1 The addition of the LXX. to 2 Kings xxii. 3, "in the eighth month," to which Thenius and Berth, attach some weight, as a proof that the years of Josiah's reign are dated from autumn, is utterly useless for that purpose. For even were that addition more than a worthless gloss, it would only prove the contrary, since the eighth month of the civil year, which is reckoned from autumn, corresponds to the second month of the ecclesiastical year, and would consequently carry us beyond the time of the passover.
runs is an emphatic repetition of the pronominal suffix; cf. Gesen. Gr. § 121. 3. tfrn, this day, that is, at present. TOB rV3 does not signify, my warlike house, but, the house of my war, i.e. the family with which I wage war, equivalent to 6C my natural enemy in war, my hereditary enemy." This signification is clear from 1 Chron. xviii. 10 and 2 Sam. viii. 10, where "man of the war of Tou" denotes, the man who waged war with Tou.1 The God who had commanded Pharaoh to make haste, and whom Josiah was not to go against, is not an Egyptian god, as the Targ. and many commentators think, referring to Herod, ii. 158, but the true God, as is clear from ver. 22. Yet we need not suppose, with the older commentators, that God had sive per somnium sive per prophetam aliquem ad ipsum e Judcea missum spoken to Pharaoh, and commanded him to advance quickly to the Euphrates. For even had Pharaoh said so in so many words, we could not here think of a divine message made known to him by a prophet, because God is neither called miT" nor DWKH, but merely &w£, and so it is only the Godhead in general which is spoken of; and Pharaoh only characterizes his resolution as coming from God, or only says: It was God's will that Josiah should not hinder him, and strive against him. This Pharaoh might say without having received any special divine revelation, and after the warning had been confirmed by the unfortunate result for Josiah of his war against Necho; the biblical historian also might represent Necho's words as come from God, or " from the mouth of God." — Yer. 22. But Josiah turned not his face from him, i.e. did not abandon his design, "but to make war against him he disguised himself." ^Sinnn denotes elsewhere to disguise by clothing, to clothe oneself falsely (xviii. 29; 1 Kings xx. 38, xxii. 30),
1 When Bertheau, on the contrary, denies this signification, referring to 1 Chron. xviii. 10 for support, he would seem not to have looked narrowly at the passage cited; and the conjecture, based upon 3 Esr. i. 25, which he, following O. F. Fritzsche, brings forward, T)Jpr6o msr5>N, " on the Euphrates is my war," gains no support from the passage quoted. For the author of this apocryphal book, which was written on the model of the LXX., has not translated the text he uses, but only paraphrased it: ov%l npog as s^a.^sarx'hpcxi, v7ro Kvpt'ov rov Qiov, tirl yocp rov JLvQpurov 6 7ro'Xspto; ptov sort, kccI Kvpto; (ast ipov sTriaxsvluv sariu. Neither the LXX. nor Vulg. have read and translated niS in their original text; for they run as follows: ov* sttI as y,ku pes. Vulg.: Non adcersus te hodie venio, sed contra aliam pug no domum, ad quam me Dcus festinato ire prxcep'd.
