1. Now] or ‘and’. At first sight a strange word with which to open a book. It implies the resumption or continuance, not the commencement, of a history. The use of it, however, receives explanation from either hypothesis mentioned in the preceding note. Regarding our book as having been compiled with the books of Chronicles, we see the precise usage of the word here by a reference to the context in which it stood 2 Chronicles 36:22. Reasons of a similar character explain the same word beginning Joshua, Judges, 1 Sam., 1 Kings.

in the first year of Cyrus] i.e. in the same year that Cyrus captured Babylon and became master of the Babylonian Empire. To the Jews and other subject races it would be ‘the first year of Cyrus’. This year is generally computed to have been 538 b.c. Cyrus was born about 590 b.c. He ascended the throne of Elam 558, conquered Media 549, Persia about 548, overthrew Crœsus and became king of Lydia 540, captured Babylon 538, died 529. The Jewish ‘first year of Cyrus’ was therefore about the twentieth of his reign over the Elamites and the tenth of his reign over Persia.

Cyrus king of Persia] The Hebrew pronunciation of the name of the great Persian king is generally supposed to have been ‘Kôresh’. There is, however, good reason for preferring ‘Kûresh’, which corresponds more closely with the Greek ‘Kuros’ (κῦρος), Latin ‘Cyrus’. In Persian the name seems to have been ‘Kurusch’. The Babylonian Inscriptions speak of him as ‘Kurasch’. The name is said to be derived from that of a mythical Persian hero ‘Kuru’.

Recent discoveries have shown that Cyrus, prince of Anzan, a province of Elam, became first, probably by rightful succession, King of Elam, and styled himself by this title in his inscriptions. This fact explains how it happened that Susa, the old Capital of Elam, continued to be the seat of the Medo-Persian Empire along with Ecbatana, the Capital of the Median Kingdom.

Cyrus, then, the conqueror and King of Persia, was an Elamite by birth, a Persian by descent. His greatgrandfather Teispes was a Persian. But although he was thus descended from a Persian ancestor, it seems to be a mistake to impute to him the Monotheistic views which characterised Persian Zoroastrianism.

He is called ‘the King of Persia’, not because he was born a Persian prince, but because the Persian Kingdom was the most important of his conquests.

that the word of the Lord] The Divine purpose. This thought is well illustrated by reference to Psalm 102:13-22, beginning ‘Thou shalt arise and have mercy upon Zion; for it is time to have pity upon her, yea, the set time is come’.

by the mouth of Jeremiah] Literally, ‘from the mouth of’. The word proceeds ‘from the mouth’. It is declared ‘by the mouth’, as in the reading of 2 Chronicles 36:22, the parallel passage. The reference here is to Jeremiah’s prophecy of the 70 years, Jeremiah 29:10, ‘For thus saith the Lord, After seventy years be accomplished for Babylon, I will visit you and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place’, cf. Jeremiah 25:11.

It is clear that in the writer’s opinion ‘the 70 years for Babylon’ were completed at the occupation of Babylon by Cyrus. This period of 70 years has been computed in different ways. (1) By some the attempt is made to discover an exact interval of 70 years between the third year of king Jehoiakim (cf. Daniel 1:1) and the taking of Babylon by Cyrus. (2) By others the term is understood to express an interval of time in round numbers, commencing (a) either, in the year 605, with the battle of Carchemish, and the supremacy of Babylon, and the reign of Nebuchadnezzar; (b) or in the year 598, when the king Jehoiachin and the mass of the population were carried away captive; (c) or in the year 587, when the city and Temple of Jerusalem were destroyed. Our verse certainly implies that the period terminated with ‘the first year of Cyrus’ (538).

might be fulfilled] R.V. accomplished, i.e. brought to a conclusion. Referring to the substance of the utterance, touching the 70 years.

The word in the original is different from that in 2 Chronicles 36:21 (R.V. rightly ‘fulfil’), and Jeremiah 29:10, where the R.V. unfortunately renders the same word by accomplished. The completion of the thing predicted is here emphasised rather than the fulfilment of the prediction.

the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus] The act of Divine interposition, taking effect in the domain of spirit, of will and desire. Cf. Exodus 35:21. The phrase occurs in a hostile sense, e.g. 1 Chronicles 5:26; 2 Chronicles 21:16; Jeremiah 51:11; but, as here and Ezra 1:5, with a favourable meaning in Haggai 1:14.

that he made a proclamation] A peculiar phrase in the original, occurring again in Ezra 10:7; Nehemiah 8:15; 2 Chronicles 30:5; Exodus 36:6, meaning literally, ‘he caused a voice to pass’. Here used of proclamation by herald.

all his kingdom] i.e. nearly the whole of Western Asia; the kingdoms of Elam, Media, Persia, Lydia and Babylon.

and put it also in writing] This is added not so much to express that written copies of the proclamation were forwarded to the various officials of the Empire, as to record the fact, which to the Jew was of so much importance, that the edict, so far from being a Jewish invention, had been written at the command of Cyrus, and was accessible among official papers. (Cf. Ezra 6:2.)

saying] The decree itself would have been written in Persian or Aramaic. The following verses (2–4) contain the substance of the decree translated into Hebrew and adapted to Jewish readers. It is a popular reproduction rather than a literal translation.

