs, he cried out: "Shall also violence be done to the queen before me in the house'?"' The i7ijin. C'iasb 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. t,"3?, 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 liistorian, but we are told immediately that : "as the word went out of the king s mouth, they covered Hainan's face." "in-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 unniistakeably shown by the 366 THE BOOK OF ESTHER. further statement : tliey covered Haman's face. The subject is indefinite : the attendants present. To cover the face was indeed to begin to carry tlie sentence of death into execution. With respect to this custom, expositors appeal to Curtius, vi. 8. 22 : PhiJetam — copite velato in regiam addn- cunt; and C\cexo,pro C Rahirio iv. 13 : I lictor, colliga manusy caput obnubito, arbori irifelici suspendito. — Ver. 9. Then said Harbonah (ah'eady mentioned i. 10), one of the eunuciis before the kino;, i.e. who held office before tlie king: "Behold also the tree which Haman made (comp. v. 14) stands in the house of Haman." D3 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. — MORpOCHAI 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). Esther then earnestly besought the king for the abolition of the edict published by Plaman 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, VIII. 3-14. 307 told him what lie 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.r. were allowed personal access to hiin ; comp. i. 10, 14, vii. i>. — Ver. 2. And the king took off his seal-ring which he had taken from Ilaman (comp. iii. 10), and gave it to Mordochai. P '^''?V.\}} to cause to go from some one, i.e. to take away. By this act Mordochai was advanced to the post of fiist 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. Tlie chief enemy of the iJews was now de- stroyed ; but the edict, written in the king's name, sealerl 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 ("'"'^i'v'? 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 thekincT." This verse gives a summary of the contents of Esther's speech, which is reported verbally in vers. 5 and (5, so that we must translate tlie imperfects i.snnrii -i^ni— 7Eri} : She spoke before the king, falling at his feet and beseeching him with weeping, that he would do away with \^^ njn, 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. Ver. 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, enerl by two new phrases : " If the tiling is advisable ("'ti'S, 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, P^'?) 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 ('^V'f?, «'•«• 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." I^C ^r??'^^, the device, the proposal of Haman, is added to D"'"}2Dn, 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?" The verbs W^";i. ^31X are so combined that the second is governed by the first, ''n''X"i1 standing instead of the infinitive ; comp. Ew. § 285, c. Hsn cons. 3 denotes an interested beholding, whether painful or joyous, of something; comp. Gen. xliv. 34. ^'^^'^^ in paral- lelism with Qy denotes those who are of like descent, the family, members of a tribe. — Vers. 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 (^^ri inx, 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 D3'':;y3 3it£)3, " 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^'^^ l>* refers to Esther's request : y^r}'^ 3n3^. (ver. 5). Dirimij i7iji7i. ahs. used instead of i\\e 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- cHAr. VIII. o-H. 3G9 vinces. " And it was written accordincr to all tlint Mordochai commanded." They were sent to tlie Jews and to the satraps, etc., of the Avhole 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. 3ri3n, and he (Mordochai) wrote. To show the speed with which the let- ters were despatched, (messengers) "on horseback, on coursers, government coursers, the sons of the stud," is added to D'V^n T3. ^."91. is a collective, meaning swift horses, coursers ; comp. 1 Kings V. 8. Q''^")';'f^^^. (vers. 11 and 14) answers to the Old-Persian kschatrana, from kschatra, government, king, and means government, royal, or court studs. So Haug iu Ewald's hihl. Jahrh. v. p. 154. The older explanation, mules, on tlie other hand, is founded on the modern Persian estar^ which, to judge from the Sanscrit a<^vatara, must in ancient Persian have been agpatara. 2^3?3'i, air. Xej. from "^ffl, answering to the Syriac ploj, herd, especially a herd of horses, and to the Arabic ^^^,, stud, is explained by Bertheau as a superlative form for the animal who excels the rest of tlie herd or stud in activity, perhaps the breeding stallion, while others understand it of the stud in general. Tlie 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.i. 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 w-omen, 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. 14^, 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- ])ression is strengthened by an addition to D''^"J'7 as in ver. 10, and by that of D'D^n^, urged on, to D'^'Il^'f, hastened, to point out the utmost despatch possible. 2 a 370 THE BOOK OF ESTHER. Vers. 15-17. The joy experienced througliout 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")?^, o-tt. \ey., in the Aramaean ^9''"!?^, 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 these 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. IG. The Jews {i.e. in Susa, for those out of the city are not spoken of till ver. 17) liad light and gladness, and delight and honour." H^iN (this form occurs only here and Ps. cix. 12), light, is a figurative expression for prosperity, li^l, 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." Q'lill'ri'?, to confess oneself a Jew, to become a Ji^w^ a denominative formed from ''1^'^!, CHAP. IX. 371 occurs onl}' here. On the confinnatory clause, comp. Ex. XV. 16, Deut. xi. 25. This conversion of many of the lieathen to Judaism must not be explained only, as by Clericus and Grotius, of a change of religion on the part of the heathen, ut sihi hoc inodo secnritatem et regime favoi-em para- rent, metuentes potentiam Mardeclia^i. This may have been the inducement with some of the inhabitants of Susa. 