and to disfigure oneself (Job xxx. 18). This signification is suitable here also, where the word is transferred to the mental domain: to disfigure oneself, i.e. to undertake anything which contradicts one's character. During his whole reign, Josiah had endeavoured to carry out the will of God; while in his action against Pharaoh, on the contrary, he had acted in a different way, going into battle against the will of God.1 As to the motive which induced Josiah, notwithstanding Necho's warning, to oppose him by force of arms, see the remark on 2 Kings xxiii. 29 f. The author of the Chronicle judges the matter from the religious point of view, from which the undertaking is seen to have been against the will of God, and therefore to have ended in Josiah's destruction, and does not further reflect on the working of divine providence, exhibited in the fact that the pious king was taken away before the judgment, the destruction of the kingdom of Judah, broke over the sinful people. For further information as to the Valley of Megiddo, the place where the battle was fought, and on the death of Josiah, see 2 Kings xxiii. 29 f. The WWHj bring me forth (ver. 23), is explained in ver. 24: his servants took him, mortally wounded by an arrow, from the war-chariot, and placed him in a second chariot which belonged to him, and probably was more comfortable for a wounded man. — Ver. 25. The death of the pious king was deeply lamented by his people. The prophet Jeremiah composed a lamentation for Josiah; u and all the singing-men and singing-women spake in their lamentations of Josiah unto this day; " i.e., in the lamentation which they were wont to sing on certain fixed days, they sung also the lamentation for Josiah. "And they made them (these lamentations) an ordinance (a standing custom) in Israel, and they are written in the lamentations," i.e. in a collection of lamentations, in which, among others, that composed by Jeremiah on the death of Josiah was contained. This collection is, however, not to be identified with the Lamenta-
1 Bertheau would alter bsrinn into p-tnnn, because the LXX., and probably also the Vulg., Syr., 3 Esr. i. 1G, and perhaps also Josephus, have so read. But only the LXX. have UpurouudYi, Vulg. prseparavit, 3 Esr. Wi%iipu; so that for pfnnn only the LXX. remain, whose translation gives no sufficient ground for an alteration of the text, p^nnn, to show oneself strong, or courageous, is not at all suitable; for the author of the Chronicle is not wont to regard enterprises undertaken against God's will, and unfortunate in their results, as proofs of physical or spiritual strength.
tions of Jeremiah over the destruction of Jerusalem and the kingdom of Judah, contained in our canon. — On ver. 26 f. cf. 2 Kings xxiii. 28. VHDn as in xxxii. 32. 'ril mnss according to that which is written in the law of Moses, cf. xxxi. 3. Vimn is the continuation of *JW W (ver. 26).
CHAP. XXXVI. — THE LAST KINGS OF JUDAH; THE DESTRUC- TION OF JERUSALEM; JUDAH LED AWAY CAPTIVE; AND THE BABYLONIAN EXILE.
As the kingdom of Judah after Josiah's death advanced with swift steps to its destruction by the Chaldeans, so the author of the Chronicle goes quickly over the reigns of the last kings of Judah, who by their godless conduct hastened the ruin of the kingdom. As to the four kings who reigned between Josiah's death and the destruction of Jerusalem, he gives, besides their ages at their respective accessions, only a short characterization of their conduct towards God, and a statement of the main events which step by step brought about the ruin of the king and the burning of Jerusalem and the temple.
Vers. 1-4. The reign of Jelioahaz. Cf. 2 Kings xxiii. 30&-35. — After Josiah's death, the people of the land raised his son Jehoahaz (Joahaz), who was then twenty-three years old, to the throne; but he had been king in Jerusalem only three months when the Egyptian king (Necho) deposed him, imposed upon the land a fine of 100 talents of silver and one talent of gold, made his brother Eliakim king under the name Jehoiakim, and carried Jehoahaz, who had been taken prisoner, away captive to Egypt. For further information as to the capture and carrying away of Jehoahaz, and the appointment of Eliakim to be king, see on 2 Kings xxiii. 31-35.
