Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Ezra 4:7
And in the days of Artaxerxes wrote Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of their companions, unto Artaxerxes king of Persia; and the writing of the letter [was] written in the Syrian tongue, and interpreted in the Syrian tongue.
7. And in the days of Artaxerxes ] Artaxerxes Longimanus succeeded his father Xerxes and reigned forty years (465 425). He is mentioned in Ezr 7:1; Neh 2:1.
The name in the inscriptions appears as Artakshathra, compounded of ‘Arta’ meaning ‘great’ (cf. Arta-phernes, Arta-bazus) and ‘Khsathra’ ‘kingdom’.
The view which identifies this Artaxerxes with Pseudo-Smerdis or Gomates, the usurper of the Persian crown on the death of Cambyses, is discussed in the Note on the whole section appended to Ezr 4:23.
wrote Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of their companions ] It has been very commonly supposed that this verse introduces the letter which is so fully described in Ezr 4:8-10, and is therefore to be explained in close connexion with Ezr 4:8. According to this view ‘Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel and the rest of their companions’ are the Samaritans who originate the accusation of the Jews before Artaxerxes, while Rehum, Shimshai &c. (Ezr 4:8-9) are assumed to be the Persian officials of the Province, induced by the bribes or misrepresentations of the Samaritan community to forward to the king in writing their formal complaint against the Jews. Furthermore, as the letter is said to have been written in Aramaic, and we pass immediately from Hebrew into Aramaic, this in itself would be a reason for supposing that Ezr 4:8 &c. described more fully in detail the writing mentioned in Ezr 4:7. But ( a) this theory fails to account for the abruptness of style and the want of connexion between Ezr 4:7-8, which is evident even in the English version; ( b) the bare statement of Ezr 4:7 that Bishlam and his companions ‘wrote to Artaxerxes’, and of Ezr 4:8 that Rehum and Shimshai also wrote to Artaxerxes, can only by a process of imagination be transformed into private Samaritan information imparted to the Persian officials and then lodged by them before the king in the shape of a departmental complaint; ( c) the theory does not explain why the Hebrew is not resumed after the conclusion of the letters (Ezr 4:17; Ezr 4:21). The version preserved in 1Es 2:16 cuts the knot by freely fusing the two verses together ‘But in the time of Artaxerxes king of the Persians, Belemus, and Mithridates, and Tabellius, and Rathumus, and Beeltethumus, and Semellius the secretary, with others that were in commission with them, dwelling in Samaria and other places, wrote unto him against them that dwelt in Judea and Jerusalem these letters following’.
It seems preferable to ascribe the disjointed character of these Ezr 4:6-8 to the roughness of the Compiler’s work, and to suppose that each of these three verses presents us with a separate instance of Samaritan opposition in which the Samaritans ‘wrote’ an indictment against the Jews. Having mentioned what took place in the reign of Xerