1tn Heb “the sons of the exile.” 2tn Heb “the heads of the fathers.” So also in v. 3. 3tn Heb “Let us build with you.” 4tc The translation reads with the Qere, a Qumran MS, the LXX, the Syriac Peshitta, and the Arabic version וְלוֹ (v˙lo, “and him”) rather than the Kethib of the MT, וְלֹא (v˙lo’, “and not”). 5tn Heb “days.” 6sn Esarhaddon was king of Assyria ca. 681-669 b.c. 7sn The Assyrian policy had been to resettle Samaria with peoples from other areas (cf. 2 Kgs 17:24-34). These immigrants acknowledged Yahweh as well as other deities in some cases. The Jews who returned from the Exile regarded them with suspicion and were not hospitable to their offer of help in rebuilding the temple. 8tn Heb “not to you and to us.” 9tn Heb “the people of the land.” Elsewhere this expression sometimes has a negative connotation, referring to a lay population that was less zealous for Judaism than it should have been. Here, however, it seems to refer to the resident population of the area without any negative connotation. 10tn Heb “were making slack the hands of.” 11tn Heb “all the days of.” 12sn Darius ruled Persia ca. 522-486 B.C. 13sn The purpose of the opening verses of this chapter is to summarize why the Jews returning from the exile were unable to complete the rebuilding of the temple more quickly than they did. The delay was due not to disinterest on their part but to the repeated obstacles that had been placed in their path by determined foes. 14sn The chronological problems of Ezra 4:6-24 are well known and have been the subject of extensive discussion since ancient times. Both v. 5 and v. 24 describe the reign of Darius I Hystaspes, who ruled Persia ca. 522–486 b.c. and in whose time the rebuilt temple was finished. The material in between is from later times (v. 16 describes the rebuilding of the walls, not the temple), and so appear to be a digression. Even recognizing this, there are still questions, such as why Cambyses (530-522 b.c.) is not mentioned at all, and why events from the time of Xerxes (486-465 b.c.) and Artaxerxes (464-423 b.c.) are included here if the author was discussing opposition to the building of the temple, which was finished in 516 b.c. Theories to explain these difficulties are too numerous to mention here, but have existed since ancient times: Josephus, the first century Jewish historian, rearranged the account to put Cambyses before Xerxes and replacing Artaxerxes with Xerxes (for further discussion of Josephus’ rearrangement see L. L. Grabbe, “Josephus and the Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration” JBL 106 [1987]: 231-46). In brief, it seems best to view the author’s primary concern here as thematic (the theme of opposition to the Jewish resettlement in Jerusalem, including the rebuilding of the temple and restoration of Jerusalem’s walls) rather than purely chronological. In the previous verses the author had shown how the Jews had rejected an offer of assistance from surrounding peoples and how these people in turn harassed them. The inserted account shows how, in light of the unremitting opposition the Jews experienced (even extending down to more recent times), this refusal of help had been fully justified. Some of the documents the author employed show how this opposition continued even after the temple was rebuilt. (The failure to mention Cambyses may simply mean the author had no documents available from that period.) For detailed discussion of the difficulties presented by the passage and the various theories advanced to explain them, see H. G. M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah (WBC), 56-60. 15sn Ahasuerus, otherwise known as Xerxes I, ruled ca. 486-464 b.c. 16map For location see Map5-B1; Map6-F3; Map7-E2; Map8-F2; Map10-B3; JP1-F4; JP2-F4; JP3-F4; JP4-F4. 17tn Heb “And in the days.” 18tn The LXX understands this word as a prepositional phrase (“in peace”) rather than as a proper name (“Bishlam”). Taken this way it would suggest that Mithredath was “in agreement with” the contents of Tabeel’s letter. Some scholars regard the word in the MT to be a corruption of either “in Jerusalem” (i.e., “in the matter of Jerusalem”) or “in the name of Jerusalem.” The translation adopted above follows the traditional understanding of the word as a name. 19tc The translation reads the plural with the Qere rather than the singular found in the MT Kethib. 