Vers. 5-8. The reign of Jehoiakim. Cf. 2 Kings xxiii. 36- xxiv. 7. — Jehoiakim was at his accession twenty-five years of age, reigned eleven years, and did that which was evil in the eyes of Jahve his God. — Ver. 6 f. " Against him came Nebuchadnezzar (in inscriptions, Nabucudurriusur, i.e. Nebo coronam servat; see on Dan. S. 56) the king of Babylon, and bound him witli brazen double fetters to carry him to Babylon." This campaign, Nebuchadnezzar's first against Judah, is spoken of also in 2 Kings xxiv. and Dan. i. 1, 2. The capture of Jerusalem, at which Jehoiakim was put in fetters, occurred, as wo learn from Dan. i. 1, col. c. Jer. xlvi. 2 and xxxvi. 7, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim's reign, i.e. in the year 606 B.C.; and with it commence the seventy years of the Chaldean servitude of Judah. Nebuchadnezzar did not carry out his purpose of deporting the captured king Jehoiakim to Babylon, but allowed him to continue to reign at Jerusalem as his servant (vassal). To alter the infin. toyin? into the perf., or to translate as the perf., is quite arbitrary, as is also the supplying of the words, " and he carried him away to Babylon." That the author of the Chronicle does not mention the actual carrying away, but rather assumes the contrary, namely, that Jehoiakim continued to reign in Jerusalem until his death, as well known, is manifest from the way in which, in ver. 8, he records his son's accession to the throne. He uses the same formula which he has used in the case of all the kings whom at their death their sons succeeded, according to established custom. Had Nebuchadnezzar dethroned Jehoiakim, as Necho deposed Jehoahaz, the author of the Chronicle would not have left the installation of Jehoiachin by the Chaldean king unmentioned. For the defence of this view against opposing opinions, see the commentary on 2 Kings xxiv. 1 and Dan. i. 1; and in regard to ver. 7, see on Dan. i. 2. The Chronicle narrates nothing further as to Jehoiakim's reign, but refers, ver. 8, for his other deeds, and especially his abominations, to the book of the kings of Israel and Judah, whence the most important things have been excerpted and incorporated in 2 Kings xxiv. 1-4. T^W if* vniajrtn Bertheau interprets of images which he caused to be prepared, and 1vV NJtt?3n of his evil deeds; but in both he is incorrect. The passages which Bertheau cites for his interpretation of the first words, Jer. vii. 9 f. and Ezek. viii. 17, prove the contrary; for Jeremiah mentions as nnjrin of the people, murder, adultery, false swearing, offering incense to Baal, and going after other gods; and Ezekiel, loc. cit., uses ffaJJifi riiBflJ of the idolatry of the people indeed, but not of the making of images — only of the worship of idols, the practice of idol-worship. The abominations, consequently, which Jehoiakim committed are both his evil deeds and crimes, e.g. the shedding of innocent blood (2 Kings xxiv. 4), as well as the idolatry which he had practised. lyj; NV£3n, " what was found upon him," is a comprehensive designation of his whole moral and religious conduct and attitude; cf. xix. 3. Jehoiakim's revolt from Nebuchadnezzar after three years' servitude (2 Kings xxiv. 1) is passed over by the author of the Chronicle, because the punishment of this crime influenced the fate of the kingdom of Judah only after his death. The punishment fell upon Jehoiachin; for the detachments of Arameans, Moabites, and Ammonites, which were sent by Nebuchadnezzar to punish the rebels, did not accomplish much.
Vers. 9 and 10. The reign of Jehoiachin. Cf. 2 Kings xxiv. 8-17. — Jehoiachin's age at his accession is here given as eight years, while in 2 Kings xxiv. 8 it is eighteen. It is so also in the LXX. and Vulg.; but a few Hebr. codd., Syr., and Arab., and many manuscripts of the LXX., have eighteen years in the Chronicle also. The number eight is clearly an orthographical error, as Thenius also acknowledges. Bertheau, on the contrary, regards the eight of our text as the original, and the number eighteen in 2 Kings as an alteration occasioned by the idea that eighteen years appeared a more fitting age for a king than eight years, and gives as his reason, a that the king's mother is named along with him, and manifestly with design, 2 Kings xxiv. 12, 15, and Jer. xxii. 26, whence we must conclude that she had the guardianship of the young king." A perfectly worthless reason. In the books of Kings the name of the mother is given in the case of all the kings after their accession has been mentioned, without any reference to the age of the kings, because the queen-mother occupied a conspicuous position in the kingdom. It is so in the case of Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin, 2 Kings xxiii. 3G and xxiv. 8. On account of her high position, the queenmother is mentioned in 2 Kings xxiv. 12 and 15, and in Jeremiah, among those who submitted to Nebuchadnezzar and were carried away to Babylon. The correctness of the number eighteen is, however, placed beyond doubt by Ezek. xix. 5-9, where the prophet portrays Jehoiachin as a young lion, which devoured men, and knew widows, and wasted cities. The knowing of widows cannot apply to a boy of eight, but might well be said of a young man of eighteen. Jehoiachin ruled only three months and ten days in Jerusalem, and did evil in the eyes of Jahve. At the turn of the year, i.e. in spring, when campaigns were usually opened (cf. 1 Kings xx. 22; 2 Sam. xi. 1), Nebuchadnezzar sent his generals (2 Kings xxiv. 10), and brought him to Babylon, with the goodly vessels of the house of Jahvc, and made his (father's) brother Zedekiah king in Judah. In these few words the end of Jehoiachin's short reign is recorded.
