v. 24 (a Manassite), xii. 4 (a Benjamite), xii. 10 (a Gadite). Even the name Judah is met with among the priests (ver. 36), and among the Levites, ver. 8, comp. also xi. 9, and that of Benjamin, iii. 33 and Ezra x. 32. In the present verses, the two names are not those of tribes, but of individuals, nomina duorum principum (R. Sal.). — Ver. 35. The princes of the congregation were followed by certain " of the sons of the priests" (seven in number, to judge from ver. 41) with trumpets; also by Jonathan the son of Zechariah, who, as appears from the subsequent vrifcO, was at the head of the Levitical musicians, i.e. the section of them that followed this procession. His brethren, i.e. the musicians of his section, are enumerated in ver. 36, — eight names being given, among which are a Shemaiah and a Judah. " With the musical instruments of David, the man of God:" comp. 2 Chron. xxix. 26; 1 Chron. xv. 16, xxiii. 5; Ezra iii. 10. "And Ezra the scribe before them," viz. before the individuals enumerated from ver. 32, immediately after the company of those who gave thanks, and before the princes, like Nehemiah, ver. 38. — Ver. 37. After this insertion of the names of the persons who composed the procession, the description of the route it took is continued. From " upon the wall, toward the dung-gate (31), it passed on" to the fountain-gate; and MX), before them (i.e. going straight forwards; comp. Josh. v. 6, 20, Amos iv. 3), they went up by the stairs of the city of David, the ascent of the wall, up over the house of David, even unto the water-gate eastward. These statements are not quite intelligible to us. The stairs of the city of David are undoubtedly u the stairs that lead down from the city of David" (iii. 15). These lay on the eastern slope of Zion, above the fountain-gate and the Pool of Siloam. nipinp royipn might be literally translated "the ascent to the wall," as by Bertheau, who takes the sense as follows: (The procession) went up upon the wall by the ascent formed by these steps at the northern part of the eastern side of Zion. According to this, the procession wrould have left the wall by the stairs at the eastern declivity of Zion, to go up upon the wall again by this ascent. There is, however, no reason for this leaving of the wall, and that which Bertheau adduces is connected with his erroneous transposition of the fountain- £^ate to the place of the present dung-gate. ^"O)^? "?y)$n seems to be the part of the wall which, according to iii. 19, lay opposite the V^pEn Pp}? TVV, a place on the eastern edge of Zion, where the wall was carried over an elevation of the ground, and where consequently was an ascent in the wall. Certainly this cannot be insisted upon, because the further statement TT1 flw '*?£ is obscure, the preposition? 7JJO admitting of various interpretations, and the situation of the house of David being uncertain. Bertheau, indeed, says: " "tyi in the following words corresponds with?yfi before TH mi?: a wall over the house of David is. not intended; and the meaning is rather, that after they were come as far as the wall, they then passed over the house of David, i.e. the place called the house of David, even to the water-gate." But the separation of *W from TH n*3p is decidedly incorrect,? byn being in the preceding and following passages always used in combination, and forming one idea; comp. ver. 31 (twice) and vers. 38 and 39. Hence it could scarcely be taken here in ver. 37 in a different sense from that which it has in 31 and 38. Not less objectionable is the notion that the house of David is here put for a place called the house of David, on which a palace of David formerly stood, and where perhaps the remains of an ancient royal building might still have been in existence. By the house of David is meant, either the royal palace built (according to Thenius) by Solomon at the north-eastern corner of Zion, opposite the temple, or some other building of David, situate south of this palace, on the east side of Zion. The former view is more probable than the latter. We translate '*l JVnp?VV, past the house of David. For, though nijinp?yo must undoubtedly be so understood as to express that the procession went upon the wall (which must be conceived of as tolerably broad), yet '^C? 7JJO, ver. 38, can scarcely mean that the procession also went up over the tower which stood near the wall. In the case of the gates, too,??V& cannot mean over upon; for it is inconceivable that this solemn procession should have gone over the roof of the gates; and we conclude, on the contrary, that it passed beside the gates and towers. Whether the route taken by the procession from the house of David to the water-gate in the east were straight over the ridge of Ophel, which ran from about the horse-gate to the water-gate, or upon the wTall round Ophel, cannot be determined, the description being incomplete. After the house of David, no further information as to its course is given; its halting-place, the water-gate, being alone mentioned.
The route taken by the second company is more particularly described. — Vers. 38 and 39. " And the second company of them that gave thanks, which went over against, and which I and the (other) half of the people followed, (went) upon the waH past the tower of the furnaces, as far as the broad wall; and past the gate of Ephraim, and past the gate of the old (wall), and past the fish-gate, and past the tower Hananeel and the tower Hammeah, even to the sheepgate: and then took up its station at the prison-gate." PKicp (in this form with tf only here; elsewhere ^iD, Deut. i. 1, or Se), over against, opposite, sc. the first procession, therefore towards the opposite side, i.e. to the left; the first having gone to the right, viz. from the valley-gate northwards upon the northern wail. 'U1 n^QK -o&o (and I behind them) is a circumstantial clause, which we may take relatively. The order of the towers, the lengths of wall, and the gates, exactly answer to the description in chap. iii. 1-12, with these differences: — a. The description proceeds from the sheepgate in the east to the valley-gate in the west; while the procession moved in the opposite direction, viz. from the valley-gate to the sheep-gate. b. In the description of the building of the wall, chap, iii., the gate of Ephraim is omitted (see rem. on iii. 8, p. 170). c. In the description, the prisongate at which the procession halted is also unmentioned, undoubtedly for the same reason as that the gate of Ephraim is omitted, viz. that not having been destroyed, there was no need to rebuild it. '"^ttttn "v^ is translated, gate of the prison or watch: its position is disputed; but it can scarcely be doubted that ^"j^n is the court of the prison mentioned lit. 25 ("TJESn 1V?.), by or near the king's house. Starting from the assumption that the two companies halted or took up positions opposite each other, Hupfeld (in his before-cited work, p. 321) transposes both the court of the prison and the king's house to the north of the temple area, where the citadel, >TOl, /5apt?, was subsequently situated. But " this being forbidden," as Arnold objects (in his before-cited work, p. 628), " by the order in the description of the building of the wall, iii. 25, which brings us absolutely to the southern side," Bertheau supposes that the two processions which would arrive at the same moment at the temple, — the one from the north-east, the other from the south-east, — here passed each other, and afterwards halted opposite each other in such wise, that the procession advancing from the southwest stood on the northern side, and that from the northwest at the southern side of the temple area. This notion, however, having not the slightest support from the text, nor any reason appearing why the one procession should pass the other, it must be regarded as a mere expedient. In ver. 40 it is merely said, the two companies stood in the house of God; and not even that they stood opposite each other, the one on the north, the other on the south side of the temple. Thus they may have stood side by side, and together have praised the Lord. Hence we place the prisongate also on the south-eastern corner of the temple area, and explain the name from the circumstance that a street ran from this gate over Ophel to the court of the prison near the king's house upon Zion, which, together with the gate to which it led, received its name from the court of the prison. Not far from the prison-gate lay the water-gate in the east, near which was an open space in the direction of the temple area (viii. 1). On this open space the two companies met, and took the direction towards the temple, entering the temple area from this open space, that they might offer their thankofferings before the altar of burnt-offering (ver. 43). Besides, the remark upon the position of the two companies (ver. 40) anticipates the course of events, the procession following the second company being first described in vers. 40&-42. At the end of ver. 40 the statement of ver. 38 — I and the half of the people behind — is again taken up in the words: I and the half of the rulers with me. The D^J? are, as in ver. 32, the princes of the congregation, who, with Nehemiah, headed the procession that followed the company of those who gave thanks. Then followed (ver. 41) seven priests with trumpets, whose names are given, answering to the sons of the priests with trumpets (ver. 36a) in the first procession. These names are all met with elsewhere of other persons. These were succeeded, as in ver. 36, by eight Levites — eight individuals, and not eight divisions (Bertheau). And the singers gave forth sound, i.e. of voices and instruments, — whether during the circuit or after the two companies had taken their places at the temple, is doubtful. The president of the Levitical singers was Jezrahiah. — Yer. 43. The solemnity terminated with the offering of great sacrifices and a general festival of rejoicing. In the matter of sacrificing, the person of Nehemiah would necessarily recede; hence he relates the close of the proceedings objectively, and speaks in the third person, as he had done when speaking of the preparations for them, ver. 27, etc., only using the first (vers. 31, 38, 40) person when speaking of what was appointed by himself, or of his own position. The E\"DT were chiefly thankofferings which, terminating in feasting upon the sacrifices, — and these feasts in which the women and children participated, — contributed to the enhancement of the general joy, the joy which God had given them by the success He had accorded to their work of building their wall. For a description of their rejoicing, comp. 2 Chron. xx. 27, Ezra vi. 22, and iii. 13.
