Lange Commentary - Ezra 4:1 - 4:24

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Lange Commentary - Ezra 4:1 - 4:24


(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)

This Chapter Verse Commentaries:

B.—THE INTERRUPTION AND AN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT RESPECTING THE MACHINATIONS OF THE ENEMIES

Ezr_4:1-24

I. The Interruption of the Building of the Temple. Ezr_4:1-5

1Now when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the children of the captivity builded the temple unto the Lord God of Israel; 2Then they came to Zerubbabel, and to the chief of the fathers, and said unto them, Let us build with you: for we seek your God, as ye do; and we do sacrifice unto him since the days of Esar-haddon king of Assur, which brought us up hither. 3But Zerubbabel, and Jeshua, and the rest of the chief of the fathers of Israel, said unto them, Ye have nothing to do with us to build a house unto our God; but we ourselves together will build unto the Lord God of Israel, as king Cyrus the king of Persia hath commanded us. 4Then the people of the land weakened the hands of the people of Judah, and troubled them in building, 5And hired counsellors against them, to frustrate their purpose, all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius king of Persia.

II. An Original Document respecting the Hostile Machinations. Ezr_4:6-24

6And in the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his reign, wrote they unto him an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem. 7And in the days of Artaxerxes wrote Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of their companions, unto Artaxerxes king of Persia; and the writing of the letter was written in the Syrian tongue, and interpreted in the Syrian tongue. 8Rehum the chancellor and Shimshai the scribe wrote a letter against Jerusalem to Artaxerxes the king in this 9sort: Then wrote Rehum the chancellor, and Shimshai the scribe, and the rest of their companions; the Dinaites, the Apharsathchites, the Tarpelites, the Apharsites, the Archevites, the Babylonians, the Susanchites, the Dehavites, and the Elamites, 10And the rest of the nations whom the great and noble Asnapper brought over, and set in the cities of Samaria, and the rest that are on this side the river, 11and at such a time. This is the copy of the letter that they sent unto him, even unto Artaxerxes the king; Thy servants the men on this side the river, and at such a time. 12Be it known unto the king, that the Jews which came up from thee to us are come unto Jerusalem, building the rebellious and the bad city, and have set up the walls thereof, and joined the foundations. 13Be it known now unto the king, that if this city be builded, and the walls set up again, then will they not pay toll, tribute, and custom, and so thou shalt endamage the revenue of the kings. 14Now because we have maintenance from the King’s palace, and it was not meet for us to see the king’s dishonour, therefore have we sent and certified the king; 15That search may be made in the book of the records of thy fathers: so shalt thou find in the book of the records, and know that this city is a rebellious city, and hurtful unto kings and provinces, and that they have moved sedition within the same of old time: for which cause was this city destroyed. 16We certify the king that, if this city be builded again, and the walls thereof set up, by this means thou shalt have 17 no portion on this side the river. Then sent the king an answer unto Rehum the chancellor, and to Shimshai the scribe, and to the rest of their companions that dwell in Samaria, and unto the rest beyond the river, Peace, and at such a time 18,The letter which ye sent unto us hath been plainly read before me. 19And I commanded, and’ search hath been made, and it is found that this city of old time hath made insurrection against kings, and that rebellion and sedition have been made therein. 20There have been mighty kings also over Jerusalem, which have ruled over all countries beyond the river; and toll, tribute, and custom was paid unto them. 21Give ye now commandment to cause these men to cease, and that this city be not builded, until another commandment shall be given from me. 22Take heed now that ye fail not to do this: why should damage grow to the hurt of the kings? 23Now when the copy of king Artaxerxes’ letter was read before Rehum, and Shimshai the scribe, and their companions, they went up in haste to Jerusalem unto the Jews, and made them to cease by force and power. 24Then 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.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Ezr_4:1-5. The interruption. Ezr_4:1-3 first give its occasion. When the enemies of Judah and Benjamin heard of the undertaking in Jerusalem, they wished to unite with them in building. They are called the adversaries, not of the children of the captivity, but of Judah and Benjamin, because their opposition and hostility had arisen already in pre-exile times, and indeed against the southern kingdom, which was then most suitably called that of Judah and Benjamin. áְּðֵé äַâּåֹìָä —children or members of the captivity, is the name given to the returned exiles in Ezr_6:19 sq.; Ezr_8:35; Ezr_10:7, Ezr_10:16, etc.; so also briefly äַâּåֹìָä —e.g., Ezr_1:11. In order to establish their claim they maintain: We seek your God as ye (do).— ãָøַùׁ with ìְ or àֶì , also with the simple accusative, is the constant expression for our somewhat colorless expression worship God; properly it is to turn to God with petition or questions, or with desires in general, to apply to Him.—And sacrifice unto him since the days of Esarhaddon,etc.—The Kethib: “we do not offer” cannot well mean: we do not offer to other gods, for then it would be necessary to mention expressly these other gods. If it were original to the text it might perhaps simply have the sense we did not offer at all, not even to Jehovah, since we well knew that Jehovah would accept offering only at the one legitimate place of worship at Jerusalem. Then it would involve the meaning that they would gladly sacrifice to Jehovah, and on this very account desired to take part in building the temple at Jerusalem. But this view is opposed by the fact that they then would without doubt have too openly and boldly gone in the face of all truth, since they certainly had very many altars and sacrificed often enough. Moreover the emphatic position of àֲðַäֲðåּ does not accord with this view; besides, in such a case we would expect the perf. æָáַçְðåּ instead of the part. æֹáְçִéí . It is very probable that ìà here, as in fifteen other passages (comp. e.g.Exo_21:8; 1Sa_2:3; 2Sa_16:18 ; 2Ki_8:10) is for ìåֹ , in consequence of a mistake, or of design, in that they would state that their sacrifices did not properly deserve the name of sacrifices, as then ìåֹ likewise is found in Qeri, and is read by Esdras ( áὐôῷ ), by Sept., Syriac, and also indeed by the Vulg., which at least does not have the negative. Since the speakers designate themselves as those whom Esar-haddon had brought into their present abode (comp. Bähr on 2Ki_19:37), we have to identify them beyond question with those colonists referred to in 2 Kings 17, with the Samaritans so-called, whom the king of Assyria, 2Ki_17:24, had brought up out of Babylon, Cutha, and other eastern countries, into the cities of Samaria. These colonists, when they first settled in Canaan, it is true, did not fear Jehovah; it was not till a considerable later period that they asked for an Israelite priest out of Assyria, in order to be instructed by him in the worship of Jehovah; but the words: since the days when Esar-haddon brought us up, are either a somewhat inexact statement, or are to be explained from their efforts to date their worship of Jehovah as far back as possible. Knobel (Zur Geschichte der Samaritaner, Denkschr. der Gesellsch. für Wissensch. und Kunst in Giessen, I. 1, S. 147 sqq.), on account of these words, improperly holds them for those who had emigrated from Assyria with the Israelite priests. It is clear from our passage that the colonization spoken of in 2 Kings 17, if it perhaps had already begun under Sargon and