From 2 Kin^s xxiv. 10-16 we learn more as to this second campaign of Nebuchadnezzar against Jerusalem, and its issues for Juclah; see the commentary on that passage. Zidkiyah (Zedekiah) was, according to 2 Kings xxiv. 17, not a brother, but "in, uncle or father's brother, of Jehoiachin, and was called Mattaniah, a son of Josiah and Hamutal, like Jehoahaz (2 Kings xxiv. 18, cf. xxiii. 31), and is consequently his full brother, and a step-brother of Jehoiakim. At his appointment to the kingdom by Nebuchadnezzar he received the name Zidkiyah (Zedekiah). vritf, in ver. 10, is accordingly to be taken in its wider signification of blood-relation.
Vers. 11-21. The reign of Zedekiah; the destruction of Jerusalem, and Judah carried away into exile, Cf. 2 Kings xxiv. 18- xxv. 21. — Zedekiah, made king at the age of twenty-one years, reigned eleven years, and filled up the measure of sins, so that the Lord was compelled to give the kingdom of Judah* up to destruction by the Chaldeans. To that Zedekiah brought it by the two main sins of his evil reign, — namely, by not humbling himself before the prophet Jeremiah, from the mouth of Jahve (ver. 12); and by rebelling against King Nebuchadnezzar, who had caused him to swear by God, and by so hardening his neck (being stiff-necked), and making stout his heart, that he did not return to Jahve the God of Israel. Zedekiah's stiffness of neck and hardness of heart showed itself in his refusing to hearken to the words which Jeremiah spoke to him from the mouth of God, and his breaking the oath he had sworn to Nebuchadnezzar by God. The words, u he humbled himself not before Jeremiah," recall Jer. xxxvii. 2, and the events narrated in Jer. xxxvii. and xxxviii., and xxi. 4-xxii. 9, which show how the chief of the people ill-treated the prophet because of his prophecies, while Zedekiah was too weak and languid to protect him against them. The rebellion against Nebuchadnezzar, to whom he had sworn a vassal's oath of fidelity, is mentioned in 2 Kings xxiv. 30, and Ezek. xvii. 13 ff. also, as a great crime on the part of Zedekiah and the chief of the people; see the commentary on both passages. In consequence of this rebellion, Nebuchadnezzar marched against Judah with a powerful army; and after the capture of the fenced cities of the land, he advanced to the siege of Jerusalem, which ended in its capture and destruction, 2 Kinsjs xxv. 1—10. Without further noticing these results of this breach of faith, the author of the Chronicle proceeds to depict the sins of the king and of the people. In the first place, lie again brings forward, in ver. 136, the stiffness of neck and obduracy of the king, which manifested itself in the acts just mentioned: he made hard his neck, etc. Bertheau would interpret the words 'til B^jJJJ, according to Deut. ii. 30, thus: " Then did God make him stiff-necked and hardened his heart; so that he did not return to Jahve the God of Israel, notwithstanding the exhortations of the prophets." But although hardening is not seldom represented as inflicted by God, there is here no ground for supposing that with ^M the subject is changed, while the bringing forward of the hardening as an act of God does not at all suit the context. And, moreover, *n*5J n^i??, making hard the neck, is nowhere ascribed to God, it is only said of men; cf. 2 Kings xvii. 14, Deut. x. 16, Jer. xix. 15, etc. To God only aim* TOty] or mvnK is attributed, Ex. vii. 3, Deut. ii. 30. — Ver. 14. " And