Ch. Ezra 1:1-4. The Decree of Cyrus

The history of the time throws light upon the action of Cyrus, whose Decree gave life to the seemingly lifeless bones of Israel (Ezekiel 37) and restored the scattered flock to their pasture (34). Except by his personal attendants, the fall of Nabonidus, the last king of Babylon, had been hailed by all with satisfaction. The priests had been alienated from him by his neglect of the defences of the great temples. The generals and nobles despised a king, who absented himself from his capital and his troops, and entrusted to his son the chief command. The poorer classes had no respect for a weak monarch, who failed to protect them from the invader and only imposed on them heavy tasks of building. Cyrus was welcomed in Babylon as Deliverer and saluted as ‘the Great King.’ The Jewish colony who, although they had been taught by their prophets to expect Cyrus’ ultimate success, could hardly have foreseen so easy a victory, so bloodless a capture of Babylon, as that which the Inscriptions describe, would have been among the most demonstrative in their rejoicing over his success. They saw before them the possibility of the near realization of their hopes.

Cyrus was too shrewd a sovereign to throw away any opportunity of cementing together the various elements of his newly conquered empire. He could cheaply earn the affection of many a subject race by gratifying its hopes and removing from Babylon the symbols of its servitude. He gave permission therefore to those of this class resident in the Capital, to take back their gods that had been forcibly removed to Babylon, and to set them up in their former homes. To the Jews he granted corresponding (and, perhaps, in recognition of their special services in his cause, peculiar) privileges. He gave permission to the worshippers of Jehovah to return to their own country, to resume the worship and to rebuild the Temple at Jerusalem. They had no images or gods to carry with them. But the sacred vessels, regarded with deep veneration, which had been carried off from Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, were given back once more into the keeping of the priests.

Ezra 1:1-3 (as far as the words ‘let him go up’) are almost word for word the same as 2 Chronicles 36:22-23. The very slight differences clearly arise from errors of transcription. We have here (a) Ezra 1:1, the short form ‘Yirm’yah’ instead of the longer ‘Yirmyahu’—(both of which are found for Jeremiah): (b) Ezra 1:1 ‘by the mouth’ instead of ‘at the mouth’: (c) Ezra 1:3, ‘his God be with him’ instead of ‘the Lord his God be with him’.

The fact, that the book of Ezra opens with the same passage as closes the books of Chronicles, has been differently explained.

(1) On the hypothesis, that Ezra-Nehemiah are a separate composition from the books of Chronicles, it is supposed that the compilers of both works made use of the same written documents.

(2) On the hypothesis, that Ezra-Nehemiah come from the hands of the same compiler as the books of Chronicles, we must suppose (a) that there was a time when Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah, in some form or another, constituted a single work: (b) that Ezra-Nehemiah were detached for the purpose of completing the history of the people, narrated in 2 Kings, by an account of the Return from Captivity and of the foundation of the new Jewish Constitution: (c) that afterwards, when the books of Chronicles were added as a sort of historical appendix to the Jewish Canon, they were made to conclude with the opening words of Ezra-Nehemiah. The records of the People thus ended, not with the reminiscence of captivity, but with the announcement of release. Furthermore Chronicles, though placed in the Jewish Canon after Ezra-Nehemiah, thus retained, by means of the concluding verses, a witness to its identity of origin with the books which preceded.

The second hypothesis, for reasons given in the Introd., appears to be the preferable.

2. The Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth] R.V. all the kingdoms of the earth hath the Lord, the God of heaven, given me. More correctly, (1) bringing out the emphasis implied by the position of the words in the original; (2) showing more accurately the usage of the Divine name.

The acknowledgment that all earthly sway is derived from Heavenly authority forms the basis of the decree. ‘All the kingdoms of the earth’, the universality of the mission, with which Cyrus is divinely entrusted, justifies his action in dealing with the fortunes of a part.

The Lord God of heaven] literally ‘Jahveh (i.e. Jehovah), the God of heaven’. This use of the sacred name of the God of the Jews in the decree of Cyrus gives occasion to the question, whether Cyrus knew, and, if he knew, believed in and worshipped the God of the Jews.

Commentators generally used to hold this view. This was not unnatural. For (1) they considered these verses to reproduce verbatim the decree of Cyrus: (2) they very generally supposed that Cyrus, being a Persian, was also a monotheist, who favoured the Jews on account of their monotheism, and saw in Jahveh a local representation of the One God that he adored: (3) they accepted and reproduced the statement of Josephus that Cyrus, having seen in Isaiah the Jewish prophecies relating to himself, recognised their fulfilment, and worshipped and believed in Jahveh: (4) they derived support for their view from analogous utterances of allegiance to the God of the Jews recorded of Nebuchadnezzar and Darius in Daniel 3:28-29; Daniel 4:2-37; Daniel 6:25-28.