Sennacherib, yet chiefly took place under Esar-haddon. With this agree the cuneiform inscriptions, in accordance with which Esar-haddon had despoiled, not expressly, it is true, the land of the ten tribes, but yet Syria and Phœnicia of their ancient inhabitants, and provided them with new ones, comp. Schrader, l. c., upon our passage. The occasion of this request of the Samaritans, was the correct recognition of the fact that those who should have the temple at Jerusalem, would be regarded as the leading nation, whilst those who should be excluded from this central point of the worship of the land would appear as less authorized, as intrusive; they likewise no doubt expected, if they were admitted to participation in the building of the temple, as well as to consultation with reference to it, to gain thereby influence in shaping the affairs of the congregation in general. If in addition to this they had also a religious interest in the matter, it was only in order to secure for themselves the favor of the God of the land, whom they recognised as Jehovah, and then therewith also the same possessions and blessings in their new home as the Jews designed for themselves. We cannot regard them as actuated by any higher and purer motive,—for their entire subsequent behaviour, which makes them appear as quite indifferent to religious affairs, and also that which we elsewhere learn of their religion, is opposed to that view. That which is said in 2 Kings 17 on this subject cannot be understood (as Bähr on that chap.) as stating that they only in part retained their heathen gods, that many had already worshipped Jehovah only, that these latter had worshipped Him, if indeed in the form of a bull, yet, as the only God. There is no distinction between the different classes; for 2 kings4:33 is not, as Bähr translates, “there were also worshippers of Jehovah,”—but it is said of all; they feared Jehovah, and served their own gods, and of all it is then likewise said in 2 kings4:34: “they feared not Jehovah;” they prayed to Jehovah only as one of many, only as a limited being, only as an idol, not as the only true God. It is true the question then arises whether this syncretistic stand-point that in no respect can be regarded as even an approximative worship of Jehovah, that in truth was only ordinary heathenism, was still maintained by them in the times subsequent to the exile, whether they had not made an advance in religion beyond it. The question is, how the remnant of the ten tribes, who had maintained themselves in their habitations in the midst of the colonists, especially according to Jer_41:4 sq.; and 2Ch_34:9-10 (comp. Bähr on 2 Kings 17, S. 401, and Nägelsbach on Jer_41:4 sq.), acted both with reference to these colonists in general, and to the claim here made by them. But if the long prevailing opinion were correct that the Samaritans for the most part consisted of the Israelites who remained in the land at the exile, so that they might bo regarded as an actual continuation of the people of the ten tribes, and the heathen elements among them had become more and more conformed to the Israelites, we cannot conceive why they did not maintain already now this their external and internal connection with Israel as well as on later occasions when it suited them so to do. That would have been the strongest reason that could have influenced the Jews to admit their claim. For great and respected predecessors, as Hezekiah, 2 Chronicles 30.; and Josiah, 2Ch_34:33, had expressly occupied themselves in attracting the remnants of Israel to the worship of Jehovah at Jerusalem. At first the remnant may have kept themselves concealed from the new comers and the masters of the land, by contenting themselves with the more distant regions and lurking-places of the mountains. They certainly constituted merely despised and scattered bands, which neither sought nor offered any communication, whom therefore the colonists could not trust. Otherwise they would not have had a priest sent to them from Assyria, when they wished to worship Jehovah as the god of the land, comp. 2Ki_17:2. Very soon, it is true, many of them approached the colonists, and mixed with them by marriage; but instead of exerting any influence in shaping them, they rather subordinated themselves—of themselves having quite a strong inclination to heathenism—to the colonists as the more powerful and more favored on the part of the government and united with them in their manners and customs, and also in their religion, so that they more and more disappeared among them. This is very clear partly from the way in which the Samaritans here speak of themselves, partly from their subsequent actions, in that they in contrast to the Jews still preferred to be the representatives of the royal prerogatives of Persia, and designate themselves after their Assyrian places of origin (comp. Ezr_4:7 sq.), but give not the slightest hint of a connection with the ancient Israelites, or of having been in any way modified by them. Therefore it is improbable that they should have been influenced by these latter in making their claim upon the new congregation, as Berth. and after him Keil supposes. If they subsequently more and more decidedly went over to monotheism and the observation of the Mosaic law, they were moved thereto, not by the remnants of Israel, which had blended with them, but by the Jews themselves. They would not remain behind the new congregation in Jerusalem, for they could not conceal from themselves on reflection that the stand-point of the religion of Jehovah, as it was represented in Jerusalem, was higher than their own. And it was for this reason that they then accepted the first Manasseh, and under his direction built the temple on Gerizim, by which circumstance the transformation was as a matter of course still further favored. Besides this there was the entire tendency of those times that was decidedly towards a higher and more spiritual worship of God. Moreover, in addition to such fragments of Israel as were lost among the Samaritans, others still were left in the land who Sought to preserve their independence. It is probable that these, who were of themselves more devoted to the religion of Jehovah, let themselves be directed by the judgments that passed over their kingdom, and the contrast that was exhibited between themselves and the colonists, still more decidedly to Jerusalem and the worship there conducted. In favor of this view is the fact that some of them already in the time of Josiah contributed to the restoration of the temple in Jerusalem (2Ch_34:9-10), and that still after the destruction of the temple eighty men of Shechem, Shiloh, and Samaria came in mourning to bring their gifts to the place where up to this time they had worshipped, Jer_41:5-6. In accordance with some other evidence, there were still at the time such better elements in the northern region of the land. Among those who had separated themselves from the impurities of the nations to unite with the returned exiles in seeking Jehovah (Ezr_6:21) belonged probably at least remnants of Israel as well as of Judah. And this sheds light upon the obscure question, how we are to account for the origin of the Jewish population in Galilee. Bertheau properly remarks with reference to such better elements: “They are the ancestors of a great part of the Jews whom we meet in subsequent times in northern Palestine.” There in northern Palestine they had not been dislodged by the colonists, who occupied the cities of Samaria. There, as to their old ancestral abodes, and to their kindred, must those return who now and subsequently gradually returned from any of the ten tribes. It is possible, indeed, that this better remnant of the northern kingdom soon still more decidedly than the Samaritans directed their attention to the temple at Jerusalem. But perhaps they had not yet concluded what relation they should assume to the congregation at Jerusalem; we may suppose that it was in consequence of the impulse that went forth from Jerusalem for them certainly much more than for the Samaritans, that they reflected more deeply upon themselves, and finally attached themselves to the worship at Jerusalem.