all princes of the priests and the people increased faithless transgressions, like to all the abominations of the heathen, and defiled the house of the Lord which He had consecrated in Jerusalem." Bertheau would refer this censure of their idolatry and the profanation of the temple to the guilt incurred by the whole people, especially in the time of Manasseh, because, from all we know from the book of Jeremiah, the reproach of idolatry did not at all, or at least did not specially, attach to the princes of the priests and the people in the time of Zedekiah. But this reason is neither tenable nor correct; for from Ezek. viii. it is perfectly manifest that under Zedekiah, not only the people, but also the priesthood, were deeply sunk in idolatry, and that even the courts of the temple were defiled by it. And even though that idolatry did not take its rise under Zedekiah, but had been much practised under Jehoiakim, and was merely a revival and continuation of the idolatrous conduct of Manasseh and Amon, yet the reference of our verse to the time of Manasseh is excluded by the context; for here only that which was done under Zedekiah is spoken of, without any reference to earlier times.
Meanwhile God did not leave them without exhortation, warning, and threatening. — Ver. 15 f. Jahve sent to them by His messengers, from early morning onwards continually, for He spared His people and His dwelling-place; but they mocked the messengers of God, despised His words, and scoffed at His prophets. T2 IW, to send a message by any one, to make a sending. The object is to be supplied from the verb, nwi 03^'n exactly as in Jer. xxvi. 5, xxix. 19. For He spared His people, etc., viz. by this, that He, in long-suffering, again and again called upon the people by prophets to repent and return, and was not willing at once to destroy His people and His holy place. D^ypD is a7r. Xey.j in Syr. it signifies subsannavit; the Hithp. also, D\ynyriD (from JWfi), occurs only here as an intensive: to launch out in mockery. The distinction drawn between E^NpD (messengers) and CK^M (prophets) is rhetorical, for by the messengers of God it is chiefly prophets who are meant; but the expression is not to be confined to prophets in the narrower sense of the word, for it embraces all the men of God who, by word and deed, censured and punished the godless conduct of the idolaters. The statement in these two verses is certainly so very general, that it may apply to all the times of gradually increasing defection of the people from the Lord their God; but the author of the Chronicle had primarily in view only the time of Zedekiah, in which the defection reached its highest point. It should scarcely be objected that in the time of Zedekiah only Jeremiah is known as a prophet of the Lord, since Ezekiel lived and wrought among the exiles. For, in the first place, it does not hence certainly follow that Jeremiah and Ezekiel were the only prophets of that time; then, secondly, Jeremiah does not speak as an individual prophet, but holds up to the people the witness of all the earlier prophets (cf. e.g. xxvi. 4, 5), so that by him all the former prophets of God spoke to the people; and consequently the plural, His messengers, His prophets, is perfectly true even for the time of Zedekiah, if we always keep in mind the rhetorical character of the style. *U1 TOP *W, until the anger of Jahve rose upon His people, so that there wTas no healing (deliverance) more.