But (1) it is evident that the edict in these verses is recorded in the words of the Hebrew translator and presented in its Jewish form. (2) Recent discoveries have shown that Cyrus was no monotheist. His own inscriptions testify to his having been a polytheist to the last. He acted as High Priest towards the great deities of Babylon. He constantly styles himself and his son Cambyses the worshippers of Nebo and Merodach. (3) The policy of the victorious monarch was to include among the lesser divinities of his Pantheon the gods of the subjugated countries, and to secure the favour of those who presided over different territories. The deities of whom he avowed himself the servant were (a) those of his own land, who had protected him in his career of victory, (b) those of the conquered kingdoms who had transferred to him their favour, and had thus permitted him to be victorious.

Whether Josephus’ story that Cyrus had seen the prophecies of Isaiah is correct or not we cannot say. There is nothing in it intrinsically impossible. On the other hand, it was a very probable hypothesis to suggest itself to the mind of a Jew by which to account for Cyrus’ benevolent action towards his race (see note on Ezra 1:4).

When Cyrus here, in his edict, made use of a Divine name, he (a) either referred to one of the great gods whom he especially worshipped, e.g. Merodach, Nebo, Bel, for which the Hebrew version has reverently substituted the name of Jahveh: (b) or actually referred by name to Jahveh, as the god of the people, in whose favour the edict was promulgated.

The author of the book presupposes the acquaintance of heathen people with the popular use of the sacred Name which the Jew of later days was forbidden to pronounce.

God of heaven] A title, found also in Darius’ letter, chap. Ezra 6:9-10, and in Artaxerxes’ letter, Ezra 7:12; Ezra 7:21; Ezra 7:23. It is found in the Jewish reply reported in Tattenai’s letter Ezra 5:12. In Nehemiah it occurs Ezra 1:4-5, Ezra 2:4; Ezra 2:20; cf. Psalm 136:26; Daniel 2:18-19; Daniel 2:44. Like the similar phrase ‘the God of heaven and earth’ (Ezra 5:11) the title implies boundless sovereignty. For ‘Heaven’ combined the ideas of infinite space, cf. 1 Kings 8:27; Jeremiah 31:37, the forces of nature, cf. Psalm 19:1, and the dwelling-place of Spiritual beings (cf. Isaiah 66:1; 1 Kings 8:30; Psalm 2:4; Psalm 115:3.)

given me] An expression of pious humility on the part of Cyrus in acknowledgment of the fact that he had won by his sword, and not inherited, the kingdoms of his empire.

he] Very emphatic in the original (cf. LXX. αὐτὸς. Vulgate ipse).

hath charged me] The Divine mission which Cyrus probably unconsciously discharged is described in Isaiah 44:24-28; Isaiah 45:1-13. The view that he was shown these prophecies and was influenced by reading them has been already referred to. Some have also supposed that Cyrus was actuated by statements of Daniel as to his duty towards the chosen people. For neither view is there any historical evidence.

a house] i.e. a Temple.

at Jerusalem which is in Judah] with geographical detail, Judah being a small and obscure province, unknown probably in many quarters of the great Persian Empire.

3. Who is there among you of all his people? his God, &c.] R.V. Whosoever there is among you of all his people, his God, &c., rightly translating by the indefinite relative instead of by the interrogative pronoun.

among you] The decree is addressed to the inhabitants of the many kingdoms which the Persian Empire included.

of all his people] From the context, in which Judah and Jerusalem alone are mentioned, it is clear that the edict referred only to the Southern kingdom whose inhabitants had been ‘deported’ by Nebuchadnezzar. It is not likely that Cyrus would have been acquainted with the circumstances of the ‘deportation’ of the Northern kingdom by Sargon the Assyrian, so many years previously (721 b.c.), even if (which is most unlikely) the identity of the Ten Tribes had been preserved. At the same time there is good reason to suppose that some captives from the Northern tribes, who had preserved their lineage and their national religion, availed themselves of the opportunity which the decree of Cyrus offered them. See on Ezra 2:2. Cf. 1 Chronicles 9:3.

his God be with him] The parallel passage in 2 Chronicles 36:23 reads ‘the Lord (Jahveh) his God be with him’. As it is more probable that the sacred Name should have been inserted than omitted by the Jewish copyists, the text as it stands in our verse is preferable; it is also supported by the LXX. and by 1Es 2:5. The word in the original for ‘be’ (y‘hî), containing the first two consonants of ‘Jahveh’, may possibly have been mistaken for it and have given rise to the variation. The words are a common form of blessing. Cf. English ‘Good-bye’ (God be with you). After the blessing comes the substance of the decree, (1) the Return, (2) the Building of the Temple.

and let him go up] Change of subject, “His God be with him and let such an one ‘go up’ ”. The journey to the land of Judah is treated as an ascent. Cf. “The Songs of Ascents”, Psalms 120-134.

and build] i.e. rebuild.

the Lord God of Israel] R.V. the Lord, the God of Israel, in the original ‘Jahveh the God of Israel’; ‘the God of Israel’, the old national title used freely without room for misconception after the destruction of the Northern kingdom (cf. in Ezra 4:1; Ezra 4:3; Ezra 5:1; Ezra 6:14; Ezra 6:21-22; Ezra 7:6; Ezra 7:15; Ezra 8:35; Ezra 9:4; Ezra 9:15). The discipline of the Captivity had revived the conception of the true Israel (see Isaiah 41:17; Jeremiah 30:2; Ezekiel 8:4).

