Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

Even this cursory notice of its contents shows that the object of Ezra was not to give a history of the re-settlement in Judah and Jerusalem of the Jews liberated by Cyrus from the Babylonian captivity, nor to relate all the memorable events which took place from the departure and the arrival in Judah of those who returned with Zerubbabel and Joshua, until his own return and his ministry in Jerusalem. For he tells us nothing at all of the journey of the first band of returning exiles, and so little concerning their arrival in Jerusalem and Judah, that this has merely a passing notice in the superscription of the list of their names; while at the close of this list he only mentions the voluntary gifts which they brought with them for the temple service, and then just remarks that they — the priests, Levites, people, etc. — dwelt in their cities (ii. 70). The following chapters (iii.-vi.), moreover, treat exclusively of the building of the altar of burnt-offering and the temple, the hindrances by which this building was delayed for years, and of the final removal of these hindrances, the continuation and completion of the building, and the dedication of the new temple, by means of which the tribe of Judah was enabled to carry on the worship of God according to the law, and to celebrate the festivals in the house of the Lord. In the second part, indeed, after giving the decree he had obtained from Artaxerxes, he speaks in a comparatively circumstantial manner of the preparations he made for his journey, of the journey itself, and of his arrival at Jerusalem; while he relates but a single incident of his proceedings there, — an incident, indeed, of the utmost importance with respect to the preservation of the returned community as a covenant people, viz. the dissolution of the marriages with Canaanites and other Gentile women, forbidden by the law, but contracted in the period immediately following his arrival at Jerusalem. Of his subsequent proceedings there we learn nothing further from his own writings, although the king had given him authority, " after the wisdom of his God, to set magistrates and judges" (vii. 25); while the book of Nehemiah testifies that he continued his ministry there for some years in conjunction with Nehemiah, who did not arrive till thirteen years later: comp. Neh. viii.-x. and xii. 36, 38.

Such being the nature of the contents of this book, it is evident that the object and plan of its author must have been to collect only such facts and documents as might show the manner in which the Lord God, after the lapse of the seventy years of exile, fulfilled His promise announced by the prophets, by the deliverance of His people from Babylon, the building of the temple at Jerusalem, and the restoration of the temple worship according to the law, and preserved the re-assembled community from fresh relapses into heathen customs and idolatrous worship by the dissolution of the marriages with Gentile women. Moreover, the restoration of the temple and of the legal temple worship, and the separation of the heathen from the newly settled community, were necessary and indispensable conditions for the gathering out of the people of God from among the heathen, and for the maintenance and continued existence of the nation of Israel, to which and through which God might at His own time fulfil and realize His promises made to their forefathers, to make their seed a blessing to all the families of the earth, in a manner consistent both with His dealings with this people hitherto, and with the further development of His promises made through the prophets. The significance of the book of Ezra in sacred history lies in the fact that it enables us to perceive how the Lord, on the one hand, so disposed the hearts of the kings of Persia, the then rulers of the world, that in spite of all the machinations of the enemies of God's people, they promoted the building of His temple in Jerusalem, and the maintenance of His worship therein; and on the other, raised up for His people, when delivered from Babylon, men like Zerubbabel their governor, Joshua the high priest, and Ezra the scribe, who, supported by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, undertook the work to which they were called, with hearty resolution, and carried it out with a powerful hand.

Several modern critics (Zunz, Ewald, Bertheau, and others) have raised objections both to the single authorship and to the independent character of this book, and declared

it to be but a fragment of a larger work, comprising not only the book of Nehemiah, but that of Chronicles also. The section of this work which forms our canonical book of Ezra is said to have been composed and edited by some unknown author about 200 years after Ezra, partly from an older Chaldee history of the building of the temple and of the walls of Jerusalem, partly from a record drawn up by Ezra himself of his agency in Jerusalem, and from certain other public documents. The evidence in favour of this hypothesis is derived, first, from the fact that not only the official letters to the Persian kings, and their decrees (iv. 8-22, v. 6-17, vi. 6-12, vii. 12-26), but also a still longer section on the building of the temple (v. 23-vi. 18), are written in the Chaldee, and the remaining portions in the Hebrew language; next, from the diversity of its style, its lack of internal unity, and its want of finish; and, finally, from the circumstance that the book of Ezra had from of old been combined with that of Nehemiah as one book. These reasons, however, upon closer consideration, prove too weak to confirm this view. For, to begin with the historical testimony, Niigelsbach, in Herzogs Realencycl. iv. p. 166, justly finds it "incomprehensible" that Bertheau should appeal to the testimony of the Talmud, the Masora, the most ancient catalogues of Old Testament books in the Christian church, the Cod. Alexandr., the Cod. Friderico Aug., and the LXX., because the comprehension of the two books in one in these authorities is entirely owing to the Jewish mode of computing the books of the Old Testament. Even Josephus (c. Ap. i. 8) reckons twenty-two books, which he arranges, in a manner peculiar to himself, into five books of Moses, thirteen of the prophets, and four containing hymns to God and moral precepts for man; and Jerome says, in ProL Gal., that the Hebrews reckon twenty-two canonical books, whose names he cites, after the number of the letters of their alphabet, but then adds that some reckoned Ruth and Lamentations separately, thus making twenty-four, because the Rabbis distinguished between K> and E>, and received a double Jod (") into the alphabet for the sake of including in it the name STIFF, which when abbreviated is written ". The number twenty-four is also found in Baba balkr, fol. 14. Hence we also find these numbers and computations in the Fathers and in the resolutions of the councils, but with the express distinction of I. and II. Ezra. This distinction is not indeed mentioned in the Talmud; and Baba bathr., I.e., says: JEsra scripsit librum suum et genealogias librorum Chron. usque ad sua tempora. But what authority can there be in such testimony, which also declares Moses to have been the author not only of the Pentateuch, but also of the book of Job, and Samuel the author of the books of Judges, Ruth, and Samuel? The authority, too, of Cod. Alex, and Cod. Frid. Aug. is opposed to that of Cod. Vatic, and of the LXX., in which the books Ezra and Nehemiah are separated, as they likewise are in the Masoretic text, although the Masoretes regarded and reckoned both as forming but one book.1 This mode of computation, however, affords no ground for the supposition that the books of Ezra and Nehemiah originally formed one work. For in this case we should be obliged to regard the books of the twelve minor prophets as the work of one author. If the number of books was to be reduced to twenty-two or twenty- four, it was necessary to combine smaller works of similar character. The single authorship of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah is most decidedly negatived, not only by the superscription of the latter book, iT^rrpi JTOm nil there being in the entire Old Testament no other instance of a single portion or section of a longer work being distinguished from its other portions by a similar superscription, with the name of the author; but also by the fact already brought forward in the introduction to Chronicles, p. 23, that no reason or motive whatever can

1 Though Zuuz and Ewald appeal also to the Greek book of Ezra, in which portions of Chronicles and of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah are comprised, it is not really to be understood how any critical importance can be attributed to this apocryphal compilation. Besides, even if it possessed such importance, the circumstance that only the two last chapters of Chronicles, and only vii. 713-viii. 13 of Nehemiah, are comprised in it, says more against than in favour of the assumed single authorship of the three canonical books.

be perceived for a subsequent division of the historical work in question into three separate books, on account of its reception into the canon.