Ezr_4:3. The Jews refused the Samaritans. The sing. åַéֹàîֶø is used not only because the number of the verb is freer when it precedes the subject, but because Zerubbabel was the chief person who gave the answer; e. g. Zerubbabel spake in agreement with Jeshua, etc. Jeshua and the heads of the fathers of Israel had united in the answer. éִùְׂøָàֵì is used with ìְ , and accordingly is not the stat.abs. of the foregoing äָàָáåֹú , for otherwise this would not have the article, according to the usual combination with øָàùֵׁé .—Ye have nothing to do with us to build, that is, it is not for you and us in common; comp. the expression “ what is to me and thee‚” namely, in common, Jos_22:24; Jdg_11:12; 2Ki_3:13. In that they say: house—not unto God, as Ezr_1:4, but unto our God, they mean that Jehovah belongs to them more than to the Samaritans, yea, to them alone.—But we ourselves together=we as a compact unity, excluding others. They might appeal to the decree of Cyrus in this refusal, since if they were obliged to admit the Samaritans, they would not have gained, according to their feelings and knowledge, that which they had the right to expect from it, namely, an undisturbed worship of Jehovah in all its truth, free from all dangers. It is true it could not escape the congregation, that it was a very serious matter to make those their enemies who had probably connections, consideration and influence at the seat of government, and who naturally regarded themselves as the outposts and guardians of the sovereignty of Persia in Canaan. But nevertheless the dangers to which they would have exposed themselves by a union with these Samaritans who appeared so objectionable, especially in a religious point of view, would have been far greater, and they should not be charged with too great anxiety, or one that cannot be entirely approved (against Ewald, Gesch. IV., S. 125, 135). Those who gradually imitated them when they kept themselves pure from their mixed religion, and through them were impelled to a monotheistic development, would, if they had gained an influence and rightful position in Jerusalem from the beginning, have involved them in their heathen doubt and obscurity. Their renunciation of the external advantages which were set before them by the proffered alliance was the result, on the one side, of a correct appreciation of that which they must regard as of the most importance, and on the other side of a candid and humble recognition of their weakness. As a matter of course they were obliged to take an entirely different course with reference to the remnants of the northern kingdom, when these in another way began to seek Jehovah again in sincerity, and on this account desired to be admitted into Jerusalem. That they did not fail in this particular we see in the circumstance that the Galilean ever had an undisputed admission.