(he is the God,) which is in Jerusalem] So R.V. text, but R.V. margin ‘he is the God which is in Jerusalem’, gives an alternative rendering.

(a) If the words ‘he is the God’ be taken parenthetically as in A.V. and R.V. text, then ‘which is in Jerusalem’ refers to ‘the house of Jahveh’. It gives an additional piece of information necessary to those who did not associate the temples of gods with any one place. Temples of heathen gods, e.g. of Nebo, might be erected in any number of towns. Why not therefore of Jahveh? Cyrus’ decree explicitly localizes the cult.

(b) Otherwise the words, ‘which is in Jerusalem’, are taken closely with ‘He is the God’, as in the margin of the R.V. This is the rendering of the LXX. (αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς ὁ ἐν Ἱερονσαλήμ) and the Vulgate (Ipse est Deus qui est in Ierusalem). It is also supported by the Jewish tradition preserved by the Hebrew accents. Accepting this collocation of the words, the student must be careful to attach the proper emphasis to the words ‘the God’. For the clause is not simply geographically explanatory of the foregoing words, ‘the Lord the God of Israel’, stating that ‘he is the God who is in Jerusalem’ in order to distinguish him from the gods of other localities. But the name, ‘the God’, is used emphatically (hâ-Elohim, not Elohim) and absolutely, as in Ezra 1:4-5. Compare ‘The Lord He is the God’ in 1 Kings 18:39. The sense then is ‘He is The God, the Almighty, and He has made choice of Jerusalem as His dwelling-place’.

Reasons for preferring the former translation (i.e. that of the A.V. and R.V. Text) are the following

(1) The phrase ‘which is in Jerusalem’ is almost invariably in this book applied to the Temple or Temple service (cf. Ezra 1:4-5, Ezra 2:68, Ezra 5:2; Ezra 5:14-16, Ezra 6:5; Ezra 6:12 (9, 18), Ezra 7:15-17; Ezra 7:27). (2) It is not a natural phrase—whether part of the original edict or added by Jewish translator—by which to designate One who has already been termed ‘the God of Israel’. (3) The objection to the separation (in the A.V. and R.V.) of the clause, “which is in J.”, from the word to which it should be attached, has occasioned the rendering of the LXX., Vulg., and R.V. marg. (4) But a parenthetical ‘He is the God’ bears the impress of a thoroughly Jewish insertion after the mention of the sacred Name. (5) The supposed significance of the alternative rendering disappears with the discovery that Cyrus was no monotheist. For Cyrus would not have said ‘He is the (i.e. the true) God who is at Jerusalem’—while a post-captivity Jewish editor would not have introduced so unusual and restrictive a localization for his God.

We conclude therefore that the words ‘He is the God’ are a Jewish parenthesis inserted by the compiler reverently but awkwardly, in such a way as to break up the sentence ‘the house of the Lord, the God of Israel—which is at Jerusalem’.

4. And whosoever remaineth in any place where he sojourneth] R.V. And whosoever is left, in any place where he sojourneth. The wording of this clause is a little ambiguous. The following paraphrase will give the meaning. ‘In any place where survivors of the Jewish captivity are to be found sojourning, there let the natives of the place, the non-Israelite neighbours, render him all assistance.’ That this is the right interpretation is shown by the passages Nehemiah 1:2, ‘The Jews that had escaped, which were left of the captivity’ and Haggai 2:3, ‘Who is left among you that saw this house in its former glory’. Cf. 2 Kings 25:22 and ‘the residue’ (R.V.) in Jeremiah 8:3; Jeremiah 24:8; Jeremiah 39:9, &c.

The A.V. gives no intelligible sense. The R.V. (1) by altering ‘remaineth’ to ‘is left’ preserves the application of the word in the original to the survivors of the Captivity, (2) by punctuation indicates the construction of the verse, in which ‘whosoever is left’ is placed independently as a heading to the whole sentence; while the words ‘in any place where he sojourneth’ do not belong to ‘whosoever is left’ but introduce the succeeding clause ‘let the men &c.’

The passage is somewhat awkwardly worded, but with the above explanation is rendered quite clear in meaning. The decree made no universal requisition for aid to the Jews. It only enjoined that local assistance should be given by neighbours, wherever any resident Jew availed himself of the king’s edict for the Return.

sojourneth] The word in the original regularly used in the sense of ‘to dwell as a stranger’. Cf. Leviticus 19:34.

help] The A.V. margin has ‘Heb. lift him up’. The word in the original is the intensive Mood of the verb ‘to lift or carry’, and occurs in 1 Kings 9:11 = ‘furnished’. The LXX. (ἀντιλαμβανέσθωσαν αὐτοῦ) renders the sense well by the Greek word so familiar to English readers in the words ‘He hath holpen Israel his servant’ (Luke 1:54).