Ver. 17 ff. When the moral corruption had reached this height, judgment broke upon the incorrigible race. As in vers. 12-16 the transgressions of the king and people are not described according to their historical progression, but are portrayed in rhetorical gradation; so, too, in vers. 17-21 the judgment upon the sinful people and kingdom is not represented in its historical details, but only rhetorically in its great general outlines. " Then brought He upon them the king of the Chaldeans, who slew their young men with the sword in their sanctuary, and spared not the youth and the maiden, the old man and the grey-headed; he gave everything into his hand." Prophetic utterances form the basis of this description of the fearful judgment, e.g. Jer. xv. 1-9, xxxii. 3 f., Ezek. ix. 6; and these, again, rest upon Deut. xxxii. 25. The subject in the first and last clause of the verse is Jahve. Bertheau therefore assumes that He is also the subject of the intermediate sentence: " and God slew their young men in the sanctuary;" but this can hardly be correct. As in the expansion of the last clause, u he gave everything into his hand," which follows in ver. 18, not Jahve but the king of Babylon is the subject; so also in the expansion of the first clause, which 'Ul iV|2 introduces, the king of the Chaldeans is the subject, as most commentators have rightly recognised. By B^i?*? JTQa the judgment is brought into definite relationship to the crime: because they had profaned the sanctuary by idolatry (ver. 14), they themselves were slain in the sanctuary. On '3 }nj 73H, cf. Jer. xxvii. 6, xxxii. 3, 4. bbn includes things and persons, and is specialized in vers. 18-20. — Ver. 18. All the vessels of the house of God, the treasures of the temple, and of the palace of the king and of the princes, all he brought to Babylon. — Yer. 19. They burnt the house of God; they pulled down the walls of Jerusalem, and burnt all the palaces of the city with fire, and all the costly vessels were devoted to destruction. On IWIBW, cf. xii. 12. — Ver. 20. He who remained from the sword, i.e. who had not been slain by the sword, had not fallen and died in war, Nebuchadnezzar carried away to Babylon into captivity; so that they became servants to him and to his sons, as Jeremiah (xxvii. 7) prophesied, until the rise of the kingdom of the Persians. These last words also are an historical interpretation of the prophecy, Jer. xxvii. 7. All this was done (ver. 21) to fulfil (rifc^D instead of N^E, as in 1 Chron. xxix. 5), that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, he having prophesied (xxv. 11 f., xxix. 10) the seventy years' duration of Judah's desolation and the Babylonian captivity, while the king and people had not regarded his words (ver. 12). This period, which according to ver. 20 came to an end with the rise of the kingdom of the Persians, is characterized by the clause 'W1 nrwn "iy as a time of expiation of the wrong which had been done the land by the non-observance of the sabbath-years, upon the basis of the threatening (Lev. xxvi. 34), in which the wasting of the land during the dispersion of the unrepentant people among the heathen was represented as a compensation for the neglected sabbaths. From this passage in the law the words are taken, to show how the Lord had inflicted the punishment with which the disobedient people had been threatened as early as in the time of Moses, rinirj ly is not to be translated, u until the land had made up its years of rest;" that signification nyi has not; but, u until the land had enjoyed its sabbath-years," i.e. until it had enjoyed the rest of which it had been deprived by the non-observance of the sabbaths and the sabbath-years, contrary to the will of its Creator; see on Lev. xxvi. 34. That this is the thought is placed beyond doubt by the succeeding circumstantial clause, taken word for word from Lev. xxvi. 34: " all days (i.e. the whole time) of its desolation did it hold it" (nnn^? it kept sabbath). aTo make full the seventy years;" which Jeremiah, 11. cc, had prophesied.
This connecting of Jeremiah's prophecy with the declaration in Lev. xxvi. 34 does not justify us in supposing that the celebration of the sabbath-year had been neglected seventy times, or that for a period of 490 years the sabbath-year had not been observed. Bertheau, holding this view, fixes upon 1000 B.C., i.e. the time of Solomon, or, as we cannot expect any very great chronological exactitude, the beginning of the kingly government in Israel, as the period after which the rest-years ceased to be regarded. He is further of opinion that chap. xxxv. 18 harmonizes with this view; according to which passage the passover was not celebrated in accordance with the prescription of the law until the end of the period of the judges. According to this chronological calculation, the beginning of this neglect of the observance of the sabbath-year would fall in the beginning of the judgeship of Samuel.1 But this is itself unlikely; and still more unlikely is it, that in the time of the judges the sabbath-year had been regularly observed until Samuel; and that during the reigns of the kings David, Solomon, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, and Josiah, this celebration remained wholly in abeyance. But even apart from that, the words, that the land, to make full the seventy years prophesied by Jeremiah, kept the
1 The seventy years' exile began in the fourth year of Jehoiakhn, i.e. in the year 606 B.C., or 369 years after the division of the kingdom; see the Chronol. Tables at 1 Kings xii. (ii. 3, S. 141), to which the eighty years of the reigns of David and Solomon, and the times of Saul and Samuel, must be added to make up the 490 years (see the comment, on Judges).