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 of 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 liere related will not appear surprising. CHAP. IX. — THE JEWS AVENGED OF THEIR ENEMIES. THE FEAST OF PURIM INSTITUTED. On the day aj)pointed 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 K^th of Adar; so that in the.se 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. lG-19). The ob.servance 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 tlie 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 vnjpj, 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 £27^^ to rule, to have the mastery over. '^^^\}}. is infin. ahs., used instead of the imperf. N^n is referred by Bertheau to DV : 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 i^^n as neuter: it was changed, i.e. the contrary occurred. The pronoun rusn serves to emphasize the subject; comp. Ewald, § 314, a, who in this and similar cases takes Xin, n^n in the sense of ipse., ipsi. — Ver. 2. Di}''"}!'?, in their cities, i.e. the cities in which they dwelt in all the dominions of the king. "I^ O^'t^?, 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 CpD^ t^y, 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 (n3N?sn ''b^y, see rem. on iii. 9), supported the Jews (N^J like Ezra i. 4), because the fear of Mordochai fell upon tliem." — 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 (iy»f 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 xvll. 12, where the partlc. ^13 stands instead of the infin. abs. Pi"t3. — Ver. 5. Thus supported, the Jews inflicted defeat upon their enemies with the sword, and with slauf^hter 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 'li1 3"in-n3Pj 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 Haraan, 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 qiiam vitce siice incohimitatem qucerere ; hanc enim per- de7'e volehant ii qui occidehant.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 Hainan in editions of the Bible, grounded as it is upon the ancient mode of writing, mut^t 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 he signum voti, ut a ruina sua nun- quam amplius resurgant, or also a sign quod sicut hi decern flu in Imea per- pendiculari, unus supra alhrinn, suspensi fuerint. Comp. Buxtorf, Syua- gogajud. pp. 157-159 of the Basle edit. 1580. What is indicated by the smaller forms of the letters n, ^', and T, in the first, seveiitli, and tentli names, is not known ; the larger 1 in the tenth may liave been meant to give prominence, by the character employed, to tliii name aa the laat. 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 infamue 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. ^V!\^% 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, vn. — 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, hv noy like viii. 11. The Dn'?;Np ni:i inserted between '^ ^V "'^i''! and Jiin"! 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 ])]ainly stated to 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 infin. ahs. instead of expressing this clause by the infiyi. consir., 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 ijijin. ahsol. instead of the verb. Jin.). This inaccuracy of diction does not justify us, however, in assum- ing that vve 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, ami then the clause following is again added in the inf. absoL: "and they rested on the 14th day of the same (of Adai), and made it a day of feasting and gladness." — Ver. 18. Tlie 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 |3~?y to make this appear the result of what precedes. The Chethio D'p"^?'!} is perhaps an Aramaic expression for Q'^HB, Deut. iii. 5 and 1 Sam. vi. 18. ^n"i3 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 Hins, compare Ezek. xxxviii. 11, Zech. ii. 8. '1J1 riiJO nib^'b^ 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. n?xn Dna^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 loth, in tiie 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 : 'iJI Dn'i^V D'j??, 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 a 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'y, to keep, to celebrate a day. The D^b'y ni''ri^, ver. 21, is after long parentheses taken up again in DniK nib'y^. D'ip, to establish a matter, to authorize it, comp. Ruth 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 ESTHEn. 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 and 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. Hshni, 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 I3"7y 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"?y 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 (nri3"7y, 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 tliem (proselytes), so that it should not fuil {i.e. inviolably), to keep (to celebrate) these two days accordincr to the writing concerning them and the time appointed there- by year by year.— Ver. 28. And that these days should ha remembered and kept throughout every generation, every family, every province, and every city ; and these days of Purini are not to pass away among the Jews, nor their re- membrance to cease among their seed. Tiie partici])les D^bTJi onan still depend on nvn^, ver. 27. Not till the last clause does the construction change in li^y^ N^ to the temp, finit. "lisj/'l ^''1 is a periphrasis of the adverb : imperishably, inviolably, t^nnaa^ secundum scriptum eorum, i.e. as Mordochai had written concerning them (ver. 23). 