Covenant Repentance and the Costly Reform of the Community

Ezr 10:6 Hereupon Ezra left the place before the house of God, and went into the chamber of Johanan the son of Eliashib, to fast and mourn there for the unfaithfulness (transgression) of them that had been carried away (הגּולה מעל like Ezr 9:4). Johanan the son of Eliashib cannot actually be Johanan ben Eliashib (Neh 12:23) the high priest, however natural it may be to understand by the chamber of Johanan one of the chambers in the out-buildings of the temple, called after the name of some well-known individual.

For the high priest Eliashib was a contemporary of Nehemiah, and the high priest Johanan was not the son, but, according to the definite statement, Neh 12:10, the grandson, of Eliashib, and the son of Joiada (the correct reading of Neh 12:11 being: Joiada begat Johanan and Jonathan). Now a chamber of the temple could not in Ezra’s time have been as yet called after a grandson of Eliashib the contemporary of Nehemiah; and both Johanan and Eliashib being names which frequently occur (comp.

Ezr 10:24, Ezr 10:27, Ezr 10:36), and one of the twenty-four orders of priests being called after the latter (1Ch 24:12), we, with Ewald ( Gesch . iv. p. 228), regard the Johanan ben Eliashib here mentioned as an individual of whom nothing further is known-perhaps a priest descended from the Eliashib of 1Ch 24:12, and who possessed in the new temple a chamber called by his name.

For there is not the slightest reason to suppose, with Bertheau, that a subsequent name of this chamber is used in this narrative, because the narrator desired to state the locality in a manner which should be intelligible to his contemporaries. Cler. and Berth. desire, after 1 Esdr. 9:1 (καὶ αὐλισθεὶς ἐκεῖ), to change שׁם ויּלך into שׁם ויּלן: and he passed the night there without eating bread or drinking water.

But the lxx having καὶ ἐπορεύθη ἐκεῖ, and the repetition of the same word being, moreover, by no means infrequent, comp. e. g. , ויּקם in Ezr 10:5, Ezr 10:6, and finally שׁם repeatedly standing for thither, e. g. , 1Sa 2:14 (שׁם הבּאים), there are no adequate grounds for an alteration of the text. The paraphrase of 1 Esdr. arises merely from the connection, and is devoid of critical value.

To eat no bread, etc. , means to fast: comp. Exo 34:28; Deu 9:9.

Ezr 10:7-8 The resolution carried into execution. - Ezr 10:7, Ezr 10:8. A proclamation was sent forth throughout Judah and Jerusalem (קול העביר, comp. Ezr 1:1) to all the children of the captivity to assemble at Jerusalem under pain of the punishment, that whoever should not come within three days, all his substance should be forfeited and himself excluded from the congregation, according to the decision of the princes and elders, who, as the heads of the community, had taken the matter in hand, and made this announcement.

The forfeiture of substance is not its destruction, as prescribed Deu 13:13-17 in the case of a city fallen into idolatry, but its appropriation to the benefit of the temple, after the analogy of Lev 27:28.

Ezr 10:7-8 The resolution carried into execution. - Ezr 10:7, Ezr 10:8. A proclamation was sent forth throughout Judah and Jerusalem (קול העביר, comp. Ezr 1:1) to all the children of the captivity to assemble at Jerusalem under pain of the punishment, that whoever should not come within three days, all his substance should be forfeited and himself excluded from the congregation, according to the decision of the princes and elders, who, as the heads of the community, had taken the matter in hand, and made this announcement.

The forfeiture of substance is not its destruction, as prescribed Deu 13:13-17 in the case of a city fallen into idolatry, but its appropriation to the benefit of the temple, after the analogy of Lev 27:28.

Ezr 10:9 After three days all the men of Judah and Benjamin assembled at Jerusalem. This took place on the twentieth day of the ninth month. On this statement of time, see the remark in Ezr 9:1. The assembled multitude sat there on the open space of the house of God, i. e. , probably the open space (הרחוב) in front of the water-gate, Neh 8:1, Neh 8:3, Neh 8:16, at the eastern or south-eastern side, before the temple court; see remarks on Neh 8:1.

“Trembling” because of this matter, the seriousness of which they might perceive from the heavy penalty attached to their non-appearance within three days, and “because of the rain. ” The ninth month, corresponding with our December, is in the cold rainy time of the year (comp. Ezr 10:13), “when the rain usually falls in torrents” (Robinson, Phys. Geog . p. 287).

Ezr 10:10-11 Ezra then stood up and reproved the assembled multitude, saying: You have brought home (הושׁיב, comp. Ezr 10:2) strange wives to increase the trespass of Israel (comp. Ezra’s confession, Ezr 9:6-15), and exhorted them to give glory to God and to do His pleasure, (viz.) to separate themselves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives. On תודה תּנוּ, comp. Jos 7:19. Separation from the people of the land consisted, under the circumstances, in the dismissal of the strange wives.

Ezr 10:10-11 Ezra then stood up and reproved the assembled multitude, saying: You have brought home (הושׁיב, comp. Ezr 10:2) strange wives to increase the trespass of Israel (comp. Ezra’s confession, Ezr 9:6-15), and exhorted them to give glory to God and to do His pleasure, (viz.) to separate themselves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives. On תודה תּנוּ, comp. Jos 7:19. Separation from the people of the land consisted, under the circumstances, in the dismissal of the strange wives.

Ezr 10:12-13 The whole assembly replied with a loud voice, and therefore with firm resolve: According to thy word it is our duty to do. עלינוּ must not be drawn to what precedes, as in the Vulgate, juxta verbum tuum ad nos, sic fiat , but to what follows, as in Ezr 10:4, Neh 13:13; 2Sa 18:11. But - they further remark, Ezr 10:13 - the people are many, - i. e.

, the assemblage is very large to be able to deal immediately with the several cases; and it is (now) the time of the heavy rains, and there is no power to stand without, - i. e. , at the present season we are not able to remain in the open air until the business is discharged; neither is this the work of one day, or of two, for we have transgressed much in this matter, - i.

e. , one or two days will not suffice to investigate and decide upon all cases, because very many have broken the law in this respect.

Ezr 10:12-13 The whole assembly replied with a loud voice, and therefore with firm resolve: According to thy word it is our duty to do. עלינוּ must not be drawn to what precedes, as in the Vulgate, juxta verbum tuum ad nos, sic fiat , but to what follows, as in Ezr 10:4, Neh 13:13; 2Sa 18:11. But - they further remark, Ezr 10:13 - the people are many, - i. e.

, the assemblage is very large to be able to deal immediately with the several cases; and it is (now) the time of the heavy rains, and there is no power to stand without, - i. e. , at the present season we are not able to remain in the open air until the business is discharged; neither is this the work of one day, or of two, for we have transgressed much in this matter, - i.

e. , one or two days will not suffice to investigate and decide upon all cases, because very many have broken the law in this respect.

Ezr 10:14 “Let then our rulers stand for the whole congregation, and let all who in all our cities have brought home strange wives come at appointed times, and with them the elders of each city, and the judges thereof, until the fierce wrath of our God be turned away from us, as long as this matter lasts. ” There were so many cases to deal with, that the rulers, as the judicial authorities, must decide in this matter; and those who in all the cities of the land had transgressed, were to appear before these authorities, and submit their individual cases to their jurisdiction.

The choice of the verb יעמדוּ, to stand or set oneself to discharge some business, here therefore to give judgment, is occasioned by the preceding לעמוד. The whole community had assembled according to the proclamation, and was standing there for the purpose of bringing the matter to a close. This they were not, however, able to do, for the reasons stated Ezr 10:13; hence the princes, as rulers of the community, are to remain for the discharge of the business.

לכל־הקּהל is not a genitive dependent on שׂרינוּ, and explanatory of the suffix of this word-our, viz. , the whole congregation’s, princes (Bertheau) - an unnatural and superfluous elucidation; for if the whole congregation say: our princes, it is self-evident that not the princes of a section or portion of the people, but of the whole congregation, must be intended.

לכל־הקּהל is the object of יעמדוּ: let them stand for the whole congregation (ל עמד like ל קוּם, Psa 94:16), not instead of , but for the good of the congregation, and transact its business. In our cities, i. e. , including the capital, for there is here no contrast between Jerusalem and the other cities. The article to ההשׁיב stands, as is often the case, for the relative אשׁר, e.

g. , Ezr 10:17, Ezr 8:25. מזמּנים עתּים, appointed times, stated terms, used only here and in Neh 10:35; Neh 13:31. זמּן is a Chaldaistic expression. With the accused were to come the elders and judges of every city, to furnish the necessary explanations and evidence. להשׁיב עד, until the turning away of the fierceness of the wrath (ל עד according to the later usage of the language instead of עד only, comp.

Ewald, §315, a , not instead of ל only, as Bertheau seeks, by incorrectly interpreted passages, to prove). The meaning is: until the fierce wrath of God concerning these marriages shall be turned away, by their dissolution and the dismissal of the strange women from the congregation. The last words, הזּה לדּבר עד, offer some difficulty. De Wette and Bertheau translate them: on account of this matter, which ל עד can by no means signify.

We regard ל עד = עד of the older language, in the sense of during, like 2Ki 9:22, according to which the meaning is: as long as this thing lasts; but we connect these words, not, as J. H. Michaelis, with the immediately preceding clause: the wrath which is fierce during this matter ( quae usque , i. e. , constanter ardet ), but take them as more exactly defining the leading idea of the verse: the princes are to stand and judge the guilty as long as this matter lasts, so that הזּה לדּבר עד is co-ordinate with וגו להשׁיב עד.

Ezr 10:15-16 Jonathan the son of Asahel, and Jahaziah the son of Tikvah, indeed opposed this proposal on the part of the community, and were supported in their opposition by two Levites, but without being able to carry it out. This statement is introduced by אך, only , in the form of a qualification to the remark that the whole assembly (Ezr 10:12) made this resolution: nevertheless Jonathan ...

stood up against this. For על עמד, to stand up against, or as elsewhere על קוּם, comp. 1Ch 21:1; 2Ch 20:23; Dan 8:25; Dan 11:14. Such also is the view of R. Sal. and Lightf. , while older expositors understand it as meaning: only Jonathan ... stood up for this matter, like the steterunt super hoc of the Vulgate, or as the decidedly incorrect explanation of J.

H. Mich. : praefecti sunt huic negotio . - Nothing further is known of the four opponents here named. That they did not succeed in this opposition appears from what follows. Ezr 10:16 The children of the captivity, i. e. , the returned exiles, did so; i. e. , the congregation carried their resolve into execution. And Ezra the priest, and men, heads of houses according to their houses, - i.

e. , so that each house was represented by its head, - were separated, i. e. , chosen to conduct the investigation. The ו copulative before אנשׁים has been lost, as asyndeton seeming in this case inadmissible. Bertheau, on the contrary, unnecessarily changes ויבּרלוּ into לו ויּבדל after 1 Esdras 9:16. “And they all by names,” comp. Ezr 8:20. ויּשׁבוּ, and they held a sitting (i.

e. , their first sitting) on the first day of the tenth month, and therefore only ten days after the assembly just spoken of. הדּבר לדריושׁ, to inquire into the matter. It is impossible in Hebrew to form דּריושׁ from דּרשׁ, and this word can only arise from דּרושׁ, as Ewald, §239, a , note, Olshausen, Lehrb. d. hebr. Spr . p. 150, and Böttcher, ausf. Lehrb. der hebr.

Spr . i. 1, p. 162, note, unanimously agree.

Ezr 10:15-16 Jonathan the son of Asahel, and Jahaziah the son of Tikvah, indeed opposed this proposal on the part of the community, and were supported in their opposition by two Levites, but without being able to carry it out. This statement is introduced by אך, only , in the form of a qualification to the remark that the whole assembly (Ezr 10:12) made this resolution: nevertheless Jonathan ...

stood up against this. For על עמד, to stand up against, or as elsewhere על קוּם, comp. 1Ch 21:1; 2Ch 20:23; Dan 8:25; Dan 11:14. Such also is the view of R. Sal. and Lightf. , while older expositors understand it as meaning: only Jonathan ... stood up for this matter, like the steterunt super hoc of the Vulgate, or as the decidedly incorrect explanation of J.

