may be thus translated1: "And Ezra said unto the people, This passover is our Saviour and our Refuge; and, if ye shall understand and ponder it in your heart, that we are about to humble him in this sign, and afterwards shall believe on him, then this place shall not be made desolate for ever, saith the Lord of hosts. But, if ye will not believe on him, nor hear his preaching, ye shall be a laughingstock to the Gentiles." As this passage never existed in the Hebrew copies, and is not now to be found either in them or in any copies of the Septuagint version, it is the opinion of most critics that it originally crept into the Greek bibles from a marginal addition by some early Christian, rather than that it was expunged from the later copies by the Jews. SECTION IX. ON THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. I. Title and author.-II. Argument and synopsis of its contents. I. THE book of Nehemiah, we have already observed, is in some versions termed the second book of Ezra or Esdras, from an opinion which anciently obtained, and was adopted by Athanasius, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, and other eminent fathers of the church, that Ezra was the author of this book. In the modern Hebrew bibles it has the name of Nehemiah prefixed to it, which is also retained in our English bibles. The author of this book was not the Nehemiah who returned to Jerusalem from Babylon with Zerubbabel. [That Nehemiah, whose name this book bears, and who was cupbearer to Artaxerxes Longimanus, wrote the greater part of it, is beyond reasonable doubt. But, though some maintain that the whole was from his pen, there are serious objections to such a belief. The part, i. 1-vii. 5. is written in the first person, and by the general similarity of style, and the occurrence of favourite expressions (comp. ii. 8. with ii. 18.; ii. 12. with vii. 5.; ii. 19. with iii. 33. (E. V. iv. 1.); iii. 36. &c. (E. V. iv. 4. &c.) with v. 13.; v. 19. with vi. 14.), must be attributed to Nehemiah. And to this must be added the list, vii. 6-73., which he declares he found. After this there is a change; and, from viii-x. 39., Nehemiah seems to retire into the back-ground; and there are some diversities in the phraseology. Thus, instead of , governor, ii. 7, 9., iii. 7., v. 14, 15, 18., xii. 26., we find Tirshatha, viii. 9., x. 2. (E. v. i.). Keil alleges in reply that Nehemiah, being a civil officer, must necessarily give place to Ezra in the solemnization of ecclesiastical ministrations, and that, in the two places referred to, where he is called the Tirshatha, as he was per 1 Justin Martyr, Dial. cum Tryphone, pp. 292, 293. edit. by Thirlby, or pp. 169, 170. edit. Par. 1742. Mr. Whitaker, Origin of Arianism, p. 305, advocates its genuineness, and concludes that the passage in question originally stood in Ezra vi. 19-22., probably between the 20th and 21st verses. Dr. Grabe, Dr. Thirlby, and after them archbp. Magee, Disc. on Atonement, vol. i. p. 306. note, doubt its genuineness. Dr. A. Clarke is disposed to believe it authentic. Disc. on Eucharist, pp. 32, 33. * Keil, Einleitung, § 152. pp. 521, 522. forming official acts, he would naturally assume his special title as vice-gerent of the Persian king. But these reasons are not sufficient to account for the variation. It is further alleged that, in the section under consideration, the names of God, Jehovah, Adonai, Elohim, are promiscuously used, viii. 1, 6, 8, 9, 10, 14, 16, 18, &c.; while Elohim is generally employed by Nehemiah. In this, however, there is but little weight; for the other names are found in what Nehemiah wrote (i. 5, 11., iv. 14., v. 13.); and, besides, chaps. viii-x. describe solemn prayers, &c., in which special names of God might naturally be expected. It is a mere fancy to say that the divine names are differently used in the prayer of Nehemiah, chap. i., and in those of the Levites, chaps. viii. ix. A better argument is ,חֹרִים סְנָנִים that Nehemiah generally designates nobles or rulers as e. g. ii. 16., iv. 8, 13., v. 7, 17., vi. 17., vii. 5., xii. 40., xiii. 11., whereas these words do not appear in viii-x., but nia, the chief or heads of the fathers. Keil's reply here is not convincing, that, as the priests and Levites were spoken of, "the chief of the fathers" was the most appropriate phrase for the leaders of the people (comp. xii. 12, 23.). On the whole, the probability is that Nehemiah did not write this section; and not only does De Wette pronounce it an interpolation, but Hävernick also gives up its Nehemiah authorship, and ascribes it to Ezra, explaining on this ground the otherwise-somewhat-puzzling omission of Ezra's name in the list, chap. x.1 This last conjecture, however, is impugned by De Wette, who denies that either Ezra, or any contemporary of Nehemiah, could have written the section. Some of his arguments are baseless, as when he infers a contradiction between Ezra iii. 4. and Neh. viii. 17. interpreting the last-named verse to assert that the feast of tabernacles had never been observed at all since the days of Joshua; whereas the simple meaning of this text is that no feast of tabernacles had during the time been observed with so great solemnity. Just as well might it be concluded from 2 Kings xxiii. 