The joint efforts of Nehemiah and Ezra succeeded both in restoring the enactments of the law for the performance and maintenance of the public worship, and in carrying out the separation of the community from strangers, especially by the dissolution of unlawful marriages (xii. 44— xiii. 3). When Nehemiah, however, returned to the king at Babylon, in the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes, and remained there some time, the abuses which had been abolished were again allowed by the people. During Nehemiah's absence, Eliashib the priest prepared a chamber in the fore-court of the temple, as a dwelling for his son-in-law Tobiah the Ammonite. The delivery of their dues to the Levites (the firstfruits and tenths) was omitted, and the Sabbath desecrated by field-work and by buying and selling in Jerusalem; Jews married Ashdodite, Ammonitish, and Moabitish wives; even a son of the high priest Joiada allying himself by marriage with Sanballat the Horonite. All these illegal acts were energetically opposed by Nehemiah at his return to Jerusalem, when he strove both to purify the congregation from foreigners, and to restore the appointments of the law with respect to divine worship (xiii. 4-31).
The narration of these events and of the proceedings of Nehemiah in the last section of this book, is introduced by a brief summary (in chap. xii. 44— xiii. 3) of what was done for the ordering of divine worship, and for the separation of Israel from strangers; and this introduction is so annexed to what precedes, not only by the formula Kinn Di*3 (xii. 44 and xiii. 1), but also by its contents, that it might be regarded as a summary of what Nehemiah had effected during his first stay at Jerusalem. It is not till the connective fWp \jap1j "and before this" (xiii. 4), with which the recital of what occurred during Nehemiah's absence from Jerusalem, in the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes, begins, that we perceive that this description of the restored legal appointments relates not only to the time before the thirtysecond year of Artaxerxes, but applies also to that of Nehemiah's second stay at Jerusalem, and bears only the appearance of an introduction, being in fact a brief summary of all that Nehemiah effected both before and after the thirtysecond year of Artaxerxes. This is a form of statement which, as already remarked, p. 152, is to be explained by the circumstance that Nehemiah did not compile this narrative of his operations till the evening of his days.
Chap. xii. 44-xiii. 3. The reformations in worship and in social life effected by Nehemiah. — Vers. 44-47. Appointments concerning divine worship. Ver. 44. And at that time were certain appointed over the chambers of store-places for the heave-offerings, the first-fruits, and the tenths, to gather into them, according to the fields of the cities, the portions appointed by the law for the priests and Levites. Though the definition of time Wirt Di»3 corresponds with the K*nn Dia3 of ver. 43, it is nevertheless used in a more general sense, and does not refer, as in ver. 43, to the day of the dedication of the wall, but only declares that what follows belongs chiefly to the time hitherto spoken of. D^ means, not merely a day of twelve or twenty-four hours, but very frequently stands for the time generally speaking at which anything occurs, or certum quoddam temporis spatium; and it is only from the context that we can perceive whether Dis is used in its narrower or more extended meaning. Hence tftflfl Di*2 is often used in the historical and prophetical books, de die, or de tempore modo memorato, in contradistinction to W ^s?, the time present to the narrator; comp. 1 Sam. xxvii. 6, xxx. 25, and the discussion in Gesen. Thes. p. 369. That the expression refers in the present verse not to any particular day, but to the time in question generally, is obvious from the whole statement, vers. 44-47. rri"i¥i&6 rri:^: are not chambers for the treasures, i.e. treasure-chambers; but both here and xiii. 12, ni"fttfN signify places where stores are kept, magazines; hence: these are chambers for store-places for the heave-offerings, etc.; comp. x. 38-40. With respect to ntoSW, see rem. on iii. 30. Dnyn ^W? according to the fields of the cities, according to the delivery of the tenth of the crop from the fields of the different cities. These contributions necessitated the appointment of individuals to have the care of the store-chambers; u for Judah rejoiced in the priests and the Levites who were ministering," and therefore contributed willingly and abundantly u the portions of the law,"
i.e. the portions prescribed in the law. The form friNJO is exchanged for HfcjOj ver. 47 and xiii. 10. DHD'yri is a shorter expression for nirp \jb? D^TOjJH, Deut. x. 8: standing before the Lord, i.e. ministering. — Ver. 45. And they cared for the care of their God, etc.; i.e. they observed all that was to be observed, both with respect to God and with respect to purification, i.e. they faithfully and punctually performed their office. On m»B>to "IDE* see rem. on Gen. xxvi. 5 and
Lev. viii. 35. " And (so also) the singers and doorkeepers," i.e. they, too, observed the duties incumbent on them. This must be mentally supplied from the beginning of the verse. u According to the commandment of David and of Solomon his son;" comp. 2 Chron. viii. 14 and 1 Chron. xxiv. 26. 1 must be inserted before rib?^ as in the LXX. and Vulgate, after the analogy of 2 Chron. xxxiii. 7 and xxxv. 4; for an asyndeton would be here too harsh. As 1 is here omitted, so does it also appear superfluously before *]D?j ver. 46, probably by a clerical error. The verse can be only understood as saying: u for in the days of David, Asaph was of old chief of the singers, and of the songs of praise, and of the thanksgiving unto God." 1 before Asaph is here out of place; for to take it as introducing a conclusion: in the days of David, therefore, was Asaph... seems unnatural. The 1 probably came into the text through a reminiscence of 2 Chron. xxix. 30 and xxxv. 15. The matter, however, of these passages is consistent with the naming of David and Asaph, while such a co-ordination is unsuitable in the present passage. The Masoretes have indeed attempted to make sense of the words by altering the singular Wtft into the plural *WCJ; but the Keri ^N") is nothing more than a worthless conjecture, arising partly from the unsuitableness of 1 before *)9?> and partly from the consideration that Henan and Ethan were, as well as Asaph, chiefs of bands of singers. Nehemiah, however, was not concerned in this passage about exactness of statement, — the mention of Asaph as chief of the singers being quite sufficient for the purpose of his remark, that from the times of David onward orders of singers had existed. — In ver. 47 this subject is concluded by the general statement that all Israel, i.e. the whole community, in the days of Zerubbabel and Nehemiah, gave the portions prescribed in the law for the ministers of the sanctuary, singers, doorkeepers, Levites, and priests. D^'npD, they were sanctifying, i.e. consecrabant. B^pn, to sanctify, said of the bringing of gifts and dues to the ministers of the sanctuary; com p. 1 Chron. xxvi. 27, Lev. xxvii. 14. On the matter itself, comp. x. 38 sq. and Num. xviii. 26-29.
Chap. xiii. 1-3. Public reading of the law, and separation from strangers. — Ver. 1. At a public reading of the law, it wras found written therein, that no Ammonite or Moabite should come into the congregation of God, because they met not the children of Israel with bread and with water, but hired Balaam to curse them, though God turned the curse into a blessing. This command, found in Deut. xxiii. 4-6, is given in full as to matter, though slightly abbreviated as to form. The sing. *$skfl relates to Balak king of Moab, Num. xxii. 2 sq., and the suffix of r?V to Israel as a nation; see the explanation of Deut. xxiii. 4 sq. — Yer. 3. This law being understood, all strangers were separated from Israel. Tty is taken from Ex. xii. 38, where it denotes the mixed multitude of non-Israelitish people who followed the Israelites at their departure from Egypt. The word is here transferred to strangers of different heathen nationalities living among the Israelites. The date of the occurrence here related cannot be more precisely defined from the &ttnn Dis2. Public readings of the law frequently took place in those days, as is obvious from chap. viii. and ix., where we learn that in the seventh month the book of the law was publicly read, not only on the first and second days, but also daily during the feast of tabernacles, and again on the day of prayer and fasting on the twenty-fourth of the month. It appears, however, from TO "Ofipj ver. 4, compared with ver. 6, that the reading vers. 1-3 took place in the interval between Nehemiah's first and second stay at Jerusalem. This view is not opposed by the facts mentioned vers. 4 sq. and 23 sq. The separation of the ^V could not be carried out at once; and hence, notwithstanding repeated resolutions to sever themselves from strangers (ix. 2, x. 31), cases to the contrary might be discovered, and make fresh separations needful.