Ezr_4:4-5. The consequence of this refusal was the interruption of the building of the temple. The Samaritans are called the people of the land in Ezr_4:4 because they, at least until this time had been the proper inhabitants of the land, and at all events constituted the chief part of the population. As such they were strong enough to slacken the hands of the people of Judah, that is, the people now inhabiting Judah. éְäåּãָä , already in pre-exile times the name of the southern kingdom is used here also as the name of the country (comp. Ezr_4:6). äָéָä with the part. (slackening and affrighting) expresses the continuance of the action; the second participle is explanatory of the first, îְáַìֲäִéí ìִáְðåֹú , affrighting with reference to building=from building. The Kethib îְáַìֲäִéí is sufficiently established by the noun áַìָּäָä (Isa_17:14) and by the Syriac; the Qeri, îְáַäֲìִéí prefers the usual form áָּäַì .—Without doubt they threatened the Jews with violence, and with punishment on the part of the government, as soon as they had frustrated the edict of Cyrus.—They hired counsellors against them—for a cancelling of the edict according to Ezr_4:5, in that they were able to influence probably the ministers to whom Ezr_7:28; Ezr_8:25 refer, or other influential persons, to give advice to Cyrus unfavorable to the Jews. At court they naturally did not understand how it could be that those who were as much the inhabitants of the land as the returned exiles, and therefore seemed entitled to the God of the land, should be excluded. If Cyrus had seen in Jehovah his own supreme God, it must have been all the more annoying to him that those who apparently had the best intentions of worshipping Him, should be rejected. It would seem as if the reason why the Jews opposed the union could only be a national and political one, and the suspicion was quite natural, that they already designed to form not merely a religious community, but also had national and political designs, that they thus gave an entirely false interpretation to the decree of Cyrus. The part. ñֹëְøִéí is in continuation of the part. of the previous verse; ñָëַø is a later form of ùָׂëַø . The time during which they succeeded in frustrating the purposes of the Jews, (for which äֵôֶø is to a certain extext the term.techn.), consisted of about fourteen years—from about the third year of Cyrus in Babylon (comp. Dan_10:2 sq.) until the second of Darius, comp. Hag_1:1.