The contents, too, and the form of this book, present us with nothing incompatible either with its single authorship or independence. The use of the Chaldee tongue for the official documents of the Persian kings and their subordinates cannot surprise us, this being the official language in the provinces of the Persian empire west of the Euphrates, and as current with the returning Jews as their Hebrew mother tongue. It is true that the use of the Chaldee language is not in this book confined merely to official documents, but continued, iv. 8-22, in the narrative of the building of the temple down to the dedication of the rebuilt temple, iv. 23-vi. 18; and that the Hebrew is not employed again till from vi. 19 to the conclusion of tne book, with the exception of vii. 12-26, where the commission given by Artaxerxes to Ezra is inserted in the Chaldee original. We also meet, however, with the two languages in the book of Daniel, chap, ii., where the Magi are introduced, ver. 4, as answering the king in Aramaic, and where not only their conversation with the monarch, but also the whole course of the event, is given in this dialect, which is again used chap, iii.-vii. Hence it has been attempted to account for the use of the Chaldee in the narrative portions of the book of Ezra, by the assertion that the historian, after quoting Chaldee documents, found it convenient to use this language in the narrative combined therewith, and especially because during its course he had to communicate other Chaldee documents (chap. v. 6-17 and vi. 3-12) in the original. But this explanation is not sufficient to solve the problem. Both here and in the book of Daniel, the use of the two languages has a really deeper reason; see § 14 sq. on Daniel. With respect to the book in question, this view is, moreover, insufficient; because, in the first place, the use of the Chaldee tongue does not be^in with the communication of the Chaldee documents (iv. 11), but is used, ver. 8, in the paragraph which introduces them. And then, too, the narrator of the

Chaldee historical section, chap. v. 4, gives us to understand, by his use of the first person, "Then said we unto them," that he was a participator in the work of rebuilding the temple under Darius; and this, Ezra, who returned to Jerusalem at a much later period, and who relates his return (chap, vii. 27) in the first person, could not himself have been. These two circumstances show that the Chaldee section, iv. 8-vi. 18, was composed by an eye-witness of the occurrences it relates; that it came into the hands of Ezra when composing his own work, who, finding it adapted to his purpose as a record by one who was contemporary with the events he related, and a sharer in the building of the temple, included it in his own book with very slight alteration. The mention of Artachshasta, besides Coresh and Darjavesh, in vi. 14, seems opposed to this view. But since neither Ezra, nor a later author of this book, contemporary with Darius Hystaspis, could cite the name of Artaxerxes as contributing towards the building of the temple, while the position of the name of Artaxerxes after that of Darius, as well as its very mention, contradicts the notion of a predecessor of King Darius, the insertion of this name in vi. 14 may be a later addition made by Ezra, in grateful retrospect of the splendid gifts devoted by Artaxerxes to the temple, for the purpose of associating him with the two monarchs whose favour rendered the rebuilding of the temple possible (see on vi. 14). In this case, the mention of Artaxerxes in the passage just cited, offers no argument against the above-mentioned view of the origin of the Chaldee section. Neither is any doubt cast upon the single authorship of the whole book by the notion that Ezra inserted in his book not only an authentic list of the returned families, chap, ii., but also a narrative of the building of the temple, composed in the Chaldee tongue by an eye-witness.

All the other arguments brought forward against the unity of this book are quite unimportant. The variations and discrepancies which Schrader, in his treatise on the duration of the second temple, in the Theol. Studien u. Kritiken, 1867, p. 460 sq., and in De Wette's Einleitung, 8th edit. § 235, supposes he has discovered in the Chaldee section, first between chap. iv. 8-23 and v. 1-6, 14a, 15, on the one hand, and chap. iv. 24 on the other, and then between these passages and the remaining chapters of the first part, chap, i., hi., iv. 1, vii. 24, and chap. vi. 146, 16-18, 19-22, can have no force of argument except for a criticism which confines its operations to the words and letters of the text of Scripture, because incapable of entering into its spiritual meaning. If the two public documents iv. 8-23 differ from what precedes and follows them, by the fact that they speak not of the building of the temple but of the building of the walls of Jerusalem, the reason may be either that the adversaries of the Jews brought a false accusation before Kinor Artachshashta, and for the sake of more surely gaining their own ends, represented the building of the temple as a building 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 expositors 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 continuation 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, a 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 dedication 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 king," and not " king of Persia," as they are designated by the historian in iv. 7, 24, and elsewhere. For a thoughtful reader will scarcely need to be reminded that, in a letter to the king, the designation king of Persia would be not only superfluous, but inappropriate, while the king in his answer would have still less occasion to call himself king of Persia, and that even the historian has in several places — e.g. v. 5, 6, vi. 1 and 13 — omitted the addition " of Persia" when naming the king. Nor is there any force in the remark that in v. 13 Coresh is called king of Babylon. This epithet,?5? % 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 wTould here be misleading, and the mere designation king inexact, — Cyrus having issued the decree for the rebuilding of the temple not in the first year of his reign or rule over Persia, but in the first year of his sway over Babylon.

In Part II. (chap, vii.-x.), which is connected with Part T, by the formula of transition npsn D^iinn in^ it is not indeed 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 acquainted 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 energetic 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 ot 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.

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 transition 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 circumstantiality and attention to details exhibited in its commencement in viii. and ix. To this must be added, that in other historical portions of the Old Testament, in which the view of different authorship is impossible, the narrator, as a person participating in the transaction, frequently makes the transition from the first to the third person, and vice versa. Compare, e.g., Isa. vii. 1 sq. (" Then said the Lord unto Isaiah, Go forth," etc.) with viii. 1 ("Moreover, the Lord said unto me, Take thee a great roll," etc.); Jer. xx. 1-6, where Jeremiah relates of himself in the third person, that he had been smitten by Pashur, and had prophesied against him, with ver. 7 sq., where, without further explanation, he thus continues: " O Lord, Thou hast persuaded me, and I was persuaded;" or Jer. xxviii. 1 (" Hananiah... spake unto me... the Lord said to me") with ver. 5 ("Then the prophet Jeremiah said to the prophet Hananiah"), and also ver. 6; while in the verse (7) immediately following, Jeremiah writes, " Hear thou now this word which I speak in thine ears." As Jeremiah, when here narrating circumstances 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 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, aNow 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 Jerusalem, are alluded to immediately after the statement of his genealogy.

The reasons, then, just discussed are not of such a nature as to cast any real doubt upon the single authorship of this book; and modern criticism has been unable to adduce any others. Neither is its independence impeached by the circumstance that it breaks off u unexpectedly " at chap, x., without relating Ezra's subsequent proceedings at Jerusalem, although at chap. vii. 10 it is said not only that a Ezra had prepared his heart... to teach in Israel statutes and judgments," 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 concerning Ezra in the book of Ezra (Bertheau). For though the narrative in Neh. viii.-x. actually does complete the history of Ezra's ministry, it by no means follows that the book of Ezra is incomplete, and no independent work at all, but only a portion of a larger book, because it does not contain this narrative. For what justifies the assumption that u 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 his ministry is spoken of in the book of Nehemiah also, the 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 7^ *'!vN Tr3, 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 introduction 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.