Vers. 4-31. Nehemiahy on his return to Jerusalem, reforms the irregularities that had broken out during his absence. — Vers. 4-9. While Nehemiah was at Babylon with King Artaxerxes, Eliashib the high priest had given up to his relative, Tobiah the Ammonite (ii. 10, iii. 35, and elsewhere), a large chamber in the temple, i.e. in the fore-court of the temple (ver. 7), probably for his use as a dwelling when he visited Jerusalem (see rem. on ver. 8). On his return, Nehemiah immediately cast all the furniture of Tobiah out of this chamber, purified the chambers, and restored them to their proper use as a magazine for the temple stores. *3B? TO, before this (comp. Ewald, § 315, c), refers to the beforementioned separation of the 3iy from Israel (ver. 3). Eliashib the priest is probably the high priest of that name (iii. 1, xii. 10, 22). This may be inferred from the particular: set over (he being set over) the chambers of the house of our God; for such oversight of the chambers of the temple would certainly be entrusted to no simple priest, though this addition shows that this oversight did not absolutely form part of the high priest's office. For |ro? in the sense of to set, to place over, comp. 1 Kings ii. 35; the construction with 2 instead of?V is, however, unusual, but may be derived from the local signification of 3, upon, over. Ewald and Bertheau are for reading nb£y instead of the sing. ra£9, because in ver. 5 it is not ns^pn that is spoken of, but a large chamber. J")3^> may, however, be also understood collectively. Eliashib, being a relation of Tobiah (2ii^ like Ruth ii. 20), prepared him a chamber. The predicate of the sentence, ver. 4, follows in ver. 5 with &y% in the form of a conclusion following the accessory sentence of the subject. How Tobiah was related to Eliashib is nowhere stated. Bertheau conjectures that it was perhaps only through the circumstance that Johanan, the son of Tobiah, had married a daughter of Meshullam ben Berechiah (vi. 18), who, according to iii. 30, was a priest or Levite, and might have been nearly related to the high priest. "A great chamber," perhaps made so by throwing several chambers into one, as older expositors have inferred from ver. 9, according to which Nehemiah, after casting out the goods of Tobiah, had the chambers (plural) cleansed. The statement also in ver. 55, that there (in this great chamber) were aforetime laid up not only the meatofferings (i.e. oil and flour, the materials for them), the incense, and the sacred vessels, but also the tithe of the corn, the new wine, and the oil, and the heave-offerings of the priests, seems to confirm this view. This tenth is designated as D*vn m¥D, the command of the Levites, i.e. what was apportioned to the Levites according to the law, the legal dues for which tt£K>D is elsewhere usual; comp. Deut. xviii. 3, 1 Sam. ii. 13. The heave-offering of the priest is the tenth of their tenth which the Levites had to contribute, x. 39.— Ver. 6. In all this, i.e. while this was taking place, I was not in Jerusalem; for in the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes I went to the king, and after the lapse of some days I entreated the king (W? like 1 Sam. xx. 6, 28). What he entreated is not expressly stated; but it is ob"\ i >us from what follows, " and I came to Jerusalem," that it was permission to return to Judea. Even at his first journey to Jerusalem, Nehemiah only requested leave to make a temporary sojourn there, without giving up his post of royal cup-bearer; comp. ii. 5 sq. Hence, after his twelve years' stay in Jerusalem, he was obliged to go to the king and remain some time at court, and then to beg for fresh leave of absence. How long he remained there cannot be determined, — DV?^ Y\ypy after the lapse of days, denoting no definite interval; comp. Gen. iv. 3. The view of several expositors, that D*)!?J means a year, is devoid of proof. The stay of Nehemiah at court must, as already remarked, p. 149, have lasted longer than a year, since so many illegal acts on the part of the community as Nehemiah on his return discovered to have taken place, could not have occurred in so short a time. Artaxerxes is here called king of Babylon, because the Persian kings had conquered the kingdom of Babylon, and by this conquest obtained dominion over the Jews. Nehemiah uses this title to express also the fact that he had travelled to
Babylon. — Ver. 7. At his return he directed his attention to the evil committed by Eliasliib in preparing a chamber in the court of the temple (3 pan like Ezra viii. 15) for Tobiah. — Vers. 8, 9. This so greatly displeased him, that he cast out all the household stuff of Tobiah, and commanded the chamber to be purified, and the vessels of the house of God, the meat-offering and the frankincense, and probably the tenths and heave-offerings also, the enumeration being here only abbreviated, to be again brought into it. From the words household stuff, it appears that Tobiah used the chamber as a dwelling when he came from time to time to Jerusalem.
Vers. 10-14. The payment of dues to the Levites, and the delivery of the tenths and first-fruits, had also been omitted. — Ver. 10. "And I perceived that the portions of the Levites had not been given; and the Levites and singers who had to do the work, were fled every one to his field." The Levites, i.e. the assistants of the priests, the singers, and also the porters, who are not expressly mentioned in this passage, were accustomed to receive during the time of their ministrv their daily portions of the tenths and first-fruits (xii. 47). When then these offerings were discontinued, they were obliged to seek their maintenance from the fields of the towns and villages in which they dwelt (xii. 28 sq.), and to forsake the service of the house of God. This is the meaning of the rna, to flee to the fields. — Ver. 11. "Then I contended with the rulers, and said, Why is the house of God forsaken? " It was the duty of the D^JP, the heads of the community (comp. ii. 16), to see that the tithes, etc., were regularly brought to the house of God. Hence Nehemiah rebukes them by asking: Why is the house of God forsaken % i.e. through the non-delivery of the dues. On 3TJ9, comp. x. 40. This rebuke made the impression desired. Nehemiah assembled the Levites and set them in their place (comp. ix. 3, 2 Chron. xxx. 16, xxxv. 10), i.e. he brought them back to the performance of their official duties, and (ver. 12) all Judah (the whole community) brought the tithe of the corn, etc., into the store-chambers of the temple; comp. x. 38 sq., 2 Chron. xi. 11. — Ver. 13. "And I appointed as managers of the stores (or storehouses, i.e. magazines) Shemaiah the priest," etc. ^"JV^J, Hiphil, for 'I'Vyi^ is a denominative from "WflK, to set some one over the treasure. Whether Shemaiah and Zadok are the individuals of these names mentioned in iii. 30, 29, cannot be determined. Zadok is called a ^Bto, a writer or secretary, not a scribe in the Jewish sense of that word. A Pedaiah occurs viii. 4. D^ 2SH* and at their hand Hanan, probably as an understeward. These four were placed in this position because they were esteemed faithful. DHvift, and it was (incumbent) on them (comp. 1 Chron. ix. 27, Ezra x. 12) to distribute to their brethren, i.e. to the priests and Levites, the portions due to them (ver. 10). Nehemiah concludes his account of this matter with the wish, that God may remember him concerning it (comp. v. 19), and not wipe out the kindnesses which lie has shown to the house of God and its watches, Hon, abbreviated from the Hiphil nnDfi, to cause to wipe out. DHpn like 2 Chron. xxxv. 26. tPlDBto (this form occurring only here), properly watches, watch-posts, here the office of attending on the service of the temple.