Ezr_4:6-22 contains the original document respecting the hostile efforts of the Samaritans. The author adds what the Samaritans did and accomplished in the time of Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes, and the question arises first of all, what kings were meant under these names? Most ancient and modern interpreters, (comp. J. H. Michaelis, in loco.) had supposed that the author from Ezr_4:6 onward would explain why the building of the temple was discontinued for so long a time, as stated in Ezr_4:5, that he then entered into the period between Cyrus and Darius. They were led to this opinion by Ezr_4:24, which leads over to Darius, and what happened under him, in such a manner that it seems certainly, at first, as if the kings mentioned here in Ezr_4:6-7 had ruled before him. Luther, from this point of view, united this 6th verse by “for” to the previous verse, instead of by the conjunction “and‚” and some, as Hartmann in the Chron. bibl., have appealed to this “for” as if it stood in the original text. Ahasuerus must, accordingly, have been Cambyses, Artaxerxes, Pseudo-Smerdis (so still Ewald, Gesch. IV., S. 137, and Köhler in Komm. zu. den. nachexil. Proph.). But the strongest objections at once arise against this view. How is it that these two kings should have names given them that they bear no where else ? How can we suppose that whilst all other Assyrian, Chaldean, and Persian kings bear essentially the same names among the Israelites with which they elsewhere appear, these two kings on one occasion should have had entirely different names among the Jews from those among their own people; for among the Persians Cambyses, so far as we know, only bore the name of Cambyses (old Persian Kambudschja), Smerdis however., after whom the Ps. Smerdis named himself, had only that of Tanyoxares or Tanyoxarkes (Cyrop. VIII. 7, and Ctesias, Pers. fr. 8–13), or also Orapastes (Justin. Hist. Ezr_1:9), which name cannot be identified with àַøְúַּçְùַׁùְׁúְּà . This supposition is still less admissible, in that both these names every where else in the Old Test. designate other kings, and the same as those who had the corresponding names among the Persians. Ahasuerus, in the book of Esther, as is now generally recognized, is Xerxes; in Dan_9:1, the Median king Cyaxares. These two Greek terms, Xerxes and Cyaxares, may be readily derived from the Persian fundamental forms of these names, which we find in the cuneiform inscriptions, Khsay or Khsay-arsa, by modification of vowels. So also the Hebrew term àçùׁåøåùׁ , However àøúּçùñúּà is in Ezr_7:8. and so also in the book of Nehemiah, without question, Artaxerxes (Machrochir). It is true that it is there written àøúçùׁñúà (with ùׁñ ), in our passage, however, úøúçùׁùׁúà (with ùׁù ); but a different person cannot be inferred from this difference in writing. This is clear from Ezr_6:14, where the name is written as it is here, and yet must be referred to a Persian king ruling subsequently to Darius—certainly, therefore, to Artaxerxes Machrochir. In connection with these names that are used in our section, some other marks beside which point beyond Darius, gain importance. If the sixth verse really came as is supposed to speak explanatory of the previous interval of time, it would at least have been more natural to connect with the conjunct, “for‚” as indeed Luther, without reason, has supplied it, rather than by “and.” At the outset it is improbable that Pseudo-Smerdis should have had time during his brief reign (only seven months) to reply to his officers in the manner narrated in Ezr_4:7-23; namely, after an accurate investigation with reference to the previous conduct of the Jews. In the letter of the Samaritans, or rather of the Persian officers among them, to the king, it no longer has to do with the building of the temple, but only with that of the city and its walls, which is all the more remarkable, as in the letter to Darius in Ezr_5:6 sq. the temple throughout is in the foreground. Furthermore Bertheau properly reminds us in notes on Ezr_4:4 that if the transaction with these kings had already previously transpired, the question of the Persian officers in the time of Darius, who had given the Jews commandment to build the house of God, would not have been very appropriate. Moreover the Jews would have spoken of the steps of the Samaritans and the prohibition of àøúçùׁùׁúà when it must have been obligatory upon them to explain to the Persian officers in Ezr_5:16 why the building already begun under Cyrus had not been completed. By all these circumstances we are compelled to understand by àçùåøåù really Xerxes, and by àøúçùùúà really Artaxerxes, and to refer our section accordingly to the period subsequent to Darius. If it is objected to this view that the answer of àøúçùùúà does not accord with the sending of Ezra under Artaxerxes in chap. 7.; so far as the one was unfavorable to the Jews and the other favorable, the fact is overlooked that in his answer (Ezr_4:21) the king expressly reserves another command, which possibly would ordain the building of the city and its walls. When, however, Ewald (Gesch. 4. S. 138) asserts that in the time of Artaxerxes no intelligent person could any longer speak thus of the building of the city and its walls, as is the case in the letter of the Samaritans, the book of Nehemiah shows how very necessary it still was that the city should be built up, and the walls re-established even after Ezra. That which really appears to be against the view here advocated, is the manner in which Ezr_4:24 passes over from this king to Darius. By the use of one and the same verb in Ezr_4:21 (give ye now commandment to cause these men to cease), in Ezr_4:23 (they went up to Jerusalem and made them cease) and in Ezr_4:24 (then ceased the work) and apparently also by the use of áֵּàãַéִï at the beginning of Ezr_4:24, the twenty-fourth verse is so closely united to the previous context, that it in fact seems to contain the result of that which immediately precedes. Hence then Herzfeld also (Gesch. Israels I., S. 303) and Schrader (Stud. u. Krit., 1867, S. 469) have supposed that our section, if it indeed originally extended to the time of Xerxes and Artaxerxes, must be referred by the author of our book, notwithstanding all, to Cambyses and Pseudo Smerdis, who placed it here under an error. But no real necessity for such a doubtful supposition can be found. The verb áèì might be written by the author again, in Ezr_4:24, after that he had used it in Ezr_4:21-23, notwithstanding he was here treating of a previous time. The temporal particle áֵּàãַéִï , moreover, which in itself has the indefinite meaning of “illo tempore” can just as well refer to the beginning as to the middle or the end of the time spoken of before. If the twenty-fourth verse had been placed at the beginning of the fifth chapter instead of at the end of the fourth chapter, it would apparently occasion us no difficulty at all in giving it its proper reference. Should it be objected that such an anticipation of later events as the view here advocated involves in Ezr_4:6-23, is in itself improbable, this objection is removed to a certain extent by Ezr_6:14, from which it results that our author was readily inclined to connect together in the closest way Artaxerxes and his time with Darius and the previous times. In this passage, where the elders of Judah in the time of Darius are spoken of, and where it is said of them, they built and completed in consequence of the prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah, and on the commandment of the God of Israel, and on the commandment of Cyrus and Darius, the additional clause “and Artaxerxes” is still more singular than in our passage. As the author there would embrace all who had afforded the congregation justice, protection, and help up to the time of Ezra, so here he might have very well had the intention of at once putting together summarily all the interruptions that were occasioned by the Samaritans. In as much as here the narrative was of their operations, it was really the best place for this purpose. Besides, another reason probably co-operated. The author probably had at his command no other document respecting the machinations of the Samaritans and their success at the court of Persia than this one of the time of Artaxerxes. Since now, as we have shown in the introduction, it was his method to accompany everything as far as possible with original documents, since moreover besides it was of the highest importance to justify by such a document the behaviour of the Jewish congregation towards the Samaritans, which had such great, severe, and long-lasting consequences, he here inserted it, after that he had made the transition through Ezr_4:6 to the latter period, since the disposition of the Samaritans in the somewhat later period here meeting us, was, to a certain extent, an evidence likewise of their previous hostility; and the disturbing interference which they occasioned according to the letter of Artaxerxes, was only the continuation of previous interruptions.

Ezr_4:6. And in the reign of Ahasuerus in the beginning of his reign, wrote they an accusation,etc.—This shows the zeal of the Samaritans; at once and at the very outset they sought to prejudice this king against the Jews. If the time of Darius, which had been favorable to the Jews, during which the Samaritans had impatiently waited for a change of affairs, had passed, this zeal can the more readily be explained. ùִׂèְðָä , hostility (comp. Gen_26:21) has here the special meaning of accusation, just as ùָׂèָï readily gains the special meaning of accuser. Since the author does not enter into particulars with reference to this writing of accusation, or even say whether it had any results at all, it seems here to be mentioned only in order briefly to show that the Samaritans, even in the subsequent period, were still active, and in order thus to give a transition to the following narrative as the principal thing.