22. that no passover had been kept from the days of the judges. That the feast of tabernacles had been observed is clear from Hos. xii. 9. The probability is that this section, though not written by Nehemiah, was yet the work of a contemporary, and formed a part of the materials from which the whole book was afterwards compiled. 2 Chap. xi. is connected with the first part of vii. 5.: it was most likely from Nehemiah's pen. The lists, xii. 1-26., must be from some later hand; as the succession of high priests is continued down to Jaddua, who was contemporary with Alexander the Great.3 Attempts have been made to prove the possibility of Nehemiah's having survived till Jaddua entered on his office; but no conclusion ought to be drawn from such very uncertain premises. The remainder of the book was written by Nehemiah, with perhaps the exception of xii. 44—47.; as xiii. 1. seems to connect itself closely with xii. 43. The books of Ezra and Nehemiah are supposed to have been Einleitung, § 187. II. i. pp. 305. &c. Einleitung, § 197. a. For a different judgment, see Keil, Einleitung, § 125. originally one, possibly a continuation of Chronicles. It is true that some late critics on various grounds oppose this conclusion; but their arguments cannot be here considered. Portions of both Ezra and Nehemiah were, as we have seen, the productions severally of those eminent persons; but a later writer must have put the books into the condition in which we have them; and there is no improbability in believing that he was the compiler of the books of Chronicles]. II. Nehemiah, according to some writers, was of the tribe of Levi, but, in the opinion of others, of the royal house of Judah: as the office he held in the Persian court (that of cup-bearer) was a post of great honour and influence, it is certain that he was a man of illustrious family; and of his integrity, prudence, and piety, the whole of this book presents abundant evidence. He arrived at Jerusalem thirteen years after Ezra, with the rank of governor of the province, and vested with full power and authority to encourage the re-building of the walls of that city, and to promote the welfare of his countrymen in every possible way. Having governed Judæa for twelve years (Neh. xiii. 6.), Nehemiah returned to his royal patron, but after a short time' he obtained permission to repair again to his country, where he is supposed to have spent the remainder of his life. His book may be conveniently divided into four parts; viz. PART I. The departure of Nehemiah from Shushan, with a royal commission to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, and his first arrival there (i. ii. 1-11.). PART II. Account of the building of the walls, notwithstanding the obstacles interposed by Sanballat (ii. 12—vii. 4.). PART III. The first reformation accomplished by Nehemiah; containing, 1. A register of the persons who had first returned from Babylon, and an account of the oblations at the temple (vii. 5-72.). 2. Account of the reading of the law, and the celebration of the feast of tabernacles (viii.). 3. A solemn fast and humiliation kept; and the renewal of the covenant of the Israelites with Jehovah (ix. x.). 4. List of those who dwelt at Jerusalem, and of other cities occupied by the Jews that returned; register and succession of the high priests, chief Levites, and principal singers (xi.-xii. 26.). The completion and dedication of the wall (xii. 27 - 47.). PART IV. The second reformation accomplished by Nehemiah on his second return to Jerusalem, and his correction of the abuses which had crept in during his absence (xiii.). In Nehemiah we have the shining character of an able governor, truly zealous for the good of his country and for the honour of his religion; who quitted a noble and gainful post in the greatest court in the world, generously spent the riches he had there acquired for the public benefit of his fellow-Israelites, and waded through ['The length of this time is doubtful. It could not have been more than nine years; as the permission appears to have been granted by Artaxerxes. His second administration was possibly ten years, till the end of the reign of Darius Nothus. See Hävernick, Einleitung, § 188. II. i. pp. 324, 325] inexpressible difficulties with a courage and spirit, which alone could, with the divine blessing, procure the safety and reform the manners of such an unhappy and unthoughtful nation. The administration of this pious and truly-patriotic governor lasted about thirtysix years, to the year of the world 3574, according to chronologers; but Dr. Prideaux has with more probability fixed it to the year 3595. The scripture history closes with the book of Nehemiah. some SECTION X. ON THE BOOK OF ESTHER. I. Title.-II. Author.