20sn Artaxerxes I ruled in Persia from ca. 465–425 b.c. 21tc It is preferable to delete the MT’s וּכְתָב (ukh˙tav) here. 22sn The double reference in v. 7 to the Aramaic language is difficult. It would not make sense to say that the letter was written in Aramaic and then translated into Aramaic. Some interpreters understand the verse to mean that the letter was written in the Aramaic script and in the Aramaic language, but this does not seem to give sufficient attention to the participle “translated” at the end of the verse. The second reference to Aramaic in the verse is more probably a gloss that calls attention to the fact that the following verses retain the Aramaic language of the letter in its original linguistic form. A similar reference to Aramaic occurs in Dan 2:4b, where the language of that book shifts from Hebrew to Aramaic. Ezra 4:8–6:18 and 7:12-26 are written in Aramaic, whereas the rest of the book is written in Hebrew. 23tn Aram “lord of the command.” So also in vv. 9, 17. 24sn Like Rehum, Shimshai was apparently a fairly high-ranking official charged with overseeing Persian interests in this part of the empire. His title was “scribe” or “secretary,” but in a more elevated political sense than that word sometimes has elsewhere. American governmental titles such as “Secretary of State” perhaps provide an analogy in that the word “secretary” can have a broad range of meaning. 25tn Or perhaps “against.” 26tn Aram “then.” What follows in v. 9 seems to be the preface of the letter, serving to identify the senders of the letter. The word “from” is not in the Aramaic text but has been supplied in the translation for clarity. 27tn For the qere of the MT (דֶּהָיֵא, dehaye’, a proper name) it seems better to retain the Kethib דִּהוּא (dihu’, “that is”). See F. Rosenthal, Grammar, 25, §35; E. Vogt, Lexicon linguae aramaicae, 36. 28tn Aram “Osnappar” (so ASV, NASB, NRSV), another name for Ashurbanipal.sn Ashurbanipal succeeded his father Esarhaddon as king of Assyria in 669 B.C. Around 645 B.C. he sacked the city of Susa, capital of Elam, and apparently some of these people were exiled to Samaria and other places. 29tc The translation reads with the ancient versions the plural בְּקֻרְיַהּ (b˙quryah, “in the cities”) rather than the singular (“in the city”) of the MT. 30tn Aram “beyond the river.” In Ezra this term is a technical designation for the region west of the Euphrates river. 31tn The Masoretic accents indicate that the phrase “to Artaxerxes the king” goes with what precedes and that the letter begins with the words “from your servants.” But it seems better to understand the letter to begin by identifying the addressee. 32tn Aram “men of.” 33tn The MT takes this word with the latter part of v. 11, but in English style it fits better with v. 12. 34sn Management of the provinces that were distantly removed from the capital was difficult, and insurrection in such places was a perennial problem. The language used in this report about Jerusalem (i.e., “rebellious,” “odious”) is intentionally inflammatory. It is calculated to draw immediate attention to the perceived problem. 35tn Aram “the treasury of kings.” The plural “kings” is Hebrew, not Aramaic. If the plural is intended in a numerical sense the reference is not just to Artaxerxes but to his successors as well. Some scholars understand this to be the plural of majesty, referring to Artaxerxes. See F. C. Fensham, Ezra and Nehemiah (NICOT), 74. 36tn Aram “we eat the salt of the palace.” 37tn Aram “the dishonor of the king is not fitting for us to see.” 38tn Aram “and we have made known.” 39tn Aram “the book of the minutes.” 40tn Aram “of your fathers.” 41tn Aram “discover…and learn.” For stylistic reasons this has been translated as a single concept. 42tn Aram “is a rebellious city.” 43tn Aram “revolts they are making in its midst.” 44tn Aram “from olden days.” So also in v. 19. 45tn Aram “will not be to you.” 46tn Aram “peace.” 47tn Aram “from me was placed a decree.” 48tn Aram “and they searched and found.” 49tn Aram “are being done.” 50sn The statement that prior Jewish kings ruled over the entire Trans-Euphrates is an overstatement. Not even in the days of David and Solomon did the kingdom of Israel extend its borders to such an extent. 51tn Aram “were being given to them.” 52tn Aram “until a command is issued from me.” 53tn Aram “to Jerusalem against the Jews.” 54tn Aram “by force and power,” a hendiadys. 55sn Darius I Hystaspes ruled Persia ca. 522–486 b.c.