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 Babvlon to Jerusalem, and the circumstances of his ministry there, neither its language nor contents exhibiting any traces of a later date. Its historical character, too, was universally admitted until Schrader, in his beforenamed 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 bv 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 year after the return from Babylon, concerning the cessation of the building till the second year of Darius, and its resumption in that year, is unhistorical, and rests only upon the insufficiently confirmed assumption that the exiles, penetrated as they were with ardent love for their hereditary religion, full of joy that their deliverance from Babylon was at last effected, and of heartfelt gratitude to God, should have suffered fifteen years to elapse before they set to work to raise the national sanctuary from its ruins; secondly, that the accounts both of the rearing of the altar, iii. 2 and 3, and of the proceedings at laying the foundations of the temple, together with the names, dates, and other seemingly special details found in chap, iii., iv. 1-5, 24, vi. 14, are not derived from ancient historical narratives, but are manifestly due to the imagination of the chronicler drawing upon the documents given in the book of Ezra, upon other books of the Old Testament, and upon his own combinations thereof. This whole argument, however, rests upon the assertion, that neither in Ezra v. 2 and 16, in Hagg. i. 2, 4, 8, 14, ii. 12, nor in Zech. i. 16, iv. 9, vi. 12, 13, viii. 9, is the resumption of the temple building in the second year of the reign of Darius spoken of, but that, on the contrary, the laying of its foundations in the said year of Darius is in some of these passages assumed, in others distinctly stated. Such a conclusion can, however, only be arrived at by a misconception of the passages in question. When it is said, Ezra v. 2, " Then (i.e. when the prophets Haggai and Zechariah prophesied) rose up Zerubbabel and Jeshua • •. and began to build the house of God" (*"??!> ^), there is no need to insist that NJ3 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 building (iv. 1-5). Schrader can only establish a discrepancy 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 companions as to who had commanded them to build the temple, " Then came the same Sheshbazzar and laid the foundation of the house of God, which is in Jerusalem, and since that time even until now hath it been in building" that the building of the temple proceeded without intermission from the laying of its foundations under Cyrus till the second year of Darius. For can we be justified in the supposition that the Jewish elders would furnish Tatnai with a detailed statement of matters for the purpose of informing him what had been done year by year, and, by thus enumerating the hindrances which had for an interval put a stop to the building, afford the Persian officials an excuse for consequently declaring the question of resuming the building non-suited? for Tatnai made no inquiry as to the length of time the temple had been in building, or whether this had been going on uninterruptedly, but only who had authorized them to build; and the Jewish elders replied that King Cyrus had commanded the building of the temple, and delivered to Sheshbazzar, 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. Plence 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, u they came and did work in the house of the Lord" (22 nat^B *&]£), into " they began to build;"

makes Hagg. ii. 18, by a tautological view of the words |pp ^W1 "^^ rt*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) concerning the rearing of a spiritual temple by Messiah as applying to the temple of wood and stone actually erected by Zerubbabel. By such means he arrives at the result that u 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 such frivolous objections. Three events of fundamental importance to the restoration and continuance of Israel as a separate people among the other nations of the earth are contained in it, viz.: (1) The release of the Jews and Israelites from the Babylonian captivity by Cyrus; (2) The re-settlement in Judah and Jerusalem, with the rebuilding of the temple; (3) The ordering of the re-settled flock according to the law of Moses, by Ezra. The actual occurrence of these three events is raised above all doubt by the subsequent historical development of the Jews in their own land; and the narrative of the manner in which this development was rendered possible and brought to pass, possesses as complete documentary authentication, in virtue of the communication of the official acts of the Persian kings Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes, — acts of which the whole contents are given after the manner, so to speak, of State papers, — as any fact of ancient history. The historical narrative, in fact, does but furnish a brief explanation of the documents and edicts which are thus handed down.

For the exegetical literature, see Lelirb. der Einleitung, p. 455; to which must be added, E. Bertheau, die Bucher Esra, Neliemia, und Ester erkl., Lpz. (being the seventeenth number of the kurzgef. exeget. Handbuchs zum A. 27.).

I.— THE RETURN OF THE JEWS FROM BABYLON UNDER CYRUS. RESTORATION OF THE TEMPLE AND OF THE WORSHIP OF GOD AT JERUSALEM.— Chap. I.-VI.

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 whole realm to return to their native land, and called upon them to rebuild the temple of God at Jerusalem. The execution of this royal and gracious decree by the Jews forms the subject of the first part of this book, — chap. i. and ii. treating of the return of a considerable number of families of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi, under the conduct of Zerubbabel the prince and Joshua the high priest, to Jerusalem and Judaea; the remaining chapters, iii.-vi., of the restoration of the worship of God, and of the rebuilding of the temple.

In the fisst 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 the Jews dwelling in their midst, and to assist by free-will offerings the building of the temple (1-4). In consequence of this royal decree, those Jews whose spirit God had raised up prepared for their return, and received from their neighbours gifts and free-will offerings (5 and 6). Cyrus, moreover, 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. — Yer. 1. The opening word, u And in the first year," etc., is to be explained by the circumstance 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 transferred thence to the beginning of the history of the restoration of the Jews by Cyrus. BHfa is the Hebraized form of the ancient Persian Kurus, as Kvpos, 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.1 0"\B — in the better editions, such as that of Norzi and J. H. Mich., with Pathach under "), and only pointed D"}3 with a graver pause, as wdth Silluk, iv. 3, in the cuneiform inscriptions Parana — signifies in biblical phraseology the Persian empire; comp. Dan. v. 28, vi. 9, etc. fiv??, that the word of Jahve might come to an end. H73, to be completed, 2 Chron. xxix. 34. The word of the Lord is completed when its fulfilment takes place; hence in the Vulg. ut compleretur, i.e. niKptE^ 2 Chron. xxxvi. 21. Here, however, Hv3 is more appropriate, because the notion of the lapse or termination of the seventy years predominates. The statement of the prophet Jeremiah (Jer. xxv. 11, etc., xxix. 10; comp. 2 Cliron. xxxvi. 21) concerning the desolation and servitude of Judah is here intended. These seventy years commenced with the first taking of Jerusalem by

1 Duplex fait iiritium, Cyri Persarum regis; prius Persirurn, idmte antiquius, postering Babulonicum. fie quo Hesdras,• quia dum Cyrus in Perside tantum regnaret, regnum ejus ad Jud&us, qui in Babylonia erant, nihil adtinuit. — Cleric, ad Esr. i. 1.