Vers. 15-22. Field-zvork and trading on the Sabbath done away with, — Ver. 15. In those days, i.e. when he was occupied with the arrangements for worship, Nehemiah saw in Judah (in the province) some treading wine-presses on the Sabbath, and bringing in sheaves, and lading asses, and also wine, grapes, and figs, and all kinds of burdens, and bringing it to Jerusalem on the Sabbath-day. The DW30 is again taken up by the second b'KUD*, and more closely defined by the addition: to Jerusalem. Robinson describes an ancient wine-press in his Biblical Researches, p. 178. On N*^D"?3? comp. Jer. xvii. 21 sq. "1WJ, and I testified (against them), i.e. warned them on the day wherein they sold victuals. TV, food, victuals; Ps. cxxxii. 15, Josh. ix. 5, 14. He warned them no longer to sell victuals on the Sabbath-day. Bertheau, on the contrary, thinks that Nehemiah saw how the market people in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem started while it was still the Sabbath, not for the purpose of selling during that day, but for that of being early in the market on the next day, or the next but one. The text, however, offers no support to such a notion. In ver. 16 it is expressly said that selling took place in Jerusalem on the Sabbath; and the very bringing thither of wine, grapes, etc., on the Sabbath, presupposes that the sale of these articles was transacted on that day. — Ver. 16. Tyrians also were staying therein, bringing fish and all kind of ware ("V?£), and sold it on the Sabbath to the sons of Judah and in Jerusalem. 2^ is by most expositors translated, to dwell; but it is improbable that Tyrians would at that time dwell or settle at Jerusalem: hence 3B^ here means to sit, i.e. to stay awhile undisturbed, to tarry. — Vers. 17, 18. Nehemiah reproved the nobles of Judah for this profanation of the Sabbath, reminding them how their fathers (forefathers) by such acts (as rebuked e.g. by Jeremiah, chap. xvii. 21 sq.) had brought upon the people and the city great evil, i.e. the misery of their former exile and present oppression; remarking in addition, u and ye are bringing more wrath upon Israel, profaning the Sabbath," i.e. you are only increasing the wrath of God already lying upon Israel, by your desecration of the Sabbath. Comp. on the last thought, Ezra x. 10, 14. He also instituted measures for the abolition of this trespass. — Ver. 19. He commanded that the gates of Jerusalem should be closed when it began to be dark before the Sabbath, and not re-opened till the Sabbath was over. In the description of this measure the command and its execution are intermixed, or rather the execution is brought forward as the chief matter, and the command inserted therein. a And it came to pass, as soon as the gates of Jerusalem were dark {i.e. when it was dark in the gates) before the Sabbath, I commanded, and the gates were shut; and I commanded that they should not be opened till after the Sabbath," i.e. after sunset on the Sabbath-day.??¥, in the sense of to grow dark, occurs in Hebrew only here, and is an Aramaean expression. Nehemiah also placed some of his servants at the gates, that no burdens, i.e. no wares, victuals, etc., might be brought in on the Sabbath. *it5;K is wanting before RtoJ k?\ the command is directly alluded to; and, with the command, must be supplied before K13J fcO. The placing of the watch was necessary, because the gates could not be kept strictly closed during the whole of the day, and ingress and egress thus entirely forbidden to the inhabitants. — Ver. 20. Then the merchants and sellers of all kinds of ware remained throughout the night outside Jerusalem, once and twTice. Thus, because egress from the city could not be refused to the inhabitants, the rest of the Sabbath was broken outside the gates. Nehemiah therefore put an end to this misdemeanour also. — Ver. 21. He warned the merchants to do this no more, threatening them: "If you do (this) again (i.e. pass the night before the walls), I will lay hands on you," i.e. drive you away by force. The form &)? for D^J occurs only here as a u semi-passive" formation; comp. Ewald, § 151, b. From that time forth they came no more on the Sabbath. — Ver. 22. A further measure taken by Nehemiah for the sanctification of the Sabbath according to the law, is so briefly narrated, that it does not plainly appear in what it consisted. " I commanded the Levites that they should cleanse themselves, and they should come keep the gates to sanctify the Sabbath-day." The meaning of the words D^n Dny#n DnDb> is doubtful. The Masoretes have separated 0^3 from Dv")Eb> by Sakeph; while de Wette, Bertheau, and others combine these words: and that they should come to the keepers of the doors. This translation cannot be justified by the usage of the language; for ton with an accusative of the person occurs only, as may be proved, in prophetical and poetical diction (Job xx. 22; Prov. x. 24; Isa. xli. 25; Ezek. xxxii. 11), and then in the sense of to come upon some one, to surprise him, and never in the meaning of to come or go to some one. Nor does this unjustifiable translation give even an appropriate sense. Why should the Levites go to the doorkeepers to sanctify the Sabbath? Bertheau thinks it was for the purpose of solemnly announcing to the doorkeepers that the holy day had begun, or to advertise them by some form of consecration of its commencement. This, however, would have been either a useless or unmeaning ceremony. Hence we must relinquish this connection of the words, and either combine D*tt?#n B^&fe> as an asyndeton with DSN3: coming and watching the gates, or: coming as watchers of the gates; and then the measure taken would consist in the appointment of certain Levites to keep the gates on the Sabbath, as well as the ordinary keepers, thus consecrating the Sabbath as a holy day above ordinary days. Nehemiah concludes the account of the abolition of this irregularity, as well as the preceding, by invoking a blessing upon himself; comp. rem. on ver. 14. bv HDin like Joel ii. 17.
Vers. 23-29. Marriages with foreign wives dissolved. — "Vers. 23 and 24. u In those days I also saw, i.e. visited, the Jews who had brought home Ashdodite, Ammonite, and Moabite wives; and half of their children spoke the speech of Ashdod, because they understood not how to speak the Jews' language, and according to the speech of one and of another people." It is not said, I saw Jews; but, the Jews who... Plence Bertheau rightly infers, that Nehemiah at this time found an opportunity of seeing them, perhaps upon a journey through the province. From the circumstance, too, that a portion of the children of these marriages were not able to speak the language of the Jews, but spoke the language of Ashdod, or of this or that nation from which their mothers were descended, we may conclude with tolerable certainty, that these people dwelt neither in Jerusalem nor in the midst of the Jewish community, but on the borders of the nations to which their wives belonged. ZPWfa like Ezra x. 2. D7TOH precedes in an absolute sense: and as for their children, one half (of them) spake. IVffiP (comp. 2 Kings xviii. 26, Isa. xxxvi. 11, 2 Chron. xxxii. 18) is the language of the Jewish community, the vernacular Hebrew. The sentence 'U1 D^NI is an explanatory parenthesis, DVJ DJJ fiByai still depending upon 1319: spake according to the language, i.e. spake the language, of this and that people (of their mothers). The speech of Ashdod is that of the Philistines, which, according to Hitzig ( Urgeschiclde u. Mytliol. der lJhilistder), belonged to the Indo-Germanic group. The languages, however, of the Moabites and Ammonites were undoubtedly Shemitic, but so dialectically different from the Hebrew, that they might be regarded as foreign tongues. — Ver. 25. With these people also Nehemiah contended (T")K like vers. 11 and 17), cursed them, smote certain of their men, and plucked off their hair (Bl?, see rem. on Ezra ix. 3), and made them swear by God: Ye shall not give your daughters, etc.; comp. x. 31. On the recurrence of sucli marriages after the separations effected by Ezra of those existing at his arrival at Jerusalem, comp. the remark, p. 135 sq. Nehemiah did not insist on the immediate dissolution of these marriages, but caused the men to swear that they would desist from such connections, setting before them, in ver. 26, how grievous a sin they were committing. u Did not Solomon, king of Israel, sin on account of these?" (n?K?y9 on account of strange wives). And amon^ many nations there was no king like him (comp. 1 Kings iii. 12 sq., 2 Chron. i. 12); and he was beloved of his God (alluding to 2 Sam. xii. 24), and God made him king over all Israel (1 Kings iv. 1); and even him did foreign women cause to sin (comp. 1 Kings xi. 1-3). u And for you is it heard to do (that ye do) all this great evil, to transgress against our God, and to marry strange wives?" Bertheau thus rightly understands the sentence: " If the powerful King Solomon was powerless to resist the influence of foreign wives, and if he, the beloved God, found in his relation to God no defence against the sin to which they seduced him, is it not unheard of for you to commit so great an evil? " He also rightly explains Jtt?swn according to Deut. ix. 32; while Gesenius in his Thes. still takes it, like Rambach, as the first person imperf.: nobisne morem geramus faciendo; or: Should we obey you to do so great an evil? (de Wette); which meaning — apart from the consideration that not obedience, but only toleration of the illegal act, is here in question — greatly weakens, if it does not quite destroy, the contrast between Solomon and D3?. — Ver. 28. Nehemiah acted with greater severity towards one of the sons of Joiada the high priest, and son-in-law of Sanballat. He drove him from him 0?y?> that he might not be a burden to me). The reason for this is not expressly stated, but is involved in the fact that he was son-in-law to Sanballat, i.e. had married a daughter of Sanballat the Horonite (ii. 10), who was so hostile to Nehemiah and to the Jewish community in general, and would not comply with the demand of Nehemiah that he should dismiss this wife. In this case, Nehemiah was obliged to interfere with authority. For this marriage was a pollution of the priesthood, and a breach of the covenant of the priesthood and the Levites. Hence he closes the narrative of this occurrence with the wish, ver. 29, that God would be mindful of them (P\P^ of those who had done such evil) on account of this pollution, etc., i.e. would punish or chastise them for it. vK3, stat. constr.pl. from /K3, pollution (plurale tant.). It was a pollution of the priesthood to marry a heathen woman, such marriage being opposed to the sacredness of the priestly office, which a priest was to consider even in the choice of a wife, and because of which he might marry neither a whore, nor a feeble nor a divorced woman, while the high priest might marry only a virgin of his own people (Lev. xxi. 7, 14). The son of Joiada who had married a daughter of Sanballat was not indeed his presumptive successor (Johanan, xii. 11), for then he would have been spoken of by name, but a younger son, and therefore a simple priest; he was, however, so nearly related to the high priest, that by his marriage with a heathen woman the holiness of the high-priestly house was polluted, and therewith also " the covenant of the priesthood," i.e. not the covenant of the everlasting priesthood which God granted to Phinehas for his zeal (Num. xxv. 13), but the covenant which God concluded with the tribe of Levi, the priesthood, and the Levites, by choosing the tribe of Levi, and of that tribe Aaron and his descendants, to be His priest (ft fan??, Ex. xxviii. 1). This covenant required, on the part of the priests, that they should be u holy to the Lord " (Lev. xxi. G, 8), who had chosen them to be ministers of His sanctuary and stewards of His grace.