with silver, and with gold, and with goods, and with beasts] The assistance should be given in money for the journey, in necessaries for the new homes, and in means of transport.—“Goods” a vague word, reproducing the indefiniteness of the original. It occurs again Ezra 8:21, Ezra 10:8, = ‘substance’ in A.V. and R.V. (LXX. κτῆσις and ὕπαρξις, Vulgate ‘substantia’). Here the LXX. has ἀποσκευή and the Vulgate ‘substantia’. From its use in these passages and in Genesis 12:5; Genesis 13:6, we gather that the word means the moveables of a household. ‘Beasts’ i.e. beasts of burden—horses, camels and asses. Cf. Ezra 2:66-67.

besides the freewill offering] ‘beside’, i.e. along with (Vulg. wrongly ‘excepto quod’) certain voluntary gifts of a more private nature especially intended for the Temple, as in chap. Ezra 8:25. Compare the freewill-offerings mentioned in Exodus 35:29; Leviticus 22:23. This freewill offering is not to be restricted, as by some commentators, to the gifts either of Cyrus or of the Jews who remained behind. Any one, Jew or Gentile, could make such offerings, in Ezra 3:5.

for the house of God] These words denote the object of the free-will offering: and are not, as the Hebrew accents interpret, to be taken as following after ‘help him’, the intervening words being taken parenthetically.

that is in Jerusalem] R.V. which is, consistently with Ezra 1:2-3. The clause refers to ‘the house’. Some understand ‘God’ as the antecedent to ‘which’; but see note on a similar interpretation in Ezra 1:3. The expression is in its explicitness similar to ‘Jerusalem which is in Judah’ (Ezra 1:2).

5–11. The Return of the Jews under Sheshbazzar: a brief summary of events

5. the chief of the fathers] R.V. the heads of fathers’ houses. Literally rendered, the term would be ‘the heads of the fathers’. Cf. the Latin ‘principes patrum’. See Exodus 6:14. For the subdivision into (1) tribe, (2) family, (3) household, compare especially Joshua 7:16-18.

with all them] R.V. even all. The construction in the original is peculiar. The preposition ‘to’ or ‘for’ stands before ‘all’, and the relative is omitted. The A.V. takes the clause to briefly summarize ‘the rest’ (i.e. the supplementary list of them) who, not being classed under (a) the heads of fathers’ houses of Judah and Benjamin, (b) priests, (c) Levites, formed a fourth division of the people. By comparison with other passages such as 1 Chronicles 13:1-2, 2 Chronicles 5:12, where the same or a similar construction in the original is found, we see that the R.V. is correct. The preposition does not supplement, it defines. All included under the three groups mentioned in the verse, ‘rose up’. The whole community is summed up under these three heads, cf. Ezra 6:16; Ezra 6:20.

whose spirit God had raised] R.V. had stirred up. The same phrase as in Ezra 1:1. Ezra 1:5 follows as the direct result of Ezra 1:1. It is important therefore that the same words should be used to translate the same phrase.

‘God’ here is ‘ha-Elohim’, the God = Jahveh of Ezra 1:1 who also stirred up the spirit of Cyrus. The wonder of the Return is shown to be wholly due to Divine overruling. The will of the sovereign to proclaim the decree and the will of the subject to avail himself of it are alike controlled by Him.

to go up to build] Observe the punctuation. In the A.V. these words are by the punctuation connected with the main verb ‘rose up’. The R.V. connects the words with the last clause alone, and thus (a) avoids collocation of ‘rose up’ with to ‘go up’; (b) divides the verse into two balanced sentences, the general statement and its closer definition.

6. And all they that were about them] R.V. round about them. A general expression which would include both the heathen neighbours, alluded to (in Ezra 1:3) by the edict, and the Jewish neighbours, not contemplated in the edict, who preferred to remain in the land of the Captivity.

strengthened their hands] The use of this expression differs slightly in the grammar of the original from such passages as Nehemiah 2:18, ‘So they strengthened their hands for the good work’; Jeremiah 23:14, ‘they strengthen the hands of evil doers’. In those passages the idea is simply that of ‘invigorating’ and ‘adding strength’. Here the employment of a preposition introduces a shade of variety into the metaphor. The idea is that of ‘grasping’, ‘laying firm hold on the hand with the view of strengthening or supporting’. The Jews who sought to return were like a convalescent essaying to walk and needing assistance. Cf. Isaiah 51:18, ‘There is none that taketh her by the hand of all the sons that she hath brought up’.

vessels of silver, with gold] we should expect ‘with vessels of gold’, cf. Ezra 1:9.

with goods] see Ezra 1:4.

and with precious things] A rare word in the original, ‘migdânoth’. It occurs in 2 Chronicles 21:3 = A.V. and R.V. precious things, 2 Chronicles 32:23 = A.V. presents, R.V. precious things. And in a well-known passage, Genesis 24:53 = A.V. and R.V. precious things. The Latin here ‘in supellectili’ is a mere guess. The LXX. rendering ‘ἐν ξενίοις’ = with gifts agrees with their rendering δῶρα in Gen., and δόματα in 2 Chronicles 32. In 2 Chronicles 21:3 they render by ὅπλα.

beside all that was willingly offered] i.e. these gifts were over and above the free-will offerings. The clause in the original is peculiar, ‘beside over and above all one willingly offered’. The relative is omitted as in Ezra 1:4, but is implied in ‘all’. The verb is active in meaning (cf. Ezra 2:68, Ezra 3:5) and is here used impersonally.