1tn Heb “the sons of the exile.”
2tn Heb “the heads of the fathers.” So also in v. 3.
3tn Heb “Let us build with you.”
4tc The translation reads with the Qere, a Qumran MS, the LXX, the Syriac Peshitta, and the Arabic version וְלוֹ (v˙lo, “and him”) rather than the Kethib of the MT, וְלֹא (v˙lo’, “and not”).
5tn Heb “days.”
6sn Esarhaddon was king of Assyria ca. 681-669 b.c.
7sn The Assyrian policy had been to resettle Samaria with peoples from other areas (cf. 2 Kgs 17:24-34). These immigrants acknowledged Yahweh as well as other deities in some cases. The Jews who returned from the Exile regarded them with suspicion and were not hospitable to their offer of help in rebuilding the temple.
8tn Heb “not to you and to us.”
9tn Heb “the people of the land.” Elsewhere this expression sometimes has a negative connotation, referring to a lay population that was less zealous for Judaism than it should have been. Here, however, it seems to refer to the resident population of the area without any negative connotation.
10tn Heb “were making slack the hands of.”
11tn Heb “all the days of.”
12sn Darius ruled Persia ca. 522-486 B.C.
13sn The purpose of the opening verses of this chapter is to summarize why the Jews returning from the exile were unable to complete the rebuilding of the temple more quickly than they did. The delay was due not to disinterest on their part but to the repeated obstacles that had been placed in their path by determined foes.
14sn The chronological problems of Ezra 4:6-24 are well known and have been the subject of extensive discussion since ancient times. Both v. 5 and v. 24 describe the reign of Darius I Hystaspes, who ruled Persia ca. 522–486 b.c. and in whose time the rebuilt temple was finished. The material in between is from later times (v. 16 describes the rebuilding of the walls, not the temple), and so appear to be a digression. Even recognizing this, there are still questions, such as why Cambyses (530-522 b.c.) is not mentioned at all, and why events from the time of Xerxes (486-465 b.c.) and Artaxerxes (464-423 b.c.) are included here if the author was discussing opposition to the building of the temple, which was finished in 516 b.c. Theories to explain these difficulties are too numerous to mention here, but have existed since ancient times: Josephus, the first century Jewish historian, rearranged the account to put Cambyses before Xerxes and replacing Artaxerxes with Xerxes (for further discussion of Josephus’ rearrangement see L. L. Grabbe, “Josephus and the Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration” JBL 106 [1987]: 231-46). In brief, it seems best to view the author’s primary concern here as thematic (the theme of opposition to the Jewish resettlement in Jerusalem, including the rebuilding of the temple and restoration of Jerusalem’s walls) rather than purely chronological. In the previous verses the author had shown how the Jews had rejected an offer of assistance from surrounding peoples and how these people in turn harassed them. The inserted account shows how, in light of the unremitting opposition the Jews experienced (even extending down to more recent times), this refusal of help had been fully justified. Some of the documents the author employed show how this opposition continued even after the temple was rebuilt. (The failure to mention Cambyses may simply mean the author had no documents available from that period.) For detailed discussion of the difficulties presented by the passage and the various theories advanced to explain them, see H. G. M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah (WBC), 56-60.
15sn Ahasuerus, otherwise known as Xerxes I, ruled ca. 486-464 b.c.
16map For location see Map5-B1; Map6-F3; Map7-E2; Map8-F2; Map10-B3; JP1-F4; JP2-F4; JP3-F4; JP4-F4.
17tn Heb “And in the days.”
18tn The LXX understands this word as a prepositional phrase (“in peace”) rather than as a proper name (“Bishlam”). Taken this way it would suggest that Mithredath was “in agreement with” the contents of Tabeel’s letter. Some scholars regard the word in the MT to be a corruption of either “in Jerusalem” (i.e., “in the matter of Jerusalem”) or “in the name of Jerusalem.” The translation adopted above follows the traditional understanding of the word as a name.
19tc The translation reads the plural with the Qere rather than the singular found in the MT Kethib.
20sn Artaxerxes I ruled in Persia from ca. 465–425 b.c.
21tc It is preferable to delete the MT’s וּכְתָב (ukh˙tav) here.