Josephus (Ant. xi. 7. 2) relates the similar fact, that Manasseh, a brother of the high priest Jaddua, married
Nikaso, a daughter of the satrap Sanballat, a Cuthite; that when the Jewish authorities on that account excluded him from the priesthood, lie established, by the assistance of his fatherin-law, the temple and worship on Mount Gerizim (xi. 8. 2-4), and that many priests made common cause with him. Now, though Josephus calls this Manasseh a brother of Jaddua, thus making him a grandson of Joiada, and transposing the establishment of the Samaritan worship on Gerizim to the last years of Darius Codomannus and the first of Alexander of Macedon, it can scarcely be misunderstood that, notwithstanding these discrepancies, the same occurrence which Nehemiah relates in the present verses is intended by Josephus. The view of older theologians, to which also Petermann (art. Samaria in Herzog's Realenc, xiii. p. 366 sq.) assents, that there were two Sanballats, one in the days of Nehemiah, the other in the time of Alexander the Great, and that both had sons-in-law belonging to the high-priestly family, is very improbable; and the transposition of the fact by Josephus to the times of Darius Codomannus and Alexander accords with the usual and universally acknowledged incorrectness of his chronological combinations. He makes, e.g., Nehemiah arrive at Jerusalem in the twenty-fifth year of Xerxes, instead of the twentieth of Artaxerxes, while Xerxes reigned only twenty years.
Vers. 30 and 31. Nehemiah concludes his work with a short summary of what he had effected for the community. " I cleansed them from all strangers " (comp. ver. 23 sq., ix. 2, xiii. 1 sq.), u and appointed the services for the priests and Levites, each in his business, and for the wood-offering at times appointed (x. 35), and for the first-fruits" (x. 36 sq.). The suffix to DWntpi refers to the Jews. 133, strange, means foreign heathen customs, and chiefly marriages with heathen women, ver. 23 sq., ix. 2, xiii. 1. nriEK>p TOVn, properly to set a watch, here used in the more general sense of to appoint posts of service for the priests and Levites, i.e. to arrange for the attendance upon those offices which they had to perform at their posts in the temple, according to the law; comp. x. 37, 40, xii. 44-46, xiii. 13. |2"}P^'and tnea^ ver. 31, still depend on nhDBfc nTDJJKJ: I appointed the attendance for the delivery of the wood for the altar at appointed times (comp. x. 35), and for the first-fruits, i.e. for bringing into the sanctuary the heave-offering for the priests. The D^33 are named as pars pro toto, instead of all the rto"iri prescribed by the law. On the arrangements connected with these two subjects, viz. the purification from heathen practices, and the restoration of the regular performance of divine worship, was Nehemiah's whole energy concentrated, after the fortification of Jerusalem by a wall of circumvallation had been completed. He thus earned a lasting claim to the gratitude of the congregation of his fellow-countrymen that returned from Babylon, and could conclude his narrative with the prayer that God would remember him for good. On this frequently-repeated supplication (comp. vers. 14, 22, and v. 19) Rambach justly remarks: magnam NehemicE pictatem spirat. This piety is, however — as we cannot fail also to perceive — strongly pervaded by the legal spirit of post-Babylonian Judaism.
HIS book bears the name of VIDK or "inDK n^D, book of Esther, also briefly that of TOD with the Rabbis, from Esther the Jewess, afterwards raised to the rank of queen, to whom the Jews were indebted for their deliverance from the destruction with which they were threatened, as related in this book.
Its contents are as follows: — Ahashverosh, king of Persia, gave, in the third year of his reign, a banquet to the grandees of his kingdom at Susa; and on the seventh day of this feast, when his heart was merry with wine, required the Queen Vashti to appear before his guests and show her beauty. When she refused to come at the king's commandment, she was divorced, at the proposal of his seven counsellors; and this divorce was published by an edict throughout the whole kingdom, lest the example of the queen should have a bad effect upon the obedience of other wives to their husbands (chap. i.). When the king, after his wrath was appeased, began again to feel a tenderness towards his divorced wife, the most beautiful virgins in the whole kingdom were, at the advice of his servants, brought to the house of the women at Susa, that the king might choose a wife at his pleasure. Among these virgins was Esther the Jewess, the foster-daughter and near relative of Mordochai, a Benjamite living in exile, who, when brought before the king, after the customary preparation, so pleased him, that he chose her for his queen. Her intercourse with Mordochai continued after her reception into the royal palace; and during Ins dally visits in the gate of the palace, he discovered a conspiracy against the life of the king, and thus rendered him an important service (chap. ii.). Ahashverosh afterwards made Haman, an Agagite, his prime minister or grand vizier, and commanded all the king's servants to pay him royal honours, i.e. to bow down before him. When this was refused by Mordochai, Haman's indignation was so great, that he resolved to destroy all the Jews in the whole empire. For this purpose he appointed, by means of the lot, both the month and day; and obtained from the king permission to prepare an edict to all the provinces of the kingdom, appointing the thirteenth day of the twelfth month for the extermination of the Jews throughout the whole realm (chap, iii). Mordochai apprised Queen Esther of this cruel command, and so strongly urged her to apply to the king on behalf of her people, that she resolved, at the peril of her life, to appear before him unbidden. When she was so favourably received by him, that he promised beforehand to grant whatever she had to request, even to the half of his kingdom, she first entreated that the king and Haman should eat with her that day. During the repast, the king inquired concerning her request, and she answered that she would declare it on the following day, if the king and Haman would again eat with her (iv. 1-8). Haman, greatly elated at this distinction, had the mortification, on his departure from the queen, of beholding Mordochai, who did not rise up before him, in the gate of the palace; and returning to his house, formed, by the advice of his wife and friends, the resolution of hanging Mordochai next day upon a gallows; for which purpose he immediately caused a tree fifty cubits high to be prepared (v. 9-14). Next night, however, the king, being unable to sleep, caused the records of the kingdom to be read to him, and was thereby reminded of the obligation he was under to Mordochai. When, on this occasion, he learnt that Mordochai had as yet received no reward for this service, he sent for Haman, who had resorted thus early to the court of the palace for the purpose of obtaining the royal permission for the execution of Mordochai, and asked him what should be done to the man whom the king desired to honour. Haman, thinking this honour concerned himself, proposed the very highest, and was by the king's command obliged, to his extreme mortification, himself to pay this honour to Mordochai, his wife and friends interpreting this occurrence as an omen of his approaching ruin (vi.). When the king and Haman afterwards dined with Esther, the queen begged for her life and that of her people, and pointed to Haman as the enemy who desired to exterminate the Jews. Full of wrath at this information, the king went into the garden of the palace; while Haman, remaining in the room, fell at the feet of the queen to beg for his life. When the king, returning to the banquet chamber, saw Haman lying on the queen's couch, he thought he was offering violence to the queen, passed sentence of death upon him, caused him to be hanged upon the gallows he had erected for Mordochai (vii.), and on the same day gave his house to the queen, and made Mordochai his prime minister in the place of Haman (viii. 1? 