Nebuchadnezzar, when Daniel and other youths of the seedroyal were carried to Babylon (Dan. i. 1, 2) in the fourth year of King Jehoiakim; see the explanation of Dan. i. 1. This year was the year 606 B.C.; hence the seventy years terminate in 536 B.C., the first year of the sole rule of Cyrus over the Babylonian empire. Then "Jahve stirred up the spirit of Coresh," i.e. moved him, made him willing; comp. with this expression, 1 Chron. v. 26 and Hagg. i. 14. ^p"">?5?n, " he caused a voice to go forth," i.e. he proclaimed by heralds; comp. Ex. xxxvi. 6, 2 Chron. xxx. 5, etc. With this is zeugmatically combined the subsequent Oil Sftftpa, so that the general notion of proclaiming has to be taken from b)p "DIP, 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.1 In this edict, however, Cyrus expressly calls the God of heaven by His Israelitish name Jahve, and speaks of a commission from this God to build Him a temple at Jerusalem. Hence it is manifest that Cyrus consciously entered into the purposes of Jahve, and sought, as far as he was concerned, to fulfil them. Bertheau thinks, on the contrary, that it is impossible to dismiss the conjecture that our historian, guided by an uncertain tradition, and induced by his own historical prepossessions,

1 Comp. e.g. the inscription of Elvend in three languages, explained in Joach. Menant, Expose des elements de la grammaire assyrienne, Paris 1868, p. 302, whose Aryan text begins thus: JJeus magnus Auramazdu, qui maximus deorum, qui hanc terram creavit, qui hoc caelum creavit, qui homines creavit, qui potentiam (?) dedit homijtibus, qui Xerxcm regem fecit, etc. An inscription of Xerxes begins in a similar manner, according to Lassen, in Die altperdschtn Keilimchriftcn, Bonn 183G, p. 172.

remodelled the edict of Cyrus. There is, however, no sufficient foundation for such a conjecture. If the first part of the book of Ezra is founded upon contemporary records of the events, this forbids an a priori assertion that the matter of the proclamation of Cyrus rests upon an uncertain tradition, and, on the contrary, presupposes that the historian had accurate knowledge of its contents. Hence, even if the thoroughly Israelitish stamp presented by these verses can afford no support to the view that they faithfully report the contents of the royal edict, it certainly offers as little proof for the opinion that the Israelite historian remodelled the edict of Cyrus after an uncertain tradition, and from historical prepossessions. Even Bertheau finds the fact that Cyrus should have publicly made known by a written edict the permission given to the Jews to depart, probable in itself, and corroborated by the reference to such an edict in chap, v. 17 and vi. 3. This edict of Cyrus, which was deposited in the house of the rolls in the fortress of Achmetha, and still existed there in the reign of Darius Hystaspis, 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.: u 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 rebuilding the temple to be defrayed from the public treasury." To say this, however, is to admit the historical accuracy of the actual contents of the edict, since it is hence manifest that Cyrus, of his own free will, not only granted to the Jews permission to return to the land of their fathers, but also commanded the rebuilding of the temple at Jerusalem. Although, then, this edict was composed, not in Hebrew, but in the current language of the realm, and is reproduced in this book only in a Hebrew translation, and although the occurrence of the name Jahve therein is not corroborated by chap. vi. 3, yet these two circumstances by no means justify Bertheau' s conclusion, that "if Cyrus in this edict called the universal dominion of which he boasted a gift of the god whom he worshipped as the creator of heaven and earth, the Israelite translator, who could not designate this god by his Persian name, and who was persuaded that the God of Israel had given the kingdom to Cyrus, must have bestowed upon the supreme God, whom Cyrus mocked, the name of Jahve, the God of heaven. When, then, it 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 himself impelled to the resolution of building a temple- to the God of heaven in Jerusalem, i.e. of causing the temple destroyed 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 had inspired him with reverence for the God of Israel. It is this consideration which bestows upon the statement of Josephus, Antt. 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 held by Daniel at the court of Darius the Mede, the fatherin-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 concerning Coresh, by Daniel.1 Granting, then, that the edict of Cyrus may have been composed in the current language of the realm, and not rendered word for word in Hebrew by the biblical author of the present narrative, its essential contents are nevertheless faithfully reproduced; and there are not sufficient grounds even for the view that the God who had inspired Cyrus with this resolution was in the royal edict designated only as the God of heaven, and not expressly called Jahve. Why may not Cyrus have designated 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 worship of this God might be combined with the worship of Ahuramazda as the supreme God of the Persians. — On 'Ul vy IpB. J. H. Mich, well remarks: Mandavit miliL nimirum dudum ante per Jesajam xliv. 24-28, xlv. 1—13, forte etiam per Danielem, qui annum Jiunc Cyri primum vivendo attigit (Dan. i. 21, vi. 29) et Susis in Perside vixit chap, viii. 2 (in saying which, he only infers too much from the last passage; see on Dan. viii. 2).

Ver. 3. In conformity with the command of God, Cyrus not only invites the Jews to return to Jerusalem, and to rebuild the temple, but also requires all his subjects to assist the returning Jews, and to give free-will offerings for the

1 Hence not only ancient expositors, but also in very recent times Pressel (Herzog's Realencycl. iii. p. 232), and A. Koehler, Haggai, p. 9, etc., defend the statement of Josephus, Z.c, toXt (viz. the previously quoted prophecy, Isa. xliv. 28) ovj duocyuovTot. koX dxv/xuaxvTx to dilcj oofAV) rig 'i'hxlii Kctl (^I'hoTi^icc Troiviacci toc ytypxpuivx, as historically authentic. Pressel remarks, " that Holy Scripture shows what it was that made so favourable an impression upon Cyrus, by relating the role played by Daniel at the overthrow of the Babylonian monarchy, Dan. v. 28, 30. What wonder was it that the f ulfiller 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 voluntarily honours Jahve the God of Israel, and consciously and voluntarily receives and executes the commauds of this God," is one of the arbitrary dicta of neological criticism.

temple. ^32 *D, who among you of all his people, refers to all those subjects of his realm to whom the decree was to be made known; and all the people of Jahve is the whole nation of Israel, and not Judah only, although, according to ver. 5, it was mainly those only who belonged to Judah that availed themselves of this royal permission. ^V IWK *Pl^ his 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, ni.T for \T. 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. 'U1 IRB^arrioi 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 'lJI TYitiptp7}~?30 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. K&3, to assist, like 1 Kings ix. 1. Kfl2"l specified, besides gold, silver, and cattle, means moveable, various kinds. nn^rrDy, with, besides the free-will offering, i.e. as well as the same, and is therefore supplied in ver. 6 by?JJ 13?. 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?3? serves to comprise 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 ")&'tf. 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: iroWol KaTefieivav iv rfj Ba{3u\toVL, ra KTrj/xara KaraXLirelp ov 6£\qvt6s. — Ver. G. All their surrounders assisted them with gifts. The surrounders are the people of the places where Jews were making preparations for returning; chiefly, therefore, their heathen neighbours (ver. 4), but also those Jews who remained in Babylon. BJFT? }p-jn is not identical in meaning with 1J Pity to strengthen, e.g. Jer. xxiii. 14, Neh. ii. 18; but with T3 P^THty the Piel here standing instead of the elsewhere usual Hiphil: to grasp by the hand, i.e. to assist; comp. Lev. xxv. 34. pV *n?? separated to, besides; elsewhere joined with |E, Ex. xii. 37, etc. S^nn connected with hb without "lKW, as the verbum Jin. in ver. 5, 1 Chron. xxix. 3, and elsewhere. D\T>sn JT07 must, according to ver. 4, be supplied mentally; comp. ii. 68, iii. 5, 1 Chron. xxix. 9, 17.

Vers. 7-10. King Cyrus, moreover, caused those sacred vessels of the temple which had. been carried away by Nebuchadnezzar to be brought forth, and delivered them by the hand of his treasurer to Sheshbazzar, the prince of Judah, for the use of the house of God which was about to be built. N^ty to fetch out from the royal treasury. The u vessels of the house of Jahve " are the gold and silver vessels of the temple which Nebuchadnezzar, at the first taking of Jerusalem in the reign of Jehoiakim, carried away to Babylon, and lodged in the treasure-house of his god (2 Chron. xxxvi. 7 and Dan. i. 2). For those which he took at its second conquest were broken up (2 Kings xxiv. 13); and the other gold and silver goods which, as well as the large brazen implements, wTere taken at the third conquest, and the destruction of the temple (2 Kings xxv. 14 sq.; Jer. Iii. 18 sq.), would hardly have been preserved by the Chaldeans, but rather made use of as valuable booty. ■ — Ver. 8. Cyrus delivered these vessels T?V, into the hand of the treasurer, to whose care they were entrusted; i.e. placed them under his inspection, that they might be faithfully restored. rmnD is Mithridates. "12T3, answering to the Zend gazabara, means treasurer (see com. on Dan. p. 45, note 1). This officer counted them out to the prince of Judah Sheshbazzar, undoubtedly the Chaldee name of Zerubbabel. For, according to v. 14, 16, TOaST? was the governor (p^) placed by Cyrus over the new community in Judali and Jerusalem, and who, according to ver. 11 of the present chapter, returned to Jerusalem at the head of those who departed from Babylon; while we are informed (chap. ii. 2, iii. 1, 8, and iv. 3, v. 2) that Zerubbabel was not only at the head of the returning Jews, but also presided as secular ruler over the settlement of the community in Judah and Jerusalem. The identity of Sheshbazzar with Zerubbabel, which has been objected to by Schrader and Noldeke, is placed beyond a doubt by a comparison of v. 16 with iii. 8, etc., v. 2: for in v. 16 Sheshbazzar is named as he who laid the foundation of the new temple in Jerusalem; and this, according to v. 2 and iii. 8, was done by Zerubbabel. The view, too, that Zerubbabel, besides this his Hebrew name, had, as the official of the Persian king, also a Chaldee name, is in complete analogy with the case of Daniel and his three companions, who, on being taken into the service of the Babylonian king, received Chaldee names (Dan. i. 7). Zerubbabel, moreover, seems, even before his appointment of nnsa to the Jewish community in Judah, to have held some office in either the Babylonian or Persian Court or State; for Cyrus would hardly have entrusted this office to any private individual among the Jews. The meaning of the word "12E1W is not yet ascertained: in the LXX. it is written Xaaaftacrdp, *Za$aya<jdp, and 2ava/3daaapo<;; 1 Esdras has ^a/jiavaaadpj or, according to better MSS., Xavafiaaadp; and Josephus, I.e., 'ABaacrdp. — Vers. 9—11. The enumeration of the vessels: 1. D^LTUK of gold 30, and of silver 1000. The word occurs only here, and is translated in the Septuagint y}ruKTf)pe<;; in 1 Esdr. ii. 11, Girovhela. The Talmudic explanation of Aben Ezra, u vessels for collecting the blood of the sacrificed lambs," is derived from "UK, to collect, and n?U, a lamb, but is certainly untenable. ^OTJWj is probably connected with raX\o$ or KaoraXo^ a basket (according to Suidas), tcdpraXos having no etymology in Greek; but can hardly be derived, as bv Meier, hebr. WurzelwOrterbucli, p. 683, from the Syriac empty, to hollow, with the sense of hollow basins. 2. B^pnD 29. This word also occurs only here. The Sept. has iraprjX- Xayfieva (interpreting etymologically after *£n), 1 Esdr. 6vi(TKat, the Vulg. cultri, sacrificial knives, according to the rabbinical interpretation, which is based upon *pn, in the sense of to pierce, to cut through (Judg. v. 26; Job xx. 24). This meaning is, however, certainly incorrect, being based linguistically upon a mere conjecture, and not even offering an appropriate sense, since we do not expect to find knives between vessels and dishes. Ewald (Gesch. iv. p. 88), from the analogy of TiiDPno (Judg. xvi. 13, 19), plaits, supposes vessels ornamented with plaited or net work; and Bertheau, vessels bored after the manner of a grating for censing, closed fire-pans with holes and slits. All is, however, uncertain. 3. D'HIKJ, goblets (goblets with covers; com p. 1 Chron. xv. 18) 'of gold, 3(f; and of silver, 410. The word BWD is obscure; connected with ^p^ ^133 it can onlv mean goblets of a second order (comp. 1 Chron. xv. 18). Such an addition appears, however, superfluous; the notion of a second order or class being already involved in their being of silver, when compared with the golden goblets. Hence Bertheau supposes D*3ty"JD to be a numeral corrupted by a false reading; and the more so, because the sum-total given in ver. 11 seems to require a larger number than 410. These reasons, however, are not insuperable. The notion of a second order of vessels need not lie in their being composed of a less valuable metal, but may also be used to define the sort of implement; and the difference between the separate numbers and the sum-total is not perfectly reconciled by altering DWD into D^K, 2000. 4. 1000 other vessels or implements.

Ver. 11. "All the vessels of gold and of silver were five thousand and four hundred.'' But only 30 + 1000 D'tatlK,

29 D^riD, 30 + 410 covered goblets, and 1000 other vessels are enumerated, making together 2499. The same numbers are found in the LXX. Ancient interpreters reconciled the difference by the supposition that in the separate statements only the larger and more valuable vessels are specified, while in the sum-total the greater and lesser are reckoned together. This reconciliation of the discrepancy is, however, evidently arbitrary, and cannot be justified by a reference to 2 Chron. xxxvi. 18, where the taking away of the greater and lesser vessels of the temple at the destruction of Jerusalem is spoken of. In ver. 11 it is indisputably intended to give the sum-total according to the enumeration of the separate numbers. The difference between the two statements has certainly arisen from errors in the numbers, for the correction of which the means are indeed wanting. The error may be supposed to exist in the sum-total, where, instead of 5400, perhaps 2500 should be read, which sum may have been named in round numbers instead of 2499.1 njian nipyn Dy, at the bringing up of the carried away, i.e. when they were brought up from Babylon to Jerusalem. The infinitive Niphal trf?V\}, with a passive signification, occurs also Jer. xxxvii. 11.

1 Ewald (GescJi. iv. p. 88) and Bertheau think they find in 1 Esdr. ii. 12, 13, a basis for ascertaining the correct number. In this passage 1000 golden and 1000 silver tnrovhlet, 29 silver 0vtoxeuf 30 golden and 2410 silver ^/«a«/, and 1000 other vessels, are enumerated (1000 + 1000 + 29 + 30 + 2410+1000 = 5409); while the total is said to be 54G9 But 1000 golden ovouosm bear no proportion to 1000 silver, still less do 30 golden <p/aA«< to 2410 silver. Hence Bertheau is of opinion that the more definite statement 30, of the Hebrew text, is to be regarded as original, instead of the first 1000; that, on the other hand, instead of the 30 golden D^ifiS), 1000 originally stood in the text, making the total 5469. Ewald thinks that we must read 1030 instead of 1000 golden D^trttN («r*roy3s?«), and make the total 5499. In opposition to these conjectures, we prefer abiding by the Hebrew text; for the numbers of 1 Esdras are evidently the result of an artificial, yet unskilful reconciliation of the discrepancy. It cannot be inferred, from the fact that Ezra subsequently, at his return to Jerusalem, brought with hiin 20 golden Dni33, that the number of oU such D*"li93 given in this passage is too small.