H. Mich. : praefecti sunt huic negotio . - Nothing further is known of the four opponents here named. That they did not succeed in this opposition appears from what follows. Ezr 10:16 The children of the captivity, i. e. , the returned exiles, did so; i. e. , the congregation carried their resolve into execution. And Ezra the priest, and men, heads of houses according to their houses, - i.

e. , so that each house was represented by its head, - were separated, i. e. , chosen to conduct the investigation. The ו copulative before אנשׁים has been lost, as asyndeton seeming in this case inadmissible. Bertheau, on the contrary, unnecessarily changes ויבּרלוּ into לו ויּבדל after 1 Esdras 9:16. “And they all by names,” comp. Ezr 8:20. ויּשׁבוּ, and they held a sitting (i.

e. , their first sitting) on the first day of the tenth month, and therefore only ten days after the assembly just spoken of. הדּבר לדריושׁ, to inquire into the matter. It is impossible in Hebrew to form דּריושׁ from דּרשׁ, and this word can only arise from דּרושׁ, as Ewald, §239, a , note, Olshausen, Lehrb. d. hebr. Spr . p. 150, and Böttcher, ausf. Lehrb. der hebr.

Spr . i. 1, p. 162, note, unanimously agree.

Ezr 10:17 And they made an end with all, with respect to the men who had brought home strange wives. בּכּל (with the article) cannot be so connected with אנשׁים, from which it is separated by the accentuation of the latter, as to admit of the repetition, as by older expositors, of the preposition בּ before אנשׁים: with all, namely, with the men. Still less can בּכּל, as Bertheau thinks, be taken in the sense of “in every place,” and אנשׁים connected as an accusative with ויכלּוּ: they finished in every place the men (!)

; for כּלּה with an accusative of the person signifies to annihilate, to make an end of, while ב כּלּה means to finish, to make an end with, comp. Gen 44:12. If, as the accentuation requires, we take בּכּל independently, אנשׁים can only be an accusative of more exact definition: in respect of the men (אנשׁים being without the article, because words which define it follow).

As this gives a suitable meaning, it seems unnecessary to alter the punctuation and read בּכל־אנשׁים, or with Ewald, §290, c , note 1, to regard אנשׁים בּכּל as a singular combination. - Till the first day of the first month (of the next year), therefore in three months, their sittings having begun, according to Ezr 10:13, on the first day of the tenth month.

- The account of this transaction closes with - The list of the men who had taken strange wives , vv. 18-44; among whom were priests (Ezr 10:18-22), Levites (Ezr 10:23, Ezr 10:24), and Israelites, i. e. , laymen (vv. 25-43).

Ezr 10:18-22 Among the priests there stand first, four names of sons and brethren of the high priest Jeshua, the son of Jozadak, who returned to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel. אחיו, his (Jeshua’s) brethren. Judging by Ezr 2:36, these were among the descendants of Jedaiah, a section of the house of the high-priestly family (see rem. on Ezr 2:36), and were therefore distant cousins of the high priest.

They gave their hands, i. e. , bound themselves by shaking hands, to put away their wives, i. e. , to dismiss them, and to sever them from the congregation of Israel, ואשׁמים, “and guilty a ram for their trespass,” i. e. , condemned to bring a ram as a trespass-offering. ואשׁמים is to be regarded as the continuation of the infinitive clause להוציא. As elsewhere, infinitive clauses are continued without anything further in the verb.

finit . (comp. Ewald, §350); so here also does the adjective אשׁמים follow, requiring that להיות should be mentally supplied. איל־צאן, a ram of the flock, is, as an accusative of more exact definition, dependent on אשׁמים. This trespass-offering was imposed upon them according to the principle of the law, Lev 5:14, etc. , because they had committed a מעל against the Lord, which needed expiation; see on Lev 5:14.

- In what follows, only the names of the individuals, and a statement of the families they belonged to, are given, without repeating that the same obligations, namely, the dismissal of their strange wives, and the bringing of a trespass-offering, were imposed on them also, this being self-evident from the context. - Among the sons of Immer were three, among the sons of Harim five, among the sons of Pashur six offenders; in all, eighteen priests.

By comparing Ezr 2:36-39, we perceive that not one of the orders of priests who returned with Zerubbabel was free from participation in this transgression. Some of the names given, Ezr 10:20-22, reappear in the lists in Neh 8:4 and Neh 10:2-9, and may belong to the same individuals.

Ezr 10:18-22 Among the priests there stand first, four names of sons and brethren of the high priest Jeshua, the son of Jozadak, who returned to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel. אחיו, his (Jeshua’s) brethren. Judging by Ezr 2:36, these were among the descendants of Jedaiah, a section of the house of the high-priestly family (see rem. on Ezr 2:36), and were therefore distant cousins of the high priest.

They gave their hands, i. e. , bound themselves by shaking hands, to put away their wives, i. e. , to dismiss them, and to sever them from the congregation of Israel, ואשׁמים, “and guilty a ram for their trespass,” i. e. , condemned to bring a ram as a trespass-offering. ואשׁמים is to be regarded as the continuation of the infinitive clause להוציא. As elsewhere, infinitive clauses are continued without anything further in the verb.

finit . (comp. Ewald, §350); so here also does the adjective אשׁמים follow, requiring that להיות should be mentally supplied. איל־צאן, a ram of the flock, is, as an accusative of more exact definition, dependent on אשׁמים. This trespass-offering was imposed upon them according to the principle of the law, Lev 5:14, etc. , because they had committed a מעל against the Lord, which needed expiation; see on Lev 5:14.

- In what follows, only the names of the individuals, and a statement of the families they belonged to, are given, without repeating that the same obligations, namely, the dismissal of their strange wives, and the bringing of a trespass-offering, were imposed on them also, this being self-evident from the context. - Among the sons of Immer were three, among the sons of Harim five, among the sons of Pashur six offenders; in all, eighteen priests.

By comparing Ezr 2:36-39, we perceive that not one of the orders of priests who returned with Zerubbabel was free from participation in this transgression. Some of the names given, Ezr 10:20-22, reappear in the lists in Neh 8:4 and Neh 10:2-9, and may belong to the same individuals.

Ezr 10:18-22 Among the priests there stand first, four names of sons and brethren of the high priest Jeshua, the son of Jozadak, who returned to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel. אחיו, his (Jeshua’s) brethren. Judging by Ezr 2:36, these were among the descendants of Jedaiah, a section of the house of the high-priestly family (see rem. on Ezr 2:36), and were therefore distant cousins of the high priest.

They gave their hands, i. e. , bound themselves by shaking hands, to put away their wives, i. e. , to dismiss them, and to sever them from the congregation of Israel, ואשׁמים, “and guilty a ram for their trespass,” i. e. , condemned to bring a ram as a trespass-offering. ואשׁמים is to be regarded as the continuation of the infinitive clause להוציא. As elsewhere, infinitive clauses are continued without anything further in the verb.

finit . (comp. Ewald, §350); so here also does the adjective אשׁמים follow, requiring that להיות should be mentally supplied. איל־צאן, a ram of the flock, is, as an accusative of more exact definition, dependent on אשׁמים. This trespass-offering was imposed upon them according to the principle of the law, Lev 5:14, etc. , because they had committed a מעל against the Lord, which needed expiation; see on Lev 5:14.

- In what follows, only the names of the individuals, and a statement of the families they belonged to, are given, without repeating that the same obligations, namely, the dismissal of their strange wives, and the bringing of a trespass-offering, were imposed on them also, this being self-evident from the context. - Among the sons of Immer were three, among the sons of Harim five, among the sons of Pashur six offenders; in all, eighteen priests.

By comparing Ezr 2:36-39, we perceive that not one of the orders of priests who returned with Zerubbabel was free from participation in this transgression. Some of the names given, Ezr 10:20-22, reappear in the lists in Neh 8:4 and Neh 10:2-9, and may belong to the same individuals.

Ezr 10:18-22 Among the priests there stand first, four names of sons and brethren of the high priest Jeshua, the son of Jozadak, who returned to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel. אחיו, his (Jeshua’s) brethren. Judging by Ezr 2:36, these were among the descendants of Jedaiah, a section of the house of the high-priestly family (see rem. on Ezr 2:36), and were therefore distant cousins of the high priest.

They gave their hands, i. e. , bound themselves by shaking hands, to put away their wives, i. e. , to dismiss them, and to sever them from the congregation of Israel, ואשׁמים, “and guilty a ram for their trespass,” i. e. , condemned to bring a ram as a trespass-offering. ואשׁמים is to be regarded as the continuation of the infinitive clause להוציא. As elsewhere, infinitive clauses are continued without anything further in the verb.

finit . (comp. Ewald, §350); so here also does the adjective אשׁמים follow, requiring that להיות should be mentally supplied. איל־צאן, a ram of the flock, is, as an accusative of more exact definition, dependent on אשׁמים. This trespass-offering was imposed upon them according to the principle of the law, Lev 5:14, etc. , because they had committed a מעל against the Lord, which needed expiation; see on Lev 5:14.

- In what follows, only the names of the individuals, and a statement of the families they belonged to, are given, without repeating that the same obligations, namely, the dismissal of their strange wives, and the bringing of a trespass-offering, were imposed on them also, this being self-evident from the context. - Among the sons of Immer were three, among the sons of Harim five, among the sons of Pashur six offenders; in all, eighteen priests.

By comparing Ezr 2:36-39, we perceive that not one of the orders of priests who returned with Zerubbabel was free from participation in this transgression. Some of the names given, Ezr 10:20-22, reappear in the lists in Neh 8:4 and Neh 10:2-9, and may belong to the same individuals.

Ezr 10:18-22 Among the priests there stand first, four names of sons and brethren of the high priest Jeshua, the son of Jozadak, who returned to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel. אחיו, his (Jeshua’s) brethren. Judging by Ezr 2:36, these were among the descendants of Jedaiah, a section of the house of the high-priestly family (see rem. on Ezr 2:36), and were therefore distant cousins of the high priest.

They gave their hands, i. e. , bound themselves by shaking hands, to put away their wives, i. e. , to dismiss them, and to sever them from the congregation of Israel, ואשׁמים, “and guilty a ram for their trespass,” i. e. , condemned to bring a ram as a trespass-offering. ואשׁמים is to be regarded as the continuation of the infinitive clause להוציא. As elsewhere, infinitive clauses are continued without anything further in the verb.

finit . (comp. Ewald, §350); so here also does the adjective אשׁמים follow, requiring that להיות should be mentally supplied. איל־צאן, a ram of the flock, is, as an accusative of more exact definition, dependent on אשׁמים. This trespass-offering was imposed upon them according to the principle of the law, Lev 5:14, etc. , because they had committed a מעל against the Lord, which needed expiation; see on Lev 5:14.

- In what follows, only the names of the individuals, and a statement of the families they belonged to, are given, without repeating that the same obligations, namely, the dismissal of their strange wives, and the bringing of a trespass-offering, were imposed on them also, this being self-evident from the context. - Among the sons of Immer were three, among the sons of Harim five, among the sons of Pashur six offenders; in all, eighteen priests.

By comparing Ezr 2:36-39, we perceive that not one of the orders of priests who returned with Zerubbabel was free from participation in this transgression. Some of the names given, Ezr 10:20-22, reappear in the lists in Neh 8:4 and Neh 10:2-9, and may belong to the same individuals.

Ezr 10:23 Of Levites, only six names are given, and that without stated the houses to which they belonged. From Ezr 2:40, however, it appears that they were of the sons of Jeshua and Kadmiel there mentioned. “Kelaiah, the same is Kelita;” the latter is the usual name of the person in question, and that which he bears in Neh 8:7 and Neh 10:11. Jozabad also reappears in Neh 8:7.

