q.229 B58e v.l 60-09&5 reference collection book Kansas city public library kansas city, missouri THE APOCRYPHA AND PSEUDEPIGRAPHA OF THE. OLD TESTAMENT IN ENGLISH WITH INTRODUCTIONS AND CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES TO THE SEVERAL BOOKS EDITED IN CONJUNCTION WITH MANY SCHOLARS BY R. H. CHARLES, D.Lrrr., D.D. FELLOW OF MERTON COLLEGE, OXFORD 1 FELLOW OF THE BRITISH ACADEMY VOLUME I APOCRYPHA OXFORD At THE CLARENDON PRESS J-"' 1 ^ '. I 9 I 3, ; OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS LONDON EDINBURGH GLASGOW NEW YORK TORONTO MELBOURNE BOMBAY HUMPHREY MILFORD M.A. PUBLISHER TO THE UNIVERSITY PREFACE FOR students both of the Old and New Testaments the value of the non-Canonical Jewish literature from 200 B.C. to A. D. 100 is practically recognized on every side alike by Jewish and Christian scholars. But hitherto no attempt has been made to issue an edition of this literature as a whole in English. 1 Indeed, such an undertaking would have been all but impossible at an earlier date, seeing that critical editions of some of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha have not been published till within the last few years. The method observed in this work. In all the contributions one and the same method has been observed. Each contribution consists of an introduction, an English translation from the best critical text in a few cases the Revised Version has been adopted and emendations suggested in the notes and of a critical and exegetical commentary. 2 As regards the intro- ductions, the subjects dealt with in them have, so far as possible, been treated in the same order to facilitate the use of the work. Though a large discretion has naturally been given to the various editors, the following order has more or less been observed as a guide or been actually carried out. i. Short account of the book, embodying its leading features and the editor's chief conclusions. 2. Title of the book. $ 3. The MSS. 4. The Ancient Versions. 5. Date of (a) the original text, (fi) of the Ancient Versions. 6. Integrity or composite nature of the text. 7. Authorship. 8. Influence of the book on later literature (a) Jewish ; (6) Christian. 9. Theology of the book. ro. Bibliography (a) Chief editions of the text (and of the Ancient Versions). (6) Chief critical inquiries. (c) Chief editions of the book. 1 Kautzsch published an edition in German in 1900, but on a smaller scale than the present work and embracing fewer books of this literature (vol. 1. 1-507; vol. ii. 1-540). 2 In the case of Sirach arid Tpbit the editors have been allowed much beyond the normal number of pages f6r their critical apparatus, which they have used to good purpose. PREFACE The extent of tJie presetit work. The first volume contains what is generally known as the Apocrypha Proper, which constitutes the excess of the Vulgate over the Hebrew Old Testament, which excess was in turn borrowed from the LXX. But this volume differs from the Apocrypha Proper at once in the way of excess and in the way of defect. 3 Maccabees has been added after 2 Maccabees, since it is contained in many MSS. of the LXX, and 4 Ezra has been transferred to Volume ii since it is essentially a Pseudepigraph. Volume ii contains all the remaining extant non-Canonical Jewish books written between 200 B.C. and A.D. 100 with possibly one or two exceptions. The greater part of these books have hitherto been accessible only in expensive editions such as Jubilees, i Enoch, Testaments of the XII Patriarchs, 2 Baruch, 4 Ezra, Psalms of Solomon, Pirke Aboth, the Story of Ahikar, &c. As regards the last two, it is not necessary to make any apology for their introduction into the present work, although they do not properly fall within the true limits above defined, but they were used, at all events partially, by Jewish readers within this period, nor can they be rightly designated Pseudepigraphs. The Fragments of a Zadokite Work arc of an historical character, and are valuable in throwing light on a lost chapter of Jewish religious history. They contain likewise apocalyptic material of an interesting nature. The General Editor, in conclusion, wishes to express his thanks to the Delegates of the Press for undertaking this work, and to the Officers of the Press, whose help and counsel were always ready to meet each difficulty as it arose. The Editor is also under deep obligations to the many scholars who, notwithstanding the pressure of other duties, have yet given themselves so unsparingly to the tasks they had undertaken, that in every instance most valuable service has been rendered to the student and the scholar, while in not a few instances their contributions form actual monographs within the limits assigned. His thanks are due to Messrs. A. and C. Black, the publishers of his editions of Jubilees, Martyrdom of Isaiah, Testament of the XII Patriarchs, Assumption of Moses, 2 Baruch, for permission to reprint the translation and make use of the introduction and notes contained in those editions. Finally, he would acknowledge his indebtedness to the Rev. A. LI. Davies, who has acted throughout as his secretary and also made the General Index. R. H. CHARLES. 24 BARDWELL ROAD, OXFORD. 1913., ' ' CONTENTS OF VOLUME I PAGES CONTRIBUTORS . ......... m v i THE APOCRYPHA OF THE OLD TESTAMENT GENERAL INTRODUCTION (Charles) ........ . vii ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA ........... x i HISTORICAL BOOKS I ESDRAS (Cook) .......". . 1-58 i MACCABEES (Oesterley) ......... . . 59-124 s MACCABEES (Moffatt) ......... . 135-154 3 MACCABEES (Emmet) ........ ... 155-173 QUASI-HISTORICAL BOOKS WRITTEN WITH A MORAL PURPOSE TOBIT (Simpson) ......... ... 174-241 JUDITH (Cowley) . . . . ....... . WISDOM LITERATURE SlRACH (Box and Oesterley) .......... 368-517 WISDOM OF SOLOMON (Holmes) ....... . 518-568 ADDITIONS TO AND COMPLETIONS OF THE CANONICAL BOOKS i BARUCH (Whitehouse) ......... . 569-595 EPISTLE OF JEREMY (Ball) ........ . 596-611 PRAYER OF MANASSES (Ryle) . ..... 612-634 ADDITIONS TO DANIEL- PRAYER OF AZARIAH AND SO^G OF THE THREE CHILDREN (Bennett) . 635-637 SUSANNA (Kay) ......... ... 638-651 BEL AND THE DRAGON (Witton Davies) ..... . 653-664 ADDITIONS TO ESTHER (Gregg) ......... . 665-684 CONTRIBUTORS TO VOLUME I BALL, C. J., MA, D.Litt., Queen's College, University Lecturer in Assyriology, Oxford : The Epistle of Jeremy. BENNETT, W. H., LittD., D.D., Professor of Old Testament Exegesis, Hackney College, London : The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Children. Box, G. H,, MA, formerly Scholar of St. John's College, Oxford ; Lecturer in Rabbinical Hebrew, King s College, London ; Rector of Sutton, Beds, : Sirach (along with Dr. Oesteiiey). COOK, S. A., MA, Ex-Fellow and Lecturer in the Comparative Study of Religions, and Lecturer in Hebrew and Aramaic, Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge : i Esdras. COWLEY, A. E,, MA, D.Litt., Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford: Judith. DAVIES, T, WITTON, BA, PhD., Professor of Semitic Languages, University College, Bangor: Bel and the Dragon. EMMET, CYRIL W., MA, formerly Scholar of Corpus Christi College, Oxford ; Rector of West Hendred : 3 Maccabees. GREGG, J. A, F., D.D., Archbishop King's Professor in Divinity, Trinity College, Dublin ; The Additions to Esther. HOLMES, SAMUEL, MA, Lecturer in Theology, Jesus College, Oxford: The Wisdom of Solomon. KAY, D. M., B.D., Professor of Oriental Languages, St. Andrews : Susanna. MOFFATT, JAMES, D.D., Yates Professor of New Testament Greek and Exegesis, Mansfield College, Oxford : 3 Maccabees. OESTEKLEY, W. 0. E., D.D. (Cambridge) : i Maccabees, Sirach (jointly with G, H, Box). RYLE, RIGHT REV, BISHOP HERBERT E., D.D., Dean of Westminster; formerly Hulsean Professor of Divinity, Cambridge, and Bishop of Exeter and Winchester : The Prayer of Manasses* SIMPSON, D. C,, MA, Lecturer in Theology and Hebrew, St. Edmund Hall, and Reader in Hebrew and Old Testament in Manchester College, Oxford : Tobit. WHITEHOUSE, 0. C., MA, D.D., Theological Tutor, Cheshunt College, Cambridge: i Baruch. VI INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME I 1 i. The origin of the term apocryphal. How the term c Apocryphal Books ' (diroKpycpa f3ip\La) arose has not yet been determined. It did not, as Zahn (Gesch. des Neutestamentlichen Kanons I. i. 123 sq.), Schurer, Porter, N. Schmidt, and others maintain, originate in the Late Hebrew phrase DWa Dnao, ' hidden books. 12 But Talmudic literature knows nothing of such a class. The Hebrew word ganaz (in) does not mean c to hide', but J to store away ' things in themselves precious. Indeed, so far is it from being a technical term in reference to non-Canonical writings, that it is most frequently used in reference to the Canonical Scriptures themselves. When writings were wholly without the pale of the Sacred books such as those of the heretics or Samaritans they were usually designated kisonim, i.e. ' outside" 1 (Sanh. x. i D'Oltfn d'HBD and D^nn nao). To this class the Apocrypha were never relegated, save Sirach, according to a statement found only in Sanh. x. i in the Palestinian Talmud, where it is stated that 4 whoso reads the outside books would have no part in the life to come '. But it is clear that there is some error either in the text or the interpretation ; for Sirach is very frequently cited by the Rabbis (see the Original Hebrew of a Portion of Eccksiasticus ^ Cowley and Neubauer, pp. xix-xxx), and two passages of it (Sir. vii. 10 in Erubin 65* and xiii. 16 in Baba Qama 9^ b ) are cited as belonging to the Hagiographa. The facts show that Sirach was read read at all events for private edification though not in the synagogues. 3. Extent of the Jewish apocryphal writings* We are not here of course concerned with all Jewish apocryphal writings, but with those which were written between 200 B.C. and A.D. 120. The most notable of these in the past centuries were those which we may define as the Apocrypha Proper, i.e. 1 Esdras Epistle of Jeremy 2 Esdras Additions to Daniel The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Children Tobit Susanna Judith Bel and the Dragon Additions to Esther Prayer of Manasses Wisdom of Solomon i Maccabees Ecclesiasticus or Sirach 2 Maccabees i Baruch If we compare the collection of the Sacred books as they are found in the Hebrew Old Testament, the LXX, and the Vulgate, we shall find that the Apocrypha Proper constitutes the excess of the Vulgate over the Hebrew Old Testament, and that this excess is borrowed from the LXX. But the official Vulgate (1592) does not include i and 2 Esdras (i.e. 4 Ezra in this edition) and the Prayer of Manasses among the Canonical Scriptures, but prints them as an appendix after the New Testament. The Roman Church excludes them from the Canon. J Only i Esdras is 1 This Introduction is not intended to be a General Introduction to the Apocrypha, but only to bring forward a few important points in connexion with the Apocrypha. 2 This error appears to have arisen from Aboth R. N., I. i, where it is said, ' Formerly because Proverbs, the Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes, contained only proverbs, and did not belong to the Hagiographa, they were stored away (DWJ) until the men of the Great Synagogue explained them/ Here many scholars have rendered the Hebrew word wrongly as * hidden '. . 3 The rest of the Apocrypha Proper was declared to be Canonical by the Council of Trent (1546), which pronounced an anathema on the man who did not accept libros ipsos integros cum omnibus suis partibus> prout in , Ecclesia Catholica legi consueverunt et in veteri wilgata Latina editione habentur^ pro sacris et canonicis. vii INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME I found In the LXX. That 3 Esdras (i.e. 4 Ezra) was not incorporated can only have been due to an accident. Further, it is to be observed that, whereas 3 and 4 Maccabees and Psalm 151 are found in most manuscripts of the LXX, they are absent from the Vulgate and the Apocrypha Proper. Thus the difference between the Protestant Canon and that of Rome repiesents the difference between the Canon of the Palestinian and the Alexandrian Jews. This difference is not due, as it was thought at one time, to the difference in the language of the originals a view which appears as early as the controversy of Africanus with Origen ; for, as we are now aware, the bulk of the Apocrypha was originally written in Hebrew. But besides the Apocrypha Proper there was a vast body of literature in circulation in Judaism to which is now generally attached the term e Pseudepigrapha ', i e. books written between 300 li.C. and A.D. 120 under the names of ancient worthies in Israel. Since these will be briefly dealt with in the Introduction to vol. ii we shall not discuss them here. To the Apocrypha Proper in this volume we have added 3 Maccabees a quasi-historical work which is found in very many manuscripts of the LXX. It might have been advisable to have included also Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarun^whldi was written originally in Hebrew and possibly soon after A.D. 70. But this work has not yet been critically edited. Of lost apocrypha we might mention the History of Johannes Hyrcaims^ mentioned in i Mace, xvi, 23, 34, Jaime s and Mambres (i.e. Jambres), Book of Joseph and Asenath. 3. Various meanings of the term e apocryphal". (i) In its earliest use this term (diroKpv(po$) was applied in a laudatory signification to writings which were withheld from public knowledge because they were vehicles of mysterious or esoteric wisdom which was too sacred or profound to be disclosed to any save the initiated. In this sense it is found in a magical book of Moses, which has been edited by Dieterich (Abraxas 169) and may be as old as the first century A.D. This book is entitled c A sacred secret Book of Moses ' (M cover (*)$ hpa pLpXos dirotcpv^os). But we have still earlier indications of the existence and nature of the Apocrypha in this sense. The Book of Daniel is represented as withheld from public knowledge until the time came for its publication : xii. 4, c But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words and seal the book, even unto the time of the end. 3 The writer of i Enoch speaks of his revelations as designed not for his own, i. %, cviii. i, but for the elect of later generations ; xciii. 10 And at its close shall be elected The elect righteous of the eternal plant of righteousness, To receive sevenfold instruction concerning all His creation. Similarly, the writer of the Assumption of Moses enjoins that his book is to be preserved for a later period, i. 16-17. That with large bodies of the Jews this esoteric literature was as highly or more highly treasured than the Canonical Scriptures is clear from the claims made by the Rabbis on behalf of their oral, which was originally in essence an esoteric, tradition, since it was not to be committed to writing. Though they insisted on the exclusive canonicity of the twenty-four books, they claimed to be the possessors of an oral tradition that not only overshadowed but frequently displaced the written Law. In 4 Ezra xiv. 44 sq. we have a categorical statement as to the superior worth of this esoteric literature : ' So in forty days were written ninety-four books. And it came to pass when the forty days were fulfilled, that the Most High spake unto me saying: The twenty-four books 1 that thou hast written publish, that the worthy and the unworthy may read (them) : But the seventy last thou shalt keep to deliver to the wise among thy people. 1 , Th ? t ?[ en J y " fourbooks are > of course > the Old Testament : the seventy are the apocryphal, but especially the viii INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME I For in them is the spring of understanding, The fountain of wisdom, And the stream of knowledge. 3 In a like laudatory sense Gregory of Nyssa reckons the New Testament Apocalypse as tv d7roKpv(f>oi$ (Oratio in mam ordinationem^ III. 549 : Ed. Migne). (2) But the word was applied to writings that were withheld from public circulation, not on the ground of their transcendent worth, but because their value was confessedly secondary or question- able. Thus Origen differentiates writings that were read in public worship from apocryphal works (Comm. in Matt, x, 18, xiii. 57). This use became current, and prepared the way for the third and unfavourable sense of the word. (3) The word came to be applied to what was false, spurious, or heretical. This meaning appears also in Origen, Prolog, in Cant. Cantic. : Lommatzsch, xiv. 325). 4. The attitude of the Christian Church to the Apocrypha. The degree of estimation in which the apocryphal books have been held in the Chinch has varied with age and place. (1) The Greek Fathers such as Origen and Clement, who used the Greek Bible, which included these books, frequently cite them as * scripture 3 , c Divine scripture J , 6 Inspired J 5 or the like. Later Greek Fatheis 1 rejected in various ways this conception of the Canon, but it was accepted and maintained in the West by St. Augustine. Where the Greek differed from the Hebrew Augustine held that the difference was due to Divine inspiration, and that this difference was to be regarded as a sign that in the passage in question an allegorical not a literal interpretation was to be looked for. Since he habitually used a Latin Bible, which embraced the Apocrypha, he appealed to the authority of these books as of the rest of the Scriptures. The Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) 2 and that of Carthage (A.D. 397), at both of which Augustine was present respectively as a presbyter and a bishop, drew up a list of Canonical wiitings, which, though formed by Latin-speaking bishops, was the chief authority on which the Council of Trent based its own decision. In fact the list authori- tatively issued by the Council of Hippo and that of Trent agree in nearly every respect, save that the Tridentinc divines appear to have misunderstood the meaning of I and a Esdras in the list of the African Council. That in this list i Esdras meant the apocryphal book which Augustine acknowledged as Scripture (Dc Civ. Dei> xviii. 36) and 2, Esdras meant the Canonical Ezra and Nehemiah there is no reason for doubt ; but the Tridentine divines, taking i Esdras as = the Canonical Ezra and a Esdras as = the Canonical Nehemiah, 3 through a misunderstanding declared i Esdras (i.e. the apocryphal Esdras) apocryphal. (2) On the other hand, teachers connected with Palestine and familiar with the Hebrew Canon, like Africanus and Jerome, declared all books outside the Hebrew Canon as apocryphal. (3) Alongside these two opposing views arose a third which held that, though these books were not to be put in the same rank as those in the Hebrew collection, they nevertheless had their value for moral uses, and should be read in the Church services. Hence they were called c ecclesiastical ' a designation that is found first in Rufinus (ob. A.D. 410). Notwithstanding many variations in the attitude of different authorities and councils these three opinions maintained their ground down to the Reformation. At the Reformation the above ecclesiastical usages were transformed into articles of belief, which may be regarded as characteristic of the Churches by which they were adopted. As we have already remarked, the Council of Trent adopted the Canon of the Council of Hippo and of Augustine, declaring : ' If any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with 1 In the next century Athanasius, in an Easter letter (A. D. 365), states that the books of the Old Testament were twenty-two in number according to the letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Other books not included in the Canon, such as Wisdom, Sirach, Esther, Tobit, Judith, might be used for the instruction of catechumens. It is noteworthy here that the Maccabees are omitted, and Esther is treated as an apocryph. 2 Zahn, Gesch. des N. T. lichen Kanons, II. i. 246-253. , 3 Council of Trent, April 8, 1546. ' Testament! veteris . . . Esdrae primus et secundus, qui dicitur Nehemias.' IX INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME I all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate ... let him be anathema.' l All the Apocrypha except i Esdras, 4 Ezra, and the Prayer of Manasses belonging to the Apocrypha Proper were declared Canonical. On the other hand, the Protestant Churches have universally declared their adhesion to the Hebrew Canon of the Old Testament. Yet amongst these a milder and a severer view prevailed. While in some Confessions, i. e. the Westminster, it is decreed that they are not ' to be any other- wise approved or made use of than other human writings ', a more favourable view is expressed regarding them in many other quarters ; e.g. in the preface prefixed to them in the Genevan Bible : As books proceeding from godly men (they) were received to be read for the advancement and furtherance of the knowledge of history and for the instruction of godly manners : which books declare that at all times God had an especial care of His Church, and left them not utterly destitute of teachers and means to confirm them in the hope of the promised Messiah ' ; and in the Sixth Article of the Church of England: 'the other books the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners/ In addition to the spiritual and moral service rendered by these books, the modern student recognizes that without them it is absolutely impossible to explain the course of religious develop- ment between 200 B. C. and A.D. ico. In this respect the Apocrypha is to be regarded as embracing the Pseudepigrapha as well. If the Canonical and Apocryphal Books are compared in reference to the question of inspiration, no unbiased scholar could have any hesitation in declaring that the inspiration of such a book as Wisdom or the Testaments of the XII Patriarchs is incomparably higher than that of Esther. $ 5. Editions partial or complete of the Apocrypha* Fritzsche und Grimm, Kurzgef. exeget* Handbuch zu den Apokryphen des A. T., 1851-60. Fritzsche, Lief. 1, 3 Ezra, Zusalze zu Esther und Daniel, Gebet Manasses, Baruth, Brief Jer.; II. Tobit und Judith; V. Sirach. Grimm, Lief. Ill, i Makk.; IV. 2-4 MakL ; VI. Wisdom. E. C. Bissell, The Apocrypha of the Old Testament, with historical Introductions and Notes Critical and Explanatory, New York, 1880. This work contains the Apocrypha Proper (though 2 Esdras (i. e. 4 Ezia) is added in an Appendix); also 3 Mace, and a summary of 4 Mace. In a second Appendix a short account is given of some of the Pseudepigrapha. Wace, Apocrypha (in the 'Speaker's Commentary'), 2 vols., London, 1888. This edition is furnished with a good introduction by Salmon. The various books are edited by different English scholars, 0. Zockler, Die Apokr. des A. 7. nebst einem Anhang uber die Pseudepigraphmliteratur, 1891, Ball, The Ecclesiastical or Deutero- Canonical Books of the Old Testament, commonly called the Apocrypha (1892), Kautzsch, Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alien Testaments, 2 vols., Tubingen, 1900. This is the best work that has hitherto appeared on this literature as a whole. But many parts of it are already antiquated. 6. General literature dealing directly or indirectly with the period of this literature? Weber, System der allsynagogalen palastinischen Theologie (1880). The last edition of this work was published under the title Lehre des Talmuds, 1897. Bacher, Die Aggada der Tannaiten^ 2 vols. } 1884-90. Stade, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. ii, Das Ende des jiidischen Staatswesens (by 0. Holtzmann). 1888, Drammond, Philo Judaeus, 2 vols., 1888. Bois, Essaimr les origines de la philosophie judeo- Alexandrine, 1890. Toy, Judaism and Christianity r , 1890. l P is ecr ee of the Council of Trent was ratified by fifty-three prelates, 'among whom (Westcott, Bible in the Church, 257) there was not one German, not one scholar distinguished by historical learning, not one who was fitted by special study for the examination of a subject in which the truth could only be determined by the voice of antiqu y ' This list includes only a few of the works interesting to the student of this literature. 4 Y " INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME I Smith, G. A., Historical Geography of the Holy Land, 1894, 1901 7 . Mahaffy, The Empire of the Ptolemies, 1895. Bertholet, Die Stellung der Israeli ten und der Juden zu den Fre?nden, 1896. Schechter, Studies in Judaism, 1896. Cheyne, Jewish Religious Life after the Exile, 1898. Streane, The Age of the Maccabees, 1898. Kent, A History of the Jewish People, Part III, 1899. Wellhausen, Israelitische undjudische Geschichte*, 1901. Schiirer, Geschichte des jildischen Volkes*> 1898-1901. Sevan, The House of Seleucus^ 2 vols., 1902. ^QlZiJudische Eschatologie von Daniel bis Aqiba, 1903. Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentluhen Zeitalter, 1903, 19061 Baldensperger, Die Messianisch-Apokalyptische Hoffmmgen des Judenthums, 1903. Porter, The Messages of the Apocalyptical Writer \y, 1905. Friedlander, Die religidsen Bewegungen inner halb des Judenthums im Zeitalter Jesu^ 1905. Maiti, Geschichte der israelitischen Religion* , 1907. See Sections V and VL Oesterley and Box, The Religion and Worship of the Synagogue, 1907. Kent, The Sermons -, Epistles, and Apocalypses of Israel's Prophets from the Beginning of the Assyrian Period to the End of the Mac cab ean Struggle, 1910. H, Pentin, International Journal of Apocrypha. ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA TO VOLUME I P. 60 (i Mace.), 1. 28 from bottom, delete comma after 'although' P. 99, 1. 29 from bottom, read e v. 25' for 'v. 25 ' P. 1 1 8, 1. 20 from bottom, read 'Sion 7 _/0r 'Zion' P. 123, 1. 3 from top, read 2 Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament Kit. Kittel L.A.E. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East L.d.T, Weber, Die Lehren des Tal- muds L, & S. Liddell and Scott LXX. Septuagmt Version Lact. Lactantuis Lib. V.T. Libri Veteris Testamenti Luc. Lucian Lucr. Lucretius MS. Manuscript MT. Massoretic Text i Mace. &c. Fust, &c., Book of Maccabees Macrob. Macrobius Mart. Is. Martyrdom of Isaiah Mass. Massoretic Megill. Megilla Menach. Menachoth (Talmud) Mg. Margin Midr. Midrash N.H.W. Nmhebraisches Worterbuch N.T. New Testament O.T. Old Testament Onk. Onkelos, Targum of Onom. Sacn Onomasticon Saw uni Or. Sibyll. Sibylline Oracles Orph. Frag. Orphic Fragment P.E.F. Palestine Exploration Fund P.P. Petne Papyri P.R. Eliezer Pirke Rabbi Eliezer P.R.E. Real-Encydopadie fur pro- test. Theologie und Kirche P,S,B. A. Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology Pesikt. Pesikta Ps. Clem. Recog. = Pseudo - Clementine Recognitions Ps. Jon. Targum Pseudo- Jonathan Ps. of Sol. Psalrns of Solomon R. Rabbi R E. Real-Encyklopadie R.EJ. JKwue des tude$ juwes Rel. des Jud. Religion des Judenthums Sam. Samaritan Sam. Chron. Samaritan Chronology Sanh. Sanhedrin Schiirer,E.T. Schiire/s History of the Jew- ish People > English Trans- Sept. Septuagint [lation Shabb. Shabbath xii Sir. Snach Slav. Bar, See vol. n. 131 Slav. Vit. Slavonic Vita Adae et Evac See Books of Adam and Soph. Sophoclesj [Eve Stob. Slobaeus Symm. Symmachus Syncell. Syncellusj Syr. Syriac Syi H. Hexaplanc Synac Syr.W. Synac Veision in Walton's Polyglot Sok. Sokolov's Text of 2 Enoch T.A. &c. See under * Testaments ' in list of symbols prefixed to Index. T b Babylonian Talmud Targ. Jer. Jerusalem Targum Taig Jon. Taigum Pseudo- Jonathan Th. Gram. Thackeray, Grammar of Old Testament Greek Theod. Theodotion Theoph. Theophihs Tebt. P. Tebtuneh Papyrus Tert. Tertuliian Test. Testament Test. Sim. See vol. n. 153 Test. XII Pair. = Testaments of the Twcl vc Patriarchs Tisch. Tischendoif Tob. Tobit V.L. or VeULat. = Vcrsio VetusLatina, Old Latin Version Vit. Ad. Vita Adae Vulg. Vulgate W P. Walton's Polyglot Wellh. Wellhausen Wisd. Book of Wisdom Z.A.T. W. Zdtschriftfurdie A. T. Wis* scnsihaft Z.D.M.G. Zeittohrift der Dcutschcn Morgenlandischen Gesell-* schaft Z.N.T.W. Zeitschrift fur die N. T. Wissensthaft Z.W.T. or Z.f.W.T. = ' Zeitschrift fin wiss. Th&ologic \_ ] indicate an intrusion into the original text t t indicate that the word or passage so enclosed is cor- rupt ( ) or italics indicate that the word or words so enclosed or printed are supplied for the sake of clearness. 4- indicates that the authority or authorities quoted insert the word or words follow- ing this mark. > indicates that the authority or authorities quoted omit the word or words follow- ing this mark. { } indicate a restoration in the text. Thick type indicates an emendation in the text. I ESDRAS INTRODUCTION j. PRELIMINARY ACCOUNT OF THE BOOK. THE first book of the Apocrypha stands in a class by itself in that it is, with the exception of one portion, a somewhat free Greek version of the biblical history from Josiah's Passover (2 Chron. xxxv.) to the Reading of the Law by Ezra (Neh. viii.). It differs, however, in several important particulars both from the corresponding canonical passages and from the more literal Greek trans- lation of them (also preserved in the Septuagint), and an adequate treatment of its text and contents belongs properly to the commentaries and handbooks on Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah. Con- sequently, in order to keep the Introduction and Notes within limits, it has seemed desirable to print the Revised Version of the ' apocryphal ' and e canonical ' passages side by side, and to restrict all remarks to those points which appeared to be essential for the study of the relation between the texts and their significance for the period \vhich they cover. Further reference to the commentaries and other works dealing with the period in question is therefore recommended. The contents of i Esdras comprise : E i. 1 = 2 Chron. xxxv. i-xxxvi. 21. Josiah's passover and death ; the last kings of Judah to the fall of Jerusalem, 586 B.C. ii. 1-15. = E i. The decree of Cyrus permitting the rebuilding of the Temple and the return of Sheshbazzar with the temple-vessels and a band of exiles, 538-537. ii. 16-30. = E iv. 7-34. The Samaritan opposition to the rebuilding in the reign of Artaxerxes, 465-425. iii. i-v. 6. wanting in E. The successful oration of Zerubbabel, one of the bodyguard of Darius, in the second year of his reign (D, I, Hystaspes, 521-486), and the king's decree permitting a return of exiles to rebuild the city and Temple ; brief statement of the journey, v. 7-73. = E ii. i iv. 5, 24 (v. 6 is wanting). List of Zerubbabel's band, the rebuilding of the Temple hindered by the Samaritans from the time of Cyrus to the second year of Darius (520). vi.-vii. = E v.-vi. The successful rebuilding of the Temple through the intervention of Darius in 520, and its completion in 516. viii. i-ix. 36 = E vii.-x. The decree of Artaxerxes in his seventh year (458), the return of Ezra and a body of exiles, the separation of the people from the foreign wives, ix. 37-55 = N vii. 7^-viii. 13 a. The reading of the law by Ezra, placed in N /. c. after the return of Nehemiah in the king's twentieth year (444). The outstanding features are : (1) The presence of the Artaxerxes record before the reign of Darius, whether after the return of Sheshbazzar (E ii. 16-30) or after the commencement of the rebuilding by Zerubbabel (E iv. 7-24), both of which are placed in the time of Cyrus. (2) The inclusion of E iii. i-v. 6, the story famous for the Praise of Truth and the well-known dictum ' magna est veritas et praevalet ', and the decree of Darius (which excludes any prior return). (3) The confusion caused by the presence of this section (E iii. i-v. 6) in the history of the exiles who returned in the time of Cyrus (E ii. 1-15 = E i) and at once commenced the work of rebuilding (E v. 7-73 = E ii.-iv.). (4) The omission in E of N L-vii. 72, with the result that the continuation of the story of Ezra (N viii.) is placed in immediate connexion with E vii.-x., whereas the canonical books leave a gap of twelve years between E vii.-x. and N i. seqq. (5) Numerous readings in E of greater or less value, which are often important for the textual criticism of the MT, and sometimes affect the literary and historical problems of the sources. E ceases abruptly ; cf. the close of 2 Chron., * and let him go up ' ( =E i. 3), also Mark xvi. 8. The R.V. rendering of ix. 55 implies that this is intentional (so Ewald, Bissell, Lupton, Bayer, and others). Hence it is often supposed that E is a self-contained work, written and compiled for some 1 For the abbreviations E> E, N, &c, see below, p. 19 seq. 1105 I B I ESDRAS specific purpose, e.g. to influence Gentiles in favour of the Jews, or (Lupton) to prepare the way for the building of the temple of Onias at Alexandria, or simply, perhaps, to bring together narratives relating to the Temple ; cf. the conclusion of JLfi ' explicit Esdrae liber primus de templi restitutione '. But the feature may also be explained on the view that the book, which begins somewhat abruptly, is merely a fragment of a larger work (Michaelis, Eichhorn, Trendelenburg, Rodiger, Treuenfels, Howorth, Torrey, and others). This raises several interesting questions ; in particular, ix. 38-55 belong in N viii. to the concluding chapters of Ezra's history, and it is very noteworthy that Josephus finishes his account of Ezra before his introduction of Nehemiah what was the original sequel of E ? Moreover, not only was E used by this orthodox Jewish historian, the book was important enough to find a place in the Greek Bible, it was known to early Christian writers, and is referred to in terms which indicate that its canonicity and value were not doubtful (see 2). Now, the criticism of the O.T. has advanced sufficiently to prove that the biblical records E-N bristle with the most intricate and serious difficulties, the extent of which is manifest in the widely- differing conclusions that prevail. As can be seen from other sources (see 4, iv. c), the history of the Persian period is plunged in obscurity, upon which some light has only recently been shed by contemporary records (Babylonian inscriptions, Jewish-Aramaic papyri from Upper Egypt). It can no longer be assumed that the MT necessarily represents a more trustworthy record of the age, and that E is necessarily arbitrary and methodless. Both share fundamental imperfections. J, therefore, in any case deserves impartial consideration, and its problems involve those of E-N. These problems, owing to the absence of decisive and independent evidence, can be handled only provisionally ; but enough is clear to permit the conclusion that E represents a text in some respects older than the present MT, to which, however, some attempt seems to have been made to conform it (cf. Ewald, 138 n. 6 ; Howorth, PSBA, xxiii. 306 seq.). From a comparison of both with Jos. and other sources (notably Daniel) it would further appear that E represents one of the efforts to give an account of a period, the true course of which was confused and forgotten, if not intentionally obscured ; different attempts were made to remove difficulties and inconsistencies, and the desire to give greater prominence to the priestly Ezra than to the secular governor Neherniah is probably responsible for the arrangement of the extant texts. E-N and E (with Jos.) exhibit diverging views of the history. But J5, even in its present incomplete form, overlaps with Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah, and since it provides a distinctly para- phrastic and free rendering of the MT, it seems probable that when it was superseded by the more literal Greek translation of Theodotion (cf. the two Greek texts of Daniel) this confused and self- contradictory book (or fragment) was preserved mainly on account of the excellent story of Zerub- babel (cf. Howorth, PSBA, xxiv. 167). To the Jews, both Zerubbabel and Nehemiah pale before the growing majesty of Ezra ; to the early Christians, the Praise of Truth was a familiar passage, and Augustine (de Civ. Dei^ xviii. 36) saw in it a prophecy of Christ. 1 Dating, apparently, about the first century B.C., E's view of history was familiar to Josephus and his readers, to the Hellenist Jews, and to the Christians. The form in E-N, with the omission of the story of Zerubbabel (and the chronological confusions which attend it), represents that of the Rabbinical schools, and subse- quently (through Jerome) of the Christian Church. Through these vicissitudes E fell into unmerited neglect, and by this omission (apparently intentional) there was removed a story which could not fail to interest the Christians for it is surely significant that although the two genealogies of Jesus are hopelessly inconsistent, the two lines of ancestry of ' David's greater Son ' converge in the person of Zerubbabel. a. TITLE AND STANDING. The book is known as (i) Esdras A or i Esdras, so (0 BA , %, >> and English Bibles since the Geneva, edition of 1560 (where the name f Ezra ' is reserved for the canonical book) ; or (a) as Esdras B or a Esdras, so (B L (where i Es. = Ezra and Nehemiah) ; or (3) as of E-N presents features characteristic of Theodotion's translation (viz. transliteration of gentilics, and of difficult or uncertain words) and parallel to his translation of Daniel. The d5 of -*, on the other hand, as Gwynn also noticed, finds parallels in the ' Septuagint 3 text of Daniel, especially the first six chapters. Moreover, the go) of E claims to be made from the Septuagint, and it is very probable that E took the place of the (0 of E-N in Origen's Hexapla. Volz, however, has properly drawn attention to the varying quality of the different sections of E^ a feature which ! excludes the supposition that the Greek version can have been produced atts einem Guss '. In general, all the evidence tends to show that E held a more authoritative position than has been usually conceded to it (in consequence of Jerome), but that its unevenness as a translation and the complexity of its contents make its true origin and structure a more intricate problem. 3 3. TEXT VERSIONS, DATE, ETC. (a) Character of Translation. E, on account of its peculiar relationship to the O.T., cannot be studied textually apart from the versions based directly upon the MT (see more fully, Torrey <5a-i 14). While the d5 of E-N is un- Greek, literal and mechanical, E is the very reverse of servile, and its language both elegant and idiomatic. Th& vocabulary is extensive, containing several words that occur nowhere else in ' Septuagint' Greek, or only in other books of the Apocrypha, notably z Mace, (see Moulton's li$t,ZATW, xix. 232 seqq.). Semitic idioms are usually happily replaced by natural Grecisms. There is often a free treatment of the article, pronouns, and conjunctions ; hypotaxis for the parataxis of MT ; active verbs for passive. Condensation, paraphrase, and re-arrangement are frequent, and the translator has generally made the best of the original text, gliding over or concealing the difficulties. Sometimes he has misunderstood the original; but the rendering is carefully worded and thus presents an apparently plausible result (see e.g. i. 10-12, 38, 51). He 1 e. g. Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius ; see Pohlmann, 263 seqq., and the tables in Andre*, 22 seqq. 2 Augustine, also, in a list of canonical books (de doctr. Christ, li, 8) enumerates two books of Ezra of which our I Esd. was certainly one ' (Volz). See, on the other hand, Bayer, 4. 3 See Howorth, PSBA, xxiii. 156 seqq., xxiv. 164 seqq., xxix. 31 seqq., xxxiii. 26 seqq.; Torrey, ib. xxv. 139 seqq., and his Ezra Studies, Chap. I; J. Gwynn, Diet. Christ* Biog, 9 '-Theodotion ', and Extracts from the Syro-Hex. Version of the LXX (London, 1909), xx. seqq. 3 B 2 I ESDRAS manifests his intelligence when the skilful paronomasia &v(riv KOL &fa is the Syro-Hexapla of Paul of Telia, printed in Walton's Polyglot and by Lagarde (Lib. Vet. Test. Apocr. Syr., 1861). It is explicitly said to be from the Septuagint, and the same is stated at the head of a collection of excerpts in the old Syriac Catena, British Museum, Add. 12168 (see on ix. 55). The variants of the latter and its selections from N are printed by Torrey, 5 seqq., and these selections, with a retransla- tion into Greek, collation, and complete introductory discussion by Gwynn (see p. 3 n. 3). 5 has many points of contact with (0 L , especially in i. 1-9, but on the whole a relationship with d5 B is more distinct The ETHIOPIC translation (ed. Dillmann, Vet. Test. Aeth., Vol. V) represents the text of aiv7jTaL crot (ii. 21, not in E) the phrase kav ^au^rat in Aristeas and frequently in Egyptian papyri. In so far as these data point to Egypt one may recall the interest in history-writing among the Hellenists Demetrios, Eupolemos, Artapanos, Alexander Polyhistor and others. (f) English versions. It may be added that the old Geneva Bible, according to Lupton (6), is 'in some respects closer to the Greek than that of 1611 '. Various improvements to the A.V. are suggested by Ball in the Variorum Apocrypha, and even the R.V. is not such an advance as might have been anticipated. Note, for example, the archaic ' Artaxerxes his letters ' (ii. 30), cousin ' (iii. 7), c Jewry ' (v. 7), and the gliding over of the obscurities of an imperfect d5 in viii. 8, and especially in the concluding words, ix. 55. 4. PROBLEMS OF LITERARY AND HISTORICAL CRITICISM. I. The Period. The problems of E and its relation to E-N involve that more complete and continuous series Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah which is united by sequence of contents and the recurrence throughout of similar features of language, interest, standpoint, and compilation. The * chronicler's history ' x of the post-exilic period deals with the fall of Jerusalem (586 B.C.), the return from exile under Zerubbabel and Jeshua, the reorganization of the Jewish people, the restoration of the Temple and 1 By * chronicler ' is meant the hand which, by writing, compiling, or revising, brought the three consecutive books into practically their present form. Owing to the complexity of the compilation the term may not be an adequate one, but there seems no reason to doubt that there has been a single editorial process at some stage in the literary growth (the objections of Jam pel, i. 108, 112, 115 seqq., and Davies, 1 6 are unnecessary). In any case, historical criticism cannot start from the untrustworthiness of Chronicles, and minimize the extent of the ' chronicler ' in E-N (Davies, 16 seq.), or exaggerate it (Torrey, 145 se qq., on the E-story), or assume that all other records are necessarily relatively superior (so apparently Meyer, Enist/hung)* See below, pp. 17-19. 5 I ESDRAS the furtherance of religious conditions, the separation from the Samaritans and other non-Israelite neighbours, and the inauguration of a church under the Mosaic Law. It is the period during which a considerable portion of the O.T., after passing through the hands of Judaean writers and^editors, was reaching its present form, and the sole consecutive canonical source for this period, the chronicler's work, cannot be dated before the Greek age (333 B. c). This source ignores all events between 586 and the decree of Cyrus, and omits other details which also refer to the period (see e.g. 2- Kings xxv. 22-30, Jer. xl.-xliv., Hi. 28-34, Daniel, Esther). This feature, like the failure to record the history of (north) Israel after the fall of Samaria, cannot be wholly unintentional. Interest is concentrated upon exiles and reformers from Babylon, and upon their labours in rebuilding the Temple and in purifying religious and social conditions in the face of opposition within and without. A new and reformed Jewish community with its new Temple is linked historically with the old Judah of the Monarchy and the Temple of Solomon. The climax is reached partly in the great Covenant inaugurated by Ezra (N x.). after the Introduction of the Law (444 B. c.), and partly in the Samaritan schism initiated by Nehemiah (N xiii.). But such are the gaps and the one-sided standpoints that the records cannot be said to give us objective history. We have, rather, specific representations of certain events of vast importance for post-exilic Judaism, and, just as the account of the settlement of the old Israelite tribes in the land of their ancestors is found to contain con- flicting traditions and the gravest difficulties, so also here, the compilation as a whole is dominated by certain larger views which tend to obscure the contradictions and intricacies that arise in any critical study of the data. In both cases the method of criticism is similar, and unfortunately the evidence is frequently insufficient for any confident recovery of the actual events during that period which is of such profound importance for the study of the O.T, 1 II. The Age of Cyrus and Darius. (a) Paucity of trustworthy evidence. It is evident that the fall of Jerusalem could not have had the catastrophic effects that the traditional view assumes. We cannot picture Judah between 586 and 537 as half-empty. 2 Neither the number of deported Judaeans nor that of those who returned points to any depopulation, and even the events under Gedaliah's governorship and the account of the flight of the survivors into Egypt indicate that the disasters ending in 586, when taken by themselves, had no ruinous consequences for the land. Subsequent history is ignored in Chron., but it is known that Jehoiachin in later years received some favour, and that Tyre had once more a king. The thread is resumed in E i.-vi. (E ii.-vii.), in the reigns of Cyrus and Darius, but the narratives contain serious difficulties and conflicting representations ( 6, a) which are increased by the independent prophecies of Haggai and Zech. i.-viii. (see on E ii. i seqq.). Not until we reach the time of Artaxerxes are the sources more extensive, and the light they throw upon preceding years renders the value of E i.-vi. extremely doubtful. That is to say, between 586 and 458 (E*s return), or rather 444 (N's first visit to Jerusalem), there is a lengthy period of the greatest signifi- cance for the internal history leading up to Judaism and Samaritanism, and the only continuous source is both scanty and untrustworthy (see Marq,, 67, Torrey, 156, and, partly, Meyer, 74). (3) The evidence of the prophets. The prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah, dated in the second year of Darius, 520, mention neither any previous important return nor any earlier attempt to rebuild the Temple. Zerubbabel now resumes dynastic history (Hag. ii. 23, contrast Jehoiachin, Jer. xxii. 24), and the high-priest Jeshua (grandson of Seraiah, 2 Kings xxv. 18-21), whose return in Dan. ix. 24-26 dates an epoch, is now officially installed. Yahweh had been angry seventy years (Zech. i. 12, cf. Jer. xxix. 10 seq., Dan. ix. 2) ; but is aroused and returns to Jerusalem (i. 16, ii. 10-13 ; contrast his departure in Ezek. x. 18 seq., xi. 23). He is jealous for Zion and full of wrath against her enemies ; they shall be punished and his people shall enjoy increased happiness (i. 15, ii. 9). City and temple shall be rebuilt and the land re-inhabited (i. 16 seq,, ii. 4, cf. vii, 7). The dispersed shall be rescued and again dwell in Jerusalem. The community in Babylon is bidden to escape to Zion (ii. 7, cf. Jer. Ii. 45). Babylon is threatened (vi. 1-8), and a passage which suggests that small bands of exiles might occasionally return heralds the forthcoming building of the temple (vi. 9-15). Haggai declares that the Temple is waste (i. 4, 9, h&reb, cf. the term in N ii. 3, 17) and he stirs the people to the work of rebuilding. The appeal is to the < remnant 7 (i. 12, 14, ii. 2, cf. Zech. viii. 6), that is, not the 1 Modern criticism is influenced by the radical conclusions of W. H. Kosters and the forcible defence by E. Meyer (kntstehung) whose own position, however, is in many respects opposed to the purely traditional ; see S, R. Driver Lit. SS^ (and on the introductory literary questions, ib. 544 seqq.). A striking advance has recently been made bv Torrey (Ezra Studies), to whose work the present writer gratefully records his indebtedness, and since reasons are given in these pages for adopting certain radical conclusions of Kosters, Torrey, and others, it may be well to refer readers to the writings (see 8) of Davies, Driver, Holzhey, Jampel, Nikel, Ryle, and G. A. Smith, for the arguments adduced in support of a generally consistent traditional position. ^ See Wellhausen, GGN, 1895, p 185 seq. ; Kosters, Th. T. xxix. 560; G. A. Smith,/w*te, ii. 268 : Torrey, 290 seq., 297 seqq.; Kennett, /0*. Tkeol Stud., 1905, pp. 172 seqq. X? 6 INTRODUCTION 40,000 of E ii., but those who had escaped deportation (cf. Zeph. ii. 7, 9, Jer. xlii. 2, 15, &c., see Jahn, p. xxxviii.). Zerubbabel is the one to rebuild and complete the undertaking (Zech. iv. 8-10, vi. 12 seqq.). The people fetch wood and the work is begun on the twenty-fourth of the sixth month (Hag. i. 14 seq.) ; as yet one stone had not been set upon another (ii. 15). The foundations are laid on the twenty-fourth of the ninth month (ii, 10-19), an< 3 two years later, in 518, Zech. viii. 9 seqq. look back upon the happier period which had thus been inaugurated. But the exilic fasts were still being celebrated (vii. 3-5), the return of the dispersed was still an event to be anticipated. From these data it is reasonable to infer with an influential number of scholars that * no considerable band of exiles can have returned none that was able materially to influence the Jewish community 7 (Cheyne, Ency. Bib., 1481 n. 4). (c) Objections, Various counter-arguments, influenced by the chronicler's history in E-N, have been brought forward (see p. 6 n. i). Those based upon a representation of events which has perplexed a generation of scholars naturally tend to beg the question. For example, it is urged that the prophets address returned exiles and it was unnecessary to describe the people as such; that they do not say that the builders were not returned exiles; that only E L-iii. explain the events of 520-516 and subsequent history; that the Temple could not have been built by the native c heathen ' Judaeans ; that the main stream of Jewish life had been diverted to Babylon and only the presence of a Babylonian c leaven 7 explains the prophecies of Hag. and Zech. While some scholars recognize and seek to explain the silence of the prophets touching a return and rebuilding before 520, others contend that there are indeed references to these events. Some, observing the profound difference between the promises of the ' Deutero-I&aiah ' (xl.-lv.) and the history in E iii. seq., are of opinion that, since c the reality was a bitter disenchantment/ the disillusionment so great, the prophets naturally do not refer to the events. But others argue that unless these promises had been essentially fulfilled there would have been so fatal a falsification of popular expectation that the oracles of Is. xl. seqq. would scarcely have survived. It is obvious that the preservation of prophecies is hardly conditioned by their fulfilment, however partial, and the difference between the anticipations and the reality was surely sufficient, on the most conservative view, to throw Is. xl. seqq. into oblivion. Haggai, it is objected, ignores a future return and may well have ignored previous events but his contemporary Zech, excludes a previous return, testifies to the continuation of the exile, and looks forward to a return. The argumentum e silentio is undoubtedly valid. Zech. (i. 2-6), in appealing to the people to repent, alludes to past experience, but does not refer to the return which would have been the most immediate proof of the might of Yahweh. Was there a wish to put courage into the poor hearts of the returned exiles ? There was one practical illustration of divine grace, but there is no allusion to it. In fact, the urgent supplication to Yahweh (i. 12) is unintelligible had a new era dawned as in E i.-iii. ; one may note Daniel's prayer for divine intervention (Dan. ix., cf. also N i.) and the prayers of E after his return (E ix. 8, N ix. 30 seq.). In point of fact, Zech, sees the punishment and misery of the past (vii.), and the ' decalogue of promises ; belong to the future (viii.). Did the prophets intentionally refrain from mentioning the material help the exiles had received in the time of Cyrus, in order to emphasize the necessity of relying upon spiritual help ? The very passage which has been quoted in support of this view refers to the small beginnings recently inaugurated by Zerubbabel (iv. 6, 9 seq.), and ignores E i.-iv. There is no explanation of the gap between 537 and 520 ; there is no hint of any hindrance, cessation, or of any more or less continuous rebuilding (see 6 a) : the people are negligent and remiss, and according to Haggai the distress caused by the failure of the rains was a punishment for not rebuilding the Temple (i., cf. 2 Sarn. xxi. i-io, Zech. xiv. 17). It hardly required a Babylonian exile to teach this. Haggai certainly refers to an altar (ii. 14, * there '), but this does not prove the accuracy of E iii. 3 or its context. A holy place is not necessarily deserted when the sanctuary is ruined, and Jer. xli. 5 already presupposes an altar ; to contend that the existence of this altar throughout the exile ought to have been mentioned m the O.T. is unreasonable. Indeed, the references to priests and sacrifices (Hag. ii. 10-14, cf. Zech. vii. 3 seqq.) go further and suggest that the cult of Yahweh was independent even of the existence of a Temple (cf. Sellin, Stud. 53 seq. ; Torrey, 305). There is, moreover, no good reason for believing that native Judaeans would be e heathenish ; , and that if tjiey had rebuilt the Temple they would have been treated otherwise by the reformers E and N. If Jer. and Ezek. bear witness to low religious conditions, Hag., Mai, and Is. Ivi.-lxvi indicate no great improvement after the return ; and the degenerate community which all scholars recognize in the latter sources and which needed the reforms of E and N include on the traditional view the Babylonian * leaven.' Yet the Judaeans and Samaritans felt themselves to be heirs of Israel and the latter could claim to worship Yahweh (2 Kings xvii. 32 seq., 41, Jer. xli. 5, Ezek. xxxiii. 24, E iv. 2). The fall of Jerusalem and the Exile do not exclude the presence even among ( the poorest of the land 7 of men who might follow in the footsteps of the Rechabites (Jer. xxxv.), or of such seers as Amos, Hosea, Micah or Jeremiah ; and considering the piety of the Jews in distant Elephantine (Sachau-papyn), there is clearly no necessity to deny the possibility of the continuous worship of Yahweh during the exile, or to demand after 538 the presence of a * leaven ' which nevertheless did not preclude the abuses confronting E, N, Mai., and the writers in Is. Ivi, seqq. It is obviously impossible to start with presuppositions of what was orthodox Yahwism and what was heathenism whether in Elephantine or in Palestine (before or after 536). If, too, Meyer's argument (177) is valid, that the Levitical family of Henadad (E iii. 9, wanting in Eii.) was indigenous, indigenous also was the family of Iddo to which Zech. belonged (see E vi. i) ; and this scholar's recognition of the prominence in and around Jerusalem of Calebite and other families who had never tasted exile (see 5 c) is extremely important for any estimate of the internal conditions. The evidence of Hag. and Zech. outweighs other evidence which might appear to I ESDRAS be contrary ; hence one can hardly assume that the deliverance of Jeshua (Zech. in. 2) necessarily refers to his return seventeen years previously, or that the name Zerubbabel suggests that other Jews with him were necesssanly 'begotten in Babylon 7 . Nor can decisive objections be based upon references in E vii.-x,, N i. seqq. to an earlier return. That men (? exiles) should come and assist in the rebuilding of the Temple is a promise for the future in Zech. vi. 15. The references in E ix, 4, x. 6 seq. present their own peculiar difficulties on any view, and in all probability the story of E should come after N i.-vi. (see III. a). N i. 2 seq. are inconclusive . they may be used to support a theory (Kosters. 45, Berth., 47, Torrey, 301 n. 27, Davies, 161), although Ryle (149), who maintains an independent, though strictly conservative position, refers the passage to the people who had escaped the exile the passage, in any case, must be considered in the light of evidence for some disaster between the age of Zerubbabel and the return of N (see further, 5/). It is to be remembered, also, that the belief m a great return under Cyrus (or Darius) might influence the description of subsequent events even as the complete Mosaic legislation appears at first sight to be confirmed by the form which the revised and redacted history has taken in the books that follow the Pentateuch. (d) Summary. The account of a large return to rebuild the Temple, whether in the time of Cyrus or Daiius, must be tested by the independent Hag. and Zech. Great weight is often laid upon the circumstantial list in E ii., and its genuineness has been upheld, particularly by Meyer (73, 98 seqq., 191 seqq. ; note the criticisms of Kosters, T/i. T. xxxi. 530-41); see below, p. 35. He, however, rejects in the main the rest of the Cyrus-history (49> 73 ? 99 J9 1 * X 93 \ Driver, Lit., 552), although the decree of Cyrus is in itself entirely plausible (Nikel, 31-7; Torrey, 144 n. 12), and the list is closely bound up with the whole series E i. vi. His position appears inconsistent from any traditional standpoint (see Nikel, 42 seq., Davies, 14, 80 seq.), as well as fioni one more consistently critical, although his recognition that the list (which contains names recurring throughout E-N) is fundamental for the criticism of the post-exilic history is thoroughly sound. But the list stands or falls with its context, and when it is admitted that the success of the opposition in E iv. proves that the icturn has been exaggerated (see Sellin, Stud, i ; O. C. Whitehouse, Isaiah, ii. 228; G. A. Smith, Jems. ii. 298 seq.), or_that the list has been re-edited (Holzhey, 15 ; Davies, 51), it is necessary to determine what details in E i.-vi. may be regarded as even essentially accurate. The tolerance and kindness of Amil-Marduk (to Jehoiachin), Nabunaid (who sent back Merbaal to be king of Tyre), Cyrus, Cambyses, and Daiius 1 certainly allow the probability of the return of bands of exiles, even as the Sachau-papyri show how Cambyseb might favour native Jewish communities. But E i,-vi. are so closely interconnected as a piece of history that if we accept as we must the testimony of Hag. and Zech., it is difficult, if not impossible, to reconstruct from K the course of events. On the one hand, we gain new presuppositions regarding the internal conditions of the age. On the other, there is remarkable confusion in the traditions of Cyrus and Darius in E and J, E ii. is repeated in the history of the time of Artaxerxes, and a narrative of this later period is actually inserted in Ei.-vi. ; these combine with other features to extend the problems of E i.~vi. to those connected with the work of E and N. III. The Work of Ezra and Nchemiah. (a) Ezra. In the story of E there is considerable intricacy in the description of the separation from the heathen on the part of the < children of the captivity ' (i. e. E's small band of exiles, or the congregation presumably formed in 536-516), and the inauguration of the new community, consisting of these and the elect of the < seed of Israel ', The whole story is closely interconnected and much difficulty is caused by N L-vil which sever E vii.-x. from N viii. seqq. by twelve years There is moreover, a very strong presumption that the Reading of the Law was originally described shortly' after Es arrival (cf. E ix.), and not (as in N viii.) after this lengthy interval, during which %ve hear nothing of him. Finally, on independent grounds there seems to be no place for E before the first visit, at all events, of N. It is indeed allowed that 'it is impossible to decide upon the evidence at our disposal (G. A. Smith, Expositor, July, 1906, p. 16), or that this later position of E is only possibility (Wellhausen) ; but it seems very doubtful whether the story is trustworthy (H. P. Smith " rl ' eVe ^ if i? histo r ical > man ^ a g ree that it cannot be placed before N i.-vi! \?n7f' ? Uth c e> I J 001 ? ack f I>P' R ' BibL > * '5 seqq.], Kennett, Kent, Kosters, m, Wildeboer). See further the notes on E viii-x. (b) Nehemiah N was governor from the soth year of Artaxerxes (Jos. XL 5 7 o, xxix, 10). It does not seem to have been written by the compiler of the series Chron. - E~N ; it appears rather as a tradition of independent origin, written around the age of N, combined with the story of N and ultimately with the great post-exilic history of Jerusalem and the Temple. IV. Interrelation of Data* (a) Intricacy of parallels. The intricacy of the list E ii. N vii. for the history of Cyrus, Darius (E) and Artaxerxes does not stand alone. The close connexion in the narratives relating to Cyrus and Danus appears in E lii. 7 compared with E iv. 48, in iii. i with E v. 6, and in E iii. 2 with E v. 4-6. The Temple, according to _Hag. and Zech., was not commenced before the time of Darius, in contrast to E iii. ; but the laments in E iii. 12 in the time of Cyrus curiously recall Hag. ii. 3 seqq. The social and religious reorganization implied in E ii, 59, 62, vi. 21 finds a parallel m the reforms of E, and while E ii. 70, iii. r, introduce the erection of the altar, the text in E v. 46 seq. presupposes a later period, and in fact these verses in N vii. 73, viii. i, form the prelude to the Reading of the Law. The latter event is the sequel to the record of a return (N vii.) which in E ix. is that of E himself. E iii. is unhistorical, and has probably been influenced by material relating ^ to the time of N; thus Meyer (73, 99) points to N viii. 17 seq., and John compares iii. 10-13 with N xii. 40-3. The account of the opposition in E iv. is untrustworthy, and theic is a marked resemblance between the details and N iv., vi., enhanced by the insertion in E iv. 7-24 of a record of the time of Artaxerxes. This record attests a return of some importance, which, however, has yet to be identified, and while the decrees of Cyrus and Darius agree (cf. also Artaxerxes and E) in presenting several very similar features (Torrey, 125 seqq, 158 Bayer, 117 seqq.), the historical basis for any decree on the lines they take cannot be found in their reigns. For parallels in the stories of E and N see above, p. 9 \d\ Such is the interrelation of the contents that it is hardly surprising that later sources should not infrequently combine Zerubbabel and Ezra (Lag. 18 ; Torrey, 49 n. 17) and that both should be united with Jeshua in a return in the time of Danus (Lag. 84). Even N xii. 47 looks back and mentions together Zerubbabel and N (see Berth,) j and if Hashabiah and Sherebiah in N xii. 24 may be identified with the names in E viii 18 seq Joiakim (son of Jeshua) and E appear to be correlated much in the same way that N xii. 12-26 seem to confuse the times of Joiakim, N and E (see also the view of Kosters, 91 seq.). (6) t Some modern mews. The endeavour to recover the historical facts has led to very divergent conclusions among modern scholars. One favourite view has retained Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes in E iv between Cyrus and Darius, by the simple device of changing the names or of assuming an alternative nomenclature. Equally popular has been the theory that Artaxerxes and Darius are to be identified with the second bearer of each name and, indeed, this may have been the view of the compiler or writer (see Torrey itfl" I? f+r" ^ A ! thou ^ T thls leaves an astonishing gap betweenCyrus and Danus II, the belief that the tSfT the ^ tones 1 of N a ^ d E the later king (404-359 B.C.) has found very weighty support (de Saulcy, Maspero, Hoonacker, and Howorth [partly], Maiq, H. P. Smith [382], &c., see further Berth, 30 ; and S al been Pr0p sed t0 identify the C y ms f the , ., , ^ i S al f been Pr0p sed t0 identify the C y ms f the nar tives wit h ^riu ^d an t S ? C f l\? interconnexion of events that N viii-x. has been placed in the time of fr m 53 t0 432) haS been c P^ d T&bin * few ears see H wckr^ r m 53 1 t0 , 432) haS been c P^ d Tbin * few years see M Winckler Helmholt s Worlds Hist. m. 216 se. and the summaries in Jampel, ii. i seq.). Others hold +K *k u- 1 /"i "~ *t y ^ ^ J a * so ' tllc F iu pA*cwc5 jn is. xi.~ixvi are sub- with the history of the times of Cyrus and Artaxerxes, although, under the influence of IO INTRODUCTION another theory of the history, the chapters are once more treated as virtually a whole, either relatively early fc 537-520; Sellm, Stud. 160; Rothstein) or relatively late (H. P. Smith, 371 n. i, 379 n. 3; Torrey, 288 n. 8, 314; Kennett). In contrast to these efforts to overcome the difficulties are the views of those scholar^ who do not admit the intricacies but continue to maintain the essential trustworthiness of E-N, the unhistorical character of Chron. itself being, nevertheless, almost unanimously realized. In so far as this is based upon the manner in which the narratives appear to be mutually confirmatory cf. the conservative attitude to the criticism of the Pentateuch and superficially, at least, consistent, it is necessary to observe that^the chionicler's history is singularly simple compared with the forms taken in JS t or in Jos., or in the traditions that prevailed elsewhere in ancient times. (c) Some ancient vieivs. Jos., who is well-informed on the last Babylonian kings, asserts that the kingdom fell to Cyrus the Persian and Darius the Mede ; the two were kinsmen and the latter, whose father was Astyages, had another name^among the Greeks (x. n, 2, 4). Cyrus, son of Cambyses, was the father of the better-known Cambyses ; his mother, according to tradition, was the sister of Cyaxares and daughter of Astyages. Astyages, the last Median king, was the son of Cyaxares and was defeated by Cyrus. But this name is also given by Alexander Polyhistor and others to Cyaxares (c. 624-584), the founder of the Median empire, who took^part with Nabopolassar in the attack upon Assyria. 1 When the father of Darius is called Ahasuerus (Dan. ix. i ; cf. the synopsis, Lag. 15, where he is born of Vashti), and the latter and Nebuchad- rezzar ^ capture Nineveh (Tobit xiv. 15), the names Ahasuerus and Cyaxares have evidently been confused (Rawlinson). The Ahasuerus of Esther was certainly placed soon after the deportation of Jehoiachin by Nebuchadrezzar (so ii. 5 seq.), but in Judith iv. 1-6 the last-mentioned reigns over the Medes at a time when the Jews had recently returned from captivity and the high-priest was one Joiakim, The historical foundation for Esther's king can only be Xerxes, although Jos., LXX, and early writers identify him with Artaxerxes. Jos., moreover, states that he was also called Cyrus in Dan. v. 31, vi. 28, Darius the Mede becomes king after the fall of Babylonia and is followed by Cyrus and gives the name Xerxes to the Artaxerxes of the stories of E and N. The difficulty of distinguishing the names would obviously be increased by the fact that Darius I was actually followed by Xerxes (485-465), and D. II (423-404) by Art. II (404-359), and that D. II had a son Cyrus, famous for the unsuccessful expedition against his elder brother Art II. Not to pursue the confusing details further, it is enough to notice that the later historians had behind them a series of events of vital importance. During a relatively brief period the power of Assyria was broken up, Scythians and Medes entered into W. Asiatic politics, a new Babylonian empire was restored only to fall before the Persian regime under Cyrus ; a little more than a century later another Cyrus created a turmoil in W. Asia (400), and finally the Greeks, who had been gradually coming into closer touch with the Oriental world, established a new age under Alexander the Great. How soon history became enwrapped in legend is obvious from Herodotus and Xenophon (fifth century B. c.) and from Ctesias, who is even said to have drawn upon Persian records. Jos., for his part, endeavoured to reduce the confusion into some order ; the Seder Olam (ch. xxx) ingeniously identifies all the Persian kings : Cyrus, Darius, Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes Dan. xi. 2 knows only of four and the whole of the Persian age from the restoration of the Temple to the time of Alexander the Greek was even compressed into a few decades. The appearance of simplicity in the chronicler's history of the period is misleading ; see further 6 e. 5, DATA FOR RECONSTRUCTION. The foregoing survey of the intricacies of E-N, the prevailing confusion in regard to the period, and the efforts made by ancient and modern writers to present the historical facts, will perhaps be convincing proof that the difficulties in E-N are genuine. They concern both E-N and E, and any attempt to discuss the origin and structure of E must form some preliminary conception of the underlying history. For this the story of N seems most fruitful. (a) The Samaritans. N's age was one of intermarriage and close intercourse between the Jews, Samaritans, and other neighbours (vi. 18, xiii. 3, 4, 23, 24, a8). The elliptical repulse of the Samaritans in N ii. 30 implies that they, as in E iv. 3 seq., had some claim i to a share in the fortunes of Jerusalem ' (Ryle, 171), and that they ' would have had no quarrel with the Jews if they had been permitted to unite with the latter in their undertakings and privileges 3 (Davies, 177). These details, the character of the intermarriages, the efforts to compromise with N (vi. $-4), the close relationship presupposed by the subsequent bitterness after the schism, the fact that Samaritanism was virtually a sister-sect of Judaism these preclude the present position of E's return and marriage-reforms and make it extremely doubtful whether there had as yet been any serious Samaritan hostility. They also suggest that the records of E-N have been written and revised under the influence of a bitter anti-Samaritan feeling, the date of which can hardly be placed before N xiii. Indeed, it is not improbable that the Samaritan schism should be placed (with Jos. xi. 7 seq ) at the close of the Persian period (see further Marq., 57 seq, ; Jahn, 173 seqq.; Torrey, 321 seqq., 331 seq.). (b) Place of Eg. iv. 7-23. This undated record of the reign of Artaxerxes, in spite of some 1 See Ency. Brit., nth ed., on these names. 1 1 I ESDRAS Internal difficulties (see criticisms in Berth., 18 seq., Nikel, 183), probably illustrates the story of N when 'Tobiah sent letters to put me in fear 5 (vi. ig). 1 It points to some new reconstruction of the city by returned exiles evidently after an earlier disaster and requires the assumption that the story of N is focussed upon the governor alone and that N and his military escort (ii. 9, cf. E v. 3, contrast ib. viii. 51 seq.) brought back a band of exiles (so Jos.) ; see below (d). Against this the objection has been brought that N, in spite of the royal command (E iv. 21 seq.), continued to build and actually did complete the walls. On the other hand, the walls were already practically finished (vi. i, vii. i, see Ryle, 219), and some time would necessarily elapse before letters could reach Artaxerxes and his reply come to hand (cf. the situation in E v. 5). The king does not order the walls to be destroyed or weakened ; N naturally had other building operations to attend to in addition to the walls, and these may well have been stopped ' by force and power ' (E iv. 33). The letter to Artaxerxes urges that the rebuilding of Jerusalem would be detrimental to the security of the province (iv. 13, 19 seq.) 5 and disloyalty was the strongest charge brought against the governor (N ii. 19, vi. 6-7). In fact, N vii. 3 seq. may suggest that the perturbed governor left his brother in charge of the city while he visited the king his leave had been limited (ii. 6) and although the sequence of events is admittedly obscure there is a distinct gap between his position in N i.-iv., vi. and that as represented in xiii. (cf, v,). The formal steps of the Samaritans in E iv. 7 seqq. (similarly the satrap in E v. seq,) stand in contrast to the confusing account of the hostility in N iv., vi. against one who had corne armed with royal authority, and undue weight must not be laid upon the present form of the N-story (see above [a]). All in all, the evidence does not exclude the helpful conjecture that E iv. 7-23 illustrate the troubles of N at that stage where the continuation of the book (after vi. 19) is almost inextricably complex. (c) The semi-Edomitc population. In the list of those who helped to rebuild the wall (N iii.) it is noteworthy (i) that very few of the names can be at all plausibly identified with the families who apparently returned with either Zerubbabel or Ezra (Kosters, 47), and (3) that some of the names have Calebite affinities. 2 The list is evidence for the poverty of the Babylonian section of population and for the prominence of the Judaeans, who include both the natives and those Calebite and allied groups who moved up from the south of Judah some time after 586. The presence of the latter is only to be expected, and the fact, pointed out by Meyer himself in 1896, is obviously fundamental for the criticism of the book of Ezra (see Kosters, Th. T, xxxi. 536). J In this Calebite or scmi- Edomite Judah and to call these groups ' half heathen ' (with Nikel, 56, 64) is to beg the question _ we may find a starting-point for our conception of the district from the time of their immigration northwards to the date of the far-reaching reorganization associated with the names of N and E, Further, the list of the inhabitants of Jerusalem in N xi. recurs, though with variations, in i Chron. ix., where it represents the compiler's conception of the post-exilic population after the captivity. According to his perspective of history, there was an old Israel which included a Judah of Calebite and Jerahmeelite origin (i Chron. ii. and iv.) and some later stage which corresponds closely with N xi. N xi., however, differs widely from the lists in E ii. and viii. and ignores the return of Zerubbabcl and Ezra. Its disagreement is hardly a proof that these lists are authentic ; what is significant is the agreement between the Judaean clans Perez, Shelah and the semi-Edomite Zerah in N xi. and the mixed genealogies in i Chron. ii. and iv. The chronicler, it will be observed, knows of no earlier Judah ; his evidence in ii., iv. is (in his view) pre-Davidic, and it agrees with this that his lists of the Levitical orders of David's time illustrate the close bond uniting these ecclesiastical bodies with people of south Palestinian and Edornite affinity. 4 (d) A decree and a return. The introduction to the Jerusalem list reads like the sequel to the account of some return (N xL 3, i Chron. ix. a ; cf. E ii. 70, N vii. 73, and see Ewald, 159 n. %\ The list itself, after dealing with priests, Levites, &c. 5 proceeds to refer to those who dwelt in the country, and it is noteworthy that N xi. 23 seq. have in view the fulfilment of some royal decree touching the singers (cf. E iv. 54 seq., E vii. 24). The singers, also, are subsequently collected from the JSetophathite and other villages which they had built at some unspecified period (xii. 38 seq. - cf, the Levites in i Chron. ix. 16), and the explicit references to the rest of Israel and their cities (xi. ao, $5), before the assembling at the dedication of the walls (xii. 27), recall the situation before A^m ^ R | m K ith t 3 if . ; Ke .u' 35 ; i See o S tj******* of Sellin > S "-> 53 seqq., Stud. 16-35. With Tobiah, cf. the Aram, form Tabeel, k iv. 7 (Hoonacker, Rev. Bibl. x. 183 n. 6 ; Sellin, Stud 33) 430. 2 lee Swl^Tif ^ IU " 19} I47 ' l67 ' I7? Se<1 "' l81 ' l83 ' and hlS Israeliten > 35* n. 5, 399, 402, 409, 429 n. 5 , T*iJ 3 a ^ H - Gu he > * E * BL 22 49 J T. K. Cheyne, ib. 3385 ; H. P. Smith, Hist. 354 n. i ; R. Kittel, Chron. I 4 , 16 : Jahn, 99 5 Kennett Essays, 117, 123 ; Torrey, 328, n. 53 ; E. L. Curtis and A. A. Madsen, Chron. 89, 98, 104. 4 ' ' nniniJh; ^T ^ * "* r^' / ^ / *' 44 * seqq '> for evidence connecting Judah and the Edomites ; in their ppimon, however, the data, found m literature relating to pre-monarchical times, refer to pre-Davidic conditions INTRODUCTION the exiles were assembled in Jerusalem after their return and settlement in the Zerubbabel- story (E ii. 70, iii. i). Thus, the difficult and much revised narratives of N's work, between vi. and xiiL, are connected with the list of the return in vii., with the return of E (see p. 9 c), and with some return associated with the figure of N himself. G. A. Smith observes that the reforms of N ( are best explained through his reinforcement by just so large a number of Babylonian Jews under just such a leader as E' (Expos., July, 1906, p. 7 seq.). On the other hand, there is insufficient historical evidence for the presence of E and his band, and the above details strongly suggest that there was an account of some other return in connexion with the activity of N, although it is still impossible to reconstruct the course of N's work (see 4, III. b). (e) The Temple, The history after the rise of the Davidic Zerubbabel is a blank which can be filled only by conjecture (see e.g. Ewald ; Sellin, Ser. ; Nikel, 142-6, and others). The situation in Jerusalem at the return of N cannot be explained by the disasters at the fall of Jerusalem about 140 years previously. The city was in great affliction and reproach, and N's grief, confession, and prayer recall E's behaviour at the tidings of the heathen marriages. The ruins of Jerusalem were extensive (N i. 3, ii. 3, 8 5 13, Hi., cf, Ecclus. xlix. 13), and it is disputed whether the blrak (ii. 8) refers to the fortress on the north side of the Temple (G. A. Smith, Jems., ii. 347 seq., 461), or the Temple itself (cf. i Chron. xxix. i and see Jahn, pp. iv, 93). According to 2 Mace, i. 18, N built both the Temple and the Altar, and Jos, (independently) asserts that he received permission to build the walls of the city and to finish the Temple. An old Latin synopsis (Lag. 18 seq.) states that E restored the foundations of Zerubbabel's temple, and an old Greek summary of ' Second Esdras s refers to N as a builder of the Temple (Lag. 84, 1. 27 : airo? ?]uo(je Trepl TTJS ot/co8o^s- rov tepou). These can scarcely all be based upon the references to the Temple in the Artaxerxes-record in E ii. 1 8, 20. It is at least noteworthy that, both in E and E, compilers have placed this episode in the history of the Temple, and the different readings in E iv. 12, 14, might be due to the alternative position of the story (see below, 6 (c)} after the account of the opposition in the time of Cyrus. 1 Moreover, the mention of the decree of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia ' (E vi. 14, see E vii, 4) is unintelligible for even a gloss or interpolation must express some plausible belief unless there was a tradition associating Artaxerxes with the building of the Temple. Again, in view of the parallels between E iv. and N ii. iv., vi., in the account of the Samaritan opposition, it is surely significant that the abrupt allusion in N ii. 20 to the repudiation of the Samaritans can only be explained in the light of E iv. 3, where the building of the Temple is concerned. 2 Finally, the E-story represents a period of favour during which the Temple had been restored or repaired through God's mercy and the clemency of Persia (E ix. 8 seq.). This brief ' moment ' (v. 8) cannot date back from the decree of Cyrus and the work of Zerubbabel, rather must one read the whole situation the strengthening of a neglectful community, the furthering of a poor temple as a supplement to the disorganization and confusion in the story of N's measures. Hence, it may be concluded that there is sufficient evidence for some tradition of a rebuilding of the Temple and of a return in the time of N. (/) The recent disaster. The disaster which explains N's grief, anxiety, and energetic labours may probably be ascribed in part at least to Edom. Friendly or neutral relations between Judah (and its semi-Edomite population, see c) and the 'brother 1 Edom appear to have continued at a relatively late period, until for some reason Edom is denounced for its unbrotherly conduct. 3 The origin of the enmity is generally connected with the fall of Jerusalem in 586. But it cannot be found in the time of Jehoiakim (the conjecture * Edom J for ' Aram ' in 2 Kings xxiv. 2 is against Jen xxxv. n), or of Zedekiah (when Edom was among the allies of Judah ; Jer. xxviL, Ezek.xvii. n seqq.) ; the Chaldeans alone destroyed the Temple, and Jews had even taken refuge in Edom and elsewhere (Jer. xl. n). The very explicit statement that the Edomites burned the Temple * when Judaea was made desolate by the Chaldeans ', and occupied Jtidaean territory (E iv. 45, 50), points to the reality of a tradition which, however, has been connected with the events of 586. The various allusions to Edom (Obad., Ezek. xxv. 12, xxxv. 10, 12, xxxvi. 5, Lam. iv., Ps. cxxxvii. 7), though possibly referring to different periods, cannot be based upon the history of the Chaldean invasion. The very circumstantial references to Edomite aggression (E iv. 50, Ezek. xxxv. 10, xxxvi. 3, 5) have led to the view that the Jewish exiles recovered their land through Persian aid. 4 This, however, finds no support in the history of either Cyrus or Darius. But may it not be later (Nikel, 57 n. i), before 1 See also Sellm, Ser. 56 n. I, 58 ; Stud. 18 seq. ; Grunhut, Emleitung (cited by Jampel, i. 105). 2 Parallel traditions elsewhere explain each other, cf. Ex. xvii. 6 with Num. xx. 8 ; Ex. xvii. 10 with Num. xiv. 40, 44 ; Ex. xxxiii. with Num. xi. * Mai. i. 2-5 ; see Kennett, Essays, 117. 4 See the discussions of Ewald, So seqq., 88 ; Herzfeld, Gesck. (1847) i. 475 seq. ; Smend, 22, 24; Stade, Gesch. ii. 112 ; F. Buhl, Gesch. d. Edomiter (1893), 77. 13 I ESDRAS the prophecy of Mai. i. 3-5, and between the times of Zerubbabel and N ? 1 If so, it is tempting to associate the relatively simple and unadorned decree attributed to Darius in E iv. 48-56 (which points to a return to rebuild the Temple after a period of Edomite hostility) with the situation that underlies the narratives of N, cf. d above. (g) Summary. The internal difficulties of E-N are exceedingly complex owing to the numerous untrustworthy features, the remarkable and suspicious parallels, and the intricacies of rearrangement, adjustment, and revision. The sources throw little (if any) light on the period before the return of N, and traditions originally associated with him or his age appear to underlie the rest. 2 His story forms the starting-point for the problems of E-N, but it has too many serious difficulties for any confident theory of the order of events. Yet it seems clear that in N's time there had not as yet been any previous Samaritan hostility of any extent, any separation from the 'heathen', any important return of exiles. It is not improbable that in the time of Zerubbabel there was a monarchy of some size (cf. Sellin, Ser^ 89), and it is interesting to notice that the Samaritan opposition in the time of Artaxerxes is aimed especially at the apparent political pretensions of N (ii 19, vi. 6-8, cf. E iv. 13). The population in and around Jerusalem consisted partly of the old indigenous stock and partly of the southern groups of Edomite affinity who moved northwards after 586. This semi- Edomite people had suffered from a disaster, due, in some measure, to the 'brother' Edomites who had burned the Temple and occupied Jewish territory, and to repair the lamentable conditions was the object of N's return. The southern groups in question are only to be expected after i Chron. ii. and iv., and the history in Chron. seems to reveal some traces of their perspective : their presence in the Levitical bodies, the stories of the reconstruction of Temple and cult, and the traditions of invasions of hostile southern peoples. On independent grounds it is probable that other traces of the presence and prominence of these groups may be observed elsewhere, and we may notice that the Q.T. preserves the tradition of the high reputation of the eponymous Caleb, the ' servant of Yahweh \ and that late traditions even ascribe a southern origin to some of the prophets. 3 In the chronicler's compilation the rise of the new Jewish Church and the opposition of the Samaritans are dated at the commencement of the Persian age, and in the light of this the later history was meant to be read, even as other writers presuppose the patriarchal ancestors of pre- Mosaic days or the elaborate Levitical ritual associated with Moses and Aaron. Although this view shapes the compilation, the study of the age of Artaxerxes throws a different light upon its value. There are persistent and independent traditions of some return in his reign, and of some reconstruction of the people. Subsequent to the situation represented in N iii. (see c above) a new community was formed, and since it would be composed of elements of exilic (Babylonian) and non-exilic ancestry, some of the names of the latter class (found e.g. in N iii.) might naturally recur in (the later) lists referring to earlier periods (for such names, see Nikel, 154 seqq.). From i Chron. ii. and iv., and from the place of Caleb and Jerahmeel among the 'sons' of Perez Gen. xxxviii seems to record his superiority over the rival and semi-Edomite Zerah it is obvious that there has been a genea- logical readjustment of the groups of southern origin. Moreover, elsewhere, the specific traditions of such groups as these have been revised or mutilated, and it is probable that all these features may be connected with the intricate development of the priestly and Levitical figures, suggestive of rival representations and compromise. 41 E-N is written from the standpoint of a reorganized community which admitted no relationship with the semi-Edomite or native Judaean groups. The Babylonian exiles piqued themselves on their superiority to the Judaeans, who none the less could boast of their father Abraham the hero f Caktote dty of Hebron (Ezek. xxxiii. 24). To the exiles from Babylon and thence (H 11.) to the old Judah which fell in 586, the community persistently attributed its origin. The Jews of the post-exilic theocracy laid most weight upon an ancestry from the deportation by Nebuchad- rezzar, even as the old Israel ignored the large indigenous and mixed element in Palestine and descent was claimed from the immigrant tribes from Egypt and thence from the pre-Mosaic sons of Israel. Different disasters were focussed upon 586, and traditions of return and rebuilding were concentrated upon the return of Zerubbabel. Consequently, by thus passing over the native groups whether akin or not to the hated Edomites, the mixed origin of the Jews was rendered less con- spicuous. The significance of this has been well pointed out by Torrey (155, 336 seq., 3 az seqq., and, 1 Some later Edomite invasion has been Inferred bv T Lev 77 7>c/m? frSn^ T ^. T v ri^ T * j 7 ^ ' Palestine' (^6rr^rd^t: ^^JT^.J^JS^!?'!^???, 38WI) ; < Levies ' (xvi. 5x3 seq.) ; H INTRODUCTION especially, 328 n. 53). Both Jews and Samaritans were of mingled ancestry, but the latter could at all events claim to have been associated with the land longer than the former. The question of kinship between the two divisions was, as we see from Jos. (ix. 14 3, xi. 8 6, xii. 5 5), always a debatable one, and the knowledge of past history would only increase the bitter enmity at the rise of the rival cult on Mt. Gerizim. But the chronicler's compilation very carefully conceals the course of events and upholds for Judah alone the sole right to be the legitimate descendant of the ancient confederation of Israel. 1 6. STRUCTURE OF THE SOURCES. It may often be possible to point out conflicting data, to indicate traditions which seem to be older or more original, and to arrive at positive or negative conclusions regarding the underlying facts ; but the endeavour to trace the literary growth of complex sources which are certainly the result of intricate reshaping and revision is a delicate problem of literary criticism and distinct from the historical criticism of the period they describe. (a) The Sheshbazzar-Cyrzis Tradition. The story of Zerubbabel and the first return of the Jews in the time of Darius (E iii, i-v. 6) is the pivot upon which the problems turn. Our starting- point is the Aramaic section E v. seq., where Darius confirms and extends a decree of Cyrus, who had ordered the rebuilding of the Temple and had sent back the vessels with Sheshbazzar (v. 13-15). This tradition is supported by E i., which refers also to Mithredath the treasurer who apparently was once mentioned in E v. (see on E vi. 18). But E i. is written in a different style and in Hebrew ; it gives a highly-coloured form of the decree (note the parallels with the story of E, Marq. 56, Torrey, 157 seq.), and tends to minimize the importance of Cyrus by emphasizing the direct influence of Yahweh (contrast the initiative of Darius in E iv., E vi. 8-n ; see also on E vii. i). Consequently, E v. seq., which have various marks of incompleteness (see on E vi. 7 seq., 23), presuppose an account of Cyrus and the return of Sheshbazzar (probably also in Aramaic), some part of which at least has been replaced by E i. Further, Sheshbazzar returned to build the Temple, but instead of any account of his work, Jeshua and Zerubbabel are abruptly introduced in the great list, E ii. 2. These two erect the altar (iii. 2), and (mentioned in the inverse order) commence the rebuilding (iii. 8-10), repulse the ' adversaries ' (iv. 2 seq.), and subsequently,, in the time of Darius, are encouraged by the prophets to begin operations (v. 2, note the repetition of the ancestry). Zer., as in E iii. i-v. 6, is the leading figure, whereas the Shesh. tradition in v. seq. refers to the 'elders* (E v. 5, 9, vi. 8, 14 ; in vi. 7 (0 B omits the unnamed governor, see Berth., 19). From the point of view of historical criticism Shesh. and Zer. are two distinct individuals, but it seems obvious that the compiler of E i.-vi. regarded them as the same, although it was left for ancient and modern harmonists to make the identification. And in fact it is implied and made in E vi. 18, 27, 29, after the introduction of Zer. in iii. seq., but naturally not in E ii. 1-15 (=E i.) ; yet in E, strangely enough, it is nowhere made, although the return of Shesh. in E i. ii evidently corresponds to the appearance of Zer. in ii. 2 ( || E v. 8 immediately after the Zer. story). Hence Jos. is obliged to harmonize (xi. I 14, 3 32). Moreover, it is noteworthy that the Aramaic sources (v. 3-vi. 12) do not clearly indicate that the Jewish builders were exiles (contrast E iv. 12), and that there is no explicit reference in E v. 15 to any return of exiles under Sheshbazzar ; on the other hand, the conflate text of E vi. 5, 8 clearly alludes to the Jews as being of the Captivity (cf. vii. 6, 10), and E ii. 15 shows more distinctly than E i. ii that exiles returned with Shesh, That there is a gap after this verse has often been suspected. Accordingly, there are two important features: (i) the Shesh. tradition has been mutilated and otherwise adjusted in order to give the greater prominence to Zer, and his return, and (2) while it is not certain that Shesh. was originally the leader of a band of exiles, the text in E partly identifies him with the more illustrious Zer., and partly seems to treat his return as that of the * captivity ' also. Finally, the Shesh. tradition is that of a continuous building of the Temple since the time of Cyrus (E v. 16"). This may be supported by E iv. 4, 5, which refer to unceasing troubles and intrigues, and by v. 6, where the accusation in the reign of Ahasuerus means, in this context, that the Temple was still under construction. On the other hand, the presence of the Artaxerxes-episode would imply that the work was definitely brought to a stop (see iv. 31-34), and with this agrees the statement in v. 2 that Zer. and Jeshua, encouraged by the prophets, * rose up ... and began to build the house of God '. Since the presence of these conflicting views can hardly be original, the Artaxerxes-episode and the cessation of the building may probably be regarded as foreign to the Shesh. tradition. Hence, although E does not present E's remarkable confusion of the sequence of events in the reigns of Cyrus and Darius a confusion which Jos. has 1 In so far as the foregoing paragraphs bear upon the prophetical writings, it must be remembered that the dates of the latter depend upon our knowledge of the historical conditions in the light of which they are to be explained. 15 I ESDRAS done his best to remedy it contains, on closer inspection, a very singular combination of conflicting- traditions of the Temple, and of Shesh. and Zer. (b) The Zerubbabel-Dariiis tradition. Since Jewish tradition has it that Darius was the son of Ahasuerus the Mede (Dan. ix. i), and the Ahasuerus in Esth. was called Artaxerxcs (although, historically, Xerxes must be meant), and since the sequence Art- Darius is true of Art. I-Dar. II (or even of Art. III-Dar. Ill), compilers might be justified in placing the story of the opposition before a tradition of Darius, whether in E ii. 16 seqq., iii. 5 or E iv. 7-34, v. But it is not easy to decide which of the two is the earlier position. The cessation of the building of the Temple would be intelligible before E iv., which really describes a new era in the history, and would equally agree with the commencement of work mentioned in E v. 3. In either case it leads up to Zerubbabel. But whereas in E it forms a necessary link between Cyrus and Darius, in E it breaks the connexion (iv. 5, v. i) and conflicts with the Shesh. tradition. The assumption that E gives the older position of the episode may be suggested by the fact that its text presents some features distinctly sounder than that in E iv. (note, however, the textual relation of Chron. to Sam.-Kings). On the other hand, in E v. 66 seqq. (E iv. i seqq.) the compiler has made use of iv. 1-5, 34, and it is possible that he found iv. (6 ?) 7-24 before him, but naturally omitted the passage he had already used. In any case, iv. 1-5 is obviously most closely connected with the preceding chapters, and since these presuppose certain material found only in E iii. i-v. 6, E's account of Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel in the time of Cyrus thus presupposes data in E of the time of Darius ! The simplest explanation of these intricacies is that the MT has suffered by excision (see Torrey, 27 scq.), and it remains to determine whether the material in question originally belonged to the Darius period (as in E) or to that of Cyrus (as in E). Torrey alone has discussed this problem, and he has presented a complete, clever, and attractive hypothesis. He treats the Darius-Zer. story in E iii. i iv. 43 as an interpolation in the history of Cyrus, rejects or emends all that is impossible in such a context, and regards E ii. 16 seqq. as a transposition from E iv. made by the interpolator (see p. 33). But this leaves the complexity of E i.-vL untouched. It treats as redactional certain passages that have by no means that appearance (viz. E iv. 43-7*2, 57-61), and if E iv. 7-34 was deliberately borrowed, it is strange that no effort was made to form a reasonable link between ii. 15 and 16, as Jos. has done. The compiler used E ii. 16 seqq. to link Cyrus and Darius, but this theory assumes that for no apparent reason whatsoever a story of Darius has been introduced into the Cyrus-history and combined with it by (redactional?) material, which is partly of considerable independent value, and partly introduces a new tradition of Cyrus (iv. 44, 57) in conflict with all other evidence. The story, moreover, would hardly have been used in Jewish history unless it was associated with Zerubbabel, Darius, and the return of the Jews ; hence its presence, general character, independence, and the confusion arising from the attempt to unite it with other traditions plead for the view (also held by Howorth and Bayer) that it is original. (c) Result of combination. On this alternative theory, then, E preserves a Zer.-Darius nucleus corresponding to a Shesh.-Cyrus nucleus in E, and it seems probable that the intricacies in E and E have arisen from the endeavour to combine and compromise. E iii. i-v. 6 commence like an indepen- dent story, presupposes no prelude, and quite excludes any current story of Cyrus, iv. 44, 57, it is true, refer to his inability to fulfil a vow, but this has neither any foundation in history nor support in extant tradition, and appears to be an early effort to connect the section with Cyrus. Thenceforth we apparently have the building-up of narratives. The Artaxerxes episode was taken from a source relating to the time of N ( 5^), and the sequel of the story, the list v. 7 seqq., also has a Nehcmian background. The connexion between v. 1-6 and 7 seqq. is not close (note repetition 4, 7, the preliminary vv. 5 and 7), and it is possible that iii. i-v. 6 once had another sequel, or that there has been later adjustment In any case, the references to Cyrus (iv. 44, 57), the treatment of the Shesh, tradition, and the fact that E ii. 1-15 are not in their original form, unite to show that there has been much revision, the stages in which cannot be traced. The list itself, partly connected with E's return in N vii., has been applied to the return of Zer., and then treated (in N) by the compiler of E-N as a quotation from the earlier period. It presents a materially older text, and its immediate continuation in E v. 47 seqq. (E iii.) is also based upon N viii. i, and describes events in which one may recognize the influence of other passages in N (Meyer, 73, 99 ; Marq., 58 seq. ; Volz, 9). But the material is adjusted to Zerubbabel and Cyrus, with the result that while E v. 8 (the introduction of Zer.) is explained by the preceding story, and v. 47 (the date) by v. 6; v. 55 has in view iv. 48 (Darius), but its context is of the time of Cyrus (note the harmonizing efforts of Jos., xi. 4 1,3 seq.). Haggai and ZecL, in the second year of Darius, know of no return or earlier rebuilding. So far this agrees with the Zer. story, which, however, while excluding any earlier rebuilding, describes the first return of the Jews. The Shesh. story throws back the commencement of the temple, but in E does not clearly point to 16 INTRODUCTION any return (contrast^ 1 ). In so far as Darius is concerned, these stories are mutually contradictory, and neither is supported by the prophets, and in so far as the fortunes of the temple are concerned, it is possible that a compromise was found in the belief that the work was brought to a stop and that the building was re-com- menced in the time of Darius. This explains the motive of the Artaxerxes episode, and if the references to the Temple in E ii. 18, 20 are reliable, their absence in E iv. 12, 14 may be due to its new position. Further, if E v. i once had (as in E vi. i) the precise date, this would be in order after iv. 5 (see Berth., 19), but might naturally be omitted after the insertion of iv. (6) 7-24 ; and since also the retention of the date in E vi. i would be unnecessary after v. 73 (=E iv. 24), the present unintelligible wording of the latter verse may be due to intentional alteration and not to corruption of the text. Thus, E partly presents material in an older text and form than E, partly shows signs of revision (apparently in the Greek), either to harmonize details or to conform with the MT, and partly is influenced by the form of E, whose imperfections it shares. The root of the problem lies in the two nuclei : Zerubbabel-Darius, Sheshbazzar-Cyrus-Darius, and in the endeavour to co-ordinate them ; but in addition to the complexity touching Cyrus and Darius, it is obvious that the present form of the narratives cannot be viewed apart from the literary treatment of the events of the time of Artaxerxes. (d) The Ezra-story. The narratives involved are an account of N's work, partly autobio- graphical, but now in a much revised and intricate form, which is divided by the E-story, also not from one hand, and itself split into two. These have suffered various changes and adjustments in the course of being combined with each other and with the great history of the ' chronicler '. On both literary and historical grounds we may postulate a stage when the whole of the E-story was found after the first appearance of N (p. 9 d). To suppose that N viii.-x. also once stood before N i. (Torrey, 265 seq.) only increases the difficulties. E appears relatively late in tradition, but continues to grow in reputation. He is absent from both Ben Sira xlix. la seq. and a Mace. i. seq., and here N is particularly prominent ; but N's prominence, though in agreement with all the evidence, has not been made so obvious in the E-story (see 4. III. d). Moreover, the effort has apparently been made to give greater significance to E by placing the most important part of his mission the Reading of the Law (and the sequel, the Covenant) in the account of the completion of the walls of Jerusalem, and also by introducing the rest of the story before N's arrival E has gone further, and in ix. 37 seqq. has read part of N viii. after E x. Now, although E presents in some cases a better text, it is noteworthy that in reproducing N viii. and the introductory viL 73(5, the compiler has also unnecessarily removed v. 73^, which can hardly stand after E ix. 36 = E x. 44 (cf. Volz, 1492). This deliberate transference perhaps explains the text in vv. 38, 49, and suggests that JE's recension is here based upon the MT, with the E-story divided as at present Consequently, both E and E-N share that complicated treatment of the purification of Israel which seems to have arisen when the story of E was rearranged. It is uncertain how E, if more complete, would have continued. There is indeed some evidence, perhaps not of great value, for an account of E's passover, suggesting that some portion of the story has been lost (see on ix. 55). However, if the whole of the present story had been placed before N i., both N i.-vi., xi.-xiii. and E vii.-x., N viii.-x. (or in any rearranged form) would still be in a confused, and certainly not original shape. The one source which actually effects this transposition is Jos. 5 who finishes the life of E before dealing with N. His treatment is brief and paraphrastic, but it seems to be extremely significant that he does not point to the existence of the story of N in either the form or the sequence which it now has. To reconstruct the continuation of E is to make the overlapping with N more conspicuous ; this is clear from the synopses cited below on p. 58, and it is interesting to notice that an old Syriac catena, which follows E, endeavours to readjust to N it passes from .Six. 1-10 to 46^-47 ( = N viii. 6) and thence to N i. 1-4, and places the Reading of the Law (N viii.) in the context it now has in the MT. E, it is evident, does not enable us to go behind the MT, but, together with Jos., it tends to show that the MT is the late outcome of a very intricate literary development. (e) The Compilation. 'At the stage when the stories of E and N were shaped in their present form, and when the traditions of the time of Artaxerxes had been used directly or indirectly for the age of Cyrus and Darius, we reach the complete historical work Chron.-E-N., and the structure of E-N really involves close attention to that of Chron. itself. Here it must suffice to observe that both Chron. and E-N furnish evidence representing different stages in the vicissitudes of the priests and Levites (see tin E viii. 28), and it is noteworthy that there are several traces of textual variation and confusion where these are concerned (see, e.g., i. 5 seqq., io,> 15, v. 56, vii. 9, viii. 43, ix. 43 seqq.). It is also significant of the relative lateness of E-N that the age at which the Leyites^ serve agrees with secondary passages in Chron. (see on v. 58), and that an apparent anti-Aaronite bias has found its way into both (see on vii. 10-13). Perhaps, the most important feature'in the compilation is the presence of gaps (e.g. before E v. i, N i.), the more striking when we observe that the .chronicler has ignored pertinent material in Kings, Jer., Daniel, and Esther. The book of Daniel was familiar in the Greek age and later (cf. i Ma &C > and with the transposition of the SSSSSS?-^ ?M V " -~* 4 t0 E u - f l6 -30. Subsequently, two rival forms arose : one (A) with the retransposition of N viu 7 3 -x. 40, this time between E x. and N i the other C&\ with the excision of the Stoiy of the Three Youths (E iii. seq.) together with a part of the ? SiS'7Sonr "* us . seq. ogeter wt a part of the i'onr ^toci^B^h^^^ ^T*' a " tei * bdng tnui* Ji^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ iSt ^^^., h ,_ , hc i8 INTRODUCTION the Story of the Three Youths is an interpolation in the alleged original Cyrus-history, viz. in E i. 5 E iv. 47-56, iv. 62-v. 6, E ii. seqq. (see p. 16), and to the assumption that the place of the E-story before N i. is the earlier (see p. 17). Further, although E is obviously imperfect, to restore a complete work in which it should correspond to E in the chronicler's series necessitates the belief that Jos., the only early source which places the E-story before N, is witness to the MX form of the stories of both E and N, and this cannot be said to be certain (see p. 57 seq.). The latter part of E presupposes the present structure of E vii.-x., N . . . vii. 73-viii. 13 . . ., whereas the first half presents older traits in L 3 ii. 16 seqq. (the position of the Artaxerxes episode), in. i-v. 6 (the Zerub- babel story), v. 7-70 (the background of the list, E il) 5 and v. 71 (the immediate sequel s the prelude to the work of the returned exiles). Finally, the criticism of E inevitably raises the problem of the entire series Chron.-E-N, which at one stage was a literary whole, and consequently we cannot take the chronicler's history as a fixed starting-point. As a matter of fact, apart from the literary questions arising out of Chronicles alone, it seems that the books were regarded by the Rabbis with some suspicion (Curtis and Madsen, Ckron. a), and now stand after E-N * as if it were an afterthought to admit them to equal authority' (W. R. Smith, Old Test. Jew. Church, 182). It is not improbable that this severance involved some subsequent alteration and revision (cf. Marq., 29). Moreover, the recurrence of I Chron. ix., N xi., in a single work hardly looks like an original feature ; like the more remarkable repetition of the list E ii., N vii. (see Jampel, i. 306 ; Howorth, PSBA, xxvi. 2,6 ; Holzhey, 37 n. 2) the feature seems to point to the combination of sources which were primarily distinct. All the data suggest that E and E-N represent concurrent forms which have influenced each other in the earlier stages of their growth. They are rivals, and neither can be said to be wholly older or more historical than the other. The endeavour was made to correct E to agree with the MX and (0 L is a conspicuous example of the extent to which the revisers could go and the presence of such efforts and in particular the doublets (see 3 b] are of essential importance in indicating that JS's text does not precisely represent a Heb.-Aram. work, and that when all allowance is made for correction and revision of the Greek, problems of the underlying original text still remain. But it was impossible to make any very satisfactory adjustment, E diverged too seriously from the MX, which had cut the chronological knot by the excision of the story of Zerubbabel, and we may suppose that this facilitated the desire for the more literal translation of Xheodotion (p. 3 seq.). 7. VALUE. Although our O.X. has lost the story of Zerubbabel and the Praise of Xruth, there is no doubt that there is something c unbiblical ' in the orations. In the course of the growth of the O.X., compilers and revisers have not unfrequently obscured or omitted that to which they took exception, and some light is thus often thrown upon other phases of contemporary Palestinian or Jewish thought. While the orations themselves remind us of the old ' Wisdom ' literature (Proverbs, Ben Sira, Wisdom), their combination with narrative will recall the interesting story of Ahikar. E remains apocryphal ' in so far as it was deliberately rejected by Jewish and Christian schools. It had indeed found a place in the Bible of the Greek-speaking Jews, and was familiar to Jews and Christians, either indirectly through Jos., or directly as a separate work. Xo the Christians the prominence of Zerubbabel must have been of no little interest (see i, end). But the value of E does not lie merely in this story. Xhe book (or fragment) furnishes useful evidence for the criticism of the text and contents of the canonical passages, and illustrates methods of compilation and revision, swing of traditions, and play of motives. It clearly indicates the importance of the comparison of related traditions as apart from the ultimate question of the underlying facts, and shows, in conjunction with Jos., how a relatively straightforward account of history as in E-N may be the last stage in the effort to cut the knots formed by imperfect compilation. In its final form, the MX, the result of c Rabbinical redaction ' (Marq., 29), is ascribed by Howorth to the School of Jamnia in the time of Rabbi Akiba (PSBA, xxvi. 35), and although it is difficult to find decisive arguments in favour of this conjecture or against it it is not impossible that the chronicler's history, as it now reads, may be dated about the beginning of the Christian era. It is significant that it is wanting in the Syriac Peshitta. Such a view, it should be observed, no more expresses an opinion on the dates of the component sources or sections than it would were the work in question a composite and much edited portion of Mishnah or Midrash. 8. SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY AND ABBREVIATIONS. A, N, B = Codices of the Greek version, Andre, L. E. T. Les Apocrypha de PA. T. (1903)* Ball, C. J. = The Variorum Apocrypha (1896). 19 C 2 I ESDRAS Bayer, E. = ' Das drltte Buch Esdras und sein Verhaltnis zu den Biichern Esra-Nehemia 3 , in Biblische Sfudzen, ed. Bardenhewer, vol. xvi. (1911). Bertholet, A. = Die Biicher Esra und Nehemia (1902). Biichler, A. = ' Das apokryphische Esrabuch', MGWJ, xli. (1897), 1-16, 49-66, 97~ IO 3- Charles, R. H. = ' Third Book of Ezra ', .EVarp. ^^- I Ith ed -> yo]L x - IO 4" 6 - , m , Cheyne, T. K. = Introduction to the Book of Isaiah (1895). Jewish Religiotis Life after the Exile (1898). See also sub Kosters. Davies, T. \V. = * Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther', The Century Bible (1909). Driver, S. R. = Introd. to the 'Lit. of the O.T. (1909). E = Ezra (the book or man). E = I Esdras. EBi. = Encyclopaedia Biblica (1899-1903). Ew. Ewald, H,, History of Israel, 2nd ed. (1880), vol. v, Fr. = Fritzsche, O. F., Comment, on I Esdras in fairzgef. exeget. Handbuch (1851). = Greek version. ffi Chron., /'/. L = Lucian's recension of the Greek version. 31, H C 3L Lag. = Latin Versions, see above, 3 c. Lag. = Lagarde, P. de, Septuaginta-Studien^ ii. (1892). Lupton, J. H. = r Esdras in The Apocrypha, ed. H. Wace (1888). Marq. = J. Marquart, Fundamente israel. u.jiid. Geschichte, pp. 28-68 (1896). Meyer, E. = Die Entstehung des -Judentums (1896). Isr. = Die Israeliten if. ihre Nachbarstamme (1906), by E. Meyer and B. Luther. MGWJ Monatsschriftf. Gesch. u. Wissenschaft des Judentums. Moulton = * Uber die Uberlieferung u. d. textkntischen Wert d. III. Esr.' in ZATW, xix, 209-58 (1899) ; xx. 1-35 (1900). MX Massoretic Text. N = Nehemiah (the book or man). Nestle, E. = Marginalien u. Materialien (1893), 23 seqq. Nikel, J. = ^Die Wiederherstellung des jiid. Gemeinwesens nach den bab. Exil J , in Biblische Stitdien^ ed. Barden- hewer, vol. v (1900). Pohlmann = 'Uber das Ansehen des apokryphen Buches Esra', Tubinger Theolog. Quartalschrift, 1859. PSBA Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology. Ryle, H.^E. = 'Ezra and Nehemiah * in the Cambridge Bible (1901). 55 = Syriac version. Sachau, E. = 'Drei aram. Papyrusurkunden aus Elephantine* (AbhandL kbnigl-preuss. Akad. Berlin. 1907), SBOT^ The Sacred Books of the O.T., ed. P. Haupt : 'Ezra and Nehemiah', by H. Guthe (and, pp. 56-71, L. W. Batten). Schrader, E. *Die Dauer des zweiten Tempelbaues ', Theolog. Stud, tmd Kritiken, 1867, pp. 460 seqq. Sellin, E., Ser. = Serubbabel (1898). 4 J Stud. = Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte d.jild. Gemeinde^ vol. ii. (1901). Smend, R. = Die Listen der Biicher Esra u. Nehemia (1881). Smith, G. A. = In The Expositor, 1906, June-August. Smith, H. P. = O. T. History ( 1 903). Th. T. = Theologisch Tijdschnft. Thackeray, H. St. J. = Art. ' Esdras ', Hastings' Diet. Bible, i. 758-63. Theis, J. = Gesch. u. literarkrit* Fragen in E i-vi (1910). Torrey, C. C. = Esra Studies (Chicago, 1910). Comp.= i Composition and Historical Value of Ezra-Nehemiah 3 , Beihefi zur ZATW, 1896. Trendelenburg = ' Apokr. Ezra >, Eichhorn, Allgem, BibL d. bibl. Litt. (1787), 178-232. Treuenfels = Articles in Der Orient (ed. J. Fiirst), 1 850-1. Volz, P. = < The Greek Ezra 3 , E Bi. vol. iv, cols. 1488-94. WeUhausen, J.= 'Die Riickkehr der Juden aus dem bab. Exil', in Nachrichten d. Gottinger Gelehrten Gesellschaft -7 A -r rlr 9S ' ^ , ? qq% Revi ^w of E. Meyer, Entstehung u.s.w., in the Gott. GeL Anzeigen. 1897, pp. 89 seqq. ZATW^ZeitschriftJiir AlttesL Wissenschaft. HH ESDRAS 1 1 AND Josias held the passover in Jerusalem unto his Lord, and offered the passover the four- 2 teenth day of the first month ; having set the priests according to their daily courses, being arrayed in their vestments, in the temple of the 3 Lord. And he spake unto the Levites, the temple-servants of Israel, that they should hallow themselves unto the Lord, to set the holy ark of the Lord in the house that king Solomon the son 4 of David had built : and said^ Ye shall no more have need to bear it upon your shoulders : now therefore serve the Lord your God, and minister unto his people Israel, and prepare you after your 5 fathers' houses and kindreds, according to the writing of David king of Israel, and according to the magnificence of Solomon his son : and stand- ing in the holy place according to the several divisions of the families of you the Levites, who minister in the presence of your brethren the 6 children of Israel, offer the passover in order, and make ready the sacrifices for your brethren, and keep the passover according to the commandment 7 of the Lord, which was given unto Moses. And unto the people which were present Josias gave thirty thousand lambs and kids, and three thou- sand calves : these things were given of the king's substance, according as he promised, to the peo- 8 pie, and to the priests and Levites. And Helkias, and Zacharias, and Esyelus, the rulers of the temple, gave to the priests for the passover two thousand and six hundred sheep, and three hun- dred calves. 9 And Jeconias, and Samaias, and Nathanael his brother, and Sabias, and Ochielus, and Joram, captains over thousands, gave to the Levites for the passover five thousand sheep, and seven hundred calves. 10 And when these things I ESDRAS. 2 CHRON. 35 AND Josiah kept a passover unto the Lord in i Jerusalem : and they killed the passover on the fourteenth day of the first month. And he set 2 the priests in their charges, and encouraged them to the service of the house of the Lord. And 3 he said unto the Levites that taught all Israel, which were holy unto the Lord, Put the holy ark in the house which Solomon the son of David king of Israel did build ; there shall no more be a burden upon your shoulders : now serve the Lord your God, and his people Israel And 4 prepare yourselves after your fathers' houses by your courses, according to the writing of David king of Israel, and according to the writing of Solomon his son. And stand in the holy place 5 according to the divisions of the fathers' houses of your brethren the children of the people, and let there be for each a portion of a fathers' house of the Levites. And kill the passover, and sane- 6 tify yourselves, and prepare for your brethren, to do according to the word of the Lord by the hand of Moses, And Josiah gave to the 7 children of the people, of the flock, lambs and kids, all of them for the passover offerings, unto all that were present, to the number of thirty thousand; and three thousand bullocks: these were of the king's substance. And his princes 8 gave for a freewill offering unto the people, to the priests, and to the Levites. Hilkiah and Zechariah and Jehiel, the rulers of the house of God, gave unto the priests for the passover offer- ings two thousand and six hundred small cattle, and three hundred oxen. Conaniah also, and 9 Shemaiah and Nethanel, his brethren, and Hasha- biah and Jeiel and Jozabad, the chiefs of the Levites, gave unto the Levites for the passover offerings five thousand small cattle^ and five hundred oxen. So the service was prepared, 10 Josiah's passover and death, the last kings of Judah, and the exile. Ch. i. = 2 Chron. xxxv. seq. (cf. 2 Kings xxiii. 21 -xxv. 30 and the relevant portions of Jeremiah), cf. Jos. Ant. x. 4 5-xi. 7 (who uses the canonical books, including Daniel, , and unknown sources). On the text and contents, see the Comm. on Chronicles, also, for the versions, Moulton, ZA TW, xix. 234 seqq. The whole chapter when compared with MT and r of Chron, and Kings furnishes an instructive illustration of the methods and merits of the translator. 2. arrayed (eWoXKr/ieyow), cf. v. 59, vii. 9. Perhaps an Aramaizing mistranslation (Nestle, 24). ^ 3. temple-servants, mg. the Nethinim^ a misreading of MT D^SEa Note the indirect narration in E and Chron. &. 5. magnificence (fieyaXaorijra), Q& (cf. &) and Chron. ( BA > dta x L P*i perhaps interpreted 'by the might '. Charles' conj. "H? i>]) for MT arODl (a repetition of 3^3), misread in E as ^nn (private communication). The paraphrastic 5-7 represent a rather different MT. 8. Esyelus ( L 'Joel'), r&g.Jehiel (after MT) ; perhaps Haziel is intended (Fr., Guthe ; cf. I Chron. xxiii. 9). - 21 ESDRAS I ESDRAS 1. 10-24 2 CHRON, 35 were done, the priests and Levites, having the un- leavened bread, stood in comely order according to the kindreds, 11 and according to the several divisions by fathers' houses, before the people, to offer to the Lord, as it is written in the book of 12 Moses : and thus did they in the morning. And they roasted the passover with fire, as apper- taineth : and the sacrifices they sod in the brasen 13 vessels and caldrons with a good savour, and set them before all the people : and afterward they prepared for themselves, and for the priests their 14 brethren, the sons of Aaron. For the priests offered the fat until night : and the Levites pre- pared for themselves, and for the priests their 15 brethren, the sons of Aaron. The holy singers also, the sons of Asaph, were in their order, according to the appointment of David, to mt^ Asaph, Zacharias, and Eddinus, who was of the 1 6 king's retinue. Moreover the porters were at every gate ; none had need to depart from his daily course : for their brethren the Levites pre- 17 pared for them. Thus were the things that be- longed to the sacrifices of the Lord accomplished 1 8 in that day, in holding the passover, and offering sacrifices upon the altar of the Lord, according 19 to the commandment of king Josias. So the children of Israel which were present at that time held the passover, and the feast of unleavened 20 bread seven days. And such a passover was not held in Israel since the time of the prophet 21 Samuel. Yea, all the kings of Israel held not such a passover as Josias, and the priests, and the Levites, and the Jews, held with all Israel that were present in their dwelling place at Jerusalem. 22 In the eighteenth year of the reign of Josias was 23 this passover held. And the works of Josias were upright before his Lord with a heart full of godli- 24 ness. Moreover the things that came to pass in his days have been written in times past, concern- ing those that sinned, and did wickedly against the Lord above every people and kingdom, and how they grieved him exceedingly, so that the words of the Lord were confirmed against Israel. *w^ 12 ' A . g 0< ! !r xam P le of ^^understanding and adjustment. Unleavened bread = commandment (Jlta, for HW?),monung (cf. v. 50) = oxen pga, < in E and Chron., for T) ; good savour =}ans (efoftto for rioftfa [cf. ~A.V, mg.], * in Chron. ctoftM? ; a misunderstanding of the root nk in rfnfcjSM ; for parallels, see Ecclus. adiii. 26, Ascens. isaia^ vi. 17 < m&Journ. Royal Asiatic $oc., 1901, p. 169). For CFs text, see Torrey, 107. Zachari ' imp y ? gthat these ch i r -masters were at Josiah's passover (cf. Chron. ffi) is of course erroneous. 2^ea' An Si? B j? L3Lc .i tlle P^ets (so ffi in Chron.); $omeMSS?of MX read' s^ ^ i^'roiLmf t i? ^SSffl?^fxSS5.- Sf i* 2 KhlgsxxiiL I4 seqq - (see also ffi ' s addition ^ hi*": . B Sfc !"T(CBaSf ' "" W been ' Written fa * ^ n aCCOmt f those ' ' ' ** &* _. a. < /AM >/i/ r f J* * ' c), a Hebraism, cf. Jer. xliv. 29. '*,'* and the priests stood in their place, and the Levites by their courses, according to the king's commandment. And they killed the passover, r i and the priests sprinkled the blood, which they received of their hand, and the Levites flayed them. And they removed the burnt offerings, t2 that they might give them according to the divisions of the fathers' houses of the children of the people, to offer unto the Lord, as it is written in the book of Moses, And so did they with the oxen. And they roasted the passover with fire 13 according to the ordinance : and the holy offer- ings sod they in pots, and in caldrons, and in pans, and carried them quickly to all the children of the people. And afterward they prepared for 14 themselves, and for the priests ; because the priests the sons of Aaron were busied in offering the burnt offerings and the fat until night : there- fore the Levites prepared for themselves, and for the priests the sons of Aaron. And the singers 15 the sons of Asaph were in their place, according to the commandment of David, and Asaph, and Heman, and Jeduthun the king's seer; and the porters were at every gate : they needed not to depart from their service, for their brethren the Levites prepared for them. So all the service 16 of the Lord was prepared the same day, to keep the passover, and to offer burnt offerings upon the altar of the Lord, according to the command- ment of king Josiah. And the children of Israel 17 that were present kept the passover at that time, and the feast of unleavened bread seven days. And there was no passover like to that kept in 18 Israel from the days of Samuel the prophet ; neither did any of the kings of Israel keep such a passover as Josiah kept, and the priests, and the Levites, and all Judah and Israel that were present, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. In 19 the eighteenth year of the reign of Josiah was this passover kept, ESDRAS I ESDRAS 1. 25-38 2 CHRON. 25 Now after all these acts of Josias it came to pass, that Pharaoh the king of Egypt came to raise war at Carchemish upon Euphrates: and 26 Josias went out against him. But the king of Egypt sent to him, saying, What have I to do 2 7 with thee, king of Judaea? I am not sent out from the Lord God against thee; for my war is upon Euphrates: and now the Lord is with me, yea, the Lord is with me hasting me forward: depart from me, and be not against 28 the Lord. Howbeit Josias did not turn back unto his chariot, but undertook to fight with him, not regarding the words of the prophet 2 9 Jeremy spoken by the mouth of the Lord : but joined battle with him in the plain of Megiddo, and the princes came down against king Josias. 3 Then said the king unto his servants. Carry me away out of the battle ; for I am very weak. And immediately his servants carried him away out 31 of the host. Then gat he up upon his second chariot; and being brought back to Jerusalem he died, and was buried in the sepulchre of his 32 fathers, And in all Jewry they mourned for Josias ; and Jeremy the prophet lamented for Josias, and the chief men with the women made lamentation for him, unto this day : and this was given out for an ordinance to be done continually 33 in all the nation of Israel. These things are written in the book of the histories of the kings of Judaea, and every one of the acts that Josias did, and his glory, and his understanding in the law of the Lord, and the things that he had done before, and the things now recited, are reported - in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah. 34 And the people took Joachaz the son of Josias, and made him king instead of Josias his father, when he was twenty and three years old. 35 And he reigned in Judah and in Jerusalem three months: and then the king of Egypt deposed 36 him from reigning in Jerusalem. And he set a tax upon the people of a hundred talents of 37 silver and one talent of gold. The king of Egypt also made king Joakirn his brother king of Judaea 38 and Jerusalem. And Joakim bound the nobles ; but Zarakes his brother he apprehended^ and brought him up out of Egypt. After all this, when Josiah had prepared the 20 temple, Neco king of Egypt went up to fight against Carchemish by Euphrates: and Josiah went out against him. But he sent ambassadors 21 to him, saying, What have I to do with thee, thou king of Judah ? / come not against thee this day, but against the house wherewith I have war ; and God hath commanded me to make haste: forbear thee from meddling with God, who is with me, that he destroy thee not. Never- 22 theless Josiah would not turn his face from him, but disguised himself, that he might fight with him, and hearkened not unto the words of Neco, from the mouth of God, and came to fight in the valley of Megiddo. And the archers shot at 23 king Josiah ; and the king said to his servants, Have me away ; for I am sore wounded. So 24 his servants took him out of the chariot, and put him in the second chariot that he had, and brought him to Jerusalem ; and he died, and was buried in the sepulchres of his fathers. And all Judah and Jerusalem mourned for Josiah. And Jere- 25 miah lamented for Josiah : and all the singing men and singing women spake of Josiah in their lamentations, unto this day ; and they made them an ordinance in Israel: and, behold, they are written in the lamentations. Now the rest of the 26 acts of Josiah, and his good deeds, according to that which is written in the law of the Lord, and 27 his acts, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah. Then the people of the land took Jehoahaz 2 CHRON. the son of Josiah, and made him king in 36 i his father's stead in Jerusalem. Joahaz was 2 twenty and three years old when he began to reign ; and he reigned three months in Jerusalem. And the king of Egypt deposed him at Jeru- 3 salem, and amerced the land in an hundred talents of silver and a talent of gold. And the king of 4 Egypt made Eliakim his brother king over Judah and Jerusalem, and changed his name to Jehoi- akim. And Neco took Joahaz his brother, and carried him to Egypt. 25. Jos. x. 5 I explains the march of Neco as an attack upon the Medes and Babylonians who had overthrown Assyria. On the Median empire see Introd^ pp. II c> 17 e. 26. king of Egypt, based on a misunderstanding of ' messengers * (D'OKPB)- 27. upon Euphrates, similarly Jos. 28. unto his chariot, mg. Ms chariot from him (6t L ). undertook (so Jos., and <& in Chron.), see Torrey, 221 ; Charles conj. l$rp ; (private communication). prophet. Neco (so Jos.) misread (tflJ for 1D3) and plausibly expanded by the addition of the prophet's name. 29. princes came down ; another misreading (tf'W Wl for D^Tl YV1 with which ffi Chron. and Jos. agree). 30. host, better 'line of battle' ; apparently reading roiyD for HID "ID. 32. chief men; reading D^.fr for D'HP. The dirge, according to Jos., was still extant. 33. With the paraphrase cf. v. 42. 34. Joachaz (i. e. Jehoahaz), but mg.Jeconias (i. e. Jeconiah= Jehoiachin, v* 43), so <3P i/ and Matt, u 1 1. Jos. x. 5 2 follows & of Chron. with which cf. 2 Kings xxiii. 31-35. All the texts show some confusion here; see the comm, 35. Judah, mg. Israel (<& B i/) ; & L , Jos. . . and MT (with ffi) omit, 38. Hopeless confusion arising from misreadings of the MT. ESDRAS I ESDRAS 1. 39-53 2 CHRON. 36 39 Five and twenty years old was Joakim when he began to reign in Judaea and Jerusalem ; and he did that which was evil in the sight of the 40 Lord. And against him Nabuchodonosor the king of Babylon came up, and bound him with a chain of brass, and carried him unto Babylon, 4 r Nabuchodonosor also took of the holy vessels of the Lord, and carried them away, and set them up in his own temple at Babylon. 42 But those things that are reported of him, and of his uncleanness and impiety, are written in the chronicles of the kings. 43 And Joakim his son reigned in his stead: for when he was made king he was eighteen years 44 old ; and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem ; and did that which was evil before the Lord. 45 So after a year Nabuchodonosor sent and caused him to be brought unto Babylon with 46 the holy vessels of the Lord ; and made Sedekias king of Judsea and Jerusalem, when he was one and twenty years old ; and he reigned eleven 4 7 years: and he also did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, and cared not for the words that were spoken by Jeremy the prophet 48 from the mouth of the Lord. And after that king Nabuchodonosor had made him to swear by the name of the Lord, he forswore himself, and rebelled; and hardening his neck, and his heart, he transgressed the laws of the Lord, the 49 God of Israel. Moreover the governors of the people and of the priests did many things wickedly, and passed all the pollutions of all nations, and defiled the temple of the Lord, 50 which was sanctified in Jerusalem. And the God of their fathers sent by his messenger to call them back, because he had compassion on them and on his dwelling place, 51 But they mocked his messengers; and in the day when the Lord spake unto them, they scoffed at his prophets : 5 2 so far forth, that he, being wroth with his people for their great ungodliness, com- manded to bring up the kings of the Chaldeans 53 against them; who slew their young men with the sword, round about their holy temple, and -SfflftSKJ JtSf 43. Joakim, an error for Jehoiachin. eighteen, mg. eight ( xix. 243 seqq., and Torrey, 120 seqq. II. 3. Most High, MT ' God of Heaven', so also in vi, 31, viii. 19, 21. Definite conclusions can with difficulty be drawn from the numerous and often noteworthy variations in the form of the Divine name ; for a summary of the data see Moulton, ZATW, xix. 226 seqq. The title 'Most High' (ttyiaro? = t^pjf) recurs frequently m Daniel (14 times), Psalms (21), Ecclus. (48), and in Jubilees; more rarely in the Pentateuch (6); see the details in R. H. Charles, Jubilees, pp. Ixvi, 213, who observes that it was most used in the second cent. B.C. On the Greek title see E. Schiirer, Theolog. Lit.-zeit., 1897, nos. 9 and (with a review of F. Cumont's Hypsistos) 19; J. Skinner, Genesis, 270 seq. ESDRAS I ESDRAS 2. EZRA 1 4 whole world, and commanded me to build him 5 a house at Jerusalem that is in Judaea. If there- fore there be any of you that are of his people, let the Lord, even his Lord, be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem that is in Judaea, and build the house of the Lord of Israel : he is the 6 Lord that dwelleth in Jerusalem. Of such there- fore as dwell in divers places, let them that are 7 in his own place help each one with gold, and with silver, with gifts, with horses also and cattle, beside the other things which have been added by vow for the temple of the Lord which is in Jerusalem. 8 Then the chief of the families of Judah and of the tribe of Benjamin stood up ; the priests also, and the Levites, and all they whose spirit the Lord had stirred to go up, to build the house for the Lord which is in Jerusalem. 9 And they that dwelt round about them helped them in all things with silver and gold, with horses and cattle, and with very many gifts that were vowed of a great number whose minds were stirred up thereto. 10 King Cyrus also brought forth the holy vessels of the Lord, which Nabuchodonosor had carried away from Jerusalem, and had set up in his temple 11 of idols. Now when Cyrus king of the Persians had brought them forth, he delivered them to 12 Mithradates his treasurer, and by him they were delivered to Sanabassar the governor of Judsea. 13 And this was the number of them : A thousand golden cups, a thousand cups of silver, censers of silver twenty nine, vials of gold thirty, and of silver two thousand four hundred and ten, and 14 other vessels a thousand. So all the vessels of gold and of silver were brought up, even five and he hath charged me to build him an house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whosoever 3 there is among you of all his people, his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and build the house of the Lord, the God of Israel, (he is God,) which is in Jerusalem. And whosoever is left, in any place 4 where he sojourneth, let the men of his place help him with silver, and with gold, and with goods, and with beasts, beside the freewill offering for the house of God which is in Jerusalem. Then 5 rose up the heads of fathers' houses of Judah and Benjamin, and the priests, and the Levites, even all whose spirit God had stirred to go up to build the house of the Lord which is in Jerusalem. And all they that were round about them 6 strengthened their hands with vessels of silver, with gold, with goods, and with beasts, and with precious things, beside all that was willingly offered. Also Cyrus the king brought forth the 7 vessels of the house of the Lord, which Nebu- chadnezzar had brought forth out of Jerusalem, and had put them in the house of his gods ; even 8 those did Cyrus king of Persia bring forth by the hand of Mithredath the treasurer, and numbered them unto Sheshbazzar, the prince of Judah, And this is the number of them ; thirty chargers 9 of gold, a thousand chargers of silver, nine and twenty knives ; thirty bowls of gold, silver bowls 10 of a second sort four hundred and ten, and other vessels a thousand. All the vessels of gold and * i of silver were five thousand and four hundred. 5. people. (KH ' who desireth to go up ' ; cf. v. 8, viii. 10 seq. let the Lord, mg, let his Lord be, &*c. (<2K B ), cf. Chron. Yahweh his God. the Lord that dwelleth, cf. E R.V. nig. : he is the God which . , . (with omission of the brackets). 7. horses, reading Btfj for Btol (cf. ?/. 9) ; perhaps wrongly, see Torrey, 121. added by vow (or ' in accordance with vow '), cf. xix. 231, 9. in all things, ^3, for MT^m. of a great number, reading 3T (i.e. 'with precious things in abundance"} in place of the incorrect *n!> ('beside'). " : 10. holy vessels. For the rendering cf, i. 45, vi. 18, 26 ; Dan. i. 2 (MS. 87) and Moulton, ZATW, xix. 228 seq. There is an obvious effort to link the new Temple with that of Solomon (cf. similarly the Register of the exiles in v. 1-46), but the details are intricate. Some of the Temple-vessels were removed in the reign of Jehoiakim (2 Chron. xxxvi. 7, Dan. i. 2 ; wanting in 2 Kings), Later, in the time of Jehoiachln all were cut 'up or carried away (2 Kings xxiv. 13 seq., a doubtful passage, see the comm.). In Zedekiah's time, nevertheless, many evidently were left (Jer. xxvii. 16 seqq., xxviii. 3), and a prophecy of their removal also promises their restoration, although this latter feature is absent from <5's text (xxvii. 16-22). Finally, at the fall of Jerusalem they were broken up and removed (2 Kings xxv, 13-17, Jer. Hi. 17 seqq.). (The evidence in Judith iy. 1-3 for a return of exiles and vessels in the time of Nebu- chadrezzar and the high-priest Joakim can hardly be discussed.) The sacrilegious use of the vessels by Belshazzar was avenged by the ^ division of the Babylonian empire among the Medes and Persians, and Darius became king (Dan. v.J. The tradition of their restoration in the reign and set forth in the Syrian tongue. Rehum the 8 chancellor and Shimshai the scribe wrote a letter against Jerusalem to Artaxerxes the king in this sort : then wrote Rehum the chancellor, and Shim- 9 shai the scribe, and the rest of their companions ; the Dinaites, and the Apharsathchites, the Tar- pelites, the Apharsites, the Archevites, the Baby- lonians, the Shushanchites, the Dehaites, the ElamiteSj and the rest of the nations whom the 10 great and noble Osnappar brought over, and set in the city of Samaria, and in the rest of the country beyond the river, and so forth. This is 1 1 the copy of the letter that they sent unto Arta- xerxes the king ; Thy servants the men beyond the river, and so forth. Be it known unto the 12 king, that the Jews which came up from thee are come to us unto Jerusalem ; they are building 15. Neither MT nor the explicit E supports the conjecture (Meyer, 193 ; cf. Holzhey, 15 seq., Davies, 47) that Sheshbazzar returned to prepare the way for Zerubbabel, The opposition in the reign of Artaxerxes, ii. 16-30 = E iv. 7-24 (Aramaic), cf. Jos. Ant. xi. 2 1-2. (a) This passage cannot, in either E or E, come between the reigns of Cyrus and Darius. There is an obvious gap after v. 15, and Jos., who ingeniously changes Artaxerxes into Cambyses, avoids it by an introduction ( 19 seq., to be compared with 88 = E v. 72 seq.), and ends with the statement of a delay of nine years (including 6 of Cambyses, 2 of Darius). The passage has hardly ' strayed 3 to its place in E (Davies, 84) ; it is not indispensable in E, whereas in it is a necessary link between the return of Sheshbazzar and the tradition in iii. seq. Various attempts have been made to show that it is in its true position before the accession of Darius, whether by identifying the latter with D. II, or, like Josephus, by treating Artaxerxes as a mistake for Cambyses (cf. Sellin, Wmckler, Torrey, and see references by Howorth in PSJ3A, xxiii. 313, 3*9, and Jampel, i. 103 seqq., ii. 97 seq.). These only cut the knot. Allowance must be made for a compilation based on a particular though erroneous theory of the Median and Persian kings (see Torrey, 38, 286, 302), but the real difficulty is the occurrence of this document relating to the time of Artaxerxes immediately after the reign of Cyrus, On its place, see further below, p. 56, and Introd. 5 (b). (b) The text in E is certainly from an Aramaic original Note the translation of fiJJD 7JH 'story- writer' (mg. 'recorder') in 17, 25, but the transliteration in 16 and (with a doublet) 25 ; the different renderings in E (e.g. b clpfivy for MT Bishlam, E Belemus, v. 16) ; and such variant renderings as ' cities ' (v. 22 for l provinces '), ' passage ' (u. 24 and Jos. 25 ; j?n for MT pi>n ' portion '). E 9 although free and paraphrastic, preserves (as noticed by Volz, especially the introduction compared with E iv. 6-n. In the MT 7 and 8 imply two letters, but the relationship is not clear ; both 8 b and io (ending * and now ' as in v. ii) point to the immediate commencement of a letter. The (Hebrew) reference to Ahasuerus (Xerxes) in v. 6 (cf. the story of Esther) is wanting in E 9 although v. 16 (end) seems to represent MT 6& 9 and v. 17 covers MT w. 8 (end), 9 (omitting the names after * Dinaites ', E 'judges '), and 10 (the reference to * beyond the river*). Thus E v. 18 begins the letter and corresponds to WTi2 (cf. ub with lob). The intricacies may be due partly to the compiler's effort to quote a source and also to use it in his narrative (cf. on E vl below), partly also to the revision of E after E and the reverse. It is noteworthy that E (where i.-iv. 6 is in Hebrew) takes care to state that the document was in Aramaic and needed translating (w. 7 and 18 R.V. rag.) ; this is ignored in , as also is the debatable BhbD in E ix. 48. See further the comment, and Torrey, 172 seq., 178 seqq., Bayer 3 33 seq. 17, Ccelesyria and Phoenicia. The geographical term in MT ('Transflumen*, 'Transpotamia') represents the Persian province west of the Euphrates, and to this the earlier use of the term Coelesyria (before the first cent B.C.) corresponds. E?s rendering (contrast Edfr's literal iripav rov mra^ii) may point to an Egyptian locale where the geography of Palestine and Syria was unfamiliar (Torrey, 83). Jos. names Syria and Phoenicia, and adds Ammon and Moab ; cf. perhaps Tohiah the Ammonite and Sanballat (if a native of Horonaim). 37 ESDRAS I ESDRAS 2. 18-30 EZRA 4 Jerusalem, do build that rebellious and wicked city, and do repair the marketplaces and the walls of it, and do lay the foundation of a temple. 19 Now if this city be builded and the walls thereof be finished, they will not only refuse to give tribute, but will even stand up against kings. 20 And forasmuch as the things pertaining to the temple are now in hand, we think it meet not to 21 neglect such a matter, but to speak unto our lord the king, to the intent that, if it be thy pleasure, search may be made in the books of thy fathers : 22 and thou shalt find in the chronicles what is written concerning these things, and shalt under- stand that that city was rebellious, troubling both 23 kings and cities: and that the Jews were rebel- lious, and raised always wars therein of old time ; for the which cause even this city was laid waste, 24 Wherefore now we do declare unto thee, lord the king, that if this city be builded again, and the walls thereof set up anew, thou shalt from henceforth have no passage into Ccelesyria and 25 Phoenicia, Then the king wrote back again to Rathumus the storywriter, and Beeltethmus, and Samellius the scribe, and to the rest that were in commission, and dwelt in Samaria and Syria and 26 Phoenicia, after this manner: I have read the epistle which ye have sent unto me: therefore I commanded to make search, and it hath been found that that city of old time hath made in- 27 surrection against kings ; and the men were given to rebellion and war therein : and that mighty kings and fierce were in Jerusalem, who reigned and exacted tribute in Ccelesyria and Phoenicia. 28 Now therefore I have commanded to hinder those men from building the city, and heed to be taken that there be nothing done contrary to 29 this order ; and that those wicked doings prp- 3 ceed no further to the annoyance of kings. Then king Artaxerxes his letters being read, Rathu- mus, and Samellius the scribe, and the rest that were in commission with them, removing in haste unto Jerusalem with horsemen and a multitude of people in battle array, began to hinder the builders ; and the building of the temple in Jeru- the rebellious and the bad city, and have finished the walls, and repaired the foundations. Be it 13 known now unto the king, that, if this city be builded, and the walls finished, they will not pay tribute, custom, or toll and in the end it will endamage the kings. Now because we cat the *4 salt of the palace, and it is not meet for us to see the king's dishonour, therefore have we sent and certified the king; that search may be made in *5 the book of the records of thy fathers : so shalt thou find in the book of the records, and know that this city is a rebellious city, and hurtful unto kings and provinces, and that they have moved sedition within the same of old time : for which cause was this city laid waste, We certify the r6 king that, if this city be builded, and the walls finished, by this means thou shalt have no portion beyond the river. Then sent the king an answer 17 unto Rehum the chancellor, and to Shimshai the scribe, and to the rest of their companions that dwell in Samaria, and in the rest of the country beyond the river, Peace, and so forth, The letter *8 which ye sent unto us hath been plainly read before me. And I decreed, and search hath been *9 made, and it is found that this city of old time hath made insurrection against kings, and that rebellion and sedition have been made therein. There have been mighty kings also over Jeru- 2 salem, which have ruled over all the country beyond the river ; and tribute, custom, and toll, was paid unto them. Make ye now a decree to 2 * cause these men to cease, and that this city be not builded, until a decree shall be made by me. And take heed that ye be not slack herein : why 22 should damage grow to the hurt of the kings ? Then when the copy of king Artaxerxes' letter 2 3 was read before Rehum, and Shimshai the scribe, and their companions, they went in haste to Jerusalem unto the Jews, and made them to cease by force and power. Then ceased the work of 18. lay the foundation . . . , KOI vaov iw>]8aXXovrcu (B A ; {/7rep3aXXoi/ra fcfieXiowriy, L). ,20, temple ... in hand (mpyewm ra Kara rov va6v\ lit. 'are, being urged on'. "MX Now became . . . palace 5 A om.) may mean that the writers are in the king's service, or have entered into a covenant with him, or (reading our salt is the . . /; Nestle, Strack) receive the dues of the palace or temple (cf. E vii. 22, i Mace. x. 29, xi. 35). apparently rests upon some confusion of rfe (' salt '), with naa6o ('work of), H^D (), and concludes that the Story of the Three Pages was in Aramaic, and metrical (p. 47) ; vv. 43-46 were also in Aramaic, but the sequel in Hebrew (pp. 29 seq., 58). Bayer (123 seqq.) agrees, but urges that the whole of iii. and iv. was in Aramaic. See further Torrey's retranslation and notes (50 seqq.), and below on iv, 42 seqq. Jos, reproduces the section, with a necessary introduction to account for the presence of Zerubbabel ; he seems to have used a slightly different version (Buchler, 57 seqq., loo ; see on iii. 3). An abbreviated version is given in the Latin summary published by Lagarde (Sept, Stud, ii. 16 seqq.; here cited as Lag.), and in Josippon (see Buchler, 59 seqq., 62 seq., 100 seq.). For other witnesses see on iv. 36, 41, 59. III. 3. slept, and awaked : ^KOI^TJ nal *nrvo$ eysvcro, 'lay down and was sleepless', cf. Hgwrvos in mod. Greek ' wide-awake J ( J. C. Lawson, Mod. Gr. Folklore, p. 31). According to Jos. 35, c 57, the king was restless (cf, Est. vi. i), and was the first to suggest the orations and to promise and specify rewards. This conflicts with *v. 8 seq., but seems to be hinted at in iv. 42 (TrXa'w T$W ytypappivw). On the other hand, E does not allow that the suggestion came from the king, who is asleep t (vv. 8 seq., 13). Jahn proposes to read cvwvcs (p. 177); Torrey (24, 50) con- jectures that the original Aramaic "text read : ( (v. 3) . . . Darius * , . slept (?/. 4) Then stood on the watch (or "bestirred themselves" \\n pjjflD) three young guardsmen (who protected the person of the king: a gloss), and they said . . . / 5, thing (Xdyop), i.e. sentence, as in u. 16. strongest (wepwrxucw)* i. e. shall prevail. sentence (p?fw),le. argument. ///,/ honours, &C., cWtW /wynXa, (?'. 6) KOI iroptf.vpav TTfpijSaAeV&u ; Jos. 35 VIK^TT^LQV iropfyvpav cv$i A ' V ' ; E rex autem su P er omnia Praecellit, 3L C . . . super fords est. and natn * * * tnem, w om. obey, ffiS AuKnWiK, & aMs, &oA, TO Ms, e " Jx**"*' rA <*XX Wa (i. e. 'and if they raid- and all el Fin mg ever * eyspoi1 ^ Torrey, 8. f om. z/ in v. 8 seq. S A om, el ^ftSo-at l ni uAaa>. Cf. generally Dan. v. 19. 3 I ESDRAS 4 ir-35 1 1 taketh his rest : and these keep watch round about him, neither may any one depart, and do his own 12 business, neither disobey they him in anything. O sirs, how should not the king be strongest, seeing that in such sort he is obeyed ? And he held his peace. 13 Then the third, who had spoken of women, and of truth, (this was Zorobabel) began to speak. 14 O sirs, is not the king great, and men are many, and wine is strong ? who Is it then that ruleth them, 15 or hath the lordship over them? are they not women ? Women have borne the king and all the 1 6 people that bear rule by sea and land. Even of them came they: and they nourished them up that 1 7 planted the vineyards, from whence the wine cometh. These also make garments for men; these 1 8 bring glory unto men ; and without women cannot men be. Yea, and if men have gathered together gold and silver and every other goodly thing, and see a woman which is comely in favour and beauty, ip they let all those things go, and gape after her, and even with open mouth fix their eyes fast on her ; 20 and have all more desire unto her than unto gold or silver, or any goodly thing whatsoever. A man 21 leaveth his own father that brought him up, and his own country, and cleaveth unto his wife. And 22 with his wife he endeth his days, and remembereth neither father, nor mother, nor country. By this also ye must know that women have dominion over you : do ye not labour and toil, and give and 23 bring all to women? Yea, a man taketh his sword, and goeth forth to make outroads, and to rob 24 and to steal, and to sail upon the sea and upon rivers ; and looketh upon a lion, and walketh in the 25 darkness ; and when he hath stolen, spoiled, and robbed, he bringeth it to his love. Wherefore a man 26 loveth his wife better than father or mother. Yea, many there be that have run out of their wits for 27 women, and become bondmen for their sakes. Many also have perished, have stumbled, and sinned, 28 for women. And now do ye not believe me? is not the king great in his power? do not all regions 29 fear to touch him ? Yet did I see him and Apame the king's concubine, the daughter of the illus- 30 trious Bartacus, sitting at the right hand of the king, and taking the crown from the king's head, 31 and setting it upon her own head ; yea, she struck the king with her left hand : and therewithal the king gaped and gazed upon her with open mouth : if she laughed upon him, he laughed also : but if she took any displeasure at him, he was fain to flatter, that she might be reconciled to him again. 320 sirs, how can it be but women should be strong, seeing they do thus ? 33 Then the king and the nobles looked one upon another: so he began to speak concerning truth. 34 sirs, are not women strong? great is the earth, high is the heaven, swift is the sun in his course, for he compasseth the heavens round about, and fetcheth his course again to his own place in one 3 5 day. Is he not great that maketh these things? therefore great is truth, and stronger than all 13. ouroff CO-TV Zop. } (& L 3L C + the son of Salathiel, Lag. -f of the house of David, of the tribe of Judah, cf. v. 5. The identity of the unknown third youth (note v. 58), thus parenthetically introduced, is stated also by L in if. 61, by 3L C in 33, 43, 58, and by Jos. regularly after iv. 40. 14. is not ... (& L by omitting the negative, makes the statement, and joining the verse on to v. 15, reads 'have not women borne the king ? and all the people . . . land were even of them ', men are many, or are mighty, see Torrey, 24, 53. From v. 14 seq. Buchler (61 seq.) conjectures that the first and second orations have been transposed ; cf. August. de Civ. Dei, xviii. 36 ( quum reges unus dixisset, alter vinum, tertius mulieres/ &c. 17. garments * . . glory, probably a doublet (Torrey), 1 8. and see * , . , & A do they not love (cf. A.V.). comely . . . beauty KaXyv , . . T<$ /caXXei, an evident sign of translation (Torrey, 53), 21. endeth his days, < d^fycri TJ?V ^x^; or Mosetfe his life ' (Ball, who cfs. Gen. xxxv. 18 va rot) al&vos, a Semitism. 39. rewards, $* B Sta J os - & has 'for the Levites, the musical instruments (ra opyava) wherewith they praise God \ With the interest in the Levites, cf. E vii. 24, and especially N xi. 23. 56. kept ((bpovpova-i) the city ; Jos. + < and the temple J ; on his paraphrase of the verse, see Buchler, 99 n. 3. 58. toward Jerusalem, cf. Dan. vi. 10, Tob. iii. II seq. With the prayer cf. E vii. 27, Dan. ii. 19, 20, 23. 59. & ' counsel OowXi}) and wisdom and victory, and thine is the glory'; so 3l c , transposing * wisdom' and 4 victory \ Origen, Horn, ix* in losuam, quotes from ' Esdras ' : ' a te Domine est victoria et ego servus tuus, bene- dictus es Deus veritatis ' (cf. -z/. 40). 60. give thanks, rather 'praise '. 62, God of their fathers, cf. E vii 27, viii. 28, x. n. 1105 33 D ' ESDRAS I ESDRAS 1 636. 7 6- criven them freedom and liberty to go up, and to build Jerusalem, and the temple which is called by his name : and they feasted with instruments of music and gladness seven days. ^ _ 5 ! After this were the chiefs of fathers' houses chosen to go up according to their tribes with their 2 wives and sons and daughters, with their menservants and maidservants and their cattle. And Darius sent with them a thousand horsemen, till they had brought them back to Jerusalem safely, 3 and with musical instruments, tabrets and flutes. And all their brethren played, and he made them go up together with them. . 4 And these are the names of the men which went up, according to their families amongst their 5 tribes, after their several divisions. The priests, the sons of Phinees, the sons of Aaron : Jesus the son of Josedek, the son of Saraias, and Joakim the son of Zorobabel, the son of Salathtel, of the 6 house of David, of the lineage of Phares, of the tribe of Judah ; who spake wise sentences before Darius the king of Persia in the second year of his reign, in the month Nisan, which is the first month. f , . : 7 And these are they of Jewry that came up | Now these are the children of the province, 2 63. which is called . , . ffi ov &vt>iM)ri TO wopa CLVTOV en afapj a Hebraism, cf. 2 Chron. vi. 33, vii. 14, E vi. 33, feasted, Jos. 66 TTJV avaKrriffw Kai Tra\iyycv(riav TJJS Trarpiftos eopra&vres. V. 2. "brought . . . back, $r BA aTTOKaraa-rrfo-at, (5r L a.7rOKaTaffKY)vS> & Ckaseba P cf ' Chezib ' C ^i), Asara see in ffi E^55?' 2 ""^ 22) ' PAin * w (see ^^/ v 3686) and Cutha (? cf. the Cuthaeans, or, with Bayer, 36 ESDEAS I ESDRAS 5. 30-40 EZRA 2 30 sons of Labana, the sons of Aggaba, the sons of Acud, the sons of Uta, the sons of Ketab, the sons of Accaba, the sons of Subai, the sons of Anan, the sons of Cathua, the sons of Geddur, 31 the sons of Jairus,the sons of Daisan,the sons of Noeba, the sons of Chaseba, the sons of Gazera, the sons of Ozias, the sons of Phinoe, the sons of Asara, the sons of Basthai, the sons of Asana, the sons of Maani, the sons of Naphisi, the sons of Acubj the sons of Achipha, the sons of Asur, 32 the sons of Pharakim, the sons of Basaloth, the sons of Meedda, the sons of Cutha, the sons of Charea, the sons of Barchus, the sons of Serar, the sons of Thomei, the sons of Nasi, the sons of Atipha. The sons of the servants of Solomon : 33 the sons of Assaphioth, the sons of Pharida, the sons of Jeeli, the sons of Lozon, the sons of 34 Isdaelj the sons of Saphuthi, the sons of Agia, the sons of Phacareth, the sons of Sabie, the sons of Sarothie, the sons of Masias, the sons of Gas, the sons of Addus, the sons of Subas,the sons of Apherra, the sons of Barodis, the sons of Saphat, 35 the sons of Allon. All the temple-servants, and the sons of the servants of Solomon, were three 36 hundred seventy and two. These came up from Thermeleth, and Thelersas, Charaathalan lead- 3^ ing them, and Allar; and they could not shew their families, nor their stock, how they. were of Israel: the sons of Dalan the son of Ban, the sons of Nekodan, six hundred fifty and two. 38 And of the priests, they that usurped the office of the priesthood and were not found: the sons of Obdia, the sons of Akkos, the sons of Jaddus, who married Augia one of the daughters of 39 Zorzelleus, and was called after his name. And when the description of the kindred of these men was sought in the register, and was not found, they were removed from executing the office of 40 the priesthood : for unto them said Nehemias and Attharias, that they should not be partakers of Padon ; the children of Lebanah, the children 45 of Hagabah, the children of Akkub ; the children 46 of Hagab, the children of Shamlai, the children of Hanan ; the children of Giddel, the children of 47 Gahar, the children of Reaiah ; the children of 48 Rezin, the children of Nekoda, the children of Gazzam ; the children of Uzza, the children of 49 Paseah, the children of Besai ; the children of 50 Asnah, the children of Meunim, the children of Nephisim; the children of Bakbuk, the children 5 1 of Hakupha, the children of Harhur ; the chil- 52 dren of Bazluth, the children of Mehida, the children of Harsha; the children of Barkos, the 53 children of Sisera, the children of Temah; the 54 children of Neziah, the children of Hatipha. The children of Solomon's servants : the children 55 of Sotai, the children of Hassophereth, the chil- dren of Peruda ; the children of Jaalah, the 56 children of Darken, the children of Giddel ; the 57 children of Shephatiah, the children of Hattil, the children of Pochereth-hazzebaim, the chil- dren of Ami. All the Nethinim, and the chil- 58 dren of Solomon's servants, were three hundred ninety and two. And these were they which 59 went up from Tel-melah, Tel-harsha, Cherub, Addan, and Immer : but they could not shew their fathers' houses, and their seed, whether they were of Israel : the children of Delaiah, the 60 children of Tobiah, the children of Nekoda, six hundred fifty and two. And of the children of 61 the priests : the children of Habaiah, the children of Hakkoz, the children of Barzillai, which took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was called after their name. These sought 62 their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not found : there- fore were they deemed polluted and put from the priesthood. And the Tirshatha said unto 63 them, that they should not eat of the most holy 33 seq. Servants of Solomon. E (but not (K L ) omits Sotai, severs (with c of E-N) Pochereth-hazzebaim, and between the latter and Ami (E ; N Amon, E t Allon) inserts eight names, on which see E Bi. \ 36. See the comm. Leading is apparently based upon a doublet of Tel-harsha (KEnn), as though connected with P&n (KBH) * head, leader J ; but see v. 8 end. 37. Dalan, ffi B avav, MT Delaiah, Ban, marg. Baenan ( B ), but MX Tobiah (? cf. N vi, 17 seq., xiiL 4), though with the addition of jSouo, E& B , N& A . Nekoda(n\ cf. v. 31 (E Noeba). ^ 38.- And of the priests (similarly N 63), they that claimed . . . (ot epiroiovpevoi [ L ^roaro*.] lep&wvijs). Obdia, <3r B Obbeia, N Hobaiah. The family of Hakkoz, according to the traditional view, had been legitimate (i Chron. xxiv. 10), was now deposed, but was subsequently reinstated and held a prominent place (N iii. 4, si, E viii. 33). If this list is of the time of Zerubbabel we must explain the retention of the name in N vii. 63 and its omission in N x. xii. (cf. Kosters, TL T. t xxxi, 539). The passage has not the value set upon it (notably by Meyer, 170, who compares the Calebite Kos, i Chron, iv. 8 ; see also Jampel i, 313), but only shows that at some period the legitimacy of the family was -evidently doujbtful. - ' the sons of Jaddus, apparently Jaddua J aote the variant text in E. , 40, Attharias, le, the Tirshatha (cf. ix. 49). The verb (elircv) is in the singular and ^ (see A.V. ing.) identifies the two. & reads only Nehtmiah, and MT only the Tirshatha (cf. the variants in E ix. 49). Even if the identification be due to a gloss (Fr., cf. Bayep, 53) it must serve a purpose (as in iv. 13, vi. 18), and it is only intelligible if the -list belonged originally to the history of N's- age (see W. R. Smith, Ency. Brit, 9th ed., art. ' Haggai', xi, 370 ; Harvey, s., i893 r vil p. 440 ; Howorth, PSBA, xxiii> 309 seq,). The mitigated form of the decision in the MX is prabably 37. ESDRAS I ESDRAS 5. 40-49 EZRA 2 of the holy things, till there arose ^ up a high 41 priest wearing Urim and Thummim. So all they of Israel, from twelve years old and up- ward, beside menservants and womenservants, were in number forty and two thousand three 42 hundred and sixty. Their menservants and handmaids were seven thousand three hundred thirty and seven : the minstrels and singers, two hundred forty and five : 43 four hundred thirty and five camels, seven thousand thirty and six horses, two hundred forty and five mules, five thousand five hundred twenty and five beasts of burden. 44 And certain of the chief men of their families, when they came to the temple of God that is in Jerusalem, vowed to set up the house again in 45 its own place according to their ability, and to give into the holy treasury of the works a thou- sand pounds of gold, five thousand of silver, and a hundred priestly vestments. 4 6 And the priests and the Levites and they that were of the people dwelt in Jerusalem and the country; the holy singers also and the porters and all Israel in their villages. 47 But when the seventh month was at hand, and when the children of Israel were every man in his own place, they came all together with one consent into the broad place before the first 48 porch which is toward the east. Then stood up Jesus the son of Josedek, and his brethren the priests, and Zorobabel the son of Salathiel, and his brethren, and made ready the altar of the 49 God of Israel, to offer burnt sacrifices upon it, according as it is expressly commanded in the things, till there stood up a priest with Urim and with Thummim. The whole congregation 64 together was forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore, beside their menservants 65 and their maidservants, of whom there were seven thousand three hundred thirty and seven : and they had two hundred singing men and singing women. Their horses were seven hundred thirty 66 and six ; their mules, two hundred forty and five ; their camels, four hundred thirty and five ; 67 their asses, six thousand seven hundred and twenty. And some of the heads of fathers' 68 houses, when they came to the house of the Lord which is in Jerusalem, offered willingly for the house of God to set it up in its place : they 69 gave after their ability into the treasury of the work threescore and one thousand darics of gold, and five thousand pound of silver, and one hun- dred priests' garments. So the priests, and the 70 Levites, and some of the people, and the singers, and the porters, and the Nethinim, dwelt in their cities, and all Israel in their cities. And when the seventh month was come, and 8 1 the children of Israel were in the cities, the people gathered themselves together as one man to Jerusalem. Then stood up Jcshua the 2 son of Jozadak, and his brethren the priests, and Zerubbabel the son of Shealticl, and his brethren, and builded the altar of the God of Israel, to offer burnt offerings thereon, as it is written in the law of Moses the man of God. less original (Guthe, Bertholet, Jahn) ; instead of being removed, the priests aie foi bidden to share in the most holy things, which were restricted to the Aaronites. 41. For the age-limit (also in Jos.) cf. Luke ii. 42. 42. For the minstrels cf. r u. 2 seq., and see Meyer, 192. 43. The horses and mules are wanting in good MSS. of N. 44 seq. E and E omit N vii. 70, which refers vaguely to the donations of the heads ' to the work ' and mentions the gifts of the Tirshatha (i.e. Nehemiah, so & B ), and also ib. 72, the gifts of the rest of the people, although the priestly garments are recorded. The emphasis upon the proposed building of the temple, natural in E, is wanting in JN, although the record there professes to be taken from the history of the time of Zerubbabel (N vii. 5). For the view that EE represent a less original form of the passage, see Meyer, 195 ; Wellh., GGN, 1895, P- 176; Nikel, 75 n. I ; Sellin, Stud., no; Guthe, SBOT. For the general situation, cf, I Chron. xxix. 6 seqq. 46. On the data of MT and the versions, see the comm. The mention of Jerusalem here and ix. 37 presupposes the completion of the rebuilding of the city ; the omission in MT may be due to the context : in E, the city has not yet been restored, in N it is still poorly inhabited and barely ready. Elsewhere, in i Chron, ix. 2, N xi, 3. 20 there is a distinction between Jerusalem and the outside villages. In N xi. some of the ecclesiastical body dwell in the city (i> 21), but others live in the villages (N xii. 28 seq., cf. i Chron. ix. 16), and in N xiii. 10 Levites and singers have deserted and returned to their abodes. In I Chron. xiii. 2, 2 Chron. xxiii. 2, they are summoned, especially when new conditions are inaugurated, or when (xxix. 4) the temple-service is resumed (cf. the dedication of the walls, N xii. 27 seq.), or when fresh arrangements are made for them (2 Chron. xxxi. 19). The Rebuilding of the Altar and the Foundation of the Temple, v. 47-65 = E iii,, cf. Jos. xi. 4 1-2 The description of the resumption of the Levitical service (cf. I Chron. xxiii. 31, 2 Chron. ii. 4, viii. 12 seq.) begins with the contteeatafir of the antes fnnw < th* PMH *f TC*I. >) ' m t h e seventh month. This is the first year of the return tie congregating of the exiles (now * .^ w w utv uuigmg vi uw wwmmuuiiy ^r. prooaoiy , v. 30-40 ana ttie allusions in vii. 6. 13 . The scene of the assembly in v. 47 (cf. a Chron. xxix. 4, a story of the restoration of the Temple after some disaster, ?/, 9) presupposes the existence of the Temple, as m ix. 6 (E x. 9 , 38 (N viii. i), and, therefore, a later context in the history (cf. the later background of the preceding list). The MT has consequently altered the wording (see Bertholet, Guthe) ESDRAS I ESDRAS 5. 50-58 EZRA 3 50 book of Moses the man of God. And certain were gathered unto them out of the other nations of the land, and they erected the altar upon its own place, because all the nations of the land were at enmity with them, and oppressed them ; and they offered sacrifices according to the time, and burnt offerings to the Lord both morning 51 and evening. Also they held the feast of taber- nacles, as it is commanded in the law, and offered sacrifices daily, as was meet : g 2 and after that, the continual oblations, and the sacrifices of the sabbaths, and of the new moons, and of all the consecrated feasts. 53 And all they that had made any vow to God began to offer sacrifices to God from the new moon of the seventh month, although the temple of God was not yet built. 54 And they gave money unto the masons and 55 carpenters ; and meat and drink, and cars unto them of Sidon and Tyre, that they should bring cedar trees from Libanus, and convey them in floats to the haven of Joppa, according to the commandment which was written for them by 56 Cyrus king of the Persians. And in the second year after his coming to the temple of God at Jerusalem, in the second month, began Zorobabel the son of Salathiel, and Jesus the son of Josedek, and their brethren, and the priests the Levites, and all they that were come unto Jerusalem out 57 of the captivity : and they laid the foundation of the temple of God on the new moon of the second month, in the second year after they were come 58 to Jewry and Jerusalem. And they appointed the Levites from twenty years old over the works And they set the altar upon its base ; for fear 3 was upon them because of the people of the countries : and they offered burnt offerings thereon unto the Lord, even burnt offerings morning and evening. And they kept the feast 4 of tabernacles, as it is written, and offered the daily burnt offerings by number, according to the ordinance, as the duty of every day required ; and afterward the continual burnt offering, and 5 the offerings of the new moons, and of all the set feasts of the Lord that were consecrated, and of every one that willingly offered a freewill offering unto the Lord. From the first day of the seventh 6 month began they to offer burnt offerings unto the Lord: but the foundation of the temple of the Lord was not yet laid, They gave money 7 also unto the masons, and to the carpenters ; and meat, and drink, and oil, unto them of Zidon, and to them of Tyre, to bring cedar trees from Lebanon to the sea, unto Joppa, according to the grant that they had of Cyrus king of Persia. Now in the second year of their coming unto 8 the house of God at Jerusalem, in the second month, began Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and the rest of their brethren the priests and the Levites, and all they that were come out of the captivity unto Jerusalem ; and appointed the Levites, from twenty years old and upward, to have the over- 50. upon its own place; cf. E R.V. mg, in its place. And certain . . . and because all ... are doublets (3L om. the latter), MX has only/0r fear . . . countries (nD 1 ^? represented in E by D S JG ; E( B om. the clause). E's reading finds parallels in i Mace. v. 1-2, and possibly N iv. 12 (MT v. 6), where the enemy come up against the builders (see comm.). oppressed (/cano-xucrai/), may point to ^p?nrw ' and they strengthened themselves } (see Berth.), or Ip-trw ' and they [the foreigners] strengthened them' (Ewald, ioi n. 4 ; Bayer 25 compares v. 66). to the Lord and according to the time (3L om.) are based on doublets in r (mpios, Kaipos) ; for the sacrifices, cf. I Chron. xvi. 40. Jos, 76 reads simply ravra fie TroioOvres OVK. rjcrav Iv ydovrj rots irpotrx&piois edveviv 52. sabbaths ; appropriate, see Num. xxviii. 9 seq,; 2 Chron. ii. 4, viii. 13. 53. seventh month, mg. first ( Kapirovs (58), Kap&z, &c., &c. $I B explains Jos. 78 TOW re 2iGwW fjftv /cm Kovfav rjv, &c., and H cumgaitdio et dedemnt carra (cf. A.V.). The grant in question is referred to only in the decree of Darius (iv. 48, cf. N ii. 8, Artaxerxes). Jos. here and in t u. 71 characteristically com- bines Cyrus and Darius on the lines of iv. 57 (D. commands what had been commanded by C.). But, apart from other questions, was Cyrus in a position to make this grant (Ryle, 43) ? the priests the Levites, <5r L inserts and with MT, cf, v. 63. 58. For the age-limit of the Levites, cf. the secondary passages i Chron. xxiii. 24, 27 ; 2 Chron. xxxi. 17-19. The reference to the oversight of the works presupposes the statement in #. 57 which is wanting in MT. E v. 9 is very confused and the names of the Levites are severed ; E has doublets, and Jos. 79 points to the reading 'Kadmiel the brother of Judah (= Hodaviah, E ii. 40) the son of Amminadab ' ; see Bayer, 64 seq. Meyer observes that the Levites of Henadad (wanting in the preceding register) apparently were not of exilic origin ; see on v. 26. 39 ESDRAS I ESDRAS 5. 58-69 EZRAS of the Lord. Then stood up Jesus, and his sons and brethren, and Kadmiel his brother, and the sons of Jesus, Emadabun, and the sons of Joda the son of Iliadun, and their sons and brethren, all the Levites, \vith one accord setters forward of the business, labouring to advance the works in the house of God. So the builders builded 59 the temple of the Lord. And the priests stood arrayed in their vestments with musical instru- ments and trumpets, and the Levites the sons 60 of Asaph with their cymbals, singing songs of thanksgiving, and praising the Lord, after the 6 1 order of David king of Israel. And they sang aloud, praising the Lord in songs of thanks- giving, because his goodness and his glory are 62 for ever in all Israel. And all the people sounded trumpets, and shouted with a loud voice, singing songs of thanksgiving unto the Lord for the rearing up of the house of the 63 Lord. Also of the priests the Levites, and of the heads of their families, the ancients who had seen the former house came to the building of this with lamentation and great weeping. 64 But many with trumpets and joy shouted with 65 loud voice, insomuch that the people heard not the trumpets for the weeping of the people : for the multitude sounded marvellously, so that it was heard afar off. 66 Wherefore when the enemies of the tribe of Judah and Benjamin heard it, they came to know what that noise of trumpets should mean. 67 And they perceived that they that were of the captivity did build the temple unto the Lord, 68 the God of Israel. So they went to Zorobabel and Jesus, and to the chief men of the families, and said unto them, We will build together 69 with you. For we likewise, as ye, do obey your Lord, and do sacrifice unto him from the sight of the work of the house of the Lord. Then 9 stood Jeshua with his sons and his brethren, Kadmiel and his sons, the sons of Judah, to- gether, to have the oversight of the workmen in the house of God : the sons of Henadad, with their sons and their brethren the Levites. And 10 when the builders laid the foundation of the temple of the Lord, they set the priests in their apparel with trumpets, and the Levites the sons of Asaph with cymbals, to praise the Lord, after the order of David king of Israel. And they 1 1 sang one to another in praising and giving thanks unto the Lord, saying, For he is good, for his mercy endureth for ever toward Israel. And all the people shouted with a great shout, when they praised the Lord, because the foundation of the house of the Lord was laid. But many of the 12 priests and Levites and heads of fathers' houses ^ the old men that had seen the first house, when the foundation of this house was laid before their eyes, wept with a loud voice ; and many shouted aloud for joy: so that the people could not dis- 13 cern the noise of the shout of joy from the noise of the weeping of the people: for the people shouted with a loud shout, and the noise was heard afar off. Now when the adversaries of Judah and 4 i Benjamin heard that the children of the cap- tivity builded a temple unto the Lord, the God ' of Israel ; then they drew near to Zerubbabel, 2 and to the heads of fathers' houses, and said unto them, Let us build with you : for we seek your God, as ye do ; and we do sacrifice unto him since the days of Esar-haddon king of 59. stood, so and some MSS. of the MT. 1 Jh F f f ^ 6 refr , ai \ s . e ? * C *iron. v 13, and especially Jer. xxxih. lo seq., a prophecy of the repopulating of the desert land (cf. v. 7 seq.), which is followed by the promise of the ideal king (w. 14-18). 62. sounded, shouted, apparently doublets of WYl ; cf. v. 64 seq. 63. came (i.e. DW3), but MT ;;^/ (Ml) is wanting. ^^^^^ and Zechanab do ting opposition of the kind here implied, and, according to he former S . , nd in the rei ? n of Carius > not ext( *nal MstarJ, but the desire toTmovfthe ?tt 'is " d 40 ESDRAS I ESDRAS 5. 69-6. i EZRA 4 Assyria, which brought us up hither. But Zerub- 3 babel, and Jeshua, and the rest of the heads of fathers' houses of Israel, said unto them, Ye have nothing to do with us to build an house unto our God ; but we ourselves together will build unto the Lord, the God of Israel, as king Cyrus the king of Persia hath commanded us. Then the 4 people of the land weakened the hands of the people of Judah, and troubled them in building, and hired counsellors against them, 5 to frustrate their purpose, all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius king of Persia. Then ceased the work of the 24 house of God which is at Jerusalem; and it ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia. Now the prophets, Haggai the prophet, and 5 i Zechariah the son of Iddo, prophesied unto the days of Asbasareth the king of the Assyrians, 70 who brought us hither. Then Zorobabel and Jesus and the chief men of the families of Israel said unto them, It is not for you to build the 71 house unto the Lord our God. We ourselves alone will build unto the Lord of Israel, accord- ing as Cyrus the king of the Persians hath 72 commanded us. But the heathen of the land lying heavy upon the inhabitants of Judaea, and holding them strait, hindered their building; 73 and by their secret plots, and popular persuasions and commotions, they hindered the finishing of the building all the time that king Cyrus lived : so they were hindered from building for the space of two years, until the reign of Darius. 6 i Now in the second year of the reign of Darius, Aggaeus and Zacharias the son of Addo, the 69. Asbasareth (r A ), mg. Asbacafihath (B and partly 5), but L d^opSa*/; see Torrey, 169 n. Jos. has Shal- maneser (d. E iv. 10 r L and Tobit i.) ; he ascribes the origin of the Samaritans to Cutha and Media ( 85, cf, 19), and, in his version of #. 71 (where Cyrus and Darius are associated), allows them and other peoples to come to Jerusalem for worship (similarly xviii. 2 2). 70. for you, mg.for us and you (<3r A , 5). 71. alone ; E together, which would be more appropriate in E iv. 2. For the spirit of the reply, cf. Neh. ii, 20 and see 2 Chron. xiii. 5-12, xxv. 7, and 2 Kings xvii. 7-41, xviii. 12. 72 seq. lying heavy, eViKoi/iw/xeva (BA), eWon/ayowra (L), gentes autem terrae quae commixtae erant (31),* that were set over them ' (&). Fr. conj. * and roVo?. The ' memorandum ' (|n:n) recalls the J13T (Sach. Pap III) relating to the rebuilding- of the Jewish sanctuary at Elephantine. The fact that the roll was sought ior at Babylon but found at Ecbatana points to some condensation in the narrative. 24. continual fire.^ A slight change of the MT supported by most scholars. 25. Jos. (99) applies these measurements to the altar, although in xi.i 3 (see below on v. 26) he rightly refers them to me j. em pie. one row of new wood (similarly Jos.) of that country, ( one ' and ' new ' are doublets, (see v. 9), and c country * seems to be some confusion of the Heb. pK (land) and t$ (cedar), so Jahn ; or of the Aram. JTW (land) and Wk (wood), so Marq. For the details see I Kings vi. 36, vii. 12. " 26. Note the changes of person and number in MT (E 6 has their companions). The compiler turns the decree of Cyrus into a command to Shesh. (and thou shalt place], and then passes on to the commands of Darius see Meyer 47) a clear case of compilation. E, however, takes E 6 to belong to the old decree, and Jos. actually attributes the whole (to tae end of v. 33) to Cyrus, which Darius (as in v. 34) simply endorses. Hence, in his history of Cyrus* Jos. fxi i *\ gives ajengthy decree on these lines in the form of a letter to Tattenai and Shethar-bozenai, an interesting" and instructive example of history-making. fe 27. the servant of the Lord. Jos. ( 101) ' the servants of God (cf. v. 13), the Jews and their leaders '. Here ^ d u m f;^ 9 Z 5' a SR? ais *? be due to later insertion (Jos. omits) ; perhaps the translator misunderstood m*W (< work') in the MT, where & B Q m. 'the governor (ffi" governors, or leaders) of the Jews and', . In E v, 5, a vi. 8, 14 only the 'elders of the Jews/ are mentioned; see Guthe, SBOT* , ' y to iL^fEY"*) finlshedj a ^ tural < limitation > <* iv. 51, and the stipulation in N ii. 6 ; with MT cf, the free hand given, 29. of the Lord . . . , cf. & ; & P % ((K L +roO, cf. Dan. vi. 26, Bel and Dragon, 41) Zop. eVa W (& L om.). ' ' 30. question, a misunderstanding (as in E II. whose name . . . , the Jewish colouring in this verse (cf. Deut. xh. n, xiv. 23) is commonly admitted (Meyer, 51. Holzhey, 25, &c.). VII. I seq. The more active intervention of the strangers (fVeordrow . . . eVtfieXeVrepo*'), though in harmony with viii. 67 (E viii. 36), is less emphatic in MT 4 . . . their companions did according to the decree which . . . sent', cf. above, 27 seq,, with E vi. 7. 2, rulers of the temple (iepoordraw ; Jos. { princes of the Sanhedrin '), cf. i. 8 (2 Chron. xxxv, 8), and the addition in E& 'and the Levites'. 4. consent (A.V.mg. the decree^vkpi) , . . Artaxerxes (Jos. omits Art., & transposes with Darius), kings (CP L and MT king) . . . The name can hardly be explained even as a careless interpolation ; the reading king suggests that only one name was originally written ; see Introd. 5 (e). < A , , !/ add ' until (by) the sixth year of Darius king of the Persians ', 5. the house, mg. the holy house (ffi A ), Jos. confirms the 23rd day (adopted by Bertholet, Torrey, 195, but treated by Bayer, 83, as a misreading, D^*CT for Dl 1 * *!JJ), but reads the ninth year of Darius ; in C. Agion. i. 21 he states that the -foundations of the Temple were laid in the second year of Cyrus and it was finished again in the second year of Darius. 6. that were added, explained by ?/. 13, although this act of separation is not recorded, contrast N ix. 2, xiii. 3 (see below, p. 47). book of Moses, cf. v. 49, and especially N. viii. i, x. 29, xiii. i. 45 ESDRAS I ESDRAS 7. 8-8. i EZRA 7 8 dred Iambs ; and twelve he-goats for the sin of all Israel, according to the number of the twelve 9 princes of the tribes of Israel. The priests also and the Levites stood arrayed in their vestments, according to their kindreds, for the services of the Lord, the God of Israel, according to the book of Moses : and the porters at every gate. 10 And the children of Israel that came out of the captivity held the passover the fourteenth day of the first month, when the priests and the 11 Levites were sanctified together, and all they that were of the captivity ; for they were sanctified. 12 For the Levites were all sanctified together, and they offered the passover for all them of the cap- tivity, and for their brethren the priests, and for 13 themselves. And the children of Israel that came out of the captivity did eat, even all they that had separated themselves from the abominations of the heathen of the land, and sought the Lord. 14 And they kept the feast of unleavened bread 1 5 seven days, making merry before the Lord, for that he had turned the counsel of the king of Assyria toward them 3 to strengthen their hands in the works of the Lord, the God of Israel 8 i And after these things, when Artaxerxes the king of the Persians reigned, came Esdras the dred lambs ; and for a sin offering for all Israel, twelve he-goats, according to the number of the tribes of Israel. And they set the priests in 18 their divisions, and the Levites in their courses, for the service of God, which is at Jerusalem ; as it is written in the book of Moses. And the children of the captivity kept the 19 passover upon the fourteenth day of the first month. For the priests and the Levites had 20 purified themselves together ; all of them were pure : and they killed the passover for all the children of the captivity, and for their brethren the priests, and for themselves. And the chil- 2 x dren of Israel, which were come again out of the captivity, and all such as had separated them- selves unto them from the filthiness of the heathen of the land, to seek the Lord, the God of Israel, did eat, and kept the feast of unleavened 22 bread seven days with joy: for the Lord had made them joyful, and had turned the heart of the king of Assyria unto them, to strengthen their hands in the work of the house of God, the God of Israel. Now after these things, in the reign of Artax- 7 i erxes king of Persia, Ezra the son of Seraiah, the 8. princes, mg. twelve tribes of Israel ($r L ). 9. Cf. v. 59. For importers (also in Jos.),cf. i. 16, and 2 Chron. viii. 14, xxiii. 18 seq.; Jos, adds that the Jews also built the cloisters (areas) of the inner temple. See vi. 4 above. 10. From this verse onwards the MT, with the exception of E vii. 12-26, is in Hebrew. With this account of the celebration of the Passover, cf, 2 Chron. xxx. (after the purification of the Temple by Hezekiah), xxxv. = E I (after Josiah's reforms) ; see also p. 58. of Israel, lit. ' of Israel, of those that were of the captivity.' when the priests, several MSS. because. n seq. mg. and they that were of the captivity were not all sanctified together: but the Levites were all sanctified together. And, &^ cf. & L !/&, but not Jos. For the textual variants see ZATW, xx. 12 seq. Since the Levites perform the slaughtering there may be an anti-Aaronite bias, as also in 2 Chron. xxix. 34 (cf. perhaps xxx. 3 ic 17) see Kittel, Chron. 160. 13. even, wanting in <. *$ J s - ( 111-13) after summing up with an account of the constitution, c., appends ( 114-19) a new story of Samaritan enmity and of the intervention of Darius. The Jews send Zerubbabel and four nobles, including Ananias and Mordecai (see for the latter, v. 8 above) to complain that the Samaritans did not carry out the royal commands and were hostile. Darius accordingly writes to the eparchs and council (0ovX$, cf. ii. 17), viz. to Taganas and Sambas (or Sambabas), the eparchs, and to Sadrakes and Bouedon (var. Bouelon, &c.), f the rest of their fellow servants ' (avidouXoi, cf. (5 E v. seq. for * companions'). On the conjectural origin of these corrupt names, see Marq v cj. (Tag. from Tattenai, Sad. and Bon. from Shethar-bozenai). idr l-5~>54 wu waul m vui. ^ t>cq,, me use oi i (ix. j, ne (x.;, ana *we' (N ix. 38, x. 30). In spite of parallels (Torrev 244. seq.), these changes seem to prove diversity of source. Various signs of revision and condensation are to be noticed in vn. (see E vm. 8-24), x. (Meyer, 96 n. i), and elsewhere. ( Although N viii. seqq. interrupt the history of Nek, and both E and N are engaged in reorganizing relirious conditions, the story of N ignores the work of E, and the story of E mentions N only somewhat incidentally ON TV! i o icL I^ W M ^K f narrat j ves ** ve . different backgrounds. The E-story shows no trace of the desolation and misery which N sought to remedy. E is intent upon the Temple and the law, and comes to an apparently peaceful city, whereas N appears as a reformer of elementary civic, social, and religious conditions at a tK^TSs presumably m Jerusalem. The secular pioneer builds up and reconstruct!; the priestly scribe S^s M it a finishing stroke m the way of important, though less initial, reforms. While N laments he r^n and Is E recognizes the manifestation of God's favour, which the people had ill requited by their heathenLhTarnVes former encounters suspicion, hostility, and treachery; the latter, armed with most ^remarkable ^T anxious to hear and obey the law, eager to remove the stain of the marriages, and ready to ^S^ N, with characteristic impulsiveness, seems merely to initiate in N xiii. The whole situation in thl E 46 ESDRAS I ESDRAS 8. 1-7 EZRA 7 son of Azaraias, the son of Zechrias, the son of 2 Helkias, the son of Salem, the son of Sadduk, the son of Ahitob, the son of Amarias, the son of Ozias, the son of Memerothj the son of Zaraias, the son of Savias, the son of Boccas, the son of Abisue, the son of Phinees, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the chief priest. 3 This Esdras went up from Babylon, as being a ready scribe in the law of Moses, that was 4 given by the God of Israel. And the king did him honour : for he found grace in his sight in all his requests. 5 There went up with him also certain of the children of Israel, and of the priests, and Levites, and holy singers, and porters, and 6 temple-servants, unto Jerusalem, in the seventh year of the reign of Artaxerxes, in the fifth month, this was the king's seventh year ; for they went from Babylon on the new moon of the first month, and came to Jerusalem, according to the prosperous journey which the Lord gave them 7 for his sake. For Esdras had very great skill, so that he omitted nothing of the law and command- ments of the Lord, but taught all Israel the ordi- nances and judgements. son of Azariah, the son of Hilkiah, the son of 2 Shallum, the son of Zadok, the son of Ahitub, the son of Amariah, the son of Azariah, the son 3 of Meraioth, the son of Zerahiah, the son of Uzzt,_ 4 the son of Bukki, the son of Abishua, the son of 5 Phinehas, the son of Eieazar, the son of Aaron the chief priest : this Ezra went up from Baby- 6 Ion; and he was a ready scribe in the law of Moses, which the Lord, the God of Israel, had given : and the king granted him all his request, according to the hand of the Lord his God upon him. And there went up some of the children 7 of Israel, and of the priests, and the Levites, and the singers, and the porters, and the Nethinim, unto Jerusalem, in the seventh year of Arta- xerxes the king. And he came to Jerusalem in 8 the fifth month, which was in the seventh year of the king. For upon the first day of the first 9 month began he to go up from Babylon, and on the first day of the fifth month came he to Jeru- salem, according to the good hand of his God upon him. For Ezra had set his heart to seek 10 the law of the Lord, and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and judgements, the identification of E's return with that in E iv. 12 (E ii. 18). The lebuilding mentioned in the latter is excluded in the E-story and ignored in N i.-vi., where there is neither any reference to an earlier attempt to rebuild nor any hint of such a return as that in E vii.-x. (c) E vii.-x. are severed from E i.-vi. by nearly sixty years. A large body of exiles, ' children of the captivity' (iv. i), had rejected the families of doubtful blood (ii. 59-63), and had been reinforced by those who had separated from the heathen (vi, 21). Jewish exclusivism had apparently been established. Now, however, E returns with a repre- sentative band (vii. 7), ' children of the captivity ' (viiL 35), and, after an interval (the vague ix. i), hears of the deplorable extent of intermarriage among the people of Israel, the ' holy seed ' (ix. 2), ' the captivity ' (ix. 4). The sin is admitted, and it is proposed to make a solemn covenant (x. 3). ' The children of the captivity ' are summoned from their settle- ments under the penalty of excommunication from 4 the congregation of the captivity 3 (x, 6-8). The area affected proves to be extremely restricted (x. 9). The congregation agrees to the separation (w. 10-12). There is, however, an inquiry lasting three months, and as a veritable anti-climax we have an extremely small list of offenders (see on E ix. 21-36). Forthwith (so ), or apparently some twelve years later (so N vih.), E reads the law to the people, and ' all the congregation, those who had returned from captivity 3 (N viii. 17, cf. E vi. 21), celebrate the feast of Taber- nacles. After a solemn confession of sin, the erring 'seed of Israel' separate from the heathen (ix. I seq.), and this epoch-making event, which (see E x, 1-12) might be expected after the prayer in E ix. 6 seqq., is followed by a second prayer on behalf of the backsliding people. Finally, there is a covenant (N ix. 38) signed by the congregation and all that separated themselves from the people of the land (x. 28). Whether we follow the tradition or any modern hypo- thesis, these data are extremely complicated (see Kosters, 67, 96 seqq., Th. T., xxix, 554 seqq.). They point to a close literary connexion in the E-story, which makes it improbable that E vii.-x. should be severed, as in MT, from N viiL seqq, They reveal a serious literary intricacy which must be due to revision and reshaping, and they do not show at all clearly that the 'children of the captivity ' who returned (E viii. 35) found a people constituted as E ii. 59-63, vi. 21, would imply. It is possible that the E-story (of independent origin, see Introd. p. 9 d.) has confused the accounts of the purification of the exiles who returned with E and the separation of the native Judaeans from the heathen, the two events which are kept more distinct in E i.-vi. The return of Ezra, viii. 1-67 = E vii., viii., cf. Jos. xi. 5 1-2 (who replaces Artaxerxes by Xerxes). In addition to the comm., see Torrey, 196 seqq., 205 seqq., 265 seqq. 2. Azaraias and Zechrias (6r B ; 'Efepwu A, 'Afapatou L) = Seraiah and Azariah. The former was contemporary with the fall of Jerusalem (i Chron. vi. 14 seq.), but the genealogy would make him identical with the Seraiah in Neh. xi, n (|| i Chron. ix. n, Azariah), priest at the renovation of the city. <5r B omits the names Memeroth Savias (tlzzi). 5. temple-servants, mg. the Nethinim, cf. i. 3, and for the sequence of the classes cf. the arrangement in v. 9 seqq. 6. The date of arrival (E 8) probably coincides with that of Nehemiah (departure in the first month, ii. I ; arrival at the beginning of the fifth, interval of three days, ii. II ; and, after fifty-two days, the completion of the walls on the 25th of the sixth month, vi. 15). seventh year (& B 'second', cf. v. 6, vi. i), the absence of a date in v. i is noticeable. On the chronological and other details in the verse see the comm. ^ ^ ^ for his sake, & B cV auro>, (Sr* om., (5r L (v. 7) xx. 14. 47 ESDRAS I ESDRAS 8. 8-20 EZRA 7 8 Now the commission, which was written from Artaxerxes the king, came to Esdras the priest and reader of the law of the Lord, whereof this that followeth is a copy ; g King Artaxerxes unto Esdras the priest and reader of the law of 10 the Lord ; greeting : Having determined to deal graciously, I have given order, that such of the nation of the Jews, and of the priests and Le- vites, and of those within our realm, as are willing and desirous, should go with thee unto 11 Jerusalem. As many therefore as have a mind tlierettnto, let them depart with thee, as it hath seemed good both to me and my seven friends 12 the counsellors ; that they may look unto the affairs of Judaea and Jerusalem, agreeably to that 13 which is in the law of the Lord, and carry the gifts unto the Lord of Israel to Jerusalem, which I and my friends have vowed ; and that all the gold and silver that can be found in the country 14 of Babylonia for the Lord in Jerusalem, with that also which is given of the people for the temple of the Lord their God that is at Jerusalem, be collected : even the gold and silver for bullocks, rams, and lambs, and things thereunto apper- 15 taining ; to the end that they may offer sacrifices unto the Lord upon the altar of the Lord their God, which is in Jerusalem. 1 6 And whatsoever thou and thy brethren are minded to do with gold and silver, that perform, according to the will of 17 thy God. And the holy vessels of the Lord, which are given thee for the use of the temple of thy God, which is in Jerusalem : !g . and whatsoever thing else thou shalt remember for the use of the temple of thy God, thou shalt give it out of the 19 kings treasury. And I king Artaxerxes have also commanded the keepers of the treasures in Syria and Phoenicia, that whatsoever Esdras the priest and reader of the law of the Most High God shall send for, they should give it him with 20 all diligence, to the sum of a hundred talents of silver, likewise also of wheat even to a hun- dred measures, and a hundred firkins of wine, and salt in abundance. Now this is the copy of the letter that the king i r Artaxerxes gave unto Ezra the priest, the scribe, even the scribe of the words of the command- ments of the Lord, and of his statutes to Israel. Artaxerxes, king of kings, unto Ezra the priest, 12 the scribe of the law of the God of heaven, per- fect and so forth. I make a decree, that all they 13 of the people of Israel, and their priests and the Levites, in my realm, which are minded of their own free will to go to Jerusalem, go with thee. Forasmuch as thou art sent of the king and his 14 seven counsellors, to inquire concerning Judah and Jerusalem, according to the law of thy God which is in thine hand ; and to cany the silver ig and gold, which the king and his counsellors have freely offered unto the God of Israel, whose habitation is in Jerusalem, and all the silver and 16 gold that thou shalt find in all the province of Babylon, with the freewill offering of the people, and of the priests, offering willingly for the house of their God which is in Jerusalem ; therefore 17 thou shalt with all diligence buy with this money bullocks, rams, lambs, with their meal offerings and their drink offerings, and shalt offer them upon the altar of the house of your God which is in Jerusalem. And whatsoever shall seem 18 good to thee and to thy brethren to do with the rest of the silver and the gold, that do ye after the will of your God. And the vessels that are 19 given thee for the service of the house of thy God, deliver thou before the God of Jerusalem, And whatsoever more shall be needful for the 20 house of thy God, which thou shalt have occasion to bestow, bestow it out of the king's treasure house. And I, even I Artaxerxes the king, do 21 make a decree to all the treasurers which are beyond the river, that whatsoever Ezra the priest, the scribe of the law of the God of heaven, shall require of you, it be done with all diligence, unto 22 an hundred talents of silver, and to an hundred measures of wheat, and to an hundred baths of wine, and to an hundred baths of oil, and salt 8-24. Jos. xi, 5 i, 123-30 reproduces this remarkable decree more carefully than he does the rest of the Ezra story. L he document, which is m Aramaic, should be compared with the decrees of Cyrus and Darius (see Torrev I <8) * its value rests upon the Ezra-story as a whole and is variously estimated (see Berth., 34 seq., Nikel, 167 seqq.). According to Jewish tradition, of course, the book of Esther, with the story of the favour of Xerxes, would precede the present situation, v. 8 (5 has no conclusion and there are signs of unevenness especially in 9 seq and 22 9 seq. Read, perhaps E 12 seq. s < perfect peace, and now I make . . . ' (cf. E v. 7). 10. Some words are probably missing at the beginning (Lupton). and of those, mg, being within ^ 21 & < ilf' ^r ^raaf? * w ^j l % ^ ' P? e . s X c !' , MT <&#wr (rather ' hand over wholly '). The MT God of Jerusalem (f BA before God [& L ' the God of Israel '] in J.') is very strange. > ^ 1 8. remember (6Va Ay vwomvry , MT < thou shalt have to give \ 19. send for (E shall require), a misreading (fi^P for tap ; so Ball, Moulton) . 20. salt(ilandsomeMSS,of Perhaps a misreading of E J s mier (TO for liD), Ahava being 50 ESDRAS I ESDRAS 8. 53-66 EZRA 8 them that seek him, to support them in all ways. 53 And again we besought our Lord as touching these things, and found him favourable unto us. 54 Then I separated twelve men of the chiefs of the priests, Eserebias, and Assamias, and ten men of their brethren with them : 55 and I weighed them the silver, and the gold, and the holy vessels of the house of our Lord, which the king, and his counsellors, and the nobles, and all Israel, had 56 given. And when I had weighed it, I delivered unto them six hundred and fifty talents of silver, and silver vessels of a hundred talents, and a hun- 57 dred talents of gold, and twenty golden vessels, and twelve vessels of brass, even of fine brass, 58 glittering like gold. And I said unto them, Both ye are holy unto the Lord, and the vessels are holy, and the gold and the silver are a vow unto 59 the Lord, the Lord of our fathers, Watch ye, and keep them till ye deliver them to the chiefs of the priests and Levites, and to the principal men of the families of Israel, in Jerusalem, in the chambers of the house of our Lord. 60 So the priests and the Levites, who received the silver and the gold and the vessels which were in Jerusalem, brought them into the temple of the Lord. 6 1 And from the river Theras we departed the twelfth day of the first month, until we came to Jerusalem, by the mighty hand of our Lord which was upon us : and the Lord delivered us from assault by the way, from every enemy, and fa so we came to Jerusalem. And when we had been there three days, the silver and gold was weighed and delivered in the house of our Lord on the fourth day unto Marmoth the priest 63 the son of Urias. And with him was Eleazar the son of Phinees, and with them were Josabdiis the son of Jesus and Moeth the son of Sabannus, the Levites : all was delivered them by number and weight. 6 And all the weight of them was written up the same hour. 6g Moreover they that were come out of the captivity offered sacrifices unto the Lord, the God of Israel, even twelve bullocks for all Israel, fourscore and sixteen rams, 66 threescore and twelve lambs, goats for a peace offering, twelve; all of them a sacrifice to the that seek him, for good ; but his power and his wrath is against all them that forsake him. So 23 we fasted and besought our God for this : and he was intreated of us. Then I separated twelve 24 of the chiefs of the priests, even Sherebiah, Hashabiah, and ten of their brethren with them, and weighed unto them the silver, and the gold, 2 5 and the vessels, even the offering for the house oi our God, which the king, and his counsellors, and his princes, and all Israel there present, had offered: I even weighed into their hand six 26 hundred and fifty talents of silver, and silver vessels an hundred talents ; of gold an hundred talents ; and twenty bowls of gold, of a thousand 27 darics; and two vessels of fine bright brass, precious as gold. And I said unto them, Ye are 28 holy unto the Lord, and the vessels are holy ; and the silver and the gold are a freewill offering unto the Lord, the God of your fathers. Watch 2 9 ye, and keep them, until ye weigh them before the chiefs of the priests and the Levites, and the princes of the fathers' houses of Israel, at Jeru- salem, in the chambers of the house of the Lord. So the priests and the Levites received the 30 weight of the silver and the gold, and the vessels, to bring them to Jerusalem unto the house of our God. Then we departed from the river of Ahava on 31 the twelfth day of the first month, to go unto Jerusalem : and the hand of our God was upon us, and he delivered us from the hand of the enemy and the Her in wait by the way. And 3 2 we came to Jerusalem, and abode there three days. And on the fourth day was the silver and 33 the gold and the vessels weighed in the house of our God into the hand of Meremoth the son of Uriah the priest ; and with him was Eleazar the son of Phinehas; and with them was Jozabad the son of Jeshua, and Noadiah the son of Bin- nui, the Levites; the whole by number and by 34 weight : and all the weight was written at that time. The children of the captivity, which were 35 come out of exile, offered burnt offerings unto the God of Israel, twelve bullocks for all Israel, ninety and six rams, seventy and seven lambs, twelve he-goats for a sin offering : all this was a burnt offering unto the Lord. 54. Eserebias (= Sherebiah), ffi BA prefix * and'; there are thus twelve Levites (cf. v. 47 seq., N xii. 24) and twelve priests (cf. v, 60). E includes the two men and their brethren among the twelve priests. 55. all Israel, Jos. f who remained at Babylon* (cf. v. 13 seq.), some qualification is necessary. 57, twelve, (5r B 'ten'. 58. holy, cL Is. Hi. II. and the vessels . . . , mg. and the vessels and the silver and the gold \ &>c, ((5 B ). 60. which [were] in Jerusalem, the words belong to the end of the verse. 61. every enemy, reading I^IKI for THK1. ( B confuses the first and the third person (for the latter see 65-7) and omits * our' in v. 62. See on vv. 68 seqq^ 66. peace offering, or thank-offering, cf. the Geneva Bible 'for salvation'. For E cf. vii. 7 seq, (E vi. 17). 51 E2 ESDRAS I ESDRAS 8. 67-81 EZRA. 9 67 Loi'4 And they delivered the king's com- mandments unto the king's stewards, and to the governors of Ccelesyria and Phoenicia ; and they honoured the people and the temple of the Lord. 68 Now when these things were done, the prin- 69 cipal men came unto me, and said, The nation of Israel, and the princes, and the priests and the Levites, have not put away from them the strange people of the land, nor the unclean- nesses of the Gentiles, to wit, of the Canaanites, Hittites, Pherezites, Jebusites, and the Moabites, 70 Egyptians, and Edomites. For both they and their sons have married with their daughters, and the holy seed is mixed with the strange people of the land ; and from the beginning of this matter the rulers and the nobles have been 71 partakers of this iniquity. And as soon as I had heard these things, I rent my clothes, and my holy garment, and plucked the hair from off my head and beard, and sat me down sad and full of 7 2 heaviness. So all they that were moved at the word of the Lord, the God of Israel, assembled unto me, whilst I mourned for the iniquity : but I sat still full of heaviness until the evening sacri- 73 fice. Then rising up from the fast with my clothes and my holy garment rent, and bowing my knees, and stretching forth my hands unto the Lord, 74 I said, Lord, I am ashamed and confounded 75 before thy face ; for our sins are multiplied above our heads, and our errors have reached up unto heaven, 76 ever since the time of our fathers ; and we 77 are in great sin, even unto this day. And for our sins and our fathers' we with ( our brethren and our kings and our priests were given up unto the kings of the earth, to the sword, and to captivity, and for a prey with shame, unto this day. 7B And now in some measure hath mercy been shewed unto us from thee, Lord, that there should be left us a root and a name in the place of thy 79 sanctuary ; and to discover unto us a light in the house of the Lord our God, and to give us food in 80 the time of our servitude. Yea, when we were in bondage, we were not forsaken of our Lord; but he made us gracious before the kings of Persia, so 81 that they gave us food, and glorified the temple And they 36 delivered the king's commissions unto the king's satraps, and to the governors beyond the river : and they furthered the people and the house of God. Now when these things were done, the princes 9 i drew near onto me, saying, The people of Israel, and the priests and the Levites, have not separ- ated themselves from the peoples of the lands, doing according to their abominations, even of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites, For they have 2 taken of their daughters for themselves and for their sons ; so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the peoples of the lands : yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass. And when I heard this 3 thing, I rent my garment and my mantle, and plucked off the hair of my head and of my beard, and sat down astonied. Then were assembled 4 unto me every one that trembled at the words of the God of Israel, because of the tres- pass of them of the captivity ; and I sat astonied until the evening oblation. And at the & evening oblation I arose up from my humiliation, even with my garment and my mantle rent ; and I fell upon my knees, and spread out my hands unto the Lord my God ; and I said, my 6 God, I am ashamed and blush to lift up my face to thee, my God : for our iniquities are increased over our head, and our guiltiness is grown up unto the heavens, Since the days of our fathers 7 we have been exceeding guilty unto this day; and for our iniquities have we, our kings, and our priests, been delivered into the hand of the kings of the lands, to the sword, to captivity, and to spoiling, and to confusion of face, as it is this day. And now for a little moment grace 8 hath been shewed from the Lord our God, to leave us a remnant to escape, and to give us a nail in his holy place, that our God may lighten our eyes, and give us a little reviving in our bondage. For we are bondmen ; yet our 9 God hath not forsaken us in our bondage, but hath extended mercy unto us in the sight of the kings of Persia, to give us a reviving, to set up 67. honoured, &<5aow (so Effi), cf. viii. 25, 81, and Is. Ix. 13 ; a weak and inappropriate rendering (Ew. 138 n. 6). The mixed marriages, w, 68-90 = E ix., cf. Jos. xi. 5 3. See below on ix. 37 seqq. <5x L gives the narrative fa the third person. 69. the uncleannesses . . . , mg. nor their uncleannesses (to wit) ofilie Gentiles ', &c. ((5r B ) Edomites, see iv. 45, 50. 72. So all they, <&*+ ' that were zealous and all they *. 73. fast, cL E R.V. mg. fasting. 75, multiplied above . . , , CP-il jj 'multiplied more than the hairs of our head*, cf. Ps. xl. 12. 77, we with our brethren COTK 'we' read as WT1N), 78, root (cf. v* SB), perhaps influenced by 2 Kings xix. 30 seq, (Bayer, 15). 79, food, E reviving (HVTO, cf. Judg. vL 4). 52 ESDRAS I ESDRAS 8. 81-95 EZRA 9 of our Lord, and raised up the desolate Sion, to give us a sure abiding in Jewry and Jerusalem. 82 And now, Lord, what shall we say, having these things? for we have transgressed thy command- ments, which thou gavest by the hand of thy 83 servants the prophets, saying, That the land, which ye enter into to possess as an heritage, is a land polluted with the pollutions of the strangers of the land, and they have filled it with their un- cleanness, 8 4 Therefore now shall ye not join your daughters unto their sons, neither shall ye take 85 their daughters unto your sons. Neither shall ye seek to have peace with them for ever, that ye may be strong, and eat the good things of the land, and that ye may leave it for an in- 86 heritance unto your children for evermore. And all that is befallen is done unto us for our wicked works and great sins: for thou, Lord, didst 87 make our sins light, and didst give unto us such a root : but we have turned back again to trans- gress thy law, in mingling ourselves with the 88 uncleanness of the heathen of the land. Thou wast not angry with us to destroy us, till thou hadst left us neither root, seed, nor name. 89 Lord of Israel, thou art true : for we are left a 90 root this day. Behold, now are we before thee in our iniquities, for we cannot stand any longer before thee by reason of these things. 91 And as Esdras in his prayer made his con- fession, weeping, and lying flat upon the ground before the temple, there gathered unto him from Jerusalem a very great throng of men and women and children : for there was great weep- 92 ing among the multitude. Then Jechonias the son of Jeelus, one of the sons of Israel, called out, and said, Esdras, we have sinned against the Lord God, we have married strange women of the heathen of the land, and now is all Israel aloft. 93 Let us make an oath unto the Lord herein, that we will put away all our wives, which we have 94 taken of the strangers, with their children, like as seemeth good unto thee, and to as many as do obey the law of the Lord. 95 Arise, and put in execution : for to thee doth this matter appertain, and we the house of our God, and to repair the ruins thereof, and to give us a wall in Judah and in Jerusalem. And now, our God, what shall 10 we say after this? for we have forsaken thy commandments, which thou hast commanded by n thy servants the prophets, saying, The land, unto which ye go to possess it, is an unclean land through the uncleanness of the peoples of the lands, through their abominations, which have filled it from one end to another with their filthiness. Now therefore give not your daugh- *2 ters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons, nor seek their peace or their prosperity for ever : that ye may be strong, and eat the good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children for ever* And after 1 3 all that is come upon us for our evil deeds, and for our great guilt, seeing that thou our God hast punished us less than our iniquities deserve, and hast given us such a remnant, shall we again 14 break thy commandments, and join in affinity with the peoples that do these abominations? wouldest not thou be angry with us till thou hadst consumed us ? so that there should be no remnant, nor any to escape? Lord, the God 15 of Israel, thou art righteous; for we are left a remnant that is escaped, as it is this day: behold, we are before thee in our guiltiness ; for none can stand before thee because of this. Now while Ezra prayed, and made confession, 10 i weeping and casting himself down before the house of God, there was gathered together unto him out of Israel a very great congregation of men and women and children: for the people wept very sore. And Shecaniah the son of 2 Jehiel, one of the sons of Elam, answered and said unto Ezra, We have trespassed against our God, and have married strange women of the peoples of the land : yet now there is hope for Israel concerning this thing. Now therefore let 3 us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God ; and let it be done according to the law. Arise ; 4 for the matter belongeth unto thee, and we are 81. Sion. G. A. Smith (Jerusalem, i. 150 seq.) observes that the term is not found in Ezek., Chron. (except the quotations I Chron. xL 5, 2 Chron. v. 2), E and N. 82. having . . . transgressed, presumably based upon misreading s in^ for nntf , OTiy for 1Bty (see Ball). 86. make . . . light, cf. Eff . 88, Thou wast not, mg. wasf thou not> &c., see E. The marriage-reforms, viii. 91-ix. 36 = E, x., cf. Jos. xi. 5 4. 92. Israel (Jos. 'Jerusalem'), E Elam, cf. E x. 26. aloft, mg. exdted (with a reference to Deut xxviii 13, nbypp). This points to the reading ?3?p 'trespass* (E ix. 2,, 4, x, 6) for nipt) 'hope ' (( L & here) and is preferred by Jahn. 31 et nunc es super omnem Israel (3l c et nunc de populo L). Bayer (16) conj. wav corruption of vnopovf) (E(&). * Concerning this thing' in E is read by < BA It at the beginning of E 93. ' 94. C L *and as many as obeyed . . * having arisen, said unto Ezra, Arise . . ,' (reading D'Tinf! 95. put into execution, n?3 has probably dropped out from the MT (Guthe, SBOT\ 53 ESDRAS I ESDRAS 8. 969. 14 EZRA 10 96 will be with thee to do valiantly, So Esdras arose, and took an oath of the chief of the priests and Levites of all Israel to do after these things ; and so they sware. 9 i Then Esdras rising from the court of the temple went to the chamber of Jonas the son of 2 Eliasib, and lodged there, and did eat no bread nor drink water, mourning for the great iniquities of the multitude. 3 And there was made proclama- tion in all Jewry and Jerusalem to all them that were of the captivity, that they should be gathered 4 together at Jerusalem : and that whosoever met not there within two or three days, according as the elders that bare rule appointed, their cattle should be seized to the use of the temple, and himself cast out from the multitude of them that were of the captivity. 5 And in three days were all they of the tribe of Judah and Benjamin gathered together at Jerusalem: this was the ninth month, on the 6 twentieth day of the month. And all the multi- tude sat together trembling in the broad place before the temple because of the present foul 7 weather. So Esdras arose up, and said unto them. Ye have transgressed the law and married strange wives, thereby to increase the sins of 8 Israel. And now make confession and give glory unto the Lord, the God of our fathers, 9 and do his will, and separate yourselves from the heathen of the land, and from the strange 10 women. Then cried the whole multitude, and said with a loud voice, Like as thou hast spoken, 1 1 so will we do. But forasmuch as the multitude is great, and it is foul weather, so that we cannot stand without, and this is not a work of one day or two, seeing our sin in these things is spread 1 2 far: therefore let the rulers of the multitude 13 stay, and let all them of our habitations that have strange wives come at the time appointed, and with them the rulers and judges of every place, till we turn away the wrath of the Lord from us for this matter. *4 Then Jonathan the son of Azael and Ezekias the son of Thocanus accord- ingly took the matter upon them : and Mosol- lamus and Levis and Sabbateus were assessors with thee : be of good courage, and do it. Then 5 arose Ezra, and made the chiefs of the priests, the Levites, and all Israel, to swear that they would do according to this word. So they sware. Then Ezra rose up from before the 6 house of God, and went into the chamber of Jehohanan the son of Eliashib : and when he came thither, he did eat no bread, nor drink water : for he mourned because of the trespass of them of the captivity. And they made pro- 7 clamation throughout Judah and Jerusalem unto all the children of the captivity, that they should gather themselves together unto Jerusalem ; and 8 that whosoever came not within three days, according to the counsel of the princes and the elders, all his substance should be forfeited, and himself separated from the congregation of the captivity. Then all the men of Judah and Ben- 9 jamin gathered themselves together unto Jeru- salem within the three days ; it was the ninth month, on the twentieth day of the month : and all the people sat in the broad place before the house of God, trembling because of this matter, and for the great rain. And Ezra the priest TO stood up, and said unto them. Ye have tres- passed, and have married strange women, to increase the guilt of Israel. Now therefore make n confession unto the Lord, the Gocl of your fathers, and do his pleasure : and separate your- selves from the peoples of the land, and from the strange women. Then all the congregation 12 answered and said with a loud voice, As thou hast said concerning us, so must we do. But the 13 people are many, and it is a time of much rain, and we are not able to stand without, neither is this a work of one day or two: for we have greatly transgressed in this matter. Let now 14 our princes be appointed for all the congregation, and let all them that are in our cities which have married strange women come at appointed times, and with them the elders of every city, and the judges thereof, until the fierce wrath of our God be turned from us, until this matter be des- patched. Only Jonathan the son of Asahel and 15 Jahzeiah the son of Tikvah stood up against this matter: and Meshullam and Shabbethai the Levite helped them. 96. the chief (rather chiefs, as in viii. 49) . . . and Levites, for and see Guthe, SBOT. ' ' IX. 2. lodged there, rightly reading J^l for 1^1. f 6. ia the broad place. According to Jos. 149 there was a meeting of the elders in the upper room (but Niese virnidpto) of the temple. 8. < BA ' Give confession ( L +and) glory'; a doublet of ?nta (Fr., c.). 1 1, forasmuch as, wanting in (. 13. for this matter, cf. E R.V. mg. as touching this matter. 14. took the matter (frcdcfaro, cf. with Fr. I Mace. i. 42) ; cf. E R.V. mg. were appointed over this (matter), On the conflicting interpretations of this passage see the comm. Ezekias, mg, Esias (dK BL *). Levis . . . , E (5 L *the Levites'. , ' assessors, < xxv. 15 seq.; Berth., Jahn, Davies). The difficulty caused by the presence of N or of an unnamed Tirshatha makes it still more difficult to remove it by simple excision. The identification of N and the Tirshatha, even if a gloss, expresses a plausible view (cf. N x. i), and its omission in E may be due to the presence of the passage before N i. seqq. (cf, Meyer, 200 n. 3). N and especially E may seem to give the Tirshatha undue prominence, but this may be supported by v. 40, N vii. 70 (his gifts), and the position of the governor Bagohi in the Sachau papyri. 52. honour, finn, *joy', misread ft Yin (Ball). 53. published, eWXcuoy, an error for KG)\VQ } or QWD (' stilled') read as D^HD. 55. understood, mg. were inspired by ; eve^vcri^a-av (cf. John xx. 22) ; cf. v. 48 efixfrvfftovvrfs apa rr\v avaymviv. and for the which . . . This conceals the abruptness of c : *al eWw^ftjcrap. N( reads KC! V rrj fjfiepa r/J favTepa (rwrjx.j but E, which handles the MT more freely (cf. the dates in viii. 62, ix, 37), probably placed the date after the verb. Bayer's explanation (90 seq,) seems too artificial. C L cites the whole of N 13. !L reads : et coadunati (congregati) sunt omnes (uniyersi) in ler. iocundari (celebrare laetitiam) secundum dispositionem (testamentum) Domini dei Israel ; 3L C + explicit Esdrae liber primus de templi restitutione. Jos., whose treatment of the story of E is free and summary, proceeds to refer to the feast of tabernacles (N viii. 16 seqq.), the return of the people to their homes, the death of the aged E, and his burial in Jerusalem contemporary with the death of the high-priest Joiakim and the succession of Eliashib (cf. N xii. 10). He then gives a summary of the labours of N, either an extremely arbitrary version or else based upon another recension (xi. 5 6-8). N, hearing of the desolation and captivity, returns with a band of exiles in the 25th year of Xerxes (cf. N i,~ii. 9). He appeals to the people (cf. ii. 17 seq.) and the work of 57 I ESDRAS rebuilding is distributed (cf. iii.). Ammon, Moab, Samaria, and Coelesyria are hostile, but the walls (evidently begun in the 5th month, cf, vi. 15) are completed in 2 years 4 months, in the^th month of the 28th year of Xerxes (N v. is ignored). The walls are dedicated (cf. xii. 27 seqq.) and there is a feast of eight days. The surrounding peoples are enraged at the completion of the building (cf. vi. 16). The population of the city is augmented, (cf. vii. 4, xi.j, and arrangements are made for the priests and Levites (cf. xii. 44, xiii. 10-13). N dies an old man, and the walls of the city are his eternal monument (cf. Ben Sira, xlix 13). Next follows the story of Esther fxi. 6), and the Samaiitan schism (cf. N xiii.) is placed at the close of the Persian age (xi. 7, 8). Thus Jos. does not testify to the present fragmentary condition of E ; he treats the life of E independently of and before that of N, and his points of agreement with the MT make his divergences the more significant. A Syriac Catena (Brit. Mus. Add. 12168), representing a text of the seventh cent., illustrates the relationship between E and the MT in an interesting manner. It uses i and 2 Chron., ' I Ezra ' (i.e. E}^ ( 2 Ezra' (i.e. N) and Daniel ; E is said to be ' according to the tradition of the Seventy (i.e. the Septuagint). 3 It passes from 2 Chron. xxxv. 20-25 to E li. 1-15, 16, 24-30, iv. 35/^-36, 38-40, 49-57, v. 47-73, vi. 1-2, vii. 6-15, viii. 1-26, 68-72, 91-6, ix. i-lo, 46^-47. Then follow N i. 1-4 #, ii. 1-8, iv. 1-3, 10-16, vi. 15-16, vii. 73 #-viii. 18, ix. 1-3 (the references are to the R.V.). This removal of the Reading of the Law appears to be a compromise between E (note the retention of ix. 46^-47) and the MT of N. But there 5s some evidence that E may have had another sequel, and that it or a following book may have treated the life of E and of N on other lines (cf. H. Bloch, Quellen d. FLJos^ 1879, p. 79 seq.). Thus according to Justin Mart. (Dial. Tryph, Ixxii) an account of the passover celebrated by E was among the passages cancelled by the Jews. The passage quoted recurs in Lactantius (Inst. iv. 18) : 'Apud Esdram ita scriptum est :*t dixit Esdras ad populum : Hoc pascha Salvator noster est, et refugium nostrum, cogitate et ascendat (Just. KOI a\v diavoyOyre Km avaftij) in cor uestrum, quoniam habemus humiliare eum in signo (Just, on jueXXo/je^ avrov rarravovv eV cn;^a'&>), et post haec sperabimus (but Epit. xlviii. -cmimiis) in eum, ne deseratur (J. epqiJu&Qfj) hie locus in aeternum tempus (J* faavra ^/joz/oi/), dicit Dominus Deus virtutum (Xe-ya o 6eos r&v Suiw^ecov [= hlfcOtf mrp]). Si non credideritis ei neque exaudieritis annuntiationem eius, eritis derisio (eirixapfjui) in gentibus.' The quotation may be compared generally with the spirit of E's prayers (E ix., N ix.). It can hardly be based upon E viii. 35, which recalls the sacrifices at the dedication of the Temple by Zerubbabel (vi. 17} mentioned before the celebration of the passover by the 'children of the captivity' (vi. 19 seqq.). Elsewhere the chronicler deals at length with the passover celebrated by Hezekiah and Josiah (2 Chron. xxx., xxxv.), in each case after a restoration or reform of the Temple, and 2 Chron. xxx. 6-9 illustrate the importance attached to the celebration. It is very note- worthy, also, that the Latin Lucca Synopsis (Lag. 18 seq.), after using E iii. seq., combines the return of Zerubbabel with that of E (using E viii.) and asserts that the passover was celebrated on reaching Jerusalem. Moreover, a Greek synopsis of i Esdras and 2 Esdias (= N) testifies to E's passover. According to I E, Jeshua, E and Zen were the three youths of hi. seq., and the statement of the return is followed immediately by the notice that the builders were Zer., Jeshua and N ; E brings the law, reads it, casts out the foreign wives and the people observe the passover and " - a fast. As for 2 E: Iv TOVTCO TO> #t/3\i< TO. avra fiev TG> Trpooro) Xcya "E. Trepl n)D (' who is like unto thee among the gods, Yahweh ', Exod. xv. 1 1) ; but there is no reason to suppose that a cryptic title of this Mnd would have been adopted by those whose special boast was loyalty to their God and His Law. 59 I MACCABEES 4. DATE OF THE BOOK. The passages which throw light on the date of the composition of the book arc : (a) In reference to the sepulchre which Simon the Maccabee built for his parents and his four brothers at Modin, the writer says in xiii. 30 : ' This is the sepulchre which he made at Modin, and it is there unto this day. 3 The sepulchre in question was an elaborate one, as is clear from the description given (xiii. 37-29) ; it consisted of seven pyramids with f great pillars ' around them ; when, therefore, it is spoken of as being in existence ' unto this day ', it must have been standing for some considerable time when the author wrote this book. The building of this sepulchre is described as having taken place immediately after the death of Jonathan (xiii. 25), i.e. in 143 B.C., and Simon was murdered in 135 B. C. When the writer, therefore, speaks of the sepulchre standing unto this day \ we must allow at the least the lapse of about thirty years, probably more, from the time the year 143 B. C. to the time when the writer made this statement. That would make the earliest possible date of the book about no B. C. (b) But in xvi. 33, 24 we have the following : c And the rest of the acts of John, and of his wars . . . behold, they are written in the chronicles of his high-priesthood, from the time that he was made high-priest after his father'; the formula here used is very frequent in the O.T., but it is invariably employed in reference to a ruler whose reign has been concluded. These chronicles, that is to say, took up the narrative at which our author ceased his account ; therefore he was writing at a period subsequent to the time at which the chronicles of John's high-priesthood had been compiled. Now John (Hyrcanus) died in 105 B.C., so that even if the records of his doings were being kept from year to year during his rule, they were not finished until the year 105 B. C., and therefore the writer of i Mace, did not begin his work until, at the earliest, after this year. On the other hand, the book cannot have been written after the year 63 B. c, for it was in the autumn of this year that Pompey took Jerusalem, and desecrated the Temple by entering into the Holy of Holies (cp. Josephus, Antiq. XIV. iv. 2-4 ; Bell. Ind. I. vii. 3-6) ; it is inconceivable that the book would have contained no reference to this, had it been written after this calamity had taken place. Cf, the references to the faithfulness of the Romans as allies (viii. i. 12, xii. I, xiv. 40). Roughly speaking, therefore, the book must have been finished some time between the years 100-70 B. C., nearer the former than the latter date. But this does not mean to say that the writer did not begin his work at an earlier period ; for, although, the author made use of certain documents (see below), which implies, of course, that he was writing some time subsequent to the events recorded, there are passages which certainly give the impression that he wrote as a contemporary of those who took the leading part in those events; such a passage, e.g. as xiv. 4-15, in which the details of Simon's reign are described, reads like the account of an eye-witness ; it was a period of peace (' And the land had rest all the days of Simon '), and therefore conducive to literary work. There seems to be nothing that can be urged against the belief that the writer began his work during the reign of Simon ; the looking-up of records, and the compiling of a book which is, upon the face of it, a very careful piece of work, must have taken some time to complete. The conclusion therefore, is that the gathering of materials began as early as the time of Simon (142-135 B. C.), but that the completed work must be dated some time later. We cannot be far wrong in assigning the work in its final form to somewhere during the }ast quarter of the second century B.C. 5. LITERARY AND RELIGIOUS CHARACTERISTICS. Although a translation (see 6) the literary style of the book is admirable ; the narrative is written in a simple, straightforward manner, with an entire absence of anything artificial ; the reader's interest is engaged throughout, both on account of the easy flow in the style of writing, as well as on account of the graphic way in which the details are presented. The author writes as a historian, whose duty it is to record the facts without colouring them with personal observations ; he is impartial, but this does not prevent him from sometimes bursting out into a poetical strain. While, as might be expected,, there are frequent reminiscences of the language of the Old Testament, the author in no wise imitates this, his writing being marked throughout by his own individual style, On the other hand, there are not infrequent exaggerations, especially in point of numbers; and considerable freedom is observable in the way in which discourses are put into the mouths of important persons ; but in these things the author only shows himself to be the child of his age ; his substantial accuracy and trustworthiness are not affected thereby. From the religious standpoint the book is likewise marked by special characteristics ; these are to be explained partly by the writer's sober and matter-of-fact way of looking at things, and partly by the somewhat altered religious outlook of the age as compared with earlier times. The most striking INTRODUCTION characteristics here are (I) that the direct divine intervention in the nation's affairs is not nearly so prominently expressed as in the books of the Old Testament ; and (ii) that God is not mentioned by name In^ the whole book. The writer is very far from being wanting in religious belief and feeling ; his conviction of the existence of an all-seeing Providence who helps those who are worthy comes out strongly in such passages as ii. <5i, iff. 18 ffi, iv, 10 , ix. 46, xil 15 ; but he evidently has an almost equally strong belief in the truth expressed in the modern proverb, that ' God helps those who help themselves '. This very sensible religious attitude, which is as far removed from scepticism as it is from fatalism, fully corresponds to the writer's sober impartiality as a historian. But his attitude was, doubtless, also due to the influence of certain tendencies \vhich were beginning to assert themselves. These centred round the Jewish doctrine of God. Just as there was a disinclination, on account of its transcendent holiness, to utter the name of God, and instead, to substitute paraphrases for it, so there arose also a disinclination to ascribe action among men directly to God, because of His inexpressible majesty. One result of this was the further tendency to emphasize and extend the scope of human free-will. These tendencies were only beginning to exert their influence, but they largely explain the religious characteristics of the book, 6. ORIGINAL LANGUAGE. In his Prologns Galeattts Jerome distinctly states that Hebrew was the language in which the book was written: * Machabaeorum primum librum hebraicum repperi 1 (cp. also the title given by Origen, see i above). The question arises, nevertheless, as to whether Hebrew proper or Palestinian Aramaic is meant; two considerations, however, make it almost certain that it was Hebrew. In the first place, the writer clearly takes as his pattern the ancient inspired Scriptures (cp. Grimm, p. xvii), so that the obvious presumption is that he would have written in the holy tongue. And, secondly, there are many indications in the book itself that it was translated from Hebrew rather than from Aramaic, many of these will be found in the commentary ; in some cases, mistakes in transla- tion are most easily and naturally accounted for on the supposition that they were translated from Hebrew, e.g. i. 28 KCU ecreto-^ 77 yr\ em rovs KaroiKovvras avrrfv : this presupposes an original by which was translated ' against ' instead of because of ' ; it can mean either of these, according to the context ; other examples are found in ix. 34, xiv. 28, see notes in commentary. There are, furthermore^ many examples of Hebrew idiomatic phrases translated literally into Greek. There can, therefore, be no reasonable doubt that the book was originally written in Hebrew. But it seems clear that this original Hebrew text was little used, and disappeared altogether at a very early period ; the reasons which lead to this supposition are firstly that not ev^en does Josephus show any signs of having used it, and secondly, as Torrey (E.J3. 2866) points out: 'There is no evidence of correction from the Hebrew, either in the Greek, or in any other of the versions ... on the contrary, our Greek version is plainly seen to be the result of a single translation from a Hebrew manuscript which was not free from faults/ 7. THE SOURCES OF THE BOOK. One of the chief sources of information utilized by the writer of i Mace, seems to have been the accounts given to him by eye-witnesses of many of the events recorded ; one is led to this conviction by considering the wonderfully graphic descriptions of certain episodes (cp., e. g., iv, 1-24, vL 38-54, viL 26-50, ix. 1-23, 32-53, x. 59-66, &c,), the sober presentation of the facts, and the frequent mention of details obviously given for no other reason than that they actually occurred. That the writer had also written sources to draw from is to be presumed from such passages as ix. 23 : s And the rest of the acts of Judas, and his wars, and the valiant deeds which he did, and his greatness, they are not written,' the implication being that in part these acts had been written (cp. xi. 37, xiv. 18, 27, 48, 49), and xvi. 23, 24: 'And the rest of the acts of John , , . behold, they are written in the chronicles of his high-priesthood. . . .' Besides these sources, there are a certain number of documents which have been incorporated in the book ; the genuineness, or otherwise, of these requires some more detailed consideration, They fall into three groups ; but for reasons which will become apparent the documents belonging to each group respectively cannot in every case be kept separate. i. Letters of Jewish origin. (a) The letter from the Jews in Gilead asking Judas to send them help because they were being attacked by the Gentiles (v. 10-13). This purports to contain the very words^ which were written ; but it is probably merely a summary of what the author of the book had derived from some well- informed source ; that it represents, however, in brief, the contents of some written document, and 61 I MACCABEES was not simply a verbal message, may be assumed, as it stands in contrast to what is said to have been a verbal message in v. 15. (b) The letter from Jonathan to the Spartans (xii. 6-1 8). Concerning this it must be said that the artificial way in which it has been pressed into the text is sufficient to arouse suspicion. In xii. i we are told of an embassy being sent to Rome ; the narrative is broken by v. 2 which refers to a letter which was sent to the Spartans, and c to other places' ; in v. 3, which comes naturally after *v. j, the thread of the narrative is taken up again. Then in v. 5, where one might reasonably have expected further details about the embassy to Rome, it goes on to say : ' And this is the copy of the letter which Jonathan wrote to the Spartans" The copy of this letter then follows ; but the main subject with which the chapter began, obviously a more important one, is left without further mention. On considering the letter itself, it must strike one that it is not easy to understand what the purpose of it was. In v. 10 the purpose is stated to be the renewing of brotherhood and friend- ship ; but in the same breath, as it were, it is said that the Jews needed none of these things, c having for our encouragement the holy books which are in our hands/ Then, again, in v. 13, after reference has been made to the afflictions which the Jews had endured, the letter continues (vv. 14, 15) : * We were not mindful, therefore, to be troublesome unto you . . . for we have the help which is from heaven to help us. . . / Thus, in the same letter, brotherhood and friendship are desired, on the one hand, while on the other it is said that this is not required. The object of the letter is, therefore, not apparent ; nor can it be said that it reads like a genuine document. That a relationship of some kind existed between the Jews and the Spartans need not be doubted ; the letter probably reflects the fact of this relationship, which the writer of this book, or more probably a later editor, desired to place on record, while not wishing to make it appear that his people had any need to depend upon foreign help in struggling with their enemies (see further the notes on this passage in the commentary). In connexion with this letter the following one must be considered. (c) The letter from Areios, king of the Spartans, to Onias the high-priest (xii, 30-33). This owes its presence here to the fact that in the letter just dealt with Jonathan cites the existence of former friendship between the Jews and the Spartans as a reason for renewing the same (xii. 7-9) ; it is added as an appendix to Jonathan's letter. The original of this document must have been written about 150 to 200 years earlier than that in which it is incorporated (see the notes on the passage in the commentary). It is only of indirect importance in the present connexion as it does not bear on the history of the Maccabaean struggle. But the fact of a letter written so long before this period being quoted here shows with what care such documents were preserved, and thus tends to inspire confidence in the general historicity of our book, since it is clear that the writer (or, as in this case, probably a later editor) had recourse to the national archives for information ; for even if, as some commentators rightly believe, this letter was added by a later editor, it is equally true that he depended on ancient documents for his additions. (d) In xiv. 37-47 we have a source of an entirely different character. This passage contains a panegyric on Simon, together with a r/sume of his prosperous reign. It is stated to have been engraved on tables of brass, and to have been set up in a conspicuous place within the precincts of the sanctuary; copies of it are also said to have been deposited in the treasury (cp. w. 27, 48, 49). On comparing the details of Simon's reign given in this section with those in chaps, xi-xiii, however, it will _ be found that there are several chronological discrepancies. The course of the history, as given in the book itself, is acknowledged on all hands to be, on the whole, of a thoroughly trustworthy character ; but if the passage in question be really the copy of an official document, as it purports to be, the accuracy of other portions of the book is, to some extent, impugned. It is difficult to suppose that one and the same author would write the historical account of Simon's reign in chaps, xi-xiii, and then in the very next chapter give a resume of what had preceded differing from it in a number of particulars. The suggested explanation of the difficulty is as follows : The original writer of the book gave in chaps. xi~-xiii a substantially correct account of the period of history in question, but was inaccurate in the sequence of events ; a later editor added-a copy of the document under con- sideration, to which the original author of the book, for some reason or other, did not have access ; or perhaps he gathered his materials from different eye-witnesses of the events recorded, and therefore saw no purpose in utilizing this document. The later editor was not concerned with the discrepancies between the written history and the copy of the document which he added, because he saw that in the main, they were in agreement. If this solution be the correct one it will follow that for the historical period in question we have two independent accounts as far as the main history is concerned, J INTRODUCTION ii. Letters from the suzerain poiver (Syrian kings) to Jewish leaders. (a) The letter from Alexander Balas 1 to Jonathan (x. 18-20). There can scarcely be two opinions regarding this document ; it is not a copy of the letter, but merely its purport which our author has woven into his narrative, much after the same manner in which he incorporates the general sense of the various speeches he records. It is far too short and abrupt to be the actual letter of one who was seeking the help and alliance of the Jewish leader, and for whose friendship this aspirant to the Syrian throne was bidding. The author of our book, moreover, adds some words of his own in the middle of the letter, a thing he is scarcely likely to have done had he been quoting the actual words of the letter itself. On the other hand, there is not the slightest reason to doubt that a genuine document has been made use of here. (b) The letter from Demetrius I to the nation of the Jews (x. 25-45). This was written for the purpose of out-bidding Alexander Balas in promises of favour, remitting of taxes, and conferring of privileges, &c., on the Jews in return for their support in his struggle to retain his throne. While it must be admitted that the letter is based upon an original document all the probabilities go to support this there are two reasons for questioning the accuracy of the details. The promises and concessions made to the Jews are of such an exaggerated character that, had they really been made, they would have defeated their object by arousing suspicions among the Jews regarding the writer's sincerity; this, indeed, was actually the case (see v. 46), but the reason of Jonathan's incredulity ia not the character of the promises, but the fact that Demetrius had before done great evil in Israel ', and 'had afflicted them very sore'; that does not tally with the contents of the letter as given. If one compares the sober contents of another letter from Demetrius on the same subject, not actually quoted, but incorporated in the narrative (x. 3-6), the document under consideration must strike one as untrustworthy as regards details. Then, in the second place, a number of the things actually promised in the letter correspond so exactly with the highest aspirations of the Jews at this time, that they suggest rather the expression of Jewish ideals than actual promises ; such are, the promise that Jerusalem is to be c holy and free* (v. 31), a thing which would have been impossible for the Syrian king to grant if he was to have any real hold upon this part of his kingdom, a Syrian garrison in Jerusalem being essential to his overlordship ; the promise to permit the full observance of all the ancient feasts and holy-days, together with * immunity and release ' 2 for all Jews during these periods, as well as during three days before and after each (w. 34, 35) ; this would have meant an end to the hellenization of Jewry which the Syrian kings had always regarded as indispensable if the Jews \\ere to be their genuine subjects ; the promise that the Jews were to have their own laws (V. 37), a thing which would have meant an imperium in impeno, a dangerous state of affairs from the Syrian point of view ; and finally, the promise to remit a large amount of taxation, and to give princely gifts to the sanctuary (w. 39 ff.) ; this would have meant considerable loss to the royal coffers at a time when there was the highest need of increasing monetary supplies. For these reasons, the letter we are considering must be regarded as ungenuine so far as most of its details are concerned. (c) The letter from Demetrius II to Jonathan, enclosing one to Lasthenes (xi. 30-37). Most of what has been said regarding (b) applies to this document as well. It represents an original letter, the contents of which were utilized by the author of i Mace., and elaborated in accordance with his ideas of things. (d) The letter from Antiochus VI to Jonathan (xi. 57). This is clearly a succinct summing-up of the contents of the original letter ; its extreme shortness and the absence of salutation show that, although written in the first person, it does not profess to do more than to give the general sense of the original. (e) The letter from Demetrius II to Simon (xiii. 36-40). This letter, in which the Syrian king acknowledges receipt of certain presents from the Jewish high-priest, and confirms earlier privileges, is stamped with the mark of genuineness ; it reads like an original, and is doubtless a copy of this, (/) The letter from Antiochus VII to Simon (xv. 2-9). To some extent what was said in reference to (b) and (c) applies also to this letter ; it is probably not a verbatim copy of the original, but represents in part the contents of this ; on the other hand, there are elements in it which are the expression of ardent desires rather than the actual facts of the case. iii. Letters from the rulers of foreign kingdoms* (a) The document containing the treaty of alliance between the Romans and the Jews (viii. 23-32), Jn w. 24 ff. it is stated, as one of the articles of the treaty, that if the Romans are attacked, the Jews 1 He was, of course, not yet king when be wrote this letter. 2 See, on this, the notes in the commentary. I MACCABEES must not render the enemy any help, whether of s food, arms, money, or ships ' (v. 26) ; this mention of ships is held by several commentators to be a proof that this document belongs to a later date than the time of Judas, when the Jews were not in possession of any ships, and that therefore the whole section is a later interpolation. But it is quite possible that the foresight of the Romans sufficiently explains this mention of ships ; they might, indeed, very naturally have assumed the possession of ships by the Jews, as they must have been aware of the long stretch of coast- land which belonged to Palestine. It was, as a matter of fact, not long after the time of Judas that the Jews acquired a harbour: c And amid all his glory he (i. e. Simon) took Joppa for a haven, and made it an entrance for the isles of the sea' (xiv. 5), cp. also xiii. 39. There seems no sufficient reason to doubt that the author of I Mace, made use here of the actual document in question, though it may be that he gives only its general contents, and not a verbatim copy. (b) The letter from the Spartans to Simon (xiv. 20-2 a). We are confronted here with the same difficulty which occurs in the letter from Jonathan to the Spartans (xii. 6-18, see i. (b) above). The section opens (v. 16) with the words: ' And it was heard at Rome that Jonathan was dead, and even unto Sparta, and they were exceedingly sorry ; ' it then goes on to say that the Romans wrote to Simon (who had succeeded his brother) on tables of brass to renew c the friendship and the confederacy 7 (z/. 18) ; but then,, instead of giving a copy of this letter, as might reasonably have been expected, it goes on to say : ' And this is a copy of the letter which the Spartans sent.' In this letter it is stated that the two Jewish ambassadors who were the bearers of it were Numenius, the son of Antiochus, and Antipater, the son of Jason. But then the narrative (in v. 34) goes on : ' After this Simon sent Numenius to Rome with a great shield of gold of a thousand pound weight, in order to confirm the confederacy with them/ On the previous occasion on which mention is made of a rapprochement between the Jews and the Romans on the one hand, and the Spartans on the other, the same two ambassadors were sent, first to the Romans and then to the Spartans, on the same journey (see xii. 16, 17) ; on the present occasion it is to be presumed, for the text implies it, that this was also done ; but if so, how is one to account for the fact that in the letter to the Spartans these ambassadors are said to be the bearers of it, while immediately after (v. 34) it is said that Numenius started on his journey? Then there is this further difficulty ; is it likely, as stated in the text, that on the death of Jonathan the Romans would have taken the initiative in renewing the treaty with the Jews ? This seems to be directly contradicted by v. 34. It seems probable that w* 1 7-33 are an interpolation added later ; this would also explain the otherwise unaccountable words ' and even unto Sparta ' in v. 16, which was presumably put in because of the interpolation ; the text of this verse, as it stands, cannot fail to strike one as suspicious : KG! rjKoMr] & 'PcS/Ajj on avsOavev 'lawafldh;, KOI ews- Inrdprris^Kal \v7rrjOr](rav v - ^ 6 7> v "- 7, 3 8 )> and it: is possible that these represent echoes of a MS. or MSS. other than the single Greek MS. which is the parent of the three uncials ; at the same time the fact is not lost sight of that in other cases the variations in 55 are merely explanatory additions, and in this, as well as in its agreement at times with luc (see^below), betrays a Lucianic colouring. Another group is formed by 19, 6 4> 93 J X these are Liicianic in character, but 64 less so than the other two; with these three K c - a sometimes agrees against all other Greek MSS. ; very frequently 19, 93 and 3 luc (see below) go together against all other authorities ; this occurs in about fifty cases. The cursive 71 offers a curious phenomenon on account of its large' number of omissions ; these are usually skilfully manipulated ; they have been recorded in the apparatus criticus because it quite looks as if in some instances a better reading were afforded by the omission. That in spite of these omissions 71 here and there shows signs of Lucianic colouring is an interesting fact. So far as the cursives are concerned, with the exception of 19, 64, 93, and 71, only those readings are recorded in the apparatus criticus which seemed to be of importance. The collations used for the above are, for the uncials, Swete's The Old Testament in Greek, vol. iii., and for the cursives the apparatus critmis of Holmes and Parsons. & Q. THE SYRIAC AND LATIN VERSIONS. *S -7 (a) The Syriac text exists in two forms ; one is represented in Cod. Ambrosianus (sixth century) ; 2 this follows in the main the text of the Greek uncials (S* in the app. crit.\ and is preserved up to 1 = Luc in the apparatus criticus. 2 Edited by Ceriani (Milan, 1876). I MACCABEES xiv. 25 a , from there onwards it = luc ; the other is the text found in the Peshitta, 1 which is, how- ever, Lucianic in character, and has, as we have seen, great affinity with the Lucianic group of cursives 19, 64, 93.2 See the very useful notes on the two Syriac recensions by G. Schmidt, ' Die beiden syrischen Uebersetzungen des i. Makkabaerbuchs/ in ZATW, 1897, pp. i ff., 233 ff. (b) The Latin Version is also preserved in two recensions ; both are pre-hieronymian ; one is that found in the Vulgate (I/ 1 ), the other is that contained in Cod. Sangermanensis ; 8 (H 2 ) the latter is only preserved up to the beginning of chap. xiv. Both the Syriac and Latin Versions are translations from the Greek. LITERATURE. Grimm, in Kursgefasstes Exeg. Handbuch ... (1853 .. .). Bissell, in Lange-Schaff's Commentary . . . (1880). Fairweather and Black, The First Book of Maccabees, in the Cambridge Bible for Schools dSQ7) Kautzsch, in Die Apokryphen und Pseud, des A. T. (1900). Knabenbauer, in Citmts Scnpturae Sacrae (1907). For the older literature see Grimm, and Schiirer HJP. II. iii. pp. 9 ff. (E. T. 1890). Other works which have been of use are referred to in the body of the work. * Edited by P. de Lagarde, Libri vet. test, apocryphi Syriace . . . (Leipzig, 1861) 3 IV-! r , e P, res c en ed . b y * lu z c / o the ^' crit * '' the si ^ n 5 denotes the cons ensus of these two recensions. Jidited by babatier, Bibl. Sacr. Latinae versiones antiqtiae, ii. pp. 1017 ft. 66 THE FIRST BOOK OF MACCABEES INTRODUCTION. 1. 1-9- I. 1-4. The Victory of Alexander the Great over the Persians, and the founding of his empire. 1 i And it came to pass after Alexander, the son of Philip the Macedonian a , who came from the land of Chittim, had smitten Darius, king of the Persians and Medes b , that he reigned in his stead . 2, 3 And he waged many wars, and won strongholds d , 6 and slew kings f , and pressed forward to the ends of the earth, and took spoils from many peoples 6 . But when the land was silenced 5 before him, hi he 4 became exalted 11 , and his heart was lifted up 1 . Then he gathered together k a very mighty army k , and ruled over lands and peoples and principalities 1 ; and they became tributary unto him. I. 5-9, The sickness and death of Alexander ; the division of his empire. 5, 6 And after these things he took to his m bed, and perceived that he was about to die. Then he called his chief ministers, men who had been brought up with him from his youth, and divided his 7 kingdom among them while he was yet alive. And Alexander had reigned twelve years when he 8, 9 died And his ministers ruled, each in his particular domain. And after he was dead they all I. a -f- who first reigned in Greece 5L 1 *the repetition of the verb (/ecu Trara^v} is not required '; >3L 1 CTrpoTfpoi/ (Trporepos- luc Luc) em rrp EXXaSa is probably a gloss ; > & 1 d + many 3L 2 + all 3L 1 e ~ & > S luc f + of the earth K V E 1 was silent and quiet 5 luc ^-h > iuc i-i > ^ k-k a strong and numerous host luc 1 princes tf m ai;rovtfAIL 2 1. i. And it came to pass. The Hebrew original of the book is indicated at the outset, KOL eyeWo being the usual Septuagint rendering of VPl. Alexander the ( Great', 356-323 B.C., the third Macedonian king of this name. Chittim. i. e. the people of the islands and coastlands of Greece, cp. Jer. ii, 10 D*rO "HK. In Gen. x. 4 the Chittim are called c sons of Javan' (Greece). They took their name originally, according to Phoenician inscriptions, from Kiti (the Greek Kttion], the chief city on the island of Cyprus, now called Larnaca. The original colonists were Phoenicians, later on many Greeks settled down there, hence the term ' sons of Javan ' applied to these Chittim. Darius. The third of the name, known as Codomannus. he reigned in his stead. Cp. Dan. viii. 21, where Alexander is spoken of as jy pn, and xi. 2, where his kingdom is spoken of as fl 1 JTOPD. 2. kings. Not to be taken in a literal sense, generals, governors, and the like, are meant. 3. the ends of the earth. A constant O.T. expression : pNil DSK "JJ7. his heart was lifted up. Cp. Dan. xi. 12. ir6 D"Yl. 4. principalities. The reading of tf (rvpdww for Tvpawt5>v) is perhaps preferable ; satrapies (or satrap), the Persian province is presumably meant, though in Esther ix. 3 a difference is made between the ruler of a province and a * tyrannos ' (of apxovres r&v crarpaTretooj' KOL of Tvpavvoi). . they became tributary unto him. In Judges i. 28 (= Sept. i. 30) this phrase occurs, but the Heb. DD7 Wl 'they were subject to task-work', cp. Gen. xlix. 15. 6. chief ministers, irais is used in i Sam. xix. i of the chief officers of Saul (1H1V). brought Up with him. TOVS arweXTpofavs avrov, cp. Acts Xlii. I Mavafjv re *Hp