03DT3, as he had ap- pointed their time. |0 ^liD, 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 'T'Jti'n 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 tlieir portions of time 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 tlieir lamentations. Dn^aOD, ill their appointed times; as the suffix relates to the days of Purim, the Cji^t 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. nson, 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 13th Adar. This day is kept by the Jews as "i^HDN ri"'Jj?ri, 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 wdiich the king advanced him, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia? The C/iethiv C'lK'nx is a clerical error for l^i.ly'nf?. The word DO, service, ' 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. Casselin Grimm's kiirzr/ef. execjet. Handh. zu den Apokryphen^ on 2 Mace. xv. 36, the festival of Nicanor is mentioned in Jewish writings, as McgiUat Taanit, c. 12, in the Babylonian Talmud, tr. Taanit^ f. 18?;, in Mussechet Sofrim 17, 4, but has been by no means observed for at least the last thousand years. The book Scheiltot of R. Aclia (in the 9th century) speaks of the 13th 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 Rabbis con- ctrnint; the time of this fast of Esther. CHAP. X. 379 here stands for tribute. As the provinces of the kinrrchim 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 Ahasliverosh 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 Ahasliverosh, 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 Clironides by historians both of Babylonian and post-Babylonian days, who quote from the documents they make 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, — con) p. 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 jiower and glory of King Ahashverosh, but jet only mentioned so 380 THE BOOK OF ESTHER. much concerning this ruler of 127 provinces as was connected with the history of the Jews, its autlior, 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 "^^"J?, 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 (J^.^^P, 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 (on ^1^*^, 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 vnx 31, the fulness of his brethren, 3it3 wJ'"]^; comp. Ps. cxxii. 9, Jer. xxxviii. 4. On Qi-'K' "i3"i, comp. Ps. Ixxxv. 9, XXXV. 20, xxviii. 3. i^lT in parallelism with ifsy is not the descendants of Mordochai, or his people, but his race. Comp. on this signification of V^T, 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 34tli Psalm in vers. 13-15, when teaching the fear of the Lord. T. and T. CUw/cs Publications. GRIMM'S LEXICON. Jmt published, in demy 4/o, price 36x., GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, liEINU ffirimm'3 Mi'Hu's Clabis Xobi 3:Estnmentf. TRANSLATED, REVISED, AND ENLARGED BY JOSEPH HENRY THAYER, D.D., BUSSEY PROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM AND INTEltl'UETATION IN THE DIVINITY SCHOOL OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY. EXTRACT FROM PREFACE. ' rnOWARDS the close of the year 1862, the " Arnoldische Buchhandlung "' JL in Leipzig published the First Part of a Greek-Latin Lexicon of tlie Kew Testament, prepared, upon the basis of the "Clavis Novi Testainenti Philologica" of C. G. AVilke (second edition, 2 vols. 18.')!), by Professor C. L. AViuBALD Grimm of Jena. In his Prospectus Professor Grimm announced it as his purpose not only (in accordance with the improvements in classical lexico- graphy embodied in the Paris edition of Stephen's Thessmrus and in the fifth edition of Passow's Dictionary edited by Post and his coadjutors) to exhibit the historical growth of a word's significations, and accordingly in selecting his vouchers for New Testament usage to show at what time and in what class of ■writers a given word became current, but also duly to notice the usage of the Septuagint and of the Old Testament Apocrypha, and especially to produce a Lexicon which should correspond to the present condition of textual criticism, of exegesis, and of biblical theology. He devoted more than seven years to his task. The successive Parts of his work receiveil, as they appeared, the out- sjioken commendation of scholars diverging as widely in their views as Hupfeld and Heugstenberg ; and since its completion in 18G8 it has been generally acknowledged to be by far the best Lexicon of the New Testament extant.' ' I regard it as a work of the greatest importance. ... It seems to mo a work sliow- ing the most patient diligence, and the most carefully arranged collection of useful and helpful references.' — The Bishop of Gloucester and Bristou * The use of Professor Grimm's book for yeais has convinced me that it is not only unquestionably the best among existing New Testament Lexicons, hut that, apart from all comparisons, it is a work of the highest intrinsic merit, and one wliich is admirably adapted to initiate a learner into an acquaintance with the language of the New Tesfa- ment. It ought to be regarded as one of the first and most necossjiry requisites for the study of the New Testament, and consequently for the study of theology in general.'— Trofossor Emil SchCrer. ' This is indeed a noble volume, and satisfies in those daj-s of advancing scholarship a very great want. It is certainly unequalled in its lexicography, and invaluable in its literary perfectiiess. ... It should, will, must make for itself a jilnco in flic librnry of all those students who want to be thoroughly furnished for the work of undersUnding, expounding, and ajiplying the Word of God.'— Eva iitjclinti Mw/acitie. '"Undoubtedly tliu best of its kind. Beautifully printed ami well translated, with some corrections and improvements of the original, it will bo prized br btudentu of tin- Cliristian Scriptures.' — Athcnaum. T. and T. Clark's Publications. In extra 8vo, price 12s., THE PHILOSOPHICAL BASIS OF THEISM. An ^Examination of the Personality of Man, to ascertain his Capacity to Know and Serve God, and the Validity of the Principles underlying the Defence of Theism. By Rev. SAMUEL HARRIS, D.D., LL.D., PROFESSOR OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY, YALE COLLEQE. BY THE SAME AUTHOR. Just published, in extra Sfo, price 12s., THE SELF-REVELATION OF GOD. This work is a re-statement of the evidence of the existence of God and of the reality of His revelation of Himself, as modified by and in harmony with the legitimate results of recent thought, and meeting scepticism in its present positions. 