Ezr_4:7. And in the days of Artaxerxes wrote Bishlam,etc.—The Jewish congregation probably increased from the time of the building of the temple onward, and under Artaxerxes thought more seriously of re-establishing the walls of the city, which then likewise through Nehemiah actually took place. Bislam, Mithredath, Tabeel, etc., accordingly went to work anew against them. These names certainly indicate Samaritans who, without being Persian officials, enjoyed just as Sanballat subsequently, a certain degree of consequence. The pure Persian name Mithredath need not astonish us, since even Zerubbabel had a similar one (Sheshbazzar). We should expect instead of ëְּðָåֹúָå , for which the qeri has the usual form ëְּðָåֹúָéå , in accordance with Ezr_4:9; Ezr_4:17; Ezr_4:23; Ezr_5:3, etc., ëְּðָåָåֹúָí .To whom the sing. suffix properly refers, whether to the first named Bislam or to the last named Tabeel is doubtful, is yet without any real importance. ëְּðָú , from which our plural is to be derived (comp. Ewald, § 187 d) is contracted from ëְּðְåַú as ôֹּøָú , Gen_49:22 from ôֹøְåַú and àָçåֹú for àָçָú from àַçְéַú or àַçְåַú (comp. Olsh.§ 198 c). It is not found elsewhere in Hebrew, and was here without doubt chosen simply with reference to Ezr_4:9; in Aramaic it is more frequent. Formed from ëָּðָä it designates those qui eodem cognomine, sive titulo utitur, sive eodem munere fungitur, according to Gesen., Thes.; in the Peschito it is more frequently employed for óýíäïõëïò .—And the rest of their companions.—This is according to Ezr_4:9 sq.: the others who were their companions.—And the writing of the letter was written in Aramaic.— ëְּúָá is no more here than in Est_4:8, to be taken in the improved meaning of copy, (against Berth.) as if the author would say, that only the copy was in Chaldee, but the letter itself in another language. It means only writing, and the sense is, that the writers translated into Aramaic what they had thought in Samaritan or any other language, and therefore also at the same time wrote down in Aramaic, without doubt, for the reason that in Babylon at court, and among the Persian officials in anterior Asia the Aramaic language was the usual one, so to say, the official language, which otherwise would not have been employed in the letter of authority given to Ezra in Ezr_7:12 sq. ðִùְׁúְּåָï is of Arian origin, to be compared with the new Persian nuwischten, to write, and means letter. Comp. Ezr_4:18. îְúֻøְâָּí is part. pass. of úַּøְâֵּí , interpret, translate into another language.

Ezr_4:8. Rehum the chancellor and Shim-shai the scribe, wrote a letter in this sort.—Although other authors of a letter are adduced here, yet it is impossible that another third letter should be introduced (against Berth.); for 1) it is inconceivable that the author should have left the contents of the letter referred to in Ezr_4:7 so entirely undetermined. The contents of the letter mentioned in Ezr_4:6 he has at least characterized as an accusation. It is all the more inconceivable since the author has expressly designated the language of the letter mentioned in Ezr_4:17. Without doubt he regarded this as of especial importance. 2) Already the fact that the remark that the letter in Ezr_4:7 was written in Aramaic, is immediately followed by a section in Aramaic, and so also the fact that in accordance with Ezr_4:7, where Samaritans are designated at the outset as authors of the letter; again after the Persian officials in Ezr_4:9, Samaritan tribes are mentioned as taking part in the letter—all this is in favor of the view that it is only the contents of that letter which now follow (comp. Köhler, Nachexil. Proph. S.21). 3) The word ëְּðָåֹúָå in Ezr_4:7, which is found nowhere else in Hebrew, looks evidently forward to the same word in Ezr_4:9. 4) If another letter were referred to in Ezr_4:8, a connecting copula could no more be lacking here than at the beginning of Ezr_4:7, (Keil). Without doubt the Samaritans mentioned in Ezr_4:7, who had become known to the author elsewhere, had been the proper instigators of the letter, the Persian officials mentioned in Ezr_4:8 merely their instruments. The verb ëָּúַá which is likewise used of the former, does not by any means always mean: to write with one’s own hand. That the Persian officers had written the letter in combination with the Samaritans is besides expressly declared in a short introduction which had been given to it probably at Jerusalem, when they there added it to other important documents, in the form of an explanatory superscription. This introduction, which so to say had grown together with the document, the author has for accuracy and perspicuity taken up in Ezr_4:8-11, leaving it to the reader to put together correctly the different statements respecting the authorship in the manner indicated. Other interpreters, as Keil and Köhler (l.c.) suppose that he found the verses 8–11a, and so also then the following letter itself in the history of the building of the temple written in Chaldee, which he used in Ezr_4:5-6. Whether however ho really had before him such a document is doubtful, as we have shown in the Introduction, § 2. Besides the abbreviation åëְòֶðֶú and the like, which stands at the end of Ezr_4:10, is found only in the superscriptions of letters, where things that are self-understood may be omitted (comp. Ezr_4:11; Ezr_4:17), not in a historical narrative.— áְּòֵì èְòֵí = lord of understanding, counsellor, is not a proper name (Esdras, Alex., Syr., Vulg.), but a designation of the office of Rehum [the title apparently of the Persian governor of the Samaritan province. Rawlinson in loco.—Tr.], as ñַôְøָà , scribe, chancellor, is the designation of the office of Shimshai. [“According to Herodotus (III. 128) every Persian governor was accompanied to his province by a ‘royal scribe’ or ‘secretary’ ( ãñáììáôåýò ), who had a separate and independent authority,” Rawlinson in loco.—Tr.]. àִâְּøָà = àִðֶּøָú , in the later Hebrew çֲãָà is used as an indef. article, as in the later Hebrew. ëְּðֵîָà · àֶçָã has, according to Raschi and Ab. Ezra, arisen from ëְּ and ðֵàîַø = ðֵéîָà = ðֵîָà , comp. in the Talmud àֵéîָà , I say úֵּéîָà , thou sayest; thus literally: as we say,—then: in the following manner, or also, according as has been stated.