Ezr 10:24 Of singers one, and of porters three names are given; comp. Ezr 2:41-42. In all, ten Levites.

Ezr 10:25-43 Of Israel, as distinguished from priests and Levites, i. e. , of the laity. Of these latter are given in all eighty-six names, belonging to ten races, vv. 25-43, who returned with Zerubbabel. See Nos. 1, 5, 6, 9, 8, 4, 30, 17, and 27 of the survey of these races. ירמות in Ezr 10:29 should, according to the Chethiv, be read ירמות. - The twofold naming of sons of Bani in this list (Ezr 10:29 and Ezr 10:34) is strange, and Bani is evidently in one of these places a mistake for some other name.

Bertheau supposes that Bigvai may have stood in the text in one of these places. The error undoubtedly lies in the second mention of Bani (Ezr 10:34), and consists not merely in the wrong transcription of this one name. For, while of every other race four, six, seven, or eight individuals are named, no less than seven and twenty names follow בּני מבּני, though all these persons could hardly have belonged to one race, unless the greater number of males therein had married strange wives.

Besides, no names of inhabitants of cities of Judah and Benjamin are given in this list (as in Ezr 2:21-28, and Ezr 2:33-35), although it is stated in Ezr 10:7 and Ezr 10:14 that not only the men of Jerusalem, but also dwellers in other cities, had contracted these prohibited marriages, and been summoned to Jerusalem, that judgment might be pronounced in their several cases. These reasons make it probable that the twenty-seven persons enumerated in Ezr 10:34-42 were inhabitants of various localities in Judah, and not merely individuals belonging to a single house.

This supposition cannot, however, be further corroborated, since even the lxx and 1 Esdr. read the name Bani in Ezr 10:27 and Ezr 10:34, nor can any conjecture respecting the correct reading laying claim to probability be ventured on. In the single names, the Greek texts of the Septuagint and 1 Esdras frequently differ from the Hebrew text, but the differences are almost all of a kind to furnish no material for criticism.

A considerable number of these names reappear in the lists of names in the book of Nehemiah, but under circumstances which nowhere make the identity of the persons bearing them certain.

Ezr 10:25-43 Of Israel, as distinguished from priests and Levites, i. e. , of the laity. Of these latter are given in all eighty-six names, belonging to ten races, vv. 25-43, who returned with Zerubbabel. See Nos. 1, 5, 6, 9, 8, 4, 30, 17, and 27 of the survey of these races. ירמות in Ezr 10:29 should, according to the Chethiv, be read ירמות. - The twofold naming of sons of Bani in this list (Ezr 10:29 and Ezr 10:34) is strange, and Bani is evidently in one of these places a mistake for some other name.

Bertheau supposes that Bigvai may have stood in the text in one of these places. The error undoubtedly lies in the second mention of Bani (Ezr 10:34), and consists not merely in the wrong transcription of this one name. For, while of every other race four, six, seven, or eight individuals are named, no less than seven and twenty names follow בּני מבּני, though all these persons could hardly have belonged to one race, unless the greater number of males therein had married strange wives.

Besides, no names of inhabitants of cities of Judah and Benjamin are given in this list (as in Ezr 2:21-28, and Ezr 2:33-35), although it is stated in Ezr 10:7 and Ezr 10:14 that not only the men of Jerusalem, but also dwellers in other cities, had contracted these prohibited marriages, and been summoned to Jerusalem, that judgment might be pronounced in their several cases. These reasons make it probable that the twenty-seven persons enumerated in Ezr 10:34-42 were inhabitants of various localities in Judah, and not merely individuals belonging to a single house.

This supposition cannot, however, be further corroborated, since even the lxx and 1 Esdr. read the name Bani in Ezr 10:27 and Ezr 10:34, nor can any conjecture respecting the correct reading laying claim to probability be ventured on. In the single names, the Greek texts of the Septuagint and 1 Esdras frequently differ from the Hebrew text, but the differences are almost all of a kind to furnish no material for criticism.

A considerable number of these names reappear in the lists of names in the book of Nehemiah, but under circumstances which nowhere make the identity of the persons bearing them certain.

Ezr 10:25-43 Of Israel, as distinguished from priests and Levites, i. e. , of the laity. Of these latter are given in all eighty-six names, belonging to ten races, vv. 25-43, who returned with Zerubbabel. See Nos. 1, 5, 6, 9, 8, 4, 30, 17, and 27 of the survey of these races. ירמות in Ezr 10:29 should, according to the Chethiv, be read ירמות. - The twofold naming of sons of Bani in this list (Ezr 10:29 and Ezr 10:34) is strange, and Bani is evidently in one of these places a mistake for some other name.

Bertheau supposes that Bigvai may have stood in the text in one of these places. The error undoubtedly lies in the second mention of Bani (Ezr 10:34), and consists not merely in the wrong transcription of this one name. For, while of every other race four, six, seven, or eight individuals are named, no less than seven and twenty names follow בּני מבּני, though all these persons could hardly have belonged to one race, unless the greater number of males therein had married strange wives.

Besides, no names of inhabitants of cities of Judah and Benjamin are given in this list (as in Ezr 2:21-28, and Ezr 2:33-35), although it is stated in Ezr 10:7 and Ezr 10:14 that not only the men of Jerusalem, but also dwellers in other cities, had contracted these prohibited marriages, and been summoned to Jerusalem, that judgment might be pronounced in their several cases. These reasons make it probable that the twenty-seven persons enumerated in Ezr 10:34-42 were inhabitants of various localities in Judah, and not merely individuals belonging to a single house.

This supposition cannot, however, be further corroborated, since even the lxx and 1 Esdr. read the name Bani in Ezr 10:27 and Ezr 10:34, nor can any conjecture respecting the correct reading laying claim to probability be ventured on. In the single names, the Greek texts of the Septuagint and 1 Esdras frequently differ from the Hebrew text, but the differences are almost all of a kind to furnish no material for criticism.

A considerable number of these names reappear in the lists of names in the book of Nehemiah, but under circumstances which nowhere make the identity of the persons bearing them certain.

Ezr 10:25-43 Of Israel, as distinguished from priests and Levites, i. e. , of the laity. Of these latter are given in all eighty-six names, belonging to ten races, vv. 25-43, who returned with Zerubbabel. See Nos. 1, 5, 6, 9, 8, 4, 30, 17, and 27 of the survey of these races. ירמות in Ezr 10:29 should, according to the Chethiv, be read ירמות. - The twofold naming of sons of Bani in this list (Ezr 10:29 and Ezr 10:34) is strange, and Bani is evidently in one of these places a mistake for some other name.

Bertheau supposes that Bigvai may have stood in the text in one of these places. The error undoubtedly lies in the second mention of Bani (Ezr 10:34), and consists not merely in the wrong transcription of this one name. For, while of every other race four, six, seven, or eight individuals are named, no less than seven and twenty names follow בּני מבּני, though all these persons could hardly have belonged to one race, unless the greater number of males therein had married strange wives.

Besides, no names of inhabitants of cities of Judah and Benjamin are given in this list (as in Ezr 2:21-28, and Ezr 2:33-35), although it is stated in Ezr 10:7 and Ezr 10:14 that not only the men of Jerusalem, but also dwellers in other cities, had contracted these prohibited marriages, and been summoned to Jerusalem, that judgment might be pronounced in their several cases. These reasons make it probable that the twenty-seven persons enumerated in Ezr 10:34-42 were inhabitants of various localities in Judah, and not merely individuals belonging to a single house.

This supposition cannot, however, be further corroborated, since even the lxx and 1 Esdr. read the name Bani in Ezr 10:27 and Ezr 10:34, nor can any conjecture respecting the correct reading laying claim to probability be ventured on. In the single names, the Greek texts of the Septuagint and 1 Esdras frequently differ from the Hebrew text, but the differences are almost all of a kind to furnish no material for criticism.

A considerable number of these names reappear in the lists of names in the book of Nehemiah, but under circumstances which nowhere make the identity of the persons bearing them certain.

Ezr 10:25-43 Of Israel, as distinguished from priests and Levites, i. e. , of the laity. Of these latter are given in all eighty-six names, belonging to ten races, vv. 25-43, who returned with Zerubbabel. See Nos. 1, 5, 6, 9, 8, 4, 30, 17, and 27 of the survey of these races. ירמות in Ezr 10:29 should, according to the Chethiv, be read ירמות. - The twofold naming of sons of Bani in this list (Ezr 10:29 and Ezr 10:34) is strange, and Bani is evidently in one of these places a mistake for some other name.

Bertheau supposes that Bigvai may have stood in the text in one of these places. The error undoubtedly lies in the second mention of Bani (Ezr 10:34), and consists not merely in the wrong transcription of this one name. For, while of every other race four, six, seven, or eight individuals are named, no less than seven and twenty names follow בּני מבּני, though all these persons could hardly have belonged to one race, unless the greater number of males therein had married strange wives.

Besides, no names of inhabitants of cities of Judah and Benjamin are given in this list (as in Ezr 2:21-28, and Ezr 2:33-35), although it is stated in Ezr 10:7 and Ezr 10:14 that not only the men of Jerusalem, but also dwellers in other cities, had contracted these prohibited marriages, and been summoned to Jerusalem, that judgment might be pronounced in their several cases. These reasons make it probable that the twenty-seven persons enumerated in Ezr 10:34-42 were inhabitants of various localities in Judah, and not merely individuals belonging to a single house.

This supposition cannot, however, be further corroborated, since even the lxx and 1 Esdr. read the name Bani in Ezr 10:27 and Ezr 10:34, nor can any conjecture respecting the correct reading laying claim to probability be ventured on. In the single names, the Greek texts of the Septuagint and 1 Esdras frequently differ from the Hebrew text, but the differences are almost all of a kind to furnish no material for criticism.

A considerable number of these names reappear in the lists of names in the book of Nehemiah, but under circumstances which nowhere make the identity of the persons bearing them certain.

Ezr 10:25-43 Of Israel, as distinguished from priests and Levites, i. e. , of the laity. Of these latter are given in all eighty-six names, belonging to ten races, vv. 25-43, who returned with Zerubbabel. See Nos. 1, 5, 6, 9, 8, 4, 30, 17, and 27 of the survey of these races. ירמות in Ezr 10:29 should, according to the Chethiv, be read ירמות. - The twofold naming of sons of Bani in this list (Ezr 10:29 and Ezr 10:34) is strange, and Bani is evidently in one of these places a mistake for some other name.

Bertheau supposes that Bigvai may have stood in the text in one of these places. The error undoubtedly lies in the second mention of Bani (Ezr 10:34), and consists not merely in the wrong transcription of this one name. For, while of every other race four, six, seven, or eight individuals are named, no less than seven and twenty names follow בּני מבּני, though all these persons could hardly have belonged to one race, unless the greater number of males therein had married strange wives.

Besides, no names of inhabitants of cities of Judah and Benjamin are given in this list (as in Ezr 2:21-28, and Ezr 2:33-35), although it is stated in Ezr 10:7 and Ezr 10:14 that not only the men of Jerusalem, but also dwellers in other cities, had contracted these prohibited marriages, and been summoned to Jerusalem, that judgment might be pronounced in their several cases. These reasons make it probable that the twenty-seven persons enumerated in Ezr 10:34-42 were inhabitants of various localities in Judah, and not merely individuals belonging to a single house.

This supposition cannot, however, be further corroborated, since even the lxx and 1 Esdr. read the name Bani in Ezr 10:27 and Ezr 10:34, nor can any conjecture respecting the correct reading laying claim to probability be ventured on. In the single names, the Greek texts of the Septuagint and 1 Esdras frequently differ from the Hebrew text, but the differences are almost all of a kind to furnish no material for criticism.