'In "The Philosophical Basis of Theism" Dr. Harris laid the foundation, in the present work he raises the superstructure, and in both he has done good service to philosophy and theology. His is a mind full of knowledge, and rich in ripe reflection on the methods and results won in the past, and oii the problems of the present hour. His argument is always conducted with the most direct reference tn the state of the question now, and the difficulties he endeavours to meet are not those which were current a century ago, or half a century ago, but those which are raised by the writings of such men as Herbert Spencer, Matthew Arnold, Frederic Harrison, and other leaders of thought at the present time.' — Spectator. 'We admire this work alike for its solid learning, its broad philosophical insight, its firm grasp of details, its luminous style, and its apt illustrations gathered from all l)ranchps of our literature. No student, who wishes to be fully abreast of the times, should be without this really great tiook.' — Baptist Magazine. ' The student who accepts Dr. Harris as his teacher will find himself in most efiBcient hands; and by thoroughly mastering this volume will save himself the trouble of per- using many others. Certainly it is a volume which no one interested in philosophy or apologetics can aff')rd to ue^Xaci.^ —Expositor. Juat puhllslied, in Two VoU., crown 8vo, pr-ice 16s., APOSTOLIC AND POST-APOSTOLIC TIMES. Their Diversify and Unify in Life and Docfrine. By G. V. LECHLER, D.D. E^ixti (Stiitian, tljorougfjlg Ect)ii3£tJ anb ^Z'-Miviticn. Translated by A. J. K. DAVIDSON. ' In the work before us, Lechler works out this conception with great skill, and with ample historical and critical knowledge. He has had the advantage of all the discussions of these forty years, and he has made good use of them. The book is up to date; so thoroughly is this the case, that he has been able to make room for the results which have been won for the early history of Ohristianity by the discovery of the "Didaeh6," and of the discussions to which it has given occasion. Nor is it too much to say thnt Dr. Ijcchler has neglected nothing fitted to throw light on his great theme. The work is of the highest value.' — Spectator. ' It contains a vast amount of historical information, and is replete with judicious remarks. ... By bringing under the notice of Englisli readers a work so favourably thought of in Germany, the translator has conferred a benefit on theology.' — Atkenccuin. 'Scholars of all kinds will welcome this new edition of Dr Lechler s famous worl;. It has for long be^n a standard authority upon thni sul.ject which it treats. . . . The bdiok has not only been "revised," but actually "re-written" from end to end.' — Literary World. T. a7id T. Cia7'k's Pudlicatiojis. Just 2>uhlish€d, in demy 8i'0, price 10.v. 6(/., THE JEWISH AND THE CHRISTIAN MESSIAH. A STUDY IN THE EARLIEST HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY. By YIXCEXT HENRY STAXTOX, M.A., FELLOW, TUTOR, AND DIVINITY I-ECTl'RKR OF TKINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE; LATE HULSKAN LECTURBR. CONTENTS.— Pari /. Introductory. Chap. I. The Scope of our Inquiry and its Bearing upon Modern Theories of the Rise of Christianity. II. Tht- Documents. III. General Views of the History of Messianic Expectation among the Jews to the Christian Era. IV. Gt-neral Character of the Christian Transformation of the Idea of the Messiali. V. Tlie Use of the Old Testament in the Early Church.— P«r< //. The Attitude of Jesus to Messianic Beliefs. Cliap. I. The Teaching of Jesus concerning the Kingdom of God. II. The Use by Jesus of the Title "The Son of Man." III. The Claim made by Jesus Himself to be the Christ. — Part III. Messianic Ideas in the Early Chunh. Chap. I. The Doctrine of the Office of the Christ in the Early Church. II. Comparison in detail of Jewish and Christian Eschatology. "ill. Messianic Prophecy and the Mythical Theory. Epilogue, etc. '^Ir. Stanton's book answers a real want, and will be indispensable to students of the origin of Christianity. We hope that Mr. Stanton will be able to continue Lis labours in that most obscure and most important period, of bis competency to deal with which he has given such good proof in this book.' — Guardian. ' We welcome this book as a valuable addition to the literature of a most important subject. . . . The book is rt^markable for the clearness of its style. Mr. Stanton is never obscure from beginning to end, and we think that no reader of average attainments will be able to put the book down without having learnt much from his lucid and scholarly exposition.' — Ecclesiastical Gazette. Now ready, Second Division, in Three I'o/.s., Si-o, price lO.v. 6 GRKATLY Enlargkd) OF ' HISTORY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT TIME. The First Division, which will probably be in a single volume, is undergoing revision by the Author. (The Second Division is complete in itself.) ' Under Professor Schurer's guidance, we are enabled to a large extent to construct a social and political framework tor the Gospel History, aud to set it iu such a light as t.. see new evidences of the truthfulness of that history and of its contoniporaneousness. . . Tlie length of our notice shows our estimate of the value of his work.'— £'nt^/i«/i Churchman. , , , , , ^ , , . „ . 'We gladly welcome the publication of this most valuable work. — Z>«&/in Rcneic. 'Most heartily do we commend this work as an invaluable aid in the inU-lligeut btndy of the New Testament.'— AV?(CO»/o?-m!S<. ,..,,, , 'As a handbook for the study of the Now Testament, the work is invaliiabb^ and n\\u\\\e.'