7. Also Cyrus the king] i.e. the Jews were assisted not only by private individuals their neighbours, but by the example of the king himself.

the vessels of the house of the Lord, which Nebuchadnezzar had brought forth &c.] This refers especially to the capture of Jerusalem in 598, when Jehoiachin, his household and 10,000 of the better classes were carried off to Babylon. 2 Kings 24:13 ‘And he (i.e. Nebuchadnezzar) carried out thence (i.e. from Jerusalem) all the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king’s house, and cut in pieces all the vessels of gold which Solomon king of Israel had made in the temple of the Lord’. It may be noticed that in the original the expression ‘carried out’ in the passage just cited and so translated in A.V. and R.V. is identical with the ‘brought forth’ in this verse.

At the final destruction of Jerusalem (586) eleven or twelve years later, by Nebuzaradan, Nebuchadnezzar’s general, the remainder of the valuables contained in the house of the Lord were ‘taken away’ to Babylon, 2 Kings 25:14-15.

The passage in Daniel 1:1-2, which attributes to the third year (606) of Jehoiakim’s reign a siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, the capture of Jehoiakim, and the removal to Babylon of some of the sacred vessels, is chronologically incorrect. (1) The victory of Carchemish on the Euphrates was not won by Nebuchadnezzar till the fourth year of Jehoiakim (605). (2) According to 2 Kings 24:1 Jehoiakim, who had been tributary to the king of Egypt, did not become tributary to Nebuchadnezzar until after that battle, and, having remained so for three years only, then rebelled. This rebellion led to Nebuchadnezzar’s siege and capture of Jerusalem in Jehoiachin’s brief reign of three months. All that can be said is that we have in Daniel 1:1-2, a certain chronological error, but that it is conceivable that when Nebuchadnezzar ‘came up’ (2 Kings 24:1) and Jehoiakim submitted, a siege may have preceded capitulation, and a carrying off to Babylon both of prisoners and of some vessels of the Lord may have taken place in 602 or 601. Of this we have no certain confirmation, and it is more probable that the passage in Daniel 1:1 may be a heading containing inaccurate historical statements or late tradition prefixed by a scribe to the narrative of Daniel.

in the house of his gods] So A.V. and R.V. The original is ‘in the house of his Elohim’. ‘Elohim’ may be rendered either as ‘God’ or ‘gods’ according as the context requires. The student will observe that in Daniel 1:2 the same phrase ‘the house of his Elohim’ is rendered both by A.V. and R.V. ‘the house of his god’. Nebuchadnezzar was a polytheist. But had the stress here rested upon the plurality of his gods, we should have expected ‘in the houses of his gods’. The rendering ‘in the house of his god’ appears preferable, both on account of the singular ‘house’ and, especially, on account of Nebuchadnezzar’s devotion to one god, Merodach, to whom he paid greater honour than to any of the other deities of the Babylonian pantheon. The Temple of E-sagila in honour of Merodach was restored by Nebuchadnezzar with unrivalled splendour. The passage in 2 Chronicles 36:7 ‘Nebuchadnezzar also carried of the vessels of the house of the Lord to Babylon and put them in his temple at Babylon’, helps to confirm the rendering ‘in the house of his god’. The other passages relating to the sacred vessels are Jeremiah 27:16; Jeremiah 28:6; Jeremiah 52:18; Daniel 5:23; Bar 1:8.

8. by the hand of] So A.V. and R.V. This phrase in the original is a little difficult. It occurs Ezra 8:26, ‘I even weighed into their hand &c.’, 33, ‘was the silver and the gold and the vessels weighed into the hand of, &c. (marg. ‘by’), Esther 6:9, ‘let the apparel and the horse be delivered to the hand of one of the king’s most noble princes’. It seems better here to render ‘into the hand of’. The vessels were brought out and given into the charge of Mithredath, who was to superintend their numbering.

Mithredath the treasurer] This is the Hebrew form of the old Persian name ‘Mithradata’, familiar to us as Mithridates. On coins we find the more correct transliteration ‘Mithradates’. It was a very common name among the Medo-Persians, cf. Ezra 4:7. It is derived from ‘Mithras’, the name of the Persian sun-god, and the root ‘da’ = to give, and has been differently understood to mean either ‘given by Mithras’, or ‘given, i.e. dedicated, to Mithras’. Of these the former is the preferable Cf. Hormisdas = ‘given by Ormuzd’, Theodotus = ‘given by God’.

the treasurer] The word in the original is a Persian, not a Hebrew word, and occurs again Ezra 7:21; Daniel 3:2-3. The ‘gizbar’, Old Persian ‘gazabara’, mentioned here seems to have been the king’s Privy Purse, the bearer or dispenser of the royal treasure. The Persian word will remind the student of the Hellenistic ‘gaza’ (γάζα) = ‘treasure’ adopted from the Persian. The Ethiopian Eunuch, chamberlain to queen Candace, was ‘over all her treasure’, ἐπὶ πάσης τῆς γάζης αὐτῆς (Acts 8:27). The word for ‘the treasury’, used in the gospels, means “the place for keeping the ‘gaza’,” γαζοφυλάκιον (cf. Mark 12:41; Luke 21:1; John 8:20).