2). Hereupon Esther earnestly entreated the reversal of Hainan's edict against the Jews; and since, according to the laws of the Medes and Persians, an edict issued by the king and sealed with the seal-royal could not be repealed, the king commanded Mordochai to prepare and publish throughout the whole kingdom another edict, whereby the Jews were permitted, to their great joy and that of many other inhabitants of the realm (viii. 3-17), not only to defend themselves against the attacks of their enemies on the appointed day, but also to kill and plunder them. In consequence of this, the Jews assembled on the appointed day to defend their lives against their adversaries; and being supported by the royal officials, through fear of Mordochai, they slew in Susa 500, and in the whole kingdom 75,000 men, besides 300 more in Susa on the day following, but did not touch the goods of the slain. They then celebrated in Susa the fifteenth, and in the rest of the kingdom the fourteenth, day of the month Adar, as a day of feasting and gladness (ix. 1-10). Hereupon Mordochai and Queen Esther sent letters to all the Jews in the kingdom, in which they ordered tlie yearly celebration of this day, by the name of the feast of Purim, i.e. lots, because Haman had cast lots concerning the destruction of the Jews (ix. 20-32). In conclusion, the documents in which are described the acts of Ahashverosh and the greatness of Mordochai, who had exerted himself for tire good of his people, are pointed out (chap. x.). From this glance at its contents, it is obvious that the object of this book is to narrate the events in remembrance of which the feast of Purim was celebrated, and to transmit to posterity an account of its origin. The aim of the entire contents of this book being the institution of this festival, with which it concludes, there can be no reasonable doubt of its integrity, which is also generally admitted. Bertheau, however, after the example of J. D. Michaelis, has declared the sections ix. 20-28 and 29-32 to be later additions, incapable of inclusion in the closely connected narrative of chap, i.-ix. 19, and regards chap. x. as differing from it both in matter and language. The sections in question are said to be obviously distinct from the rest of the book. But all that is adduced in support of this assertion is, that the words D$, to institute (ix. 21, 27, 29, 31), ^D, to come to an end, to cease (ix. 28), the plural niftiv, fasts (ix. 31), and an allusion to the decree in a direct manner, occur only in these sections. In such a statement, however, no kind of consideration is given to the circumstance that there was no opportunity for the use of D.si? ^D and the plur. DiDiV in the other chapters. Hence nothing remains but the direct introduction of the decree, which is obviously insufficient to establish a peculiarity of language. Still weaker is the proof offered of diversity of matter between ix. 20-32 and chap, i.— ix. 19; Bertheau being unable to make this appear in any way, but by wrongly attributing to the word D*£ the meaning: to confirm a lon^-existin^ custom.
The feast of Purim is mentioned, 2 Mace. xv. 36, under the name of Mapho^alKrj rj^epa, as a festival existing in the time of Nicanor (about 160 B.C.); and Josephus tells us, Ant. xi. 6. 13, that it was kept by the Jews during a whole week. Now the institution of this festival must have been based upon an historical event similar to that related in this book. Hence even this is sufficient to show that the assertion of Semler, Oeder, and others, that this book contains a fictitious parable (confictam esse universam 'paraholam), is a notion opposed to common sense. For if this festival has been from of old celebrated by the Jews all over the world, it must owe its origin to an occurrence which affected the whole Jewish people, and the names Purim and Mordochai's day are a pledge, that the essential contents of this book are based upon an historical foundation. The name Purim (i„e. lots), derived from the Persian, can be suitably explained in no other manner than is done in this book, viz. by the circumstance that lots were cast on the fate of the Jews by a Persian official, who contemplated their extermination, for the purpose of fixing on a favourable day for this act; while the name, Mordochai's day, preserves the memory of the individual to whom the Jews were indebted for their deliverance. Hence all modern critics admit, that at least an historical foundation is thus guaranteed, while a few doubt the strictly historical character of the whole narrative, and assert that while the feast of Purim was indeed celebrated in remembrance of a deliverance of the Jews in the Persian empire, it was the existence of this festival, and the accounts given by those who celebrated it, which gave rise to the written narrative of the history of Esther (thus Bertheau). On the other hand, the historical character of the whole narrative has been defended not only by Havernick (EinL), M. Baumgarten (de fide libri Estherce, 1839), and others, but also, and upon valid grounds, by Staehelin (%pez. Einl. in die kanon. BB. des A. T. § 51 sq.). The objections that have been raised to its credibility have arisen, first from the habit of making subjective probability the standard of historical truth, and next from an insufficient or imperfect attention to the customs, manners, and state of affairs at the Persian court on the one hand, or an incorrect view of the meaning of the text on the other. When, e.g., Bertlieau as well as Bleek (Einleit. p. 286) says, "The whole is of such a nature that the unprejudiced observer cannot easily regard it as a purely historical narrative," Cleric, (dissert, de scriptoribus librr. last. § 10) far more impartially and correctly decides: Mirabilis sane est et 7ra/>a8ofo? (quis enim neget?) historia, sed multa mirabilia et a moribus nostris aliena olim apud orientates ut apud omnes alios populos contigerunt. The fact that King Ahashverosh should grant his grand vizier Haman permission to publish an edict commanding the extermination of the Jews throughout his empire, is not challenged by either Bleek or Bertheau; and, indeed, we need not go so far as the despotic states of the East to meet with similar occurrences; the Parisian massacre of St. Bartholomew being; a sufficient proof that the apparently incredible may be actual reality.1 And all the other statements of this book, however seemingly unaccountable to us, become conceivable when we consider the character of King Ahashverosh, i.e., as is now generally admitted, of Xerxes, who is described by Greek and Roman historians as a very luxurious, voluptuous, and at the same time an extremely cruel tyrant. A despot who, after his army had been hospitably entertained on its march to Greece, and an enormous sum offered towards defraying the expenses of the war, by Pythius the rich Lydian, could be betrayed into such fury by the request of the latter, that of his
1 Rosenmuller (Jbibl. Altertumsk. i. 1, p. 379) calls to mind Mithridates king of Pontus, who, when at war with the Romans, secretlyissued an order to all the satraps and local authorities of his realm, to assassinate all Romans, without distinction of age or sex, on an appointed day, in consequence of which 80,000 perished on one day; also the pasha of Zaid Mehmed in the sixteenth century, who surprised the nation of the Druses, and put to death all whom he met with (comp. Arvieux, merkw. Nadir, i. p. 391); and then continues: " It is almost more incredible that a ruler should, from the blindness of religious zeal, either execute or drive out of his realm 100,000 of his most diligent and prosperous subjects; yet the history of modern Europe offers us, in Ferdinand the Catholic, who chased 300,000 Jews from Spain, and Louis xiv., who, after putting some thousands of Protestants to death, banished hundreds of thousands from France, examples of such incredible events."
five sons who were in the army the eldest might be released, to be the comfort of his declining years, as to command this son to be hewn into two pieces, and to make his army pass between them (Herod, vii. c. 37-39; Seneca, de ira, vii. 17); a tyrant who could behead the builders of the bridge over the Hellespont, because a storm had destroyed the bridge, and command the sea to be scourged, and to be chained by sinking a few7 fetters (Herod, vii. 35); a debauchee who, after his return from Greece, sought to drive away his vexation at the shameful defeat he had undergone, by revelling in sensual pleasures (Herod, ix. 108 sq.); so frantic a tyrant was capable of all that is told us in the book of Esther of Ahashverosh.