— British Quartcrhi Ilrricv. T. and T. Clark's Publications. LOTZE'S MICROCOSMUS. Just published , in Two Vols., 8vo (14,50 pages), Second Edition, jsnce 36s., MICROCOSMUS: Cojzcernijvg Man and his relation to the World. By HERMANN LOTZE. STrattsIatctJ from tfjc (Ecrman By ELIZABETH HAMILTON and E. E. CONSTANCE JONES. ' The English public have now before them the greatest philosophic work produced in Germany by the generation just past. The translation comes at an opportune time, for the circumstances of English thought, just at the present moment, are peculiarly those with which Lotze attempted to deal when he wrote his " Microcosmus," a quarter of a century ago. . . . Few philosophic books of the century are so attractive both in style and matter.' — Athencewm, ' These are indeed two masterly volumes, vigorous in intellectual power, and trans- lated with rare ability. . . . This work will doubtless find a place on the shelves of all the foremost thinkers and students of modern times.' — Evangelical Magazine. ' Lotze is the ablest, the most brilliant, and most renowned of the German philosophers of to-day. . . . He has rendered invaluable and splendid service to Christian thinkers, and has given them a work which cannot fail to equip them for the sturdiest intellectual conflicts and to ensure their victory.' — Baptist Magazine. ' The reputation of Lotze both as a scientist and a philosopher, no less than the merits of the work itself, will not fail to secure the attention of thoughtful readers.' — Scotsman. ' The translation of Lotze's Microcosmus is the most important of recent events in our philosophical literature. . . . The discussion is carried on on the basis of an almost encyclopaedic knowledge, and with the profonndest and subtlest critical insight. We know of no other work containing so much of speculative suggestion, of keen criticism, and of sober judgment on these topics.' — Andover Review. Just published, in Two Vols., 9>vo, price 21s., NATURE AND THE BIBLE: LEGTUKES ON THE MOSAIC HISTORY OF CREATION IN ITS RELATION TO NATURAL SCIENCE. By Dr. FR. H. REUSCH. EEVISED AND GOEEEGTED BY THE AUTHOE, TRANSLATED from the Fourth Edition by KATHLEEN LYTTELTON. ' Other champions much more competent and learned than myself might have been placed in the field ; I will only name one of the most recent. Dr. Eeusch, author of " Nature and the Bible.'"— The Eight Hon. W. E. GlA7>stone. ' The work, we need hardly say, is of profound aud perennial interest, and it can scarcelybe too highly commended as,in many respects, a very successful attempt to settle one of the most perplexing questions of the day. It is impossible to read it without obtaining larger views of theology, and more accurate opinions respecting its relations to science, and no one will rise from its perusal without feeling a deep sense of gratitude to its author.' — Scottish Review. ' This graceful and accurate translation of Dr. Eeusch's well-known treatise on the identity of the doctrines of the Bible and the revelations of Nature is a valuable addition to English literature.'— Whitehall Review. ' Wc owe to Dr. Eeusch, a Gatholic theologian, one of the most valuable treatises on the relation of Eeligion and Natural Science that has appeared for many years. Its fine impartial tone, its absolute freedom from passion, its glow of sympathy with all sound science, and its liberality of religious views, are likely to surprise all readers who are unacquainted with the fact that, whatever may be tlie errors of the Eomish Church, its more enlightened members are, as a rule, free from that idolatry of the letter of Scrip- ture which is one of the most daugcroiis faults of ultra-Protestantism.'— Zriferajv/ World, T. and T. Clark's Publicatiotis. Now complete, in Four Fulumes, imperial Svo, price I '2s. Gd. each, COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. WITH ILLUSTRATIONS AND MAPS. Edited by PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., LL.D. CONTRIBUTORS. The Very Rev. Dean Howson; The Very Itev. Dean Flcmptrk; PritK-ip"! David Brown. D.D.; J. Rawson Lumby, D.D. ; W. Mim-iuan, D.D.; W. F. M-i.tow, D.D.; Rev. Canon Spence; Marcus D'ods, D.D.; J. Oswald Dykk.s, D.D.; J »seph Angus, D.D. ; Paton J. Gi.oag, D.D. ; S. D. F. Salmond, D.D. ; Wilua.m h. Pope, D.D. ; Philip Sciiafp, D.D.; Matthew B. Ridoi.k, D.D. Maps and Plans— Professor Arnold Guyot. Illustrations— W. M. Thomson, D.D., Author of ' The Land and the Book.' Volume I. Volume IT. THE SYNOPTICAL GOSPELS. ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL, and THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. Volume III. Volume I]'. ROMANS TO PHILEMON. HEBREWS TO REVELATION. ' A useful, valuable, and instructive commentary. The interpretation is set forth with clearness and cogency, and in a manner calculated to commend the volumes to the thoughtful reader. The book is beautifully got up, and reflects great credit on the publishers as well as the writers.' — The Bishop of Gloucester. 'I have looked into this volume, and read several of the notes on crucial passages. They seem to me very well done, with great fairness, and with evident knowledge of the controversies concerning them. The illustrations are very good. 1 cauuot doubt that the book will prove very valuable.' — 2'he Bishop of Winchester. 'We have already spoken of this commentary with warm praise, and we can certainly assert that the enterprise has now been brought to a close with really admirable work.' —English Churchman. ' We congratulate Dr. Schaff on the completion of this useful work, which we are now able to commend, in its complete form, to English readers of the Scriptures. ... It will be seen that we have a high opinion of this commentary, of the present volume, and also of the whole work. In thi^ last respect it is perhaps of mnre uniform e.xcellence than any of its rivals, and in beauty of appearau'-e it excels them all.' — Church Belh. 'External benuty and intrinsic worth combine in the work here completed. Good paper, good type, good illustrations, good binding, please the eye, as accuracy and thoroughness in matter of treatment satisfy the judtrment. Everywhere the workman- ship is careful, solid, harmonious.' — Methodist Recorder. ' There are few better commentaries having a similar scope and object; indeed, within the same limits, we do not know of one so good upon the whole of the New TesUment — Liter an/ World. ' We predict that this work will take its place among the most popular of the cent uiy. . . Tbe publishers have spared no pains to secure volumes that shall be worthy of the (heme, and of the scholarship of the age.' — Frfeman. Just puhlished, in crown 8i-o, price 2x. Gd., THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES ENTIRELY SPURIOUS. A Reply to the Right Rev. Dr. Lightfoof. Bishop of Durham. By W. D. KILLEN, D.D., ri:i.NCiPAL or Tiiic presryteriax Tiir.oi.oGirAi, i ac ii.ty, ti:i i.am>. BY THE SAME AUTHOR. In demy 8ro, price 9.