A considerable number of these names reappear in the lists of names in the book of Nehemiah, but under circumstances which nowhere make the identity of the persons bearing them certain.

Ezr 10:25-43 Of Israel, as distinguished from priests and Levites, i. e. , of the laity. Of these latter are given in all eighty-six names, belonging to ten races, vv. 25-43, who returned with Zerubbabel. See Nos. 1, 5, 6, 9, 8, 4, 30, 17, and 27 of the survey of these races. ירמות in Ezr 10:29 should, according to the Chethiv, be read ירמות. - The twofold naming of sons of Bani in this list (Ezr 10:29 and Ezr 10:34) is strange, and Bani is evidently in one of these places a mistake for some other name.

Bertheau supposes that Bigvai may have stood in the text in one of these places. The error undoubtedly lies in the second mention of Bani (Ezr 10:34), and consists not merely in the wrong transcription of this one name. For, while of every other race four, six, seven, or eight individuals are named, no less than seven and twenty names follow בּני מבּני, though all these persons could hardly have belonged to one race, unless the greater number of males therein had married strange wives.

Besides, no names of inhabitants of cities of Judah and Benjamin are given in this list (as in Ezr 2:21-28, and Ezr 2:33-35), although it is stated in Ezr 10:7 and Ezr 10:14 that not only the men of Jerusalem, but also dwellers in other cities, had contracted these prohibited marriages, and been summoned to Jerusalem, that judgment might be pronounced in their several cases. These reasons make it probable that the twenty-seven persons enumerated in Ezr 10:34-42 were inhabitants of various localities in Judah, and not merely individuals belonging to a single house.

This supposition cannot, however, be further corroborated, since even the lxx and 1 Esdr. read the name Bani in Ezr 10:27 and Ezr 10:34, nor can any conjecture respecting the correct reading laying claim to probability be ventured on. In the single names, the Greek texts of the Septuagint and 1 Esdras frequently differ from the Hebrew text, but the differences are almost all of a kind to furnish no material for criticism.

A considerable number of these names reappear in the lists of names in the book of Nehemiah, but under circumstances which nowhere make the identity of the persons bearing them certain.

Ezr 10:25-43 Of Israel, as distinguished from priests and Levites, i. e. , of the laity. Of these latter are given in all eighty-six names, belonging to ten races, vv. 25-43, who returned with Zerubbabel. See Nos. 1, 5, 6, 9, 8, 4, 30, 17, and 27 of the survey of these races. ירמות in Ezr 10:29 should, according to the Chethiv, be read ירמות. - The twofold naming of sons of Bani in this list (Ezr 10:29 and Ezr 10:34) is strange, and Bani is evidently in one of these places a mistake for some other name.

Bertheau supposes that Bigvai may have stood in the text in one of these places. The error undoubtedly lies in the second mention of Bani (Ezr 10:34), and consists not merely in the wrong transcription of this one name. For, while of every other race four, six, seven, or eight individuals are named, no less than seven and twenty names follow בּני מבּני, though all these persons could hardly have belonged to one race, unless the greater number of males therein had married strange wives.

Besides, no names of inhabitants of cities of Judah and Benjamin are given in this list (as in Ezr 2:21-28, and Ezr 2:33-35), although it is stated in Ezr 10:7 and Ezr 10:14 that not only the men of Jerusalem, but also dwellers in other cities, had contracted these prohibited marriages, and been summoned to Jerusalem, that judgment might be pronounced in their several cases. These reasons make it probable that the twenty-seven persons enumerated in Ezr 10:34-42 were inhabitants of various localities in Judah, and not merely individuals belonging to a single house.

This supposition cannot, however, be further corroborated, since even the lxx and 1 Esdr. read the name Bani in Ezr 10:27 and Ezr 10:34, nor can any conjecture respecting the correct reading laying claim to probability be ventured on. In the single names, the Greek texts of the Septuagint and 1 Esdras frequently differ from the Hebrew text, but the differences are almost all of a kind to furnish no material for criticism.

A considerable number of these names reappear in the lists of names in the book of Nehemiah, but under circumstances which nowhere make the identity of the persons bearing them certain.

Ezr 10:25-43 Of Israel, as distinguished from priests and Levites, i. e. , of the laity. Of these latter are given in all eighty-six names, belonging to ten races, vv. 25-43, who returned with Zerubbabel. See Nos. 1, 5, 6, 9, 8, 4, 30, 17, and 27 of the survey of these races. ירמות in Ezr 10:29 should, according to the Chethiv, be read ירמות. - The twofold naming of sons of Bani in this list (Ezr 10:29 and Ezr 10:34) is strange, and Bani is evidently in one of these places a mistake for some other name.

Bertheau supposes that Bigvai may have stood in the text in one of these places. The error undoubtedly lies in the second mention of Bani (Ezr 10:34), and consists not merely in the wrong transcription of this one name. For, while of every other race four, six, seven, or eight individuals are named, no less than seven and twenty names follow בּני מבּני, though all these persons could hardly have belonged to one race, unless the greater number of males therein had married strange wives.

Besides, no names of inhabitants of cities of Judah and Benjamin are given in this list (as in Ezr 2:21-28, and Ezr 2:33-35), although it is stated in Ezr 10:7 and Ezr 10:14 that not only the men of Jerusalem, but also dwellers in other cities, had contracted these prohibited marriages, and been summoned to Jerusalem, that judgment might be pronounced in their several cases. These reasons make it probable that the twenty-seven persons enumerated in Ezr 10:34-42 were inhabitants of various localities in Judah, and not merely individuals belonging to a single house.

This supposition cannot, however, be further corroborated, since even the lxx and 1 Esdr. read the name Bani in Ezr 10:27 and Ezr 10:34, nor can any conjecture respecting the correct reading laying claim to probability be ventured on. In the single names, the Greek texts of the Septuagint and 1 Esdras frequently differ from the Hebrew text, but the differences are almost all of a kind to furnish no material for criticism.

A considerable number of these names reappear in the lists of names in the book of Nehemiah, but under circumstances which nowhere make the identity of the persons bearing them certain.

Ezr 10:25-43 Of Israel, as distinguished from priests and Levites, i. e. , of the laity. Of these latter are given in all eighty-six names, belonging to ten races, vv. 25-43, who returned with Zerubbabel. See Nos. 1, 5, 6, 9, 8, 4, 30, 17, and 27 of the survey of these races. ירמות in Ezr 10:29 should, according to the Chethiv, be read ירמות. - The twofold naming of sons of Bani in this list (Ezr 10:29 and Ezr 10:34) is strange, and Bani is evidently in one of these places a mistake for some other name.

Bertheau supposes that Bigvai may have stood in the text in one of these places. The error undoubtedly lies in the second mention of Bani (Ezr 10:34), and consists not merely in the wrong transcription of this one name. For, while of every other race four, six, seven, or eight individuals are named, no less than seven and twenty names follow בּני מבּני, though all these persons could hardly have belonged to one race, unless the greater number of males therein had married strange wives.

Besides, no names of inhabitants of cities of Judah and Benjamin are given in this list (as in Ezr 2:21-28, and Ezr 2:33-35), although it is stated in Ezr 10:7 and Ezr 10:14 that not only the men of Jerusalem, but also dwellers in other cities, had contracted these prohibited marriages, and been summoned to Jerusalem, that judgment might be pronounced in their several cases. These reasons make it probable that the twenty-seven persons enumerated in Ezr 10:34-42 were inhabitants of various localities in Judah, and not merely individuals belonging to a single house.

This supposition cannot, however, be further corroborated, since even the lxx and 1 Esdr. read the name Bani in Ezr 10:27 and Ezr 10:34, nor can any conjecture respecting the correct reading laying claim to probability be ventured on. In the single names, the Greek texts of the Septuagint and 1 Esdras frequently differ from the Hebrew text, but the differences are almost all of a kind to furnish no material for criticism.

A considerable number of these names reappear in the lists of names in the book of Nehemiah, but under circumstances which nowhere make the identity of the persons bearing them certain.

Ezr 10:25-43 Of Israel, as distinguished from priests and Levites, i. e. , of the laity. Of these latter are given in all eighty-six names, belonging to ten races, vv. 25-43, who returned with Zerubbabel. See Nos. 1, 5, 6, 9, 8, 4, 30, 17, and 27 of the survey of these races. ירמות in Ezr 10:29 should, according to the Chethiv, be read ירמות. - The twofold naming of sons of Bani in this list (Ezr 10:29 and Ezr 10:34) is strange, and Bani is evidently in one of these places a mistake for some other name.

Bertheau supposes that Bigvai may have stood in the text in one of these places. The error undoubtedly lies in the second mention of Bani (Ezr 10:34), and consists not merely in the wrong transcription of this one name. For, while of every other race four, six, seven, or eight individuals are named, no less than seven and twenty names follow בּני מבּני, though all these persons could hardly have belonged to one race, unless the greater number of males therein had married strange wives.

Besides, no names of inhabitants of cities of Judah and Benjamin are given in this list (as in Ezr 2:21-28, and Ezr 2:33-35), although it is stated in Ezr 10:7 and Ezr 10:14 that not only the men of Jerusalem, but also dwellers in other cities, had contracted these prohibited marriages, and been summoned to Jerusalem, that judgment might be pronounced in their several cases. These reasons make it probable that the twenty-seven persons enumerated in Ezr 10:34-42 were inhabitants of various localities in Judah, and not merely individuals belonging to a single house.

This supposition cannot, however, be further corroborated, since even the lxx and 1 Esdr. read the name Bani in Ezr 10:27 and Ezr 10:34, nor can any conjecture respecting the correct reading laying claim to probability be ventured on. In the single names, the Greek texts of the Septuagint and 1 Esdras frequently differ from the Hebrew text, but the differences are almost all of a kind to furnish no material for criticism.

A considerable number of these names reappear in the lists of names in the book of Nehemiah, but under circumstances which nowhere make the identity of the persons bearing them certain.

Ezr 10:25-43 Of Israel, as distinguished from priests and Levites, i. e. , of the laity. Of these latter are given in all eighty-six names, belonging to ten races, vv. 25-43, who returned with Zerubbabel. See Nos. 1, 5, 6, 9, 8, 4, 30, 17, and 27 of the survey of these races. ירמות in Ezr 10:29 should, according to the Chethiv, be read ירמות. - The twofold naming of sons of Bani in this list (Ezr 10:29 and Ezr 10:34) is strange, and Bani is evidently in one of these places a mistake for some other name.

Bertheau supposes that Bigvai may have stood in the text in one of these places. The error undoubtedly lies in the second mention of Bani (Ezr 10:34), and consists not merely in the wrong transcription of this one name. For, while of every other race four, six, seven, or eight individuals are named, no less than seven and twenty names follow בּני מבּני, though all these persons could hardly have belonged to one race, unless the greater number of males therein had married strange wives.

Besides, no names of inhabitants of cities of Judah and Benjamin are given in this list (as in Ezr 2:21-28, and Ezr 2:33-35), although it is stated in Ezr 10:7 and Ezr 10:14 that not only the men of Jerusalem, but also dwellers in other cities, had contracted these prohibited marriages, and been summoned to Jerusalem, that judgment might be pronounced in their several cases. These reasons make it probable that the twenty-seven persons enumerated in Ezr 10:34-42 were inhabitants of various localities in Judah, and not merely individuals belonging to a single house.

This supposition cannot, however, be further corroborated, since even the lxx and 1 Esdr. read the name Bani in Ezr 10:27 and Ezr 10:34, nor can any conjecture respecting the correct reading laying claim to probability be ventured on. In the single names, the Greek texts of the Septuagint and 1 Esdras frequently differ from the Hebrew text, but the differences are almost all of a kind to furnish no material for criticism.

A considerable number of these names reappear in the lists of names in the book of Nehemiah, but under circumstances which nowhere make the identity of the persons bearing them certain.