Bleek's objections to the credibility of the narrative consist of the following points: a. That it is inconceivable that if the Persian despot had formed a resolution to exterminate all the Jews in his kingdom, he would, even though urged by a favourite, have proclaimed this by a royal edict published throughout all the provinces of his kingdom twelve months previously. In advancing this objection, however, Bleek has not considered that Haman cast lots for the appointment of the day on which his project was to be carried into execution; the Persians being, according to Herod, iii. 128, Cyrop. i. 6. 46, frequently accustomed to resort to the lot; while not only in Strabo's time, but to the present day also, everything is with them decided according to the dicta of soothsayers and astrologers. If, then, the lot had declared the day in question to be a propitious one for the matter contemplated, the haughty Haman would not reflect that the premature publication of the edict would afford a portion of the Jews the opportunity of escaping destruction by flight. Such reflections are inconsistent with absolute confidence in the power of magical decisions; and even if what was possible had ensued, he would still have attained his main object of driving the Jews out of the realm, and appropriating their possessions. — b. That at this time Judea, which was then almost wholly reinhabited by Jews, was among the provinces of Persia, and that hence the king's edict commanded the extermination of almost all the population of that country. This, he says, it is difficult to believe; and not less so, that when the first edict was not repealed, the second, which granted the Jews permission to defend themselves against their enemies, should have resulted everywhere in such success to the Jews, even though, from fear of Mordochai the new favourite, they were favoured by the royal officials, that all should in all countries submit to them, and that they should kill 75,000 men, equally with themselves subjects of the king. To this it may be replied: that Judea was, in relation to the whole Persian realm, a very unimportant province, and in the time of Xerxes, as is obvious from the book of Ezra, by no means " almost wholly," but only very partially, inhabited by Jews, who were, moreover, regarded with such hostility by the other races dwelling among them, that the execution of the decree cannot appear impossible even here. With regard to the result of the second edict, the slaughter of 75,000 men, this too is perfectly comprehensible. For since, according to Medo-Persian law, the formal repeal of a royal edict issued according to legal form was impracticable, the royal officials wTould understand the sense and object of the second, and not trouble themselves much about the execution of the first, but, on the contrary, make the second published by Mordochai, who was at that time the highest dignitary in the realm, their rule of action for the purpose of ensuring his favour. Hound numbers, moreover, of the slain are evidently given; i.e. they are given upon only approximate statements, and are not incredibly high, when the size and population of the kingdom are considered. The Persian empire, in its whole extent from India to Ethiopia, must have contained a population of at least 100,000,000, and the number of Jews in the realm must have amounted to from two to three millions. A people of from two to three millions would include, moreover, at least from 500,000 to 700,000 capable of bearing arms, and these might in battle against their enemies slay 75,U00 men. Susa, the capital, would not have been less than the Stamboul of the present day, and would probably contain at least half a million of inhabitants; and it by no means surpasses the bounds of probability, that in such a town 500 men should be slain in one day, and 300 more on the following, in a desperate street fight. Nor can the numbers stated be looked upon as too high a computation. The figures are only rendered improbable by the notion, that the Jews themselves suffered no loss at all. Such an assumption, however, is by no means justified by the circumstance, that such losses are unmentioned. It is the general custom of the scriptural historians to give in their narratives of wars and battles only the numbers of the slain among the vanquished foes, and not to mention the losses of the victors. We are justified, however, in supposing that the war was of an aggravated character, from the fact that it bore not only a national, but also a religious character. Haman's wrath against Mordochai was so exasperated by the information that he was a Jew, that he resolved upon the extermination of the people of Mordochai, i.e. of all the Jews in the realm (iii. 4—6). To obtain the consent of the king, he accused the Jews as a scattered and separated people, whose laws were different from the laws of all other nations, of not observing the laws of the king. This accusation was, u from the standpoint of Parseeism, the gravest which could have been made against the Jews" (Haev. Einl. ii. 1, p. 348). The separation of the Jews from all other people, a consequence of the election of Israel to be the people of God, has at all times inflamed and nourished the hatred of the Gentiles and of the children of this world against them. This hatred, which was revived by the edict of Haman, could not be quenched by the counter-edict of Mordochai. Though this edict so inspired the royal officials with fear of the powerful minister, that they took part with, instead of against the Jews, yet the masses of the people, and especially the populations of towns, would not have paid such respect to it as to restrain their hatred against the Jews. The edict of Mordochai did not forbid the execution of that of Haman, but only allowed the Jews to stand up for their lives, and to slay such enemies as should attack them (viii. 11). The heathen were not thereby restrained from undertaking that fight against the Jews, in which they were eventually the losers. — When, however, c. Bleek finds it u utterly unnatural " that, after the Jews had slain 500 of their foes in one day in Susa, the king should, at the request of Esther, whose vengeance and thirst of blood were not yet appeased, have granted an edict that the slaughter should be renewed on the following day, when no attack upon the Jews was permitted, his objection rests upon a sheer misunderstanding of the whole affair. The queen only requested that " it should be granted to the Jews in Susa to do to-morrow also, according to the decree of to-day" (ix. 13), i.e. "to stand for their lives, and slay all who should assault them " (viii. 11). This petition presupposes that the heathen population of Susa would renew the attack upon the Jews on the next day. Hence it is evident that Bleek's assertion, that the heathen were not allowed on that day to renew their attack upon the Jews, is an erroneous notion, and one at variance with the text. Together with this erroneous assumption, the reproach of vengeance and bloodthirstiness raised against Esther is also obviated. Her foresight in securing the lives of her people against renewed attacks, betrays neither revenge nor cruelty. Unless the heathen population had attacked the Jews on the second day, the latter wrould have had no opportunity of slaying their foes. How little, too, the Jews in general were influenced by a desire of vengeance, is shown by the fact so repeatedly brought forward, that they laid not their hand on the spoil of the slain (ix. 9, 15), though this was granted them by the royal edict (viii. 11). — d. Bleek's remaining objections are based partly upon misrepresentations of the state of affairs, and partly upon erroneous notions of Eastern customs.1
1 E.g. the remark that, though all Susa was thrown into consternation by the edict of Haman, it rejoiced greatly at the second; where Bleek has inserted all to make the matter appear incredible by exaggeration. In the text we only read "the city of Susa was perplexed" (iii. 15), "the city of Susa rejoiced and was glad " (viii. 15); i.e., in the city of Susa there was in the one instance perplexity, in the other rejoicing. Also that the king published a special decree in all the provinces of his kingdom, that every man should be master in his own house, — a misin-
If, then, all the objections raised against the credibility of the narrative may be thus disposed of, we are perfectly justified in adhering to a belief in the historical character of the whole book, since even Bleek cannot deny, that some at least of "the customs and arrangements of the Persian court are both vividly and faithfully depicted." To this must be added the statement of the names of the individuals who take part in the narrative, e.g. the courtiers, i. 10; the seven princes of Persia, i. 14; the keeper of the women's houses, ii. 8 and 14; the ten sons of Haman, ix. 7-9, and others; and the reference to the book of the chronicles of the Medes and Persians, as the documents in which not only the acts of Ahashverosh, but also the greatness of Mordochai, were written (x. 2). As the numerous and otherwise wholly unknown names could not possibly be invented, so neither can the reference to the book of the chronicles be a mere literary fiction. When, therefore, Bertheau thinks, that the writer of this book, by thus bringing forward so many small details, by stating the names of otherwise unknown individuals, and especially by giving so much accurate information concerning Persian affairs and institutions, — the correctness of which is in all respects confirmed both by the statements of classical authors and our present increased knowledge of Oriental matters, — certainly proves himself acquainted with the scene in which the narrative takes place, with Persian names and affairs, but not possessed also of an historical knowledge of the actual course of events; we can perceive terpretation of the passage i. 22; see the explanation of this verse. Finally, the difficulty that Esther, as queen-consort, should have concealed her nationality so long as is stated in the narrative, can exist only for those unacquainted with the state of affairs in the harem of an Oriental prince. The Persian monarchs, who had a fresh concubine for each day, would certainly be ignorant of the descent of each; and though, according to Herod, iii. 84, the queens were generally of the race of the Achsemenides, yet the same historian also relates (iii. 31) of Cambyses, that the royal 6ix.oc(jtcci declared to him, with respect to his marriage with a sister, that: t<w fixot'AivovTt TLepaiui/ ifcttvcu izoiiuv to civ fiovhYiTxt. The case, too, of a concubine being raised to the rank of queen by a Persian monarch is not inconceivable.
in this last inference only the unsupported decision of a subjectivistic antipathy to the contents of the book.