-.-., THE OLD CATHOLIC CHURCH. T. and T. Clark's Publications. In demy 8i'0, price \0s. 6r/., THE THEORY OF MORALS. By PAUL JANET, Member of the Institute, Paris. TRANSLATED FROM THE LATEST FRENCH EDITION. CONTENTS.— Book I. :— Pleasure and Good— Good and Law— The Principle of Excellence, or of Perfection — The Principle of Happiness — Impersonal Goods — The True, the Good, and the Beautiful — Absolute Good. Book II.: — Nature and Basis of the Moral Law — Good and Duty — Definite and Indefinite Duties — Eight and Duty — Division of Duties — Conflict of Duties. Book III. : — The Moral Consciousness — Moral Intention — Moral Probabilisui— Universality of Moral Principles — The Moral Sentiment — Liberty — Kant's Theory of Liberty — Virtue — Moral Progress — Sin — Merit and Demerit, the Sanctions of the Moral Law — Keligion. ' As remarkable for the force and beauty of its form of expression as for its vast and varied learning, its philosophical acumen, and its uniform attitude of reverence toward religious and moral problems of the most transcendent interest to mankind.' — Literary World. ' This book is really a valuable addition to the literature of the subject. . . . Let the student of morals and religion read it for himself. It is pleasant reading, and the translation seems to us in every respect admirable.' — Watchman. By the same Author. In One Volume, 8i'o, Second Edition, price 12s., FINAL CAUSES. TRANSLATED FROM THE LATEST FRENCH EDITION By WILLIAM AFFLECK, B.D, CONTENTS.— Prkliminart Chapter— The Problem. Book I.— The Law of Finality. Book XL— The First Cause of Finality. Appendix. 'This very learned, accurate, and, within its prescribed limits, exhaustive work. . . . The book as a whole abounds in matter of the highest interest, and is a model of learn- ing and judicious treatment.' — Guardian. ' A great contribution to the literature of this subject. M. Janet has mastered the conditions of the problem, is at home in the literature of science and philosophy, and has that faculty of felicitous expression which makes French books of the highest class such delightful reading; ... in clearness, vigour, and depth it has been seldom equalled, and more seldom excelled, in philosophical literature.' — Spectator. ' A wealth of scientific knowledge and a logical acumen which will win the admiration of every reader.' — Church Quarterly Review. In demy Hvo, price lOs. &d., THE BIBLE DOCTRINE OF MAN, {SEVENTH SERIES OF CUNNINGHAM LECTURES.) By JOHN LAIDLAW, D.D., Professor of Systematic Theology, New College, Edinburgh. « An important and valuable contribution to the discussion of the anthropology of the sacred writings, perhaps the most considerable that has appeared in our own language.' — Literary Churchman. 'The work is a thoughtful contribution to a subject which must always have deep interest for the devout student of the Bible.' — British Quarterly Review. 'Dr. Ladlaw's work is scholarly, able, interesting, and valuable. . . . Thoughtful and devout minds will find much to stimulate, and not a little to assist, their meditations in this learned and, let us add, charmingly printed volume.' — Record. 'Onthewhole, we take this to be the niost sensible and reasonable statement of the Biblical psychology of man we have met.' — /-Jxpositor. T. and T. Clark's Publications. In Two Volumes, Svo (IGOO pages), price 21s., THE DOCTRINE OF SACRED SCRIPTURE. A CiuTiCAL, Historical, and Dogmatic Ixquiuy into the Oiuoin AND Nature of the Old and New Testaments. By GEORGE T. LADD, B.D., PROFESSOR OF MENTAL AND MORAL PIHUOSOPHY, YALE COLLEGE. ' It is not very easy to give an account of this very considerable and important work within tbe compass of one short notice. . . . It is one which will certainly be studied by all scientific ihenlojrians, and the general reader will probably 6iid heru a b«'tter summary of the whole subject than in any other work or series of works.'— CAurcA BtlU. 'A scientific method of treating the phenomena and place of the Bible such as this will have special value in these daj-s ; as such we very heartily coninieiid it to all interested in the great question of Divine revelation through Jesus Christ of which the Bible is the medium, and in which all its teachings tind their reason and inspiration and relations.' — British Quarterly Review. ' This important work is pre-eminently adapted for students, and treats in an exhaustive manner nearly every important subject of Biblical criticism which is agitating the religious mind at the present day.' — Contemporary Revieic. In demy Svo, price lOs. Gd., THE KINGDOM OF GOD BIBLICALLY AND HISTORICALLY CONSIDERED. {TENTH SERIES OF CUNNINGHAM LECTURES.) By JAS. S. CANDLISH, D.D., PROFESSOR OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY, FREE CHURCH COLLEGE, GLASGOW, ' As to the ability of this volume tliere can be no question : it is of profound interest, touches on time-present subjects, is free from all rhetorical display, is in no seuse sii|kt- ficial, but scliolarly aud able, and is worthy of the reputation and position of its auiLor.' — Evangelical Magazine. 'Able and learned. . . . Theological students will find it valuable, and to their attention we most earnestly commend it.' — Watchman. 'Dr. Candlish treats his subject with an admirable combination of scholarly com- prehensiveness, historical candour, and regai-d to the practical demauds of mankind.'— Christian World. 