Ezr_4:9-10 add to the summary statement of authorship a closer explanation: Then Rehum..… and the rest of their companions.—The verb “write” is to be supplied from the previous verse. Then the sense is, when they wrote the letter in question, they were active in common with their companions. As their companions, the communities transplanted to Palestine are then adduced according to their native lands in Eastern Asia. The Dinaites were perhaps from the Median city Deinaver, which still had this name in a quite late period (Abulf. Geogr. ed. Par., p. 414). Schrader would find it as Da-ya-a-ni, also Da-ya-i-ni in the inscription of the older Tiglath Pileser, who reckons them among the Nahiri, that is, to the Armenians, I. c., S. 246. The Apharsathchites, perhaps identical with the Apharsachites in Ezr_5:6, were compared by Hiller (Onom. p. 655, 745) with the robber Parætakites (Herod. I. 101; Strabo 15:3, 12), on the boundary of Media and Persia; Rawlinson regards the Apharsachites as the Afar-Sittaces, according to the inscriptions, and the Apharsachites as the Afar-Sacæ (comp. Rœd. in Gesen. Thes., app. p. 107). [But in his Com., in loco, Rawlinson regards these two names as only variations of the third form Apharsites, all referring to the same people, the Persians.—Tr.].—The Tarpelites remind us of the ôÜðïõñïé (Ptol. VI. 2, 6) dwelling on the East of Elymais. The Apharsites are identified with the Persians, whose name is here provided with à prosthetic; Hiller (Onom. p. 655) thought of the Parrhasians in Eastern Media. The Archevites had their name probably from àֶøֶêְ (Gen_10:10), Arku in the inscriptions, the present Warka on the left bank of the Euphrates, southeast of Babylon (comp. Schrad. I. c., S. 18). The Babylonians are the inhabitants of Babylon, the Susanchites those of Susa, the Dehavites (Qeri øְּäָéֵà ), the ÄÜïé of the Greeks (Herod. I. 125), the Elamites, those of Elam or Elymais.

Ezr_4:10. And the rest of the nations whom the great and noble Asnapper brought over.—Since the author adds these words as a summing up, it is clear that he could not or would not enumerate all in detail, that he would represent them as all taking part together, and indeed not only so far as they dwelt in Samaria, but further than this also those in the other lands on this side of the river.—Thus did all these colonists here act in common, even those who dwelt as it were in Phœnicia and Syria, because they perhaps under all circumstances as foreigners over against the natives felt themselves united by the bond of a common situation, because they perhaps all feared also for their territory, if the Jews should grow into a power, upon which the Israelites dwelling at a greater distance round about might lean. Since here all the colonists are to be mentioned in entirely general terms, we cannot regard it as singular that at this time on the one side entirely different names are mentioned from those in 2Ki_17:24, where only those transported to Samaria are mentioned, that moreover on the other side the Samaritan nations are not so particularly mentioned as in that passage, where instead of the Babylonians in general, people from Babylon, Cuthah, etc., are named. Asnapper here might be regarded as another name of Esar-haddon, in Ezr_4:2, and indeed the more as we here have a Chaldee document; yet the supposition of different names for one and the same person is ever a doubtful one. It is not suitable, however, to understand thereby the commander-in-chief of Esar-Haddon [Rawlinson], for the epith. orn. “great and noble” are in favor of a king, although the title of king is not expressly added. It is probable therefore that a mutilation of the name Esar-Haddon has taken place. After the designation of the place: in the city of Samaria, the following åּùְׁàָø , etc., may also be merely a designation of place; accordingly the áּ , which is before ÷ִøְéָä is to be supplied before it, and ùְׁàָø is to be taken as neuter of the land or places. òְáַøÎðַäֲøָä , on that side of the river, of the land to the west of the Euphrates, is explained as a now universally prevailing geographical expression. åּëְòֶðֶú contracted into ëְּòֶú (comp. Ezr_4:17) = etc., or “the like.” Perhaps the author himself already placed this expression of abbreviation at the introduction of the letter, in order to indicate that still other designations of lands are to be thought of as a matter of course; perhaps, however, it is derived from the author of our book, who would not copy that which was to be understood of itself.