The title (vers. 1 and 2) announces that the list which follows it (vers. 3-67) contains the number of the men of the people of Israel who returned to Jerusalem and Judah from the captivity in Babylon, under the conduct of Zerubbabel, Joshua, and other leaders. It is composed of separate lists: of the families of the people, 3-35; of the priests and Levites, 36—42; of the Nethinims and servants of Solomon, 43-58; of families who could not prove their Israelite descent, and of certain priests whose genealogy could not be found, 59-63; and it closes with the sum-total of the persons, and of their beasts of burden, 64-67. This is followed by an enumeration of the gifts which they brought with them for the temple (vers. 68 and 69), and by a final statement with regard to the entire list (ver. 70). Nehemiah also, when he desired to give a list of the members of the community at Jerusalem, met with the same document, and incorporated it in the book which bears his name (chap. vii. 6-73). It is also contained in 1 Esdr. v. 7-45. The three texts, however, exhibit in the names, and still more so in the numbers, such variations as involuntarily arise in transcribing long lists of names and figures. The sum -total of 42,360 men and 7337 servants and maids is alike in all three texts; but the addition of the separate numbers in the Hebrew text of Ezra gives only 29,818, those in Nehemiah 31,089, and those in the Greek Esdras 30,143 men. In our elucidation of the list, we shall chiefly have respect to the differences between the texts of Ezra and Nehemiah, and only notice the variations in 1 Esdras so far as they may appear to conduce to a better understanding of the matter of our text.

Vers. 1 and 2. TJie title. — " These are the children of the province that went up out of the captivity, of the carrying away {i.e. of those which had been carried away), whom Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon had carried away unto Babylon, and who returned to Jerusalem and Judah, every one to his eitv." Id Neh. vii. 6?23? is omitted, through an error of transcription caused by the preceding ^3; and pf$u"lvl stands instead of fTWW, which does not, however, affect the sense. n:HE>n is the province whose capital was Jerusalem (Neh. xi. 3), i.e. the province of Judaea as a district of the Persian empire; so v. 8, Neh. i. 2. The Chethiv irenauj is similar to the form Nebucadrezor, Jer. xlix. 28, and is nearer to the Babylonian form of this name than the usual biblical forms Nebucadnezzar or Nebucadrezzar. For further remarks on the various forms of this name, see on Dan. i. 1. They returned " each to his city," i.e. to the city in which he or his ancestors had dwelt before the captivity. Bertheau, on the contrary, thinks that, " though in the allotment' of dwelling-places some respect would certainly be had to the former abode of tribes and families, yet the meaning cannot be that every one returned to the locality where his forefathers had dwelt: first, because it is certain (?) that all memorial of the connection of tribes and families was frequently obliterated, comp. below, v. 59-63; and then, because a small portion only of the former southern kingdom being assigned to the returned community, the descendants of dwellers in those towns which lay without the boundaries of the new state could not return to the cities of their ancestors." True, however, as this may be, the city of each man cannot mean that " which the authorities, in arranging the affairs of the community, assigned to individuals as their domicile, and of which they were reckoned inhabitants in the lists then drawn up for die sake of levying taxes," etc. (Bertheau). This would by no means be expressed by the words, " they returned each to his own city." We may, on the contrary, correctly say that the words hold good a potiori, i.e. they are used without regard to exceptions induced by the above-named circumstance. *K3"1BW, ver. 2, corresponds with the Dvjjn of ver. 1; hence in Neh. vii. 7 we find also the participle D*K3. They came with Zerubbabel, etc., that is, under their conduct and leadership. Zerubbabel (Zopo/3d/3e\> '331? or ^OTT, probably abbreviated from 732 ynr, in Babylonia satus sen genitus) the son of Shealtiel was a descendant of the captive king Jehoiachin (see on 1 Chron. iii. 17), and was probably on account of this descent made leader of the expedition, and royal governor of the new settlement, by Cyrus. Jeshua (JW^, the subsequently abbreviated form of the name Jehoshua or Joshua, which is used Neh. viii. 17 also for Joshua the son of Nun, the contemporary of Moses) the son of Josedech (Hagg. i. 1), and the grandson of Seraiah the high priest, who was put to death by Nebuchadnezzar at Riblah, was the first high priest of the restored community; see on 1 Chron. v. 41. Besides those of Zerubbabel and Joshua, nine (or in Nehemiah more correctly ten) names, probably of heads of families, but of whom nothing further is known, are placed here. 1. Nehemiah, to be distinguished from the well-known Nehemiah the son of Hachaliah, Neh. i. 1; 2. Seraiah, instead of which we have in Neh. vii. 7 Azariah; 3. Reeliah, in Nehemiah Raamiah; 4. Nahamani in Nehemiah, Eurjveo? in Esdras v. 8, omitted in the text of Ezra; 5. Mordecai, not the Mordecai of the book of Esther (ii. 5 sq.); 6. Bilshan; 7. Mispar, in Nehemiah Mispereth; 8. Bigvai; 9. Rehum, in 1 Esdras Potfjios; 10. Baanah. These ten, or reckoning Zerubbabel and Joshua, twelve men, are evidently intended, as leaders of the returning nation, to represent the new community as the successor of the twelve tribes of Israel. This is also unmistakeably shown by the designation, the people of Israel, in the special title, and by the offering of twelve sin-offerings, according to the number of the tribes of Israel, at the dedication of the new temple, vii. 16. The genealogical relation, however, of these twelve representatives to the twelve tribes cannot be ascertained, inasmuch as we are told nothing of the descent of the last ten. Of these ten names, one meets indeed with that of Seraiah, Neh. x. 3; of Bigvai, in the mention of the sons of Bigvai, ver. 14, and viii. 14; of Rehum, Neh. iii. 17, xii. 3; and of Baanah, Neh. x. 28; but there is nothing to make the identity of these persons probable. Even in case they were all of them descended from members of the former kingdom of Judah, this is no certain proof that they all belonged also to the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, since even in the reign of Rehoboam pious Israelites of the ten tribes emigrated thither, and both at and after the destruction of the kingdom of the ten tribes, many Israelites might have taken refuge and settled in Judah. The last words, ver. 2, " The number of the men of the people of Israel," contain the special title of the first division of the following list, with which the titles in vers. 36, 40, 43, and 55 correspond. They are called the people of Israel, not the people of Judah, because those who returned represented the entire covenant people.

Vers. 3-35. List of the houses and families of the people. Comp. Neh. vii. 8—38. — To show the variations in names and numbers between the two texts, we here place them side by side, the names in Nehemiah being inserted in parentheses.

The differences in the names are unimportant. In ver. 6

(ver. 10) is written *tt3 in Nehemiah (ver. 15); for HIV

Neh. vii. 25 more correctly reads PV33? the name of the correct form &"}$) Nflf?: the sons of Azmaveth (ver. 24)

stands in Nehemiah as the men of Beth-Azmaveth; while, on the other hand, for the sons of Nebo (ver. 29), we have in Nehemiah (ver. 33) the men of Nebo Acher, where ins

36, 37). Lastly, the sons of Magbish (ver. 30) are omitted in Nehemiah; and the sons of Bethlehem and the men of

Netophah (vers. 21 and 22) are in Nehemiah (ver. 26)

= 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 Tins view is more probable than the notion of Dietrich, in A. Merx Archiv fur wissensch. Forschung des A. T., No. 3, p. 315, that by the addition ins in Nehemiah, the Nebo in Jndah is distinguished from the Nebo in Keubeu.