'Dr. Candlish has in the present volume given evidence of great freshness of thought, broad mental grasp, careful scholarship, and keen logical acumen, lighted up by imaginative beauty, aud (juickeiied by ferveut emotion. . . . I U-i historical review is clear, succinct, and comprehensive; its herineneutics are sound aud judicious; its theology i« evangelical; its tone is healthy and inspiring; and altogether, it is a volume which U sure to become a classic' — Baptist Magazine. ' A charming book, written with unaffected ease and prfect lucidity, and therefore to be read with delight. Perhaps a magic pen belonjts to the house of Candlish. . . . "The book is positively good, and ought to be thoroughly popular with the larger religious )i\x\)\\c.''— Monthly Interpreter. ' An able, historical, and dispassionate account of the working of the various theories of Church lanity in earlier ages.'— />aer«7-^ Churchmou. T. and T. Clark's Publications. In demy 8vo, Second Edition, price 10s. 6d., THE HUMILIATION OF CHRIST IN ITS PHYSICAL^ ETHICAL, AND OFFICIAL ASPECTS. By a. B. BRUCE, D.D., PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY, FREE CHURCH COLLEGE, GLASGOW. ' Dr. Bruce's style is uniformly clear and vigorous, and this book of his, as a whole, has the rare advantage of being at once stimulating and satisfying to the mind in a high degree.' — British, and Foreign Erangdical Review. ' This work stands forth at once as an original, thoughtful, thorough )iiece of work in the branch of scientific theology, such as we do not often meet in our language. ... It is really a work of exceptional value; and no one can read it without perceptible gain in theological knovi\edge.''~En>jlish Churchman. ' We have not for a long time met with a work so fresh and suggestive as this of Pro- fessor Bruce. . . . We do not know where to look at our English Universities for a treatise so calm, logical, and scholarly.' — English Independent, By the same Author. In demy 8vo, Third Edition, price 10s. 6d., THE TRAINING OF THE TWELVE; OR, EXPOSITION OF PASSAGES IN THE GOSPELS EXHIBITING THE TWELVE DISCIPLES OF JESUS UNDER DISCIPLINE FOR THE APOSTLESHIP. 'Here we have a really great book on an important, large, and attractive subject — a book full of loving, wholesome, profound thoughts about the fundamentals of Christian faith and practice.' — British and Foreign Evangelical Review. ' It is some five or six years since this work first made its appearance, and now that a second edition has been called for. the Author has taken the opportunity to make some alterations which are likely to render it still more acceptable. Substantially, however; the book remains the same, and the hearty commendation with which we noted its first issue applies to it at least as much now. ' — Rock. 'The value, the beauty of this volume is that it is a unique contribution to, because a loving and cultured study of, the life of Christ, in the relation of the Mat,ter of the Twelve.' — Edinburgh Daily Review. In demy 8vo, price 10s. 6d., DELIVERYAND DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. By ROBERT RAINY, D.D., PRINCIPAL, AND PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY AND CHURCH HISTORY, NEW COLLEGE, EDIN. 'We gladly acknowledge the high excellence and the extensive learning which these lectures display. They are able to the last degree, and the author has, in an unusual measure, the power of acute and brilliant generalization.' — Literary Churchman. ' It is a rich and nutritious book throughout, and in temper and spirit beyond all praise.' — British and Foreign Evangelical Review. ' The subject is treated with a comprehensive grasp, keen logical power, clear analysis and learning, and in devout spirit.'— Evangelical Magazine. T. a7id T. Clark's Publications. In Three Volumes, 8vo, price :Us. Gd., THE LIFE OF CHRIST. By Dr. BERNHARD WEISS, PROFESSOK OF THEOLOGY, BKKMN. 'The authority of John's Gospel is vindicated with great fulness and succ-ss. Altogether the book eeems destined to hold a very distinguislied, if not absoluu-ly unique, place in the criticism of the New Testament. Its fearless search after truth, its independence of spirit, its extent of research, its thoughtful and discriminating tone, must secure for it a very high reputation.' — ConijrajationaUst. ' If the work in its completeness fulfil the promise of this instalment, it will be an exposition of the divine character and mission of our Lord more thorough and pene- tratiug and conclusive than any that we yet possess.'— £rt<(,?A Quartcrli/ Jicricw. 'A valuable treatise. ... A thoroughly exhaustive work; a work lii which learning of the most severe type, combined with a perfect knowledge of the languages drawn upon for the elucidation of his purpose, is apparent in every ya.ee.'— Bell's Weekly Messenger. 'From the thoroughness of the discussion and clearness of the writer, we anticipate a very valuable addition to the Great liiography.' — Freeman. By the same Author. In Two Yolumes, 8vo, price 2 Is., BIBLICAL THEOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 'Further references to this work, so far from diminishing the high estimate we have previously expressed, have induced us to value it still more. The issue of the second and concluding volume gives aid to this enhanced appreciation.' — I'liculoi/ical QuarUrli/. 'Written throughout with freshness, vigour, and perfect command of the material. . . . This is a field which Weiss has made his own. His work far excels the numerous works of his predecessors in thoroughuess and completeness.' — Methitdist Becorder. ' The work which this volume completes is one of no ordinary strength and acumen. It is an exposition of the books of the New Testament arranged scientifically, that is, according to the authorship and development. It is the ripe fruit of many years of New Testament exegesis and theological study. . . . The book is in every way a notable one.' — British Quarterly Review. 'A work so thorough as thi.s and which so fully recognises the historical character of the science of Bil)lical Theology, was well worth translating.' — Academy, 'Able contributions to theological literature.' — Scots7nan. In imperial 8vo, Subscription price 158., THE APOCRYPHA OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. With Historical Introduction, a Revised Translation, and Notes Critical and Explanatory, By Professor E. C. BISSELL, D.D. 