Ezr_4:11. These are the contents of the letter which they sent.—Here we have at once announced in the first half of the verse the contents of the letter. It seems that already the beginning of the letter itself was used for this announcement, since it was certainly the style for the letter-writer to designate more closely in a superscription as well himself—which is now no longer the case here—as also the receiver of the letter. For only from such superscriptions can it be explained how at the beginning of every letter in our book almost the same formula occurs, comp. Ezr_4:17; Ezr_5:6; Ezr_7:11.— ôַּøְùֶׁâֶï , in the book of Esther thrice ôַּúְùֶׁâֶּï , which two forms are likewise used interchangeably in the Targums, is translated by many after the Sept., Vulg., which, however, are not uniform in their usage, and the rabbin. interpreters as copy [so A. V.]. But very properly Benfey (Monatsnamen, p. 193 sq.) rendered this meaning doubtful. In Ezr_4:23 it does not suit, since the Persian officers had not received a copy, but the letter itself; and it is no more appropriate to Est_3:14; Est_8:13, and in Est_4:8 another meaning suits at least as well. Accordingly the word seems to have rather the meaning of contents, as then indeed the Vulg. in Est_3:14 has rendered it summa. Gildermeister (D. M. Zeitschr. IV., S. 210) and Haug (Ewald’s bibl. Jahrb. V., S. 163 sq.) conjectures in the syllable ôַּø the Persian fra, the Sanscrit pra= ðñü , pro, the new Persian far, in the corresponding ôַּú the Zend paiti (Sanscrit prati) = ðñïôß and ðïôß , ðñüò ; in ùֶׁâֶï a word like çenghana, old Persian thanhana, from cenghdicere, prædicare.—In the second half of the verse, the letter begins: thy servants, the men on this side of the river, etc.—Here also there has been left off what usually stands at the beginning of a letter; the sense is: thy servants wish thee, O king, peace, comp. Ezr_4:17. Alongside of the form of the Qeri, òַáְøָּêְ , that of the Kethib, òַáְãָּéִêְ , is also justified.

Ezr_4:12-16. The information given to the king: Be it known unto the king.— ìֶäֱåֵà for éֶäֱåֵà as ìֶäֱåֹï for éֶäֱåֹï and ìֶäֶåְéָï for éֶäֶåְéָï , Ezr_7:25-26; Dan_2:20; Dan_2:28-29; Dan_2:45, etc. ì has in Bib. Chald., occasionally also in the Targums, more frequently in the Talmuds, vindicated itself as preformative like ð in Syriac. Comp. Zöck., Dan_2:20.—That the Jews—unto us have come.— àֲúåֹ , they have come, is certainly more closely defined by the following participle “building.” But yet it is singular that in the time of Artaxerxes there was still mention made of coming. It seems that the coming of the Jews, even after the time of Cyrus, still went on; with the close connection, which those who remained behind maintained with the returned (comp. Zec_6:9 sq.; Neh_1:2 sq.), this might indeed have been pre-supposed as a matter of course.—Building the rebellious and the bad city, and have set up the walls thereof, and joined the foundations. îָøָֽãְúָּà , with metheg in the second syllable, and so with kametz under ø , is hardly a correct reading. We should read either îָøָãְúָּà (so Norzi) with short o sound in the second syll. from the form îָøåֹã , which occurs in the Targums, and is given by the Peschito—an intensive formation like Hebrew ÷ַðּåֹà ; or îָøַãְúָּà (J. H. Mich.) as stat. emphat. of the stat. abs., îָøָãָà (comp. Ezr_4:15). We must certainly prefer the Qeri åְùׁåּøַéָà ùַׁëְìִìåּ to åùåøé àùëììå . A similar false separation of words is found in 2Sa_11:12. ùׁëìì is shaphel of ëìì , and means to make ready. That the perf. ùַëְìִìåּ should follow the part., is in historical narrative not unusual; here, however, it has its special reason perhaps in the fact that the Samaritans would co-ordinate this expression: and they have made the walls ready, to the first and principal statement ( àֲúåֹ ), in order to bring it into suitable prominence. Besides they may be charged in all probability with a kind of exaggeration, even if the perfect was not meant to be taken strictly. If the Jews had now really brought the walls so near to completion, Nehemiah would not have found them still under this same king in the condition described in Nehemiah 2. Since they yet let an imperfect follow the perfect, they indicate of themselves, as it were involuntarily, that the work still continued; otherwise the transition to the imperfect would be without any reason. éָçִéèåּ might be the imperf. Aphel of çèè , dig, dig out, which is also found in Syriac, since éָçִéè would be for éַçֵè ; to dig out the foundations would then be simply=make excavations for the foundations; it might, however, still easier be taken as imperf. Aphel of çåè , properly sew together, then heal, improve; alongside of éְ÷ִéí the sharper form éַ÷ִּéí is to be maintained, after the analogy of which under the influence of the guttural we have éָçִéè .

Ezr_4:13. Be it known now unto the king that they will not pay toll, tribute and custom.—The three usual kinds of taxes are here meant, comp. Ezr_4:20; Ezr_7:24. îִðְãָּä , for which Ezr_6:8 has îִãָּä , which expression is also usual in Syriac, is etymologically= measure; here, however, the appointed general tax. ëְּìֹå after áìä is perhaps the consumption tax, and äֲìָêְ the toll for highways.—And that it finally will prepare damage to the king.—The meaning of àַôְּúֹí , which is entirely disregarded by the ancient versions, is entirely uncertain. The meaning “income” is simply invented by the Jewish interpreters of the middle ages, and is not recommended by Ezr_4:15; Ezr_4:22 in so far as the kings themselves are those who are there injured. Haug (l.c.) compares àåֹãåֹí in th