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 Harim 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^ and inserted higher up. The reasons for considering these three statements doubtful have certainly some weight; but considering the c;reat 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 Nehemiah j1 whence we perceive, (1) that of many houses only a portion returned with Zerubbabel and Joshua, the remain-.$ ing portion following with Ezra; (2) that heads of houses are entered not by their personal names, but by that of the house. The names, for the most 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, Fahath-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 those who had taken strange wives (chap, x.) we meet with individuals of the sons of Parosh, Elam, Zattu, Bebai, Bani, Pahath-Moab, Harim, Hashum, and of the sous 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, Bezai, Harif, Harim, Anathoth, together with others which do not occur in the list we are now treating of.

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 circumstance 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 comprised. The names of cities, on the other liand (Nos. 18-33), are for the most part found in the older books of the Old Testament: Gibeon in Josh. ix. 3; Bethlehem in Ruth 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 neighbourhood 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 Ritter, Erdk. xvi. p. 519, that it may be el-Hizme, near Anata, is unfounded. Nor can the position of Nebo be certainly determined, the mountain of that name (Num. xxxii. 3) being out of the question. Nob or Nobe (1 Sarn. 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), may, as Bertlieau thinks, correspond with this town. Magbish was by many older expositors regarded as the name of a place, but is certainly that of a person; and no place of such a name is known. The localities Lod, Hadid, and Ono (ver. 33) first occur in the later books of the Old Testament. On Lod and Ono, see comm. on 1 Chron. viii. 12. Tin is certainly 'Ahiha (1 Mace. xii. 38, xiii. 13), not far from Lydda, where there is still a place called nxjp7 ver. 35, is identified by older expositors with 'Xevva, vvv MaySaXaevvdj which Jerome describes as terminus Ju dec, in septimo lapide Jerichns contra septentrionalem plagam (Onom. eel. Lars, et Parth. p. 332 sq.); in opposition to which, Robinson, in his above-cited work, identifies Magdal- Senna with a place called Mejdel, situate on the summit of a high hill about eighteen miles north of Jericho. The situation, however, of this town does not agree with the distance mentioned by Eusebius and Jerome, and the name Mejdel, i.e. tower, is not of itself sufficient to identify it with Magdal-Senna. The situation of the Senaah in question is not as yet determined; it must be sought for, however, at no great distance from Jericho. Of the towns mentioned in the present list, we find that the men of Jericho, Senaah, and Gibeon, as well as the inhabitants of Tekoa, Zanoah, Bethhaccerem, Mizpah, Beth-zur, and Keilah, assisted at the building of the walls of Jerusalem under Nehemiah (Neh. iii. 2, 3, 7). A larger number of towns of Judah and Benjamin is specified in the list in Neh. xi. 25-35, whence we perceive that in process of time a greater multitude of Jews returned from captivity and settled in the land of their fathers.

Vers. 36-39. The list of the priests is identical, both in names and numbers, with that of Neh. vii. 39-42. These are:

Jedaiah is the head of the second order of priests in 1 Cliron. 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 ord^r belonging in all probability to the line of Ithatnar, 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 the high priest is intended, and that the sons of Jedaiah were a portion of the house to which Joshua the high priest belonged, is the more probable one. In this case Jedaiah is not the name of the second order of priests, but of the head of a family of the high-priestly race. Immer is the name of the sixteenth order of priests, 1 Chron. xxiv. 14. Pashur does not occur among the orders of priests in 1 Chron. xxiv.; but we find the name, 1 Chron. ix. 12, and Neh. xi. 12, among the ancestors of Adaiah, a priest of the order of Malchijah; the Pashur of Jer. xx. and xxi. being, on the contrary, called the son of Immer, i.e. a member of the order of Immer. Hence Bertheau considers Pashur to have been the name of a priestly race, which first became extensive, and took the place of an older and perhaps extinct order, after the time of David. Gershom of the sons of Phinehas, and Daniel of the sons of Ithamar, are said, viii. 2, to have gone up to Jerusalem with Ezra, while the order to which they belonged is not specified. Among the priests who had married strange wives (x. 18-22) are named, sons of Jeshua, Immer, Harim, Pashur; whence it has been inferred u 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. 3-0 and xii. 1-22, see remarks on these passages.

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 («Wlg1 and nTrin of oar text are evidently correct readings; and?gWgJ and njfln, Keri fljlinp, 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 returned, among which those of Shallum, Talmon, and Akkub dwelt, accordingto 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-bondsmen, and the servants of Solomon, are reckoned together, thirty-five families of Nethinim and ten of the servants of Solomon 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 0^33, ver. 50, Neh. vii. 52 has DW1D3, a form combined from DspiD3 and D^BJ. All other variations relate only to differences of form. Because Ziha (K^P?, ver. 43) again occurs in Neh. xi. 21 as one of the chiefs of the Nethinim, and the names following seem to stand in the same series with it, Bertheau insists on regarding these names as those of divisions. This cannot, however, be correct; for Ziha is in Neh. xi. 21 the name of an individual, and in the present list also the proper names are those of individuals, and only the sons of Ziha, Hasupha, etc., can be called families or divisions. Plural words alone, Mehunim and Nephisim, are names of races or nations; hence the sons of the Mehunim signify individuals belonging to the Mehunim, who, perhaps, after the victory of King Uzziah over that people, were as prisoners of war made vassals for the service of the sanctuary. So likewise "may the sons of the Nephisim have been prisoners of war of the Ishmaelite race B*S|. Most of the families here named may, however, have been descendants of the Gibeonites (Josh. ix. 21, 27). The servants of Solomon must not be identified with the Canaanite bond-servants mentioned 1 Kings ix. 20 sq., 2 Chron. viii. 7 sq., but were probably prisoners of war of some other nation, whom Solomon sentenced to perform, as bondsmen, similar services to those imposed upon the Gibeonites. The sons of these servants are again mentioned in Neh. xi. 3. In other passages they are comprised under the general term Nethinim, with whom they are here computed. Among the names, that of D'QSfn maa (ver. 57), i.e. catcher of gazelles, is a singular one; the last name, I|DK, is in Neh. vii. 59 tfDfct.