whole time of the desolation holy, or enjoyed a sabbath rest such as Moses had proclaimed in Lev. xxvi. 34, do not necessarily involve that the land had been deprived of its sabbath rest seventy times in succession, or during a period of 490 years, by the sin of the people. The connection between the prophecy of Jeremiah and the provision of the law is to be understood theologically, and does not purport to be calculated chronologically. The thought is this: By the infliction of the punishment threatened against the transgressors of the law by the carrying of the people away captive into Babylon, the land will obtain the rest which the sinful people had deprived it of by their neglect of the sabbath observance commanded them. By causing it to remain uncultivated for seventy years, God gave to the land a time of rest and refreshment, which its inhabitants, so long as they possessed it, had not given it. But that does not mean that the time for which this rest was granted corresponded to the number of the sabbath-years which had not been observed. From these theological reflections we cannot calculate how often in the course of the centuries, from the time of Joshua onwards till the exile, the sabbath-year had not been observed; and still less the time after which the observation of the sabbath-year was continuously neglected. The passage xxxv. 8 has no bearing on this question, because it neither states that the passover had been held according to the precepts of the law till towards the end of the time of the judges, nor that it was no longer celebrated in accordance with the precept from that time until Josiah; it only contains the thought that such a passover as that in Josiah's reign had not been held since the time of the judges: see on the passage.
Vers. 22 and 23. To point out still further how exactly God had fulfilled His word by the mouth of the prophet Jeremiah, it is in conclusion briefly mentioned that God, in the first year of Coresh king of Persia, stirred up the spirit of this king to cause a command to go forth in all his kingdom, that Jahve, the God of heaven, who had given him all the kingdoms of the earth, had commanded him to build again His temple in Jerusalem, and that whoever belonged to the people of God might go up to Jerusalem. With this comforting prospect for the future, the author of the Chronicle closes his consideration of the pra3-exilic history of the people of God without completely communicating the contents of the royal edict of Cyrus, since he purposed to narrate the history of the restoration of Judah to their own land in a separate work. This we have in the book of Ezra, whicli commences by giving us the whole of the edict of Cyrus the king of the Persians (Ezra i. 1-3), and then narrates the return of a great part of the people to Jerusalem and Judah, the rebuilding of the temple, and the re-settlement in the land of their fathers of those who had returned.
HE book of Ezra derives its name of NiTJJ in the
Hebrew Bible, of "Ea&pas in the Septuagint, and of Liber Esdrce in the Vulgate, from Ezra, &nty, the priest and scribe who, in chap, vii.-x., narrates his return from captivity in Babylon to Jerusalem, and the particulars of his ministry in the latter city. For the sake of making the number of the books contained in their canon of Scripture correspond with the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet, the Jews had from of old reckoned the books of Ezra and Nehemiah as one; whilst an apocryphal book of Ezra, composed of passages from the second book of Chronicles, the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, and certain popular legends, had long been current among the Hellenistic Jews together with the canonical book of Ezra. Hence our book of Ezra is called, in the catalogues of the Old Testament writings handed down to us by the Fathers (see the statements of Origen, of the Council of Laodicea, Can. 60, of Cyril, Jerome, and others, in the Lehrbuch der Einleitung, § 216, Not. 11, 13), "EaSpa<; 7rpa)To<; (a), and the book of Nehemiah "EcrSpas Sei/repos (/3), and consequently separated as I. Ezra from the book of Nehemiah as II. Ezra; while the Greek book of Ezra is called III. Ezra, to which ivas subsequently added the falsely so-called book of Ezra as
IV. Ezra. In the Septuagint, the Vet. Itala, and the Syriac, on the contrary (comp. Libri V. T. apocryphi syriace e recogn. de Lagarde), we find the Greek book of Ezra placed as "EaSpas irpoirov before the canonical book, and the latter designated "Ea$pa<; Bevrepov.