'This work bears evidence throughout of wide and dilieent researcli, of minute acquaintance with the literature of the subject, and of cou.Hcieutious treatmeuU It is written in a clear and easy style. ... It is to be hoped thai the service which I>r. Uissell has rendered the Christian scholarship of our land by the preparation of tliiii volume will lead to a more general aud thorough study of this long-neglected depart- ment of Biblical literature.' — Fresbi/terian Review. ' Dr. Bissell has done his work admirably.'— C/mrrA Bclh. 'Dr. Bissell haH produced a really complete work at the cost of much labour and reaea.Yc\i.'—Wesleyaii Metlwdist Mayazinc. T. and T. Clarlz s Pttblications. BISHOP MARTENSEN'S WORKS. 'The greatest Scandinavian, perhaps the greatest Lutheran, divine of our century. The famous " Dogmatics," the eloquent and varied pages of which contain intellectual food for the laity no less than for the clergy. . . . His "Christian Dogmatics" has exercised as wide an influence on Protestant thought as any volume of our century.' — Expositor. In Three Volumes, 8vo, price 10s. 6d. each, CHRISTIAN ETHICS. Volume I. GENERAL ETHICS.— II. INDIVIDUAL ETHICS. -III. SOCIAL ETHICS. ' As man is a member of two societies, a temporal and a spiritual, it is clear that his ethical development only can go on when these two are treated side by side. This Bishop Martensen has done with rare skill. We do not know where the conflicting claims of Church and State are more equitably adjusted. . . . We can read these volumes through with unflagging interest.' — Literary World. ' Dr. Martensen's work on Christian Dogmatics reveals the strength of thought as well as the fine literary grace of its author. . . . His chief ethical writings comprise a system of Christian Ethics, general and special, in three volumes. Each of these volumes has great and singular excellence, and it mi^ht be geunrally felt that in them the author has surpassed his own work on " Christian Dogmatics."' — Rev. Principal Cairns. In One Volume, 8vo, price 10s. 6d., CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. ' To students this volume will be helpful and welcome.' — Free7nati. ' We feel much indebted to Messrs. Clark for their introduction of this important compendium of orthodox theology from the pen of the learned Danish Bishop. . . . Every reader must rise from its perusal stronger, calmer, and more hopeful, not only for the fortunes of Christianity, but of dogmatic theology.' — Quarterly Review. ' Such a book is a library in itself, and a monument of pious labour in the cause of true religion. ' — Irish Ecclesiastical Gazette. Just published, in demy 8vo, price 9s., A POPULAK INTPtODUCTION TO THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. By Rev. T. G. CRIPPEN. ' A clear and intelligible account of the course of religions from the earliest times to our own; .... indeed, the student who masters this volume only will have no mera acquaintance with this department of theological work.' — Freeman. ' Mr. Crippen is studiously, on some points startlingly, and enviably fair. His book shows wide reading and honest thinking. It abounds in acute distinctions; its state- ment of varying views of doctrine is sometimes very happy, and it sufficiently illustrates the pathology of theological speculation.*— PFe«%«« Methodist Magazine. In Three Volumes, 8vo, price 31s. 6d., A HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. By THE Late Dr. K. II. HAGENBACH. STransIateti from tlje JFiftlj anti Hast fficrman ^tiition tui'tlj ^titiitmns from otljct Sources. WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY THE VERY REV. DEAN PLUMPTRE. ' This scholarly and elaborate history.' — Dickinson's Thcoloyical Quarterly. ' There is no work which deals with this subject in a manner so scientific and so thorough as Hageubach's. Moreover, there is no edition of this work, either in Genuau or in English, which approaches the present as to completeness and accuracy.' — Church Bells. ' No work will be more welcome or useful than the present one. We have a whole system of theology from the hand of the greatest living theologian of Germany.' — Methodist Recorder. T. and T. Claries Publications. DR. LUTHARDT^S WORKS . In Tliree handsome crown Sro Voliuius, price G.v. each. ' We do not know any volumes so suitable in these times for young men entenng on life, or, let us say, even for the library of a pastor caUed to deal with such, than the three volumes of this series. We commend the whole of them with the utmost cordial satisfaction. They are altogether aulta a specialty in ourliterature.'—llw%A'et/e«:. b h • APOLOGETIC LECTURES ON TllK FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS OF CHRISTIANITY. Sixth Edition. By C. E. LUTHARDT, D.D., Leipzig. ' From Dr. Luthardt's exposition even the most learned theologians may derive in- valuable criticism, and tlie most acute disputants supply themselves witli more Irenchnut and polished weapons than they have as yet been possessed oV—BdCt Weekly Mtssetu/er. apologetTc~~lectures ON THE SAVING TRUTHS OF CHRISTIANITY. Fifth Edition. ' Dr. Luthardt is a profound scholar, but a very simple teacher, and expresses himself on the gravest matters with the utmost simplicity, clearness, and force.' — Literary World. apologetTc~~lectures ON TIIK moral truths of CHRISTIANITY. Third Edition. ' The ground covered by this work is, of course, of considerable extent, and there is scarcely any topic of specifically moral interest now under debate in which the reader will not find some suggestive saying. The volume contains, like its predecessors, a truly wealthy apparatus of notes and illustrations.' — English Churchman. In Three Volumes, 8ro, price 31s. 6rf., COMMENTARY ON ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL. 'Full to overflowine with a ripe theology and a critical science wiTiLy of their great theme.' — Irish Ecclesiastical Gazette. In demy 8vo, price "is. C