Vers. 59 and GO. Those who went up with, but could not prove that they pertained to, the nation of Israel. Comp. Neh. vii. Gl and 62. — Three such families are named, consisting of 652, or according to Nehemiah of 642, persons. These went up, with those who returned, from Tel-melah (Salthill) and Tel-harsa (Thicket or Forest Hill), names of Babylonian districts or regions, the situations of which cannot be ascertained. The words also which follow, "itSX pJN W3, are obscure, but are certainly not the names of individuals, the persons who went up not being specified till ver. 60. The words are names of places, but it is uncertain whetheT the three are used to express one or three places. In favour of the notion that they designate but one locality, may be alleged that in ver. 60 only three races are named, which would then correspond with the districts named in ver. 59: Tel-melah, Tel-harsa, and Cherub-Addan- Immer; a. race from each district joining those who went up to Jerusalem. The three last words, however, may also designate three places in close proximity, in which one of the races of ver. 60 might be dwelling. These could not show their father's house and their seed, i.e. genealogy, whether they were of Israel. DH, as well as the suffixes of Djnt and Drt3RTV3j refers to the persons named in ver. 60. They could not show that the houses of Delaiah, Tobiah, and Nekoda, after which thev were called, belonged to Israel, nor that they themselves were of Israelitish origin. Cler. well remarks: Judaicam religionem dudum sequebantur, quam ob rem se Judceos censebant; quamvis non possent genealogicas ullas tabulas ostendere, ex quibus constaret, ex Hebrceis oriundos esse. One of these names, Nekoda, ver. 48, occurring among those of the Nethinim, Bertheau conjectures that while the sons of Nekoda here spoken of claimed to belong to Israel, the objection was made that they might belong to the sons of Nekoda mentioned ver. 48, and ought therefore to be reckoned among the Nethinim. Similar objections may have been made to the two other houses. Although they could not prove their Israelite origin, they were permitted to go up to Jerusalem with the rest, the rights of citizenship alone being for the present withheld. Hence we meet with none of these names either in the enumeration of the heads and houses of the people, Neli. x. 15-28, or in the list Ezra x. 25-43.

Vers. 61-63. Priests who could not prove themselves members of the priesthood. Comp. Neh. vii. 63-65. — Three such families are named: the sons of Habaiah, the sons of Hakkoz, the sons of Barzillai. These could not discover their family registers, and were excluded from the exercise of priestly functions. Of these three names, that of Ilakkoz occurs as the seventh order of priests; but the names alone did not suffice to prove their priesthood, this being also borne by other persons. Comp. Neh. iii. 4. The sons of Barzillai were the descendants of a priest who had married a daughter, probably an heiress (Num. xxxvi.), of Barzillai the Gileadite, so well known in the history of David (2 Sam. xvii. 27, xix. 32-39; 1 Kings ii. 7), and had taken her name for the sake of taking possession of her inheritance (the suffix D£^' refers to np2; see on Num. xxvii. 1-11). That by contracting this marriage he had not renounced for himself and his descendants his priestly privileges, is evident from the fact, that when his posterity returned from captivity, they laid claim to these privileges. The assumption, however, of the name of Barzillai might have cast such a doubt upon their priestly origin as to make it necessary that this should be proved from the genealogical registers, and a search in these did not lead to the desired discovery. Dnris is their few "1DD? Neh. vii. 5, the book or record in which their genealogy was registered. The title of this record was B^JTriftn, the Enregistered: the word is in apposition to DDD3 and the plural *K¥EJ agrees with it, while in Neh.

vii. 64 the singular N^*p: agrees with D3D3. They were declared to be polluted from the priesthood, i.e. they were excluded from the priesthood as polluted or unclean. The construction of the Pual vW1 with \0 is significant. — Ver. 63. The Tirshatha, the secular governor of the community, i.e., as is obvious from a comparison of Neh. vii. 65 with ver. 70, Zerubbabel, called Hagg. i. 1 AW nns. Kncnn, always used with the article, is undoubtedly the Persian designation of the governor or viceroy. Nehemiah is also so called in Neh. viii. 9 and x. 2, and likewise n?sn, Neh. xii. 26. The meaning of the word is still matter of dispute. Some derive it from the Persian ^juwO', to fear, and (jw^, fear = the they were not to eat of the most holy things till there should arise a priest with Urim and Thummim, i.e. to give a final decision by means of Urim and Thummim. ^EV, according to the later usage of the language, is equivalent to Dip; comp. Dan. viii. 83, xi. 2, and other places. The prohibition to eat of the most holy things (comp. on Lev. ii. 3) involved the prohibition to approach the most holy objects, e.g. the altar of burnt-offering (Ex. xxix. 37, xxx. 10), and to enter the most holy place, and thus excludes from specific priestly acts: without, however, denying a general inclusion among the priestly order, or abolishing a claim to the priestly revenues, so far as these were not directly connected with priestly functions. On Urim and Thummim, see on Ex. xxviii. 30. From the words, " till a priest shall arise," etc., it is evident that the then high priest was not in a position to entreat, and to pronounce, the divine decision by Urim and Thummim. The reason of this, however, need not be sought in the personality of Joshua (Ewald, Gesch. iv. 95), nor supposed to exist in such a fact as that he might not perhaps have been the eldest son of his father, and therefore not have had full right to the priesthood. This conjecture rests upon utterly erroneous notions of the Urim and Thummim, upon a subjectivistic view, which utterly evaporates the objective reality of the grace with which the high priest was in virtue of his office endowed. The obtainment of the divine decision by Urim and Thummim presupposes the gracious presence of Jahve in the midst of His people Israel. And this had been connected by the Lord Himself with the ark of the covenant, and with its cherubim-overshadowed mercyseat, from above which He communed with His people (Ex. xxv. 22). The high priest, bearing upon his breast the breastplate with the Urim and Thummim, was to appear before Jahve, and, bringing before Him the judgment of Israel, to entreat the divine decision (Ex. xxviii. 30; Num. xxvii. 21). The ark of the covenant with the mercy-seat was thus, in virtue of the divine promise, the place of judgment, where the high priest was to inquire of the Lord by means of the Urim and Thummim. This ark, however, was no longer in existence, having been destroyed when Solomon's temple was burned by the Chaldeans. Those who returned with Zerubbabel were without the ark, and at first without a temple. In such a state of affairs the high priest could not appear before Jahve with the breastplate and the Urim and Thummim to entreat His decision. The books of Samuel, indeed, relate cases in which the divine will was consulted by Urim and Thummim, when the ark of the covenant was not present for the high priest to appear before (comp. 1 Sam. xxiii. 4, 6, 9, etc., xiv. 18); whence it appears that the external or local presence of the ark was not absolutely requisite for this purpose. Still these cases occurred at a time when the congregation of Israel as yet possessed the ark with the Lord's cherubim-covered mercy-seat, though this was temporarily separated from the holy of holies of the tabernacle. Matters were in a different state at the return from the captivity. Then, not only were they without either ark or temple, but the Lord had not as yet re-manifested His gracious presence in the congregation; and till this should take place, the high priest could not inquire of the Lord by Urim and Thummim. In the hope that with the restoration of the altar and temple the Lord would again vouchsafe His presence to the returned congregation, Zerubbabel expected that a high priest would arise with Urim and Thummim to pronounce a final decision with regard to those priests who could not prove their descent from Aaron's posterity. This expectation, however, was unfulfilled. Zerubbabel's temple remained unconsecrated by any visible token of Jahve's presence, as the place where His name should dwell. The ark of the covenant with the cherubim, and the Shechinah in the cloud over the cherubim, were wanting in the holy of holies of this temple. Hence, too, we find no single notice of any declaration of the divine will or the divine decision by Urim and Thummim in the period subsequent to the captivity; but have, on the contrary, the unanimous testimony of the Rabbis, that after the Babylonian exile God no longer manifested His will by Urim and Thummim, this kind of divine revelation being reckoned by

Vers. 64-67. The whole number of those who returned, their servants, maids, and beasts of burden. Comp. Neh. vii. 66-69. — The sum-total of the congregation pn**3, as one, 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: —

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, Raschi, Ussher, J. H. Mich., and others), were of opinion that only Jews and Benjamites are enumerated in the separate statements, while the sumtotal 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, 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, exclude 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 contemplated 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.