No certain information concerning the author of this book is obtainable. The talmudic statement in Baba bathr. 15. 1, that it was written by the men of the Great Synagogue, is devoid of historical value; and the opinion of Clem. AL, Aben Ezra, and others, that Mordochai was its author, as is also inferred from ix. 20 and 23 by de Wette, is decidedly a mistaken one, — the writer plainly distinguishing in this passage between himself and Mordochai, who sent letters concerning the feas't of Purim to the Jews in the realm of Persia. Other conjectures are still niore unfounded. The date, too, of its composition can be only approximately determined. The opinion that in ix. 19 the long existence of the feast of Purim is presupposed, cannot be raised to the rank of a certainty. Nor does the book contain allusions pointing to the era of the Greek universal monarchy. This is admitted by Stahelin, who remarks, p. 178: aThe most seemingly valid argument in support of this view, viz. that Persian customs are explained in this book, i. 1, 13 (for vii. 8, usually cited with these passages, is out of the question, and is the king's speech in answer to viii. 5), is refuted by the consideration, that the book was written for the information of Palestinian Jews; while Havernick, ii. 1, p. 361, refers to a case in Bohaeddin, in which this biographer of Saladin, p. 70, though writing for Arabs, explains an Arabian custom with respect to prisoners of war." On the other hand, both the reference to the chronicles of the Medes and Persians (x. 2), and the intimate acquaintance of the writer with Susa and the affairs of the Persian monarchy, decidedly point to the fact, that the date of its composition preceded the destruction of the Persian empire, and may perhaps have been that of Artaxerxes I. or t)arius Nothus, about 400 B.C. The omission, moreover, of all reference to Judah and Jerusalem, together with the absence not only of t'heo- cratic notions, but of a specially religious view of circumstances, favour the view that the author lived not in Palestine, but in the more northern provinces of the Persian realm, probably in Susa itself. For though his mode of representing events, which does not even once lead him to mention the name of God, is not caused by the irreligiousness of the author, but rather by the circumstance, that he neither wished to depict the persons whose acts he was narrating as more godly than they really were, nor to place the whole occurrence — which manifests, indeed, the dealings of Divine Providence with the Jewish people, but not the dealings of Jahve with the nation of Israel — under a point of view alien to the actors and the event itself, yet a historian acquainted with the theocratic ordinances and relations of Judah would scarcely have been capable of so entirely ignoring them.
The book of Esther has always formed a portion of the Hebrew canon. It is included also among the twenty-two books which, according to Josephus, c. Ap. i. 8, were acknowledged by the Jews as St/calo)? ireiriaTev^eva. For Josephus, who repeatedly asserts, that the history of the Hebrews from Moses to Artaxerxes was written by the prophets and worthy to be believed, relates also in his Jewish Antiquities (1. xi. c. 6) the history of Esther, Mordochai, and Haman. Certain critics have indeed desired to infer, from the statement in the Talmud, Jerush. Megill. 70. 4, that " among the eighty elders who contended against the institution of the feast of Purim by Esther and Mordochai as an innovation in the law, there were more than thirty prophets," that the Jews did not formerly attribute the same authority to the book of Esther as to the other Scriptures (Movers, loci quidam historice canonis V. T. p. 28; Bleek, Einl. p. 404); but even Bertheau doubts whether this passage refers to the whole book of Esther. For it treats unambiguously only of the fact chap. ix. 29-32, which is very specially stated to have been an institution of Esther and Mordochai, and concerning which differences of opinion might prevail among the Rabbis. The further remark of Movers, I.e., that the oldest patristic testimonies to the inclusion of this book in the canon are of such a nature, ut ex Us satis verisimiliter effici possit, eum tunc recens canoni adjectum esse, because it occupies the last place in the series of O. T. writings given by Origen, Epiphanius, and Jerome, according to Jewish authority, and because the canons of the Greek Church, which more accurately enumerate the books received by the synagogue, do not contain the book of Esther, is also incorrect. For (1.) the lists of the canonical books of the O. T. given by Origen (in Euseb. hist. eccl. vi. 25) and Epiphanius give these books not according to their order in the Hebrew canon, but to that of the Alexandrinian version, while only Jerome places the book of Esther last. (2.) In the lists of the Greek Church this book is omitted only in that given in Euseb. hist. eccl. iv. 26, from the eclogce of Melito, Bishop of Sardis, and in that of Gregory of Nazianzen, while it is included in those of Origen and Cyril of Jerusalem; a circumstance which leads to the supposition that it might have been omitted by an oversight in transcription in those of Origen and Epiphanius. Only Athanasius (in his epist. fest.), Amphilochius (in the Jambi ad Seleuc), and the author of the Synopsis Athanasius, who is supposed not to have lived till the tenth century, reckon it among the apocryphal books; while Junilius (of the sixth century) remarks that there were many in his days who doubted the canonicity of the book of Esther. From this it is sufficiently obvious, that these doubts were not founded upon historical tradition, but proceeded only from subjective reasons, and were entertained because offence was taken, first at the non-mention of the name of God in this book, and then at the confessedly apocryphal additions mingled with this book in the Alexandrinian translation. The author of the Synopsis Ath., moreover, expressly says that the Hebrews regarded this book as canonical. The wellknown harsh judgments of Luther in his work de servo ar~ hitrio: liber Esther, quamvis hunc habent in canone, dignior omnibus, me judice, qui extra canonem haberetur, and in his Table Talk, are purely subjective.1 Luther could never reconcile himself to this book, because he felt that the saving truths of Scripture were absent from it. The later Jews, on the contrary, exalted it even far above the Thorah and the prophets.2
Later Protestant theologians, too, have, in their efforts to justify the canonicity of this book, over-estimated its canonical value, and attributed to the history therein related, Messianic references which are foreign to its meaning (comp. the verdict given upon it in Carpzov's Introd. in V. T. p. 369 sq.). The moderate opinion of Brentius is: liic liber utilis est ad docendam jidem et timorem Dei, ut pii non frangantur adversis, sed invocantes nomen Domini ex fide, accipiant spem salutis; impii vero alieno supplicio terreantur et ad pietatem convertantur. This opinion is one far better founded than the depreciatory decision of modern critics, that this book breathes a spirit of revenge and pride (de Wette-Schrader); or of Bertheau, that " Esther and Mordochai are fall of a spirit of revenge and hostility not to Gentile ways, but to the Gentiles themselves, of cruelty, and of ungodly confidence in a victory over the world, by worldly power and the employment of worldly means," and that this book " belongs to the historical records of the revelation made to Israel, only in so far as it helps to fill up the chasm between the times of the prophets and the days of our Lord." u The book itself and its position in the canon plainly testify, that the people to whom the victory over the world was promised, separated themselves farther and farther from communion with the holy God, trusted to their own arm and to worldly power, and could not, therefore, but be worsted in their contest
1 " And while the Doctor was correcting the second book of Maccabees he said: I am so hostile to this book and that of Esther, that I wish they did not exist; they are too Judaizing, and contain many heathenish improprieties."
with the empire of the times." Such a verdict is justified neither by the circumstance, that the Jews, who reject Christ's redemption, understand and over-estimate this book in a carnal manner, nor by the fact, that the name of God does not once occur therein. With respect to the first point, the book itself is not to blame for being misused by Jews who have not accepted the redemption which is by Christ, to nourish a fanatical hatred of all Gentiles. Even if Esther and Mordochai were filled with a spirit of revenge toward the Gentiles, no reproach could in consequence be cast on the book of Esther, which neither praises nor recommends their actions or behaviour, but simply relates what took place without blame or approval. But neither are the accusations raised against Esther and Mordochai founded in truth. The means they took for the deliverance and preservation of their people were in accordance with the circumstances stated. For if the edict promulgated by Haman, and commanding the extermination of the Jews, could not, according to the prevailing law of the Medo-Persians, be repealed, there was no other means left to Mordochai for the preservation of his countrymen from the destruction that threatened them, than the issue of a counter-edict permitting the Jews to fight for their lives against all enemies who should attack them, and conceding to them the same rights against their foes as had been granted to the latter against the Jews by the edict of Haman. The bloodshed which might and must ensue would be the fault neither of Mordochai nor Esther, but of Haman alone. And though Mordochai had irritated the haughty Haman by refusing him adoration, yet no Jew who was faithful to the commands of his God could render to a man that honour and adoration which are due to the Lord only. Besides, even if the offence of which he was thereby guilty against Haman might have incited the latter to punish him individually, it could offer no excuse for the massacre of the entire Jewish nation. As for the second point, viz. the non-mention of the name of God in this book, we have already remarked, § 3, that this omission is not caused by a lack of devoutness or reverence, the narrative itself