-III. Argument. -IV. Synopsis of its contents. I. THIS book, which derives its name from the person whose history it chiefly relates, is by the Jews termed Megillah Esther, or the volume of Esther. Its authenticity was questioned by some of the fathers, in consequence of the name of God being omitted throughout2; but it has always been received as canonical by the Jews, who hold this book in the highest estimation, placing it on the same level with the law of Moses. They believe that, whatever destruction may attend the other sacred writings, the Pentateuch and the book of Esther will always be preserved by a special providence. II. Concerning the author of this book, the opinions of biblical critics are so greatly divided, that it is difficult to determine by whom it was written. Augustine and some of the fathers of the Christian church ascribe it to Ezra. By other writers it is ascribed to the joint labours of the great synagogue, who, from the time of Ezra to Simon the Just, superintended the edition and canon of Scripture. Philo the Jew assigns it to Joachin, the son of Joshua the high priest, who returned with Zerubbabel. Cellérier ascribes it to an unknown author, who was contemporary with the facts recorded in this book. Others think it was composed by Mordecai; and others, again, attribute it to Esther and Mordecai jointly. The two latter conjectures are grounded on the following declaration in Esther ix. 20, 23, 32.: And Mordecai wrote these things, and sent letters unto all the Jews that were in all the provinces of king Ahasuerus;... and the Jews undertook to do as they had began, and as Mordecai had written unto them. But the context of the passage clearly shows that these words do not relate to the book itself, but to the circular letters which Mordecai sent to the Jews in all the provinces of the Persian empire, announcing the mighty deliverance from their enemies which had been vouchsafed to them, and instituting a perpetual anniversary 'Pyle's Paraphrase on the Old Testament, vol. iv. p. 641. 2 On this account, De Wette, who objects to all the other books (of the Old Testament) their theocratico mythological spirit, condemns this for its want of religion! Prof. Turner's Translation of Jahn, p. 289. Such is the consistency of neologian critics Introduction à la Lecture des Livres Saints, Ancien Testament, p. 320. in commemoration of such deliverance.' [And v. 32. merely shows that the history was committed to writing.] The institution of this festival, and its continued observance to the present time, is a convincing evidence of the reality of the history of Esther, and of the genuineness of the book which bears her name; since it is impossible, and, in fact, inconceivable, that a nation should institute, and afterwards continue to celebrate (see 2 Macc. xv. 36.), through a long succession of ages, this solemn annual festival, merely because a certain man among them had written an agreeable fable or romance. [De Wette considers the language of this book as marked by Persisms and late forms. Of the former he produces from the first chapter 2, nobles, i. 3.; Dan, decree, i. 20.; of the latter, garden; in, palace, i. 5.; a, fine linen; , marble, i. 6.; 27, officers, i. 8.;, to command, i. 10, 17.; , crown, i. 11.; N, commandment, i. 15.; by in, please, i. 19.; 7, honour, i. 20. He refers also to explanations of Persian customs (i. 1, 13., viii. 8), and characterizes the book as exhibiting a revengeful spirit. These indications, he supposes, prove that it was written in Persia, after the decline of the monarchy, and, if not so late as the Ptolemies and Seleucidæ, at least considerably after the events narrated. These reasons, however, are not conclusive. That the book was composed by a resident in Persia may, indeed, be freely acknowledged, from the acquaintance evinced with Persian customs (i. 1, 10, 14, 19.; ii. 9.; iii. 7, 12, 15.; iv. 11.; viii. 8. &c. 14), without resorting to the additional reason which De Wette produces, and which is weak enough, that there is no expression of attachment to Palestine to be detected. Hence the Persisms. The examples adduced of late forms of speech do not prove that the composition was later than that of Ezra and Nehemiah. Thus, for, see Cant. vi. 11.; for †12, 2 Chron. v. 12.; for, Neh. xiii. 9.; for by ai, Neh. ii. 5. 7.; for , Psal. xlix. 13, 21 (12, 20.). The explanations, as they are called, of Persian customs tell little one way or another, and at all events might naturally be introduced into a work intended to be read elsewhere than within the boundaries of the empire. And, as to the asserted spirit of revenge, this is not in the writer, but in the persons whose deeds are chronicled. And, after all, the exhibition of a revengeful temper is little to be relied on in ascertaining the date of a composition. Revengeful tempers have been exhibited in all ages, as well as in the times of the Ptolemies, to which De Wette strangely supposes this feature to point. Another class of reasons, taken from the supposed decline of religion into formality, as an extraordinary reliance placed on fasting (iv. 16.), must be also rejected. There is nothing more attributed to fasting than in Judg. xx. 26.; 2 Sam. xii. 16, 17, 21, 22. In a case, therefore, where there can be no certainty, we shall perhaps not err greatly if we suppose this book written about the same time with those of Ezra and Nehemiah. The absence of God's name is a very remarkable feature in the For an account of this festival, called the feast of Purim, see Vol. III. pp. 346, 347. |