and numbered them] so A.V. R.V. Better, and he numbered them. The king made the gift; his officer had the charge of its disposition and valuation.

unto Sheshbazzar, the prince of Judah] There seems to be no good reason to doubt that the Sheshbazzar mentioned here and in Ezra 5:14; Ezra 5:16 is the same as Zerubbabel. For although Zerubbabel (Ezra 3:2; Ezra 3:8, Ezra 4:3, Ezra 5:2) is not designated by any official title in our book, still (1) the manner in which he is regarded as the representative of the Jewish returned exiles in Ezra 4:2, (2) the fact that his name, as that of the chief layman and of the head of the Davidic line, is associated with that of the High-priest Jeshua in the general administration, Ezra 3:2; Ezra 3:8, Ezra 4:3, Ezra 5:2; Haggai 1:1; Zechariah 3:4, (3) the title of ‘governor (pekhah) of Judah’ given him by the prophet Haggai (Ezra 1:1, Ezra 2:2; Ezra 2:21), and given also to Sheshbazzar (Ezra 5:14) make it reasonable to suppose that Sheshbazzar was another name of Zerubbabel, just as Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, were the names given in the Captivity to Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah (Daniel 1:6-7). To this view the objection has fairly been raised that in Daniel we find a Babylonish by the side of a Hebrew name, but that in this case both Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel are considered to be Babylonish names, and that it is very strange to find the same man called in a Jewish book by two foreign names. This objection may possibly be met by regarding Zerubbabel as the name, though of foreign origin, which he took as prince among his own people, Sheshbazzar as the name by which he was known at the court of the Persian king. At any rate Sheshbazzar is here called ‘the prince of Judah’ and in Ezra 5:14 he is mentioned as conveying the sacred vessels and laying the foundation of the Temple. See also the Introduction, § 6.

the prince of Judah] The ‘nasi’ of Judah. In two passages he is given the title of ‘Tirshatha’, the Persian equivalent of the Assyrian ‘pekhah’ (Ezra 2:63, Nehemiah 7:65; Nehemiah 7:70). He is called ‘pekhah’ or ‘Tirshatha” in relation to the Persian government. In relation to his own people, he is called ‘nasi’ or prince either as head of the great tribe of Judah (cf. the title ‘nasi’ of the ‘princes’ of the tribes in Numbers 7, Numbers 34:22-28), or as the representative of the royal house of David (cf. especially the frequent use of this term in Ezekiel, chaps. 45, 46, 48). In later days this title was taken by Simon, the brother of Judas the Maccabee, whose coins contain the legend ‘Simon the prince (nasi) of Israel’. Sheshbazzar is mentioned here alone. The prominence of the High-priest seems to date from the arrival at Jerusalem.

9. chargers] The word in the original does not occur elsewhere in the Bible. Its meaning is very uncertain: (1) the old Jewish interpretation quoted by Aben Ezra derived it from two words meaning ‘to collect’ and ‘a lamb’, and understood it to be applied to ‘vessels intended to receive the blood of victims’; (2) the LXX. translates by ‘wine-coolers’ (ψυκτῆρες); (3) Esdras by ‘libation-vessels’ (σπονδεῖα); (4) another rendering, based upon a similar root in Arabic, Syriac and Ethiopic, is ‘baskets’.

knives] The word in the original occurs here only in the Bible. Vulg. ‘cultri’. This rendering is very uncertain. Other interpretations are (1) ‘censers’, (θυΐσκαι) in 1 Esdras. (2) (?) ‘changes of raiment’—so apparently the LXX. παρηλλαγμένα—possibly cf. Jdg 14:19. (3) ‘vessels adorned with network’—so Ewald comparing a similar word in Jdg 16:13; Jdg 16:19.

10. basons] R.V. bowls—i.e. vessels provided with covers or lids, almost our ‘tankards’. Lat. ‘scyphi’. The word occurs in 1 Chronicles 28:17 and Ezra 8:27.

of a second sort] The fact that they were silver distinguishes them from the golden bowls just mentioned and makes this expression seem superfluous. The versions were puzzled by it: LXX. renders ‘double’ διπλοῖ: Vulg. ‘second’ (‘secundi’). The words, as they stand, imply, that the silver bowls were secondary in quality or intended for inferior purposes. In all probability we have here some corruption in the text: see note on Ezra 1:11.

11. All the vessels, &c., five thousand and four hundred] It is natural to expect that the words ‘all the vessels’ would give us the sum total of the different figures mentioned in Ezra 1:9-10. The sum total however mentioned here is 5400. The vessels enumerated under the six classes (in Ezra 1:9-10), when added together, make only 2499. Unless we concede that the text is incorrect, the only solution of the variation is to suppose that Ezra 1:9-10 omit a large number of less important vessels. This is unsatisfactory, since the words ‘and other vessels a thousand’ are obviously intended to cover the remainder.

It is probable therefore that the discrepancy arises from some ancient corruption in the text, which has been caused by copyists’ errors in transcribing numbers. This is a frequent source of mistake.

The LXX. has the same text as the Hebrew, so that the error is of very ancient origin. The 1st Book of Esdras has two variations in the list of items, reading (1) ‘1000’ for ‘30’ ‘chargers of gold’, (2) ‘2410’ for ‘410’ ‘silver bowls’ (reading ‘2000’ instead of ‘a second sort’), and gives a total corresponding to its figures, i.e. 5469.

Some scholars, seeing in the variations of 1 Esdras a clue to the true solution, maintain that the corruption of the text is to be found in the figures both of the items and of the total (a) They reject the variation of ‘1000’ for ‘30’ chargers as a round number inserted by 1 Esdras; (b) they read ‘1000’ for ‘30’ ‘bowls of gold’, on the ground that 30 is too small a figure, since Ezra himself brought 20 of this description (Ezra 8:28); (c) they read ‘2410’ for ‘410 of a second sort,’ on the authority of 1 Esdras. These alterations bring the total to 5469, agreeing with 1 Esdras.

Ewald (a) combining the reading of Ezra and 1 Esdras reads ‘1030’ for ‘30’ ‘chargers’, (b) keeping the ‘30’ ‘bowls of gold’, accepts the 1 Esdras reading of 2410, and thus obtains the total of 5499.

Keil suspecting that the corruption is to be found in the sum total rather than in the items, suggests that by an accidental transposition of figures the true number of 2500 has become altered to 5400.

In favour of this view, it must be admitted that (1) the figure of 5400 is surprisingly large, (2) copyists had a greater tendency to increase than to reduce numbers. But as the items are given in detail, so we should expect the sum total to be given exactly and not merely in a round number. As we have the two best texts agreeing in this total figure 5400, it is better to look for the error among the items. The reading of 1 Esdras ‘2410’ may possibly be correct.

But in the absence of further evidence we are left to conjecture either that some items have accidentally fallen out or that some of the present figures have been wrongly transcribed.

with them of the captivity that were brought up] R.V. when they of the captivity were brought up. The original here is rather condensed. The versions failed to translate the passage. LXX. τὰ πάντα τὰ ἀναβαίνοντα [μετὰ Σασαβασσὰρ] ἀπὸ τῆς ἀποικίας ἐκ Βαβυλῶνος. Vulg. ‘universa tulit Sassabasar cum his, qui ascendebant de transmigratione Babylonis’.

The meaning of the clause is practically the same. But the more precise sense conveyed by the R.V. is the only right translation, i.e. that Sheshbazzar brought up the vessels at the time when ‘the captivity’ was brought up. The emphasis is on the time of the removal—not on the caravan which accompanied it.

were brought up] the same word used of the ‘breaking up’ of a camp in Jeremiah 37:11.

the captivity] the reader will notice that the journey of Sheshbazzar and his companions from Babylon to Jerusalem is disposed of in a single verse. We hear nothing of the details or of the difficulties of the journey, which must have lasted three or four months, cf. Ezra 7:8-9.

It has been suggested that here should be introduced the passage 1Es 5:1-6 ‘After this were the principal men of the families chosen according to their tribes, to go up with their wives and sons and daughters, with their menservants and maidservants and cattle. (2) And Darius sent with them a thousand horsemen, till they had brought them back to Jerusalem safely, and with musical [instruments] tablets and flutes. (3) And all their brethren played, and he made them go up together with them. (4) And these are the names of the men which went up, according to their families among their tribes, after their several heads. (5) The priests, the sons of Phinees, the son of Aaron: Jesus, the son of Josedec, the son of Saraias, and Joacim, the son of Zerobabel, the son of Salathiel, of the house of David, out of the kindred of Phares, of the tribe of Judah; (6) who spake wise sentences before Darius the king of Persia in the second year of his reign in the month Nisan which is the first month.’ The name Darius being taken as an error for Cyrus, and Ezra 1:5-6 being considered to be an interpolation, the passage would give us information as to (a) the orderly preparations, (b) the armed escort, for the expedition, (c) the festal character of the start, (d) the date of the departure, and would throw light upon ‘the seventh month’ mentioned in Ezra 3:1, and ‘the second year’ mentioned in Ezra 3:8.

The general style fairly corresponds with that of the books Ezra and Chronicles. But (a) it cannot be conceded that these verses join naturally on to chap. Ezra 2:1. (b) In the original context (1 Esdras 5) they have all the appearance of a gloss inserted to connect the legend of Darius and the Three young men (3, 4) with the resumption of the narrative (Ezra 5:7). (c) There is nothing impossible, supposing the passage to be a genuine extract from existing records, in such an expedition having been made in the second year of king Darius, and in supposing that the arrival of this priestly contingent would have encouraged the prophets Haggai and Zechariah in their task of arousing the people to complete the Temple (cf. the second year of Darius Haggai 1:1; Zechariah 1:1).

The journey, which would have probably been N. and N.W. along the Euphrates by Haran as far as the fords of Carchemish, and then S.W. and S. through the territory of the old kingdoms of Hamath, Syria and Samaria, must have occupied a considerable interval of time. Ezra and his band took four months (ch. Ezra 7:8-9) in accomplishing the same distance. Perhaps no record was preserved of the incidents of the journey, and the compiler passes on to subjects for which he had written materials to draw from.