22sn The double reference in v. 7 to the Aramaic language is difficult. It would not make sense to say that the letter was written in Aramaic and then translated into Aramaic. Some interpreters understand the verse to mean that the letter was written in the Aramaic script and in the Aramaic language, but this does not seem to give sufficient attention to the participle “translated” at the end of the verse. The second reference to Aramaic in the verse is more probably a gloss that calls attention to the fact that the following verses retain the Aramaic language of the letter in its original linguistic form. A similar reference to Aramaic occurs in Dan 2:4b, where the language of that book shifts from Hebrew to Aramaic. Ezra 4:8–6:18 and 7:12-26 are written in Aramaic, whereas the rest of the book is written in Hebrew.
23tn Aram “lord of the command.” So also in vv. 9, 17.
24sn Like Rehum, Shimshai was apparently a fairly high-ranking official charged with overseeing Persian interests in this part of the empire. His title was “scribe” or “secretary,” but in a more elevated political sense than that word sometimes has elsewhere. American governmental titles such as “Secretary of State” perhaps provide an analogy in that the word “secretary” can have a broad range of meaning.
25tn Or perhaps “against.”
26tn Aram “then.” What follows in v. 9 seems to be the preface of the letter, serving to identify the senders of the letter. The word “from” is not in the Aramaic text but has been supplied in the translation for clarity.
27tn For the qere of the MT (דֶּהָיֵא, dehaye’, a proper name) it seems better to retain the Kethib דִּהוּא (dihu’, “that is”). See F. Rosenthal, Grammar, 25, §35; E. Vogt, Lexicon linguae aramaicae, 36.
28tn Aram “Osnappar” (so ASV, NASB, NRSV), another name for Ashurbanipal.
sn Ashurbanipal succeeded his father Esarhaddon as king of Assyria in 669 B.C. Around 645 B.C. he sacked the city of Susa, capital of Elam, and apparently some of these people were exiled to Samaria and other places.
29tc The translation reads with the ancient versions the plural בְּקֻרְיַהּ (b˙quryah, “in the cities”) rather than the singular (“in the city”) of the MT.
30tn Aram “beyond the river.” In Ezra this term is a technical designation for the region west of the Euphrates river.
31tn The Masoretic accents indicate that the phrase “to Artaxerxes the king” goes with what precedes and that the letter begins with the words “from your servants.” But it seems better to understand the letter to begin by identifying the addressee.
32tn Aram “men of.”
33tn The MT takes this word with the latter part of v. 11, but in English style it fits better with v. 12.
34sn Management of the provinces that were distantly removed from the capital was difficult, and insurrection in such places was a perennial problem. The language used in this report about Jerusalem (i.e., “rebellious,” “odious”) is intentionally inflammatory. It is calculated to draw immediate attention to the perceived problem.
35tn Aram “the treasury of kings.” The plural “kings” is Hebrew, not Aramaic. If the plural is intended in a numerical sense the reference is not just to Artaxerxes but to his successors as well. Some scholars understand this to be the plural of majesty, referring to Artaxerxes. See F. C. Fensham, Ezra and Nehemiah (NICOT), 74.
36tn Aram “we eat the salt of the palace.”
37tn Aram “the dishonor of the king is not fitting for us to see.”
38tn Aram “and we have made known.”
39tn Aram “the book of the minutes.”
40tn Aram “of your fathers.”
41tn Aram “discover…and learn.” For stylistic reasons this has been translated as a single concept.
42tn Aram “is a rebellious city.”
43tn Aram “revolts they are making in its midst.”
44tn Aram “from olden days.” So also in v. 19.
45tn Aram “will not be to you.”
46tn Aram “peace.”
47tn Aram “from me was placed a decree.”
48tn Aram “and they searched and found.”
49tn Aram “are being done.”
50sn The statement that prior Jewish kings ruled over the entire Trans-Euphrates is an overstatement. Not even in the days of David and Solomon did the kingdom of Israel extend its borders to such an extent.
51tn Aram “were being given to them.”
52tn Aram “until a command is issued from me.”
53tn Aram “to Jerusalem against the Jews.”
54tn Aram “by force and power,” a hendiadys.
55sn Darius I Hystaspes ruled Persia ca. 522–486 b.c.