The book of Ezra consists of two parts. The first part, comprising a period anterior to Ezra, begins with the edict of Coresh (Cyrus), king of Persia, permitting the return to their native land of such Jews as were exiles in Babylon, and prescribing the rebuilding of the temple at Jerusalem (i. 1-4); and relates that when the heads of the nation, the priests and Levites, and many of the people, made preparations for returning, Cvrus had the sacred vessels which Nebuchadnezzar had carried away from Jerusalem brought forth and delivered to Sheshbazzar (Zerubbabel), prince of Judah (i. 5-11). Next follows a list of the names of those who returned from captivity (chap, ii.), and the account of the building of the altar of burnt-offerings, the restoration of divine worship, and the laying of the foundation of the temple (chap. iii.). Then the manner in which the rebuilding of the temple was hindered by the Samaritans is narrated; and mention made of the written accusation sent by the adversaries of the Jews to the kings Ahashverosh and Artachshasta (iv. 1-7): the letter sent to the latter monarch, and his answer thereto, in consequence of which the rebuilding of the temple ceased till the second year of Darius, being inserted in the Chaldee original (iv. 24). It is then related (also in Chaldee) that Zerubbabel and Joshua, undertaking, in consequence of the prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah, the rebuilding of the temple, were immediately interrogated by Tatnai the Persian governor and his companions as to who had commanded such rebuilding; that the reply of the Jewish rulers was reported in writing to the king, whereupon the latter caused search to be made for the edict of Cyrus, and gave command for the continuance and furtherance of the building in compliance therewith (v. 1-vi. 13); that hence the Jews were enabled to complete the work, solemnly to dedicate their now finished temple (vi. 14-18), and (as further related, vers. 19-22, in the Hebrew tongue) to celebrate their passover with rejoicing. In the second part (vii.-x.), the return of Ezra the priest and scribe, in the seventh year of Artaxerxes, from Babylon to Jerusalem, with a number of priests, Levites, and Israelites, is related; and (vii. 1-10) a copy of the royal decree, in virtue of which Ezra was entrusted with the ordering of divine worship, and of the administration of justice as prescribed in the law, given in the Chaldee original (vii. 11-26), with a postscript by Ezra (ver. 27 sq.). Then follows a list of those who went up with Ezra (viii. 1-14); and particulars given by Ezra himself concerning his journey, his arrival at Jerusalem (viii. 14—36), and the energetic proceedings by which he effected the separation of the heathen women from the congregation (ix. 1— x. 17); the book concluding with a list of those who were forced to put away their heathen wives (x. 18—44).
The first year of the rule of Cyrus king of Persia corresponding with the year 536 B.C., and the seventh year of Artaxerxes (Longimanus) with 458 B.C., it follows that this book comprises a period of at least eighty years. An interval of fifty-six years, extending from the seventh year of Darius Hystaspis, in which the passover was celebrated after the dedication of the new temple (vi. 19-22), to the seventh of Artaxerxes, in which Ezra went up from Babylon (vii. 6), separates the events of the first part from those of the second. The narrative of the return of Ezra from Babylon in vii. 1 is nevertheless connected with the celebration of the passover under Darius by the usual formula of transition, " Now after these things," without further comment, because nothing had occurred in the intervening period which the author of the book felt it necessary, in conformity with the plan of his work, to communicate.