Ezr 10:25-43 Of Israel, as distinguished from priests and Levites, i. e. , of the laity. Of these latter are given in all eighty-six names, belonging to ten races, vv. 25-43, who returned with Zerubbabel. See Nos. 1, 5, 6, 9, 8, 4, 30, 17, and 27 of the survey of these races. ירמות in Ezr 10:29 should, according to the Chethiv, be read ירמות. - The twofold naming of sons of Bani in this list (Ezr 10:29 and Ezr 10:34) is strange, and Bani is evidently in one of these places a mistake for some other name.

Bertheau supposes that Bigvai may have stood in the text in one of these places. The error undoubtedly lies in the second mention of Bani (Ezr 10:34), and consists not merely in the wrong transcription of this one name. For, while of every other race four, six, seven, or eight individuals are named, no less than seven and twenty names follow בּני מבּני, though all these persons could hardly have belonged to one race, unless the greater number of males therein had married strange wives.

Besides, no names of inhabitants of cities of Judah and Benjamin are given in this list (as in Ezr 2:21-28, and Ezr 2:33-35), although it is stated in Ezr 10:7 and Ezr 10:14 that not only the men of Jerusalem, but also dwellers in other cities, had contracted these prohibited marriages, and been summoned to Jerusalem, that judgment might be pronounced in their several cases. These reasons make it probable that the twenty-seven persons enumerated in Ezr 10:34-42 were inhabitants of various localities in Judah, and not merely individuals belonging to a single house.

This supposition cannot, however, be further corroborated, since even the lxx and 1 Esdr. read the name Bani in Ezr 10:27 and Ezr 10:34, nor can any conjecture respecting the correct reading laying claim to probability be ventured on. In the single names, the Greek texts of the Septuagint and 1 Esdras frequently differ from the Hebrew text, but the differences are almost all of a kind to furnish no material for criticism.

A considerable number of these names reappear in the lists of names in the book of Nehemiah, but under circumstances which nowhere make the identity of the persons bearing them certain.

Ezr 10:25-43 Of Israel, as distinguished from priests and Levites, i. e. , of the laity. Of these latter are given in all eighty-six names, belonging to ten races, vv. 25-43, who returned with Zerubbabel. See Nos. 1, 5, 6, 9, 8, 4, 30, 17, and 27 of the survey of these races. ירמות in Ezr 10:29 should, according to the Chethiv, be read ירמות. - The twofold naming of sons of Bani in this list (Ezr 10:29 and Ezr 10:34) is strange, and Bani is evidently in one of these places a mistake for some other name.

Bertheau supposes that Bigvai may have stood in the text in one of these places. The error undoubtedly lies in the second mention of Bani (Ezr 10:34), and consists not merely in the wrong transcription of this one name. For, while of every other race four, six, seven, or eight individuals are named, no less than seven and twenty names follow בּני מבּני, though all these persons could hardly have belonged to one race, unless the greater number of males therein had married strange wives.

Besides, no names of inhabitants of cities of Judah and Benjamin are given in this list (as in Ezr 2:21-28, and Ezr 2:33-35), although it is stated in Ezr 10:7 and Ezr 10:14 that not only the men of Jerusalem, but also dwellers in other cities, had contracted these prohibited marriages, and been summoned to Jerusalem, that judgment might be pronounced in their several cases. These reasons make it probable that the twenty-seven persons enumerated in Ezr 10:34-42 were inhabitants of various localities in Judah, and not merely individuals belonging to a single house.

This supposition cannot, however, be further corroborated, since even the lxx and 1 Esdr. read the name Bani in Ezr 10:27 and Ezr 10:34, nor can any conjecture respecting the correct reading laying claim to probability be ventured on. In the single names, the Greek texts of the Septuagint and 1 Esdras frequently differ from the Hebrew text, but the differences are almost all of a kind to furnish no material for criticism.

A considerable number of these names reappear in the lists of names in the book of Nehemiah, but under circumstances which nowhere make the identity of the persons bearing them certain.

Ezr 10:25-43 Of Israel, as distinguished from priests and Levites, i. e. , of the laity. Of these latter are given in all eighty-six names, belonging to ten races, vv. 25-43, who returned with Zerubbabel. See Nos. 1, 5, 6, 9, 8, 4, 30, 17, and 27 of the survey of these races. ירמות in Ezr 10:29 should, according to the Chethiv, be read ירמות. - The twofold naming of sons of Bani in this list (Ezr 10:29 and Ezr 10:34) is strange, and Bani is evidently in one of these places a mistake for some other name.

Bertheau supposes that Bigvai may have stood in the text in one of these places. The error undoubtedly lies in the second mention of Bani (Ezr 10:34), and consists not merely in the wrong transcription of this one name. For, while of every other race four, six, seven, or eight individuals are named, no less than seven and twenty names follow בּני מבּני, though all these persons could hardly have belonged to one race, unless the greater number of males therein had married strange wives.

Besides, no names of inhabitants of cities of Judah and Benjamin are given in this list (as in Ezr 2:21-28, and Ezr 2:33-35), although it is stated in Ezr 10:7 and Ezr 10:14 that not only the men of Jerusalem, but also dwellers in other cities, had contracted these prohibited marriages, and been summoned to Jerusalem, that judgment might be pronounced in their several cases. These reasons make it probable that the twenty-seven persons enumerated in Ezr 10:34-42 were inhabitants of various localities in Judah, and not merely individuals belonging to a single house.

This supposition cannot, however, be further corroborated, since even the lxx and 1 Esdr. read the name Bani in Ezr 10:27 and Ezr 10:34, nor can any conjecture respecting the correct reading laying claim to probability be ventured on. In the single names, the Greek texts of the Septuagint and 1 Esdras frequently differ from the Hebrew text, but the differences are almost all of a kind to furnish no material for criticism.

A considerable number of these names reappear in the lists of names in the book of Nehemiah, but under circumstances which nowhere make the identity of the persons bearing them certain.

Ezr 10:25-43 Of Israel, as distinguished from priests and Levites, i. e. , of the laity. Of these latter are given in all eighty-six names, belonging to ten races, vv. 25-43, who returned with Zerubbabel. See Nos. 1, 5, 6, 9, 8, 4, 30, 17, and 27 of the survey of these races. ירמות in Ezr 10:29 should, according to the Chethiv, be read ירמות. - The twofold naming of sons of Bani in this list (Ezr 10:29 and Ezr 10:34) is strange, and Bani is evidently in one of these places a mistake for some other name.

Bertheau supposes that Bigvai may have stood in the text in one of these places. The error undoubtedly lies in the second mention of Bani (Ezr 10:34), and consists not merely in the wrong transcription of this one name. For, while of every other race four, six, seven, or eight individuals are named, no less than seven and twenty names follow בּני מבּני, though all these persons could hardly have belonged to one race, unless the greater number of males therein had married strange wives.

Besides, no names of inhabitants of cities of Judah and Benjamin are given in this list (as in Ezr 2:21-28, and Ezr 2:33-35), although it is stated in Ezr 10:7 and Ezr 10:14 that not only the men of Jerusalem, but also dwellers in other cities, had contracted these prohibited marriages, and been summoned to Jerusalem, that judgment might be pronounced in their several cases. These reasons make it probable that the twenty-seven persons enumerated in Ezr 10:34-42 were inhabitants of various localities in Judah, and not merely individuals belonging to a single house.

This supposition cannot, however, be further corroborated, since even the lxx and 1 Esdr. read the name Bani in Ezr 10:27 and Ezr 10:34, nor can any conjecture respecting the correct reading laying claim to probability be ventured on. In the single names, the Greek texts of the Septuagint and 1 Esdras frequently differ from the Hebrew text, but the differences are almost all of a kind to furnish no material for criticism.

A considerable number of these names reappear in the lists of names in the book of Nehemiah, but under circumstances which nowhere make the identity of the persons bearing them certain.

Ezr 10:25-43 Of Israel, as distinguished from priests and Levites, i. e. , of the laity. Of these latter are given in all eighty-six names, belonging to ten races, vv. 25-43, who returned with Zerubbabel. See Nos. 1, 5, 6, 9, 8, 4, 30, 17, and 27 of the survey of these races. ירמות in Ezr 10:29 should, according to the Chethiv, be read ירמות. - The twofold naming of sons of Bani in this list (Ezr 10:29 and Ezr 10:34) is strange, and Bani is evidently in one of these places a mistake for some other name.

Bertheau supposes that Bigvai may have stood in the text in one of these places. The error undoubtedly lies in the second mention of Bani (Ezr 10:34), and consists not merely in the wrong transcription of this one name. For, while of every other race four, six, seven, or eight individuals are named, no less than seven and twenty names follow בּני מבּני, though all these persons could hardly have belonged to one race, unless the greater number of males therein had married strange wives.

Besides, no names of inhabitants of cities of Judah and Benjamin are given in this list (as in Ezr 2:21-28, and Ezr 2:33-35), although it is stated in Ezr 10:7 and Ezr 10:14 that not only the men of Jerusalem, but also dwellers in other cities, had contracted these prohibited marriages, and been summoned to Jerusalem, that judgment might be pronounced in their several cases. These reasons make it probable that the twenty-seven persons enumerated in Ezr 10:34-42 were inhabitants of various localities in Judah, and not merely individuals belonging to a single house.

This supposition cannot, however, be further corroborated, since even the lxx and 1 Esdr. read the name Bani in Ezr 10:27 and Ezr 10:34, nor can any conjecture respecting the correct reading laying claim to probability be ventured on. In the single names, the Greek texts of the Septuagint and 1 Esdras frequently differ from the Hebrew text, but the differences are almost all of a kind to furnish no material for criticism.

A considerable number of these names reappear in the lists of names in the book of Nehemiah, but under circumstances which nowhere make the identity of the persons bearing them certain.

Ezr 10:25-43 Of Israel, as distinguished from priests and Levites, i. e. , of the laity. Of these latter are given in all eighty-six names, belonging to ten races, vv. 25-43, who returned with Zerubbabel. See Nos. 1, 5, 6, 9, 8, 4, 30, 17, and 27 of the survey of these races. ירמות in Ezr 10:29 should, according to the Chethiv, be read ירמות. - The twofold naming of sons of Bani in this list (Ezr 10:29 and Ezr 10:34) is strange, and Bani is evidently in one of these places a mistake for some other name.

Bertheau supposes that Bigvai may have stood in the text in one of these places. The error undoubtedly lies in the second mention of Bani (Ezr 10:34), and consists not merely in the wrong transcription of this one name. For, while of every other race four, six, seven, or eight individuals are named, no less than seven and twenty names follow בּני מבּני, though all these persons could hardly have belonged to one race, unless the greater number of males therein had married strange wives.

Besides, no names of inhabitants of cities of Judah and Benjamin are given in this list (as in Ezr 2:21-28, and Ezr 2:33-35), although it is stated in Ezr 10:7 and Ezr 10:14 that not only the men of Jerusalem, but also dwellers in other cities, had contracted these prohibited marriages, and been summoned to Jerusalem, that judgment might be pronounced in their several cases. These reasons make it probable that the twenty-seven persons enumerated in Ezr 10:34-42 were inhabitants of various localities in Judah, and not merely individuals belonging to a single house.

This supposition cannot, however, be further corroborated, since even the lxx and 1 Esdr. read the name Bani in Ezr 10:27 and Ezr 10:34, nor can any conjecture respecting the correct reading laying claim to probability be ventured on. In the single names, the Greek texts of the Septuagint and 1 Esdras frequently differ from the Hebrew text, but the differences are almost all of a kind to furnish no material for criticism.

A considerable number of these names reappear in the lists of names in the book of Nehemiah, but under circumstances which nowhere make the identity of the persons bearing them certain.

Ezr 10:25-43 Of Israel, as distinguished from priests and Levites, i. e. , of the laity. Of these latter are given in all eighty-six names, belonging to ten races, vv. 25-43, who returned with Zerubbabel. See Nos. 1, 5, 6, 9, 8, 4, 30, 17, and 27 of the survey of these races. ירמות in Ezr 10:29 should, according to the Chethiv, be read ירמות. - The twofold naming of sons of Bani in this list (Ezr 10:29 and Ezr 10:34) is strange, and Bani is evidently in one of these places a mistake for some other name.

Bertheau supposes that Bigvai may have stood in the text in one of these places. The error undoubtedly lies in the second mention of Bani (Ezr 10:34), and consists not merely in the wrong transcription of this one name. For, while of every other race four, six, seven, or eight individuals are named, no less than seven and twenty names follow בּני מבּני, though all these persons could hardly have belonged to one race, unless the greater number of males therein had married strange wives.

Besides, no names of inhabitants of cities of Judah and Benjamin are given in this list (as in Ezr 2:21-28, and Ezr 2:33-35), although it is stated in Ezr 10:7 and Ezr 10:14 that not only the men of Jerusalem, but also dwellers in other cities, had contracted these prohibited marriages, and been summoned to Jerusalem, that judgment might be pronounced in their several cases. These reasons make it probable that the twenty-seven persons enumerated in Ezr 10:34-42 were inhabitants of various localities in Judah, and not merely individuals belonging to a single house.

This supposition cannot, however, be further corroborated, since even the lxx and 1 Esdr. read the name Bani in Ezr 10:27 and Ezr 10:34, nor can any conjecture respecting the correct reading laying claim to probability be ventured on. In the single names, the Greek texts of the Septuagint and 1 Esdras frequently differ from the Hebrew text, but the differences are almost all of a kind to furnish no material for criticism.

A considerable number of these names reappear in the lists of names in the book of Nehemiah, but under circumstances which nowhere make the identity of the persons bearing them certain.

Ezr 10:44 Ezr 10:44 contains the statement with which the account of this transaction closes. The Chethiv נשׂאיּ seems to be an error of transcription for נשׂאוּ (the Keri), which the sense requires. וגו מהם וישׁ, “and there were among them women who had brought forth sons. ” מהם must be referred to women, notwithstanding the masculine suffix. ישׂימוּ, too, can only be referred to נשׁים, and cannot be explained, as by J.

H. Mich. : unde etiam filios susceperant seu procreaverant . The gender of the verb is adapted to the form of the word נשׁים, an incorrectness which must be attributed to the increasing tendency of the language to use the masculine instead of the feminine, or to renounce a distinction of form between the genders. There are no adequate reasons for such an alteration of the text as Bertheau proposes; for the lxx already had our text before them, and the καὶ ἀπέλυσαν αὐτὰς σὺν τέκνοις of 1 Esdr.

9:36 is a mere conjecture from the context. The remark itself, that among the women who were sent away were some who had already brought children into the world, is not superfluous, but added for the purpose of showing how thoroughly this matter was carried out. Separation from women who already have children is far more grievous, ob communium liberorum caritatem, than parting with childless wives.

Strictly as this separation was carried out, this evil was not thereby done away with for ever, nor even for very long. After the arrival of Nehemiah at Jerusalem, when the building of the wall was concluded, the congregation again bound themselves by an oath, on the occasion of a day of prayer and fasting, to contract no more such illegal marriages (Neh 10:31).

Nevertheless, Nehemiah, on his second return to Jerusalem, some five and twenty to thirty years after the dissolution of these marriages by Ezra, again found Jews who had married women of Ashdod, Moab, and Ammon, and children of these marriages who spoke the tongue of Ashdod, and could not speak the Jews’ language, and even one of the sons of the high priest Jehoiada allied to a daughter of Sanballat the Horonite (Neh 13:28, etc.) Such a phenomenon, however strange it may appear on a superficial view of the matter, becomes comprehensible when we consider more closely the circumstances of the times.

The nucleus of the Israelite community in Jerusalem and Judah was formed by those exiles who returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel and Ezra; and to this nucleus the remnant of Jewish and Israelite descent which had been left in the land was gradually united, after the rebuilding of the temple and the restoration of the worship of Jahve. Those who returned from Babylon, as well as those who remained in the land, had now, however, lived seventy, and some of them one hundred and fifty, years (from the captivity of Jehoiachin in 599, to the return of Ezra in 457) among the heathen, and in the midst of heathen surroundings, and had thus become so accustomed to intercourse with them in civil and social transactions, that the consciousness of the barriers placed by the Mosaic law between Israel, the people of Jahve, and the Gentiles, was more and more obliterated.

And this would specially be the case when the Gentiles who entered into matrimonial alliance with Israelites did not flagrantly practise idolatrous worship, i. e. , did not offer sacrifice to heathen deities. Under such circumstances, it must have been extremely difficult to do away entirely with these unlawful unions; although, without a thorough reform in this respect, the successful development of the new community in the land of their fathers was not to be obtained.

Ezra’s narrative of his agency in Jerusalem closes with the account of the dissolution of the unlawful marriages then existing. What he subsequently effected for the revival of religion and morality in the re-established community, in conformity with the law of God, was more of an inward and spiritual kind; and was either of such a nature that no striking results ensued, which could furnish matter for historical narrative, or was performed during the period of his joint agency with Nehemiah, of which an account is furnished by the latter in the record he has handed down to us (Neh 8:10).

This book, according to its title, contains נחמיה דּברי, and in it Nehemiah relates, almost always in the first person, his journey to Jerusalem, and the work which he there effected. נחמיה דּברי, used as the title of a work, signifies not narratives, but deeds and experiences, and consequently here the history of Nehemiah. Apart from the contents of the book, this title might, in conformity with the twofold meaning of דברים, verba and res , designate both the words or discourses and the acts or undertakings of Nehemiah.

But דּברי means words, discourses, only in the titles of prophetical or didactic books, i. e. , writings of men whose vocation was the announcement of the word: comp. e. g. , Jer 1:1; Hos 1:1, and others. In historical writings, on the contrary, the דּברי of the men whose lives and acts are described, are their deeds and experiences: thus דויד דּברי, 1Ch 29:29; שׁלמה דּברי, written שׁלמה דּברי ספר על 1Ki 11:41, comp.

2Ch 9:29, - the history of David, of Solomon; ירבעם דּברי, 1Ki 14:19, the acts of Jeroboam, which are more exactly defined by the addition אשׁר נלחם ועשׁר מלך. So, too, in the case of the other kings, when reference is made to historical works concerning their reigns. It is in this sense that the title of the present book must be understood; and hence both Luther and de Wette have correctly translated it: the history of Nehemiah.

Hence the title only testifies to the fact, that the work at the head of which it stands treats of the things, i. e. , of the acts, of Nehemiah, and the events that happened to him, without stating anything concerning its author. That Nehemiah was himself the historian of his own deeds, appears only from the circumstance that the narrative is written in the first person.

The contents of the book are as follows: Nehemiah, the son of Hachaliah, a Jew, of whom nothing further is known, and cupbearer to the Persian king Artaxerxes Longimanus, is plunged into deep affliction by the account he receives from his brother Hanani, and certain other men from Judah, of the sad condition of those who had returned from Babylon, and especially of the state of the ruined walls and gates of Jerusalem. He entreats with fervent supplications the mercy of God (Neh 1:1-11), and shortly after seizes a favourable opportunity to request the king to send him to Judah to build the city of his fathers’ sepulchres, and to give him letters to the governors on the other side of Euphrates, that they may provide him with wood for building from the royal forests.

This petition being graciously acceded to by the monarch, he travels, accompanied by captains of forces and horsemen, to Jerusalem, and soon after his arrival rides by night round the city, accompanied by some few companions, to ascertain the state of the walls. He then communicates to the rulers of the people his resolution to build and restore the walls, and invites them to undertake this work with him (Neh 2).

Then follows in Neh 3 a list of the individuals and families who built the several portions of the wall with their gates; and in Neh 4:1-6:19, an account of the difficulties Nehemiah had to overcome in the prosecution of the work, viz. : (1) the attempts of the enemies of the Jews forcibly to oppose and hinder the building, by reason of which the builders were obliged to work with weapons in their hands (4:1-4:17); (2) the oppression of the poorer members of the community by wealthy usurers, which Nehemiah put a stop to by seriously reproving their injustice, and by his own great unselfishness (Neh 5); ); and (3) the plots made against his life by his enemies, which he frustrated by the courageous faith with which he encountered them.

Thus the building of the wall was, notwithstanding all these difficulties, brought to a successful termination (Neh 6). - This work accomplished, Nehemiah directed his efforts towards securing the city against hostile attacks by appointing watches at the gates (Neh 7:1-3, and increasing the numbers of the dwellers in Jerusalem; in pursuance of which design, he assembled the nobles and people for the purpose of enrolling their names according to their genealogy (Neh 7:4-5).

While occupied with this matter, he found a list of those houses of Judah that had returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel and Joshua; and this he gives, Neh 7:6-73. Then, on the approach of the seventh month of the year, the people assembled at Jerusalem to hear the public reading of the law by Ezra, to keep the new moon and the feast of this month, and, after the celebration of the feast of tabernacles, to observe a day of prayer and fasting, on which occasion the Levites making confession of sin in the name of the congregation, they renewed their covenant with God by entering into an oath to keep the law.

This covenant being committed to writing, was sealed by Nehemiah as governor, by the chiefs of the priests, of the Levites, and of the houses of the people, and the contributions for the support of the worship of God and its ministers arranged (Neh 8-10). The decision arrived at concerning the increase of the inhabitants of Jerusalem was next carried into execution, one of every ten dwellers in the provinces being chosen by lot to go to Jerusalem and dwell there (Neh 11:1-2).

Then follow lists, (1) of the houses and races who dwelt in Jerusalem, and in the cities of Judah and Benjamin (11:3-36); (2) of the priestly and Levitical families who returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel and Joshua, and of the heads of priestly and Levitical families in the days of Joiakim the high priest, Nehemiah, and Ezra (Neh 12:1-26). These are succeeded by an account of the solemn dedication of the walls (Neh 12:27-43).

Then, finally, after some general remarks on certain institutions of divine worship, and an account of a public reading of the law (Neh 12:44-13:3), the book concludes with a brief narration of what Nehemiah effected during his second sojourn there, after his journey to the court in the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes, and his return for the purpose of putting a stop to certain illegal acts which had prevailed during his absence, such as marriages with heathen women, non-payment of tithes and dues to Levites, desecration of the Sabbath by field-labour, and by buying and selling (Neh 13:4-31). According to what has been stated, this book may be divided into three sections.

The first, chs. 1-6, treats of the building of the walls and gates of Jerusalem through the instrumentality of Nehemiah; the narrative concerning the occasion of his journey, and the account of the journey itself (Neh 1:1-2:10), forming the introduction. The second, chs. 7-12:43, furnishes a description of the further efforts of Nehemiah to increase and ensure the prosperity of the community in Judah and Jerusalem, first, by securing Jerusalem from hostile attacks; then, by seeking to increase the population of the city; and, lastly, by endeavouring to bring the domestic and civil life of the people into conformity with the precepts of the law, and thus to furnish the necessary moral and religious basis for the due development of the covenant people.

The third, Neh 12:44-13:31, states how Nehemiah, during his second sojourn at Jerusalem, continued these efforts for the purpose of ensuring the permanence of the reform which had been undertaken. The aim of Nehemiah’s proceedings was to place the civil prosperity of the Israelites, now returned from exile to the land of their fathers, on a firm basis. Briefly to describe what he effected, at one time by direct personal effort, at another in conjunction with his contemporary Ezra the priest and scribe, is the object of his record.

As Nehemiah’s efforts for the civil welfare of his people as the congregation of the Lord were but a continuation of those by which Zerubbabel the prince, Joshua the high priest, and Ezra the scribe had effected the foundation of the community of returned exiles, so too does his book form the continuation and completion of that of Ezra, and may in this respect be regarded as its second part. It is, moreover, not merely similar in kind, to the book of Ezra, especially with regard to the insertion of historical and statistical lists and genealogical registries, but has also the same historical object, viz.

, to show how the people of Israel, after their return from the Babylonian captivity, were by the instrumentality of Nehemiah fully re-established in the land of promise as the congregation of the Lord. Nehemiah gives his account of the greater part of his labours for the good of his fellow-countrymen in the first person; and this form of narrative is not only uniformly maintained throughout the first six chapters (from Neh 1:1-7:5), but also recurs in Neh 12:27-43, and from Neh 13:6 to the end.

The formula too: Think upon me, my God, etc. , peculiar to Nehemiah, is repeated Neh 5:19; Neh 6:14; Neh 13:14, Neh 13:22, Neh 13:29, Neh 13:31. Hence not only has the composition of the larger portion of this book been universally admitted to be the work of Nehemiah, but the integrity of its first section (Neh 1-6) has been generally acknowledged. On the composition and authorship of the second section, 7:73 b -12:26, on the contrary, the verdict of modern criticism is almost unanimous in pronouncing it not to have been the work of Nehemiah, but composed from various older documents and records by the compiler of the books of 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah - the so-called chronicler who lived a hundred years later - and by him interpolated in “the record of Nehemiah.

” This view has been chiefly based upon the facts, that in chs. 8-10 the style is different; that Nehemiah himself is not the prominent person, Ezra occupying the foreground, and Nehemiah being merely the subject of a passing remark (Neh 8:9 and Neh 10:2); that there is in Neh 8:14 no reference to Ezr 3:4 with respect to the feast of tabernacles; and that Ezr 3:1 is in verbal accordance with Neh 8:1 (Bertheau, Comm .

p. 11, and de Wette-Schrader, Einl. in das A. T. 236). Of these reasons, the first (the dissimilarity of style) is an assertion arising from a superficial examination of these chapters, and in support of which nothing further is adduced than that, instead of Elohim , and especially the God of heaven, elsewhere current with Nehemiah when speaking of God, the names Jehovah, Adonai , and Elohim are in this section used promiscuously.

In fact, however, the name Elohim is chiefly used even in these chapters, and Jahve but seldom; while in the prayer Neh 9 especially, such other appellations of God occur as Nehemiah, with the solemnity befitting the language of supplication, uses also in the prayer in Neh 1:1-11. The other three reasons are indeed correct, in so far as they are actual facts, but they prove nothing.

It is true that in Neh 8-10 Nehemiah personally occupies a less prominent position than Ezra, but this is because the actions therein related, viz. , the public reading of the law, and the direction of the sacred festivals, belonged not to the office of Nehemiah the Tirshatha and royal governor, but to that, of Ezra the scribe, and to the priests and Levites.

Even here, however, Nehemiah, as the royal Tirshatha, stands at the head of the assembled people, encourages them in conjunction with Ezra and the priests, and is the first, as praecipuum membrum ecclesiae (Neh 10:2), to seal the document of the covenant just concluded. Again, though it is certain that in the description of the feast of tabernacles, Ezr 8:14.

, there is no express allusion to its former celebration under Zerubbabel and Joshua, Ezr 3:4, yet such allusions are unusual with biblical writers in general. This is shown, e. g. , by a comparison of 2Ch 35:1, 2Ch 35:18 with 2Ch 30:1, 2Ch 30:13-26; and yet it has never struck any critic that an argument against the single authorship of 2 Chr. might be found in the fact that no allusion to the earlier passover held under Hezekiah, 2 Chron 30, is made in the description of the passover under Josiah, 2 Chron 35.

Finally, the verbal coincidence of Neh 8:1 (properly Neh 7:73 and Neh 8:1) with Ezr 3:1 amounts to the statement that “when the seventh month was come, all Israel gathered out of their cities as one man to Jerusalem. ” All else is totally different; the assembly in Neh 8 pursues entirely different objects and undertakes entirely different matters from that in Ezr 3:1-13.

The peculiarities, moreover, of Nehemiah’s style could as little appear in what is narrated, chs. 8-10, as in his description of the building of the wall, Neh 3, or in the list of the families who returned from captivity with Zerubbabel and Joshua, Neh 7 - - portions which no one has yet seriously objected to as integral parts of the book of Nehemiah. The same remark applies to the list of the inhabitants of Jerusalem and the province, 11:3-36, which even Bertheau and Schrader admit to have originated from the record of Nehemiah, or to have been composed by Nehemiah.

If, however, Nehemiah composed these lists, or incorporated them in his record, why should it not also be himself, and not the “subsequent chronicler,” who inserted in his work the lists of priests and Levites, 12:1-26, when the description of the dedication of the wall which immediately follows them is evidently his own composition? One reason for maintaining that these lists of priests and Levites are of later origin than the times of Nehemiah is said to be, that they extend to Jaddua the high priest, who was contemporary with Alexander the Great.

If this assertion were as certain as it is confidently brought forward, then indeed these lists might well be regarded as a subsequent interpolation in the book of Nehemiah. For Nehemiah, who was at least thirty years of age when he first came to Jerusalem, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, i. e. , b. c. 445, could hardly have lived to witness the overthrow of the Persian monarchy by Alexander, b.

c. 330; or, even if he did attain the age of 145, would not have postponed the writing of his book to the last years of his life. When, however, we consider somewhat more closely the priests and Levites in question, we shall perceive that Neh 12:1-9 contains a list of the chiefs of the priests and Levites who returned from captivity with Zerubbabel and Joshua, which consequently descends from the times before Nehemiah; Neh 12:12-21, a list of the heads of the priestly houses in the days of the high priest Joiakim, the son of Joshua; and Neh 12:24, Neh 12:25, a list of the heads of chiefs of Levi (of the Levites), with the closing remark, Neh 12:26 : “These were in the days of Joiakim the son of Joshua, and in the days of Nehemiah and Ezra,” Now the high priest Joiakim, the son of Joshua, the contemporary of Zerubbabel, was the predecessor and father of the high priest Eliashib, the contemporary of Nehemiah.

Consequently both these lists descend from the time previous to Nehemiah’s arrival at Jerusalem; and the mention of Ezra and Nehemiah along with Joiakim proves nothing more than that the chiefs of the Levites mentioned in the last list were still living in the days of Nehemiah. Thus these three lists contain absolutely nothing which reaches to a period subsequent to Nehemiah.

Between the first and second, however, there stands (Neh 12:10, Neh 12:11) the genealogical notice: Joshua begat Joiakim, Joiakim begat Eliashib, Eliashib begat Jonathan (correct reading, Johanan), and Jonathan begat Jaddua; and between the second and third it is said, Neh 12:22 : With respect to the Levites, in the days of Eliashib, Joiada, Johanan, and Jaddua, the heads of houses are recorded, and the priests under the reign of Darius the Persian; and Neh 12:23 : With respect to the sons of Levi, the heads of houses are recorded in the book of the Chronicles even to the days of Johanan. From these verses (Neh 12:10, Neh 12:11, and Neh 12:22, Neh 12:23) it is inferred that the lists descend to the time of the high-priesthood of Jaddua, the contemporary of Alexander the Great.

To this we reply, that viewing the circumstance that Eliashib was high priest in the time of Nehemiah (Neh 3:1; Neh 13:4, Neh 13:7), it cannot be an absolute objection that Jaddua was still living in the days of Alexander the Great, since from the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, i. e. , from b. c. 433, to the destruction of the Persian empire b.

c. 330, there are only 103 years, a period for which three high priests, each exercising his office thirty-five years, would suffice. But on the other hand, it is very questionable whether in Neh 12:11 and Neh 12:12 Jaddua is mentioned as the officiating high priest, or only as the son of Johanan, and grandson of Joiada the high priest. The former of these views receives no corroboration from Neh 12:11, for there nothing else is given but the genealogy of the high-priestly line.

Nor can it any more be proved from Neh 12:22 that the words, “in the days of Eliashib, Joiada, Johanan, and Jaddua, were the Levites recorded or enrolled,” are to be understood of four different lists made under four successive high priests. The most natural sense of the words, on the contrary, is that one enrollment took place in the days of these four individuals of the high-priestly house.

If Eliashib, Joiada, Johanan, and Jaddua were all alive at the same time, this, the most natural view, must also be the correct one, because in each of the other lists of the same chapter, the times of only one high priest are mentioned, and at the close of the list, Neh 12:26, it is expressly stated that the (previously enrolled) Levites were chiefs in the days of Joiakim, Ezra, and Nehemiah. It is not, moreover, difficult to prove that Eliashib, Joiada, Johanan, and Jaddua were living contemporaneously.

For Eliashib, whom Nehemiah found high priest at his arrival at Jerusalem (Neh 3:1), being the grandson of Joshua, who returned from Babylon in the year 536 with Zerubbabel, would in 445 be anything but a young man. Indeed, he must then have been about seventy-five years old. Moreover, it appears from Jos 13:4 and Jos 13:7, that in 433, when Nehemiah returned to Artaxerxes, he was still in office, though on Nehemiah’s return he was no longer alive, and that he therefore died soon after 433, at the age of about ninety.

If, however, this was his age when he died, his son Joiada might then be already sixty-three, his grandson Johanan thirty-six, his great-grandson Jaddua nine, if each were respectively born in the twenty-seventh year of his father’s lifetime. The view (of Neh 12:11, Neh 12:12, and Neh 12:22) just stated, is confirmed both by Neh 12:22 and Neh 12:23, and by Neh 13:28.

According to Neh 13:22 , the chiefs or heads of the priestly houses were enrolled under the government of Darius the Persian. Now there is no doubt that this Darius is Darius Nothus, the successor of Artaxerxes Longimanus, who reigned from 424 to 404. The notion that Darius Codomanus is intended, rests upon the mistaken view that in Neh 13:11 Jaddua is mentioned as the high priest already in office.

According to Neh 13:23, the heads of the houses of the Levites were enrolled in the book of the Chronicles even until the days of Johanan the son of Eliashib. The days of Johanan - that is, the period of his high-priesthood - are here named as the latest date to which the author of this book extends the genealogical lists of the Levites. And this well agrees with the information, Neh 13:18, that during Nehemiah’s absence at Jerusalem, one of the sons of Joiada the high priest allied himself by marriage with Sanballat the Horonite, i.

e. , married one of his daughters, and was driven away by Nehemiah. If Joiada had even in the days of Nehemiah a married son, Johanan the first-born son of Joiada, the presumptive successor to the high-priesthood, might well have been at that time so long a married man as to have already witnessed the birth of his son Jaddua. To complete our proof that the contents of Neh 12 do not extend to a period subsequent to Nehemiah, we have still to discuss the question, how long he held office in Judaea, and when he wrote the book in which he relates what he there effected.

Both these questions can be answered with sufficient accuracy for our purpose, though the exact year cannot be named. Concerning the time he held office in Jerusalem, he only remarks in his book that he was governor from the twentieth to the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes, and that in the thirty-second year of that monarch he again returned to the court, and afterwards, ימים לקץ, came back to Jerusalem (Neh 5:14, and Neh 13:6).

The term ימים לקץ is very indefinite; but the interpretation, “at the end of the year,” is incorrect and unsupported. It is quite evident, from the irregularities and transgressions of the law which occurred in the community during his absence from Jerusalem, that Nehemiah must have remained longer than a year at the court, and, indeed, that he did not return for some years.

Besides the withholding of the dues to the Levites (Neh 13:10.) and the desecration of the Sabbath (Neh 13:15.) , - transgressions of the law which might have occurred soon after Nehemiah’s departure, - Eliashib had not only the priest fitted up a chamber in the fore-court of the temple as a dwelling for his connection Tobiah (Neh 13:4), but Jews had also married women of Ashdod, Ammon, and Moab, and had children by them who spake not the Jews’ language, but only that of Ashdod, in the interval (Neh 13:23).

These facts presuppose an absence of several years on the part of Nehemiah, even if many of these unlawful marriages had been previously contracted, and only came to his knowledge after his return. - Neither are there adequate grounds for the notion that Nehemiah lived but a short time after his return to Jerusalem. The suppression of these infringements of the law, which is narrated Neh 13:7-31, might, indeed, have been accomplished in a few months; but we are by no means justified in inferring that this was the last of his labours for the welfare of his fellow-countrymen, and that his own life terminated soon after, because he relates nothing more than his procedure against these transgressions.

After the removal of these irregularities, and the re-establishment of legal order in divine worship and social life, he might have lived for a long period at Jerusalem without effecting anything, the record of which it might be important to hand down to posterity. If we suppose him to have been from thirty-five to forty years of age when, being cupbearer to Artaxerxes, he was sent at his own request, in the twentieth year of that monarch’s reign (445 b.

c.) , as governor to Judah, he might well have exercised his office in Judah and Jerusalem from thirty-five to forty years, including his journey back to the court in the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes, i. e. , till 405 b. c. This would make him live till the nineteenth year of Darius Nothus, and not die till he was from seventy-five to eighty years of age.

If we further suppose that he composed this book some ten years before his death, i. e. , thirty years after his first arrival at Jerusalem, when he had, as far as lay in his power, arranged the affairs of Judah, it would then be possible for him to relate and describe all that is contained in the canonical book of Nehemiah. For in the year 415 b. c. , i. e.

, in the ninth year of Darius Nothus, genealogical lists of priests and Levites of the time of Joiakim the high priest, reaching down to the days of Johanan the son (grandson) of Eliashib, and of the time of the reign of Darius Nothus, might already be written in the book of the Chronicles, as mentioned Neh 12:23, compared with Neh 12:22 and Neh 12:26. Then, too, the high priest Joiada might already have been dead, his son Johanan have succeeded to the office, and Jaddua, the son of the latter, have already attained the age of twenty-five.

- This book would consequently contain no historical information and no single remark which Nehemiah might not himself have written. Hence the contents of the book itself furnish not the slightest opposition to the view that the whole was the work of Nehemiah. When, however, we turn our attention to its form, that unity of character to which modern criticism attaches so much importance seems to be wanting in the second half.

We have, however, already remarked that neither the lack of prominence given to the person of Nehemiah, nor the circumstance that he is in these chapters spoken of in the third person, furnish incontestable arguments against the integrity of this book. For in the section concerning the dedication of the wall, Neh 12:27-43, Nehemiah’s authorship of which no critic has as yet impugned, he only brings himself forward (Neh 12:31 and Neh 12:38) when mentioning what he had himself appointed and done, while the rest of the narrative is not in the communicative form of speech: we sought the Levites, we offered, etc.

, which he employs in the account of the making of a covenant, but in the objective form: they sought the Levites, they offered, etc. (Neh 12:27 and Neh 12:43). The want of connection between the several sections seems to us far more striking. Chs. 8-10 form, indeed, a connected section, the commencement of which ( Neh 7:73 ) by the circumstantial clause, “when the children of Israel dwelt in their cities,” combines it, even by a repetition of the very form of words, which the preceding list; but the commencement of Neh 11 is somewhat abrupt, while between Neh 12:11 and Neh 12:12 and between Neh 12:26 and Neh 12:27 of Neh 12 there is nothing to mark the connection.

This gives the sections, chs. 8-10 and 12:1-26, the appearance of being subsequent interpolations or insertions in Nehemiah’s record; and there is thus much of real foundation for this appearance, that this book is not a continuous narrative or description of Nehemiah’s proceedings in Judah, - historical, topographical, and genealogical lists, which interrupt the thread of the history, being inserted in it.

But it by no means follows, that because such is the nature of the book, the inserted portions must therefore have been the subsequent interpolations of another hand, in the record composed by Nehemiah. This inference of modern criticism is based upon an erroneous conception of the nature and intention of this book, which is first of all regarded, if not as a biography or diary of Nehemiah, yet as a “record,” in which is noted down only the most important facts concerning his journey to Jerusalem and his proceedings there.

For this preconception, neither the canonical book of Nehemiah, nor a comparison of those sections which are universally admitted to be his, furnish any adequate support. For with regard, first, to these sections, it is obvious from Neh 5:14, where Nehemiah during the building of the wall reproaches the usurers, saying, “From the time that I was appointed to be governor in the land of Judah, from the twentieth to the two-and-thirtieth year of Artaxerxes, that is, twelve years, I and my brethren have not eaten the bread of the governor,” that Nehemiah wrote the account of his labours in Judah from memory after the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes.

When we compare with this the manner in which he speaks quite incidentally (Neh 13:6.) of his absence from Jerusalem and his journey to the court, in the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes, and connects the account of the chamber vacated for Tobiah in the fore-court of the temple (Neh 13:4) with the previous narrative of the public reading of the law and the severance of the strangers from Israel by the formula מזּה ולפני, “and before this,” making it appear as though this public reading of the law and severance of strangers had followed his return from the court; and further, consider that the public reading of the law mentioned, Neh 13:1, is combined with the section, Neh 12:44, and this section again (Neh 12:44) with the account of the dedication of the wall by the formula, “at that time;” it is undoubtedly obvious that Nehemiah did not write his whole work till the evening of his days, and after he had accomplished all that was most important in the labours he undertook for Jerusalem and his fellow-countrymen, and that he makes no decided distinction between his labours during his second sojourn at Jerusalem and those of his former stay of twelve years.

If, then, these circumstances indisputably show that the work composed by Nehemiah himself did not bear the form of a diary, the admission into it of the list of those who returned from Babylon with Zerubbabel and Joshua (Neh 7:6-73) makes it manifest that it was not his intention to give an unbroken narrative, of his efforts and their results in Jerusalem. This list, moreover, which he found when occupied with his plan for increasing the population of Jerusalem, is shown by the words, “I found therein written,” to have been admitted by himself into his work, and inserted in his account of what God had put it into his heart to do with respect to the peopling of Jerusalem (Neh 7:5), and of the manner in which he had carried out his resolution (Neh 11:1-2), as a valuable document with respect to the history of the community, although the continuous thread of the narrative was broken by the interpolation.

From his admission of this list, we may infer that he also incorporated other not less important documents, such as the lists of the priests and Levites, Neh 12:1-26, in his book, without troubling himself about the continuous progress of the historical narrative, because it was his purpose not merely to portray his own labours in Jerusalem, but to describe the development and circumstances of the reinstated community under his own and Ezra’s leadership. This being the case, there can be no reason whatever for denying Nehemiah’s authorship of the account of the religious solemnities in chs.

8-10, especially as the communicative form in which the narrative is written, bears witness that one of the leaders of that assembly of the people composed this account of it, and the expression, “we will not forsake the house of our God,” with which it closes (Neh 10:39), is a form of speech peculiar to Nehemiah, and repeated by him Neh 13:11. Such considerations seem to us to do away with any doubts which may have been raised as to the integrity of the whole book, and the authorship of Nehemiah.

For the exegetical literature, see my Lehrb . p. 460. Comp. also Ed. Barde, Néhémie étude critique et exegetique , Tübing. 1861, and Bertheau’s Commentary already quoted, p. 18. Nehemiah, cup-bearer to King Artaxerxes, is plunged into deep affliction by the account which he receives from certain individuals from Judah of the sad condition of his countrymen who had returned to Jerusalem and Judah.

He prays with fasting to the Lord for mercy (Neh 1:1-11), and on a favourable opportunity entreats the king and queen for permission to make a journey to Jerusalem, and for the necessary authority to repair its ruined walls. His request being granted, he travels as governor to Jerusalem, provided with letters from the king, and escorted by captains of the army and horsemen (Neh 2:1-10).

Soon after his arrival, he surveys the condition of the walls and gates, summons the rulers of the people and the priests to set about building the wall, and in spite of the obstacles he encounters from the enemies of the Jews, accomplishes this work (2:11-6:19). In describing the manner in which the building of the walls was carried on, he first enumerates in succession (3) the individuals and companies engaged in restoring the walls surrounding the city (3), and then relates the obstacles and difficulties encountered (4:1-6:19).

Neh 1:1 In the twentieth year of the reign of Artaxerxes, Nehemiah, being then at Susa, received from one of his brethren, and other individuals from Judah, information which deeply grieved him, concerning the sad condition of the captive who had returned to the land of their fathers, and the state of Jerusalem. Neh 1:1 contains the title of the whole book: the History of Nehemiah.

By the addition “son of Hachaliah,” Nehemiah is distinguished from others of the same name (e. g. , from Nehemiah the son of Azbuk, Neh 3:16). Another Nehemiah, too, returned from captivity with Zerubbabel, Ezr 2:2. Of Hachaliah we know nothing further, his name occurring but once more, Neh 10:2, in conjunction, as here, with that of Nehemiah. Eusebius and Jerome assert that Nehemiah was of the tribe of Judah, - a statement which may be correct, but is unsupported by any evidence from the Old Testament.

According to Neh 1:11, he was cup-bearer to the Persian king, and was, at his own request, appointed for some time Pecha, i. e. , governor, of Judah. Comp. Neh 5:14; Neh 12:26, and Neh 8:9; Neh 10:2. “In the month Chisleu of the twentieth year I was in the citadel of Susa” - such is the manner in which Nehemiah commences the narrative of his labours for Jerusalem.

Chisleu is the ninth month of the year, answering to our December. Comp. Zec 7:1, 1 Macc. 4:52. The twentieth year is, according to Neh 2:1, the twentieth year of Artaxerxes Longimanus. On the citadel of Susa, see further details in the remarks on Dan 8:2. Susa was the capital of the province Susiana, and its citadel, called by the Greeks Memnoneion, was strongly fortified.

The kings of Persia were accustomed to reside here during some months of the year.

Neh 1:2-3 There came to Nehemiah Hanani, one of his brethren, and certain men from Judah. מאחי אחד, one of my brethren, might mean merely a relation of Nehemiah, אחים being often used of more distant relations; but since Nehemiah calls Hanani אחי in Neh 7:10, it is evident that his own brother is meant. “And I asked them concerning the Jews, and concerning Jerusalem.

” היּהוּדים is further defined by וגו הפּליטה, who had escaped, who were left from the captivity; those who had returned to Judah are intended, as contrasted with those who still remained in heathen, lands. In the answer, Neh 1:3, they are more precisely designated as being ”there in the province (of Judah). ” With respect to המּדינה, see remarks on Ezr 2:1.

They are said to be “in great affliction (רעה) and in reproach. ” Their affliction is more nearly defined by the accessory clause which follows: and the wall = because the wall of Jerusalem is broken down, and its gates burned with fire. מפרצת, Pual (the intensive form), broken down, does not necessarily mean that the whole wall was destroyed, but only portions, as appears from the subsequent description of the building of the wall, Neh 3.

Neh 1:2-3 There came to Nehemiah Hanani, one of his brethren, and certain men from Judah. מאחי אחד, one of my brethren, might mean merely a relation of Nehemiah, אחים being often used of more distant relations; but since Nehemiah calls Hanani אחי in Neh 7:10, it is evident that his own brother is meant. “And I asked them concerning the Jews, and concerning Jerusalem.

” היּהוּדים is further defined by וגו הפּליטה, who had escaped, who were left from the captivity; those who had returned to Judah are intended, as contrasted with those who still remained in heathen, lands. In the answer, Neh 1:3, they are more precisely designated as being ”there in the province (of Judah). ” With respect to המּדינה, see remarks on Ezr 2:1.

They are said to be “in great affliction (רעה) and in reproach. ” Their affliction is more nearly defined by the accessory clause which follows: and the wall = because the wall of Jerusalem is broken down, and its gates burned with fire. מפרצת, Pual (the intensive form), broken down, does not necessarily mean that the whole wall was destroyed, but only portions, as appears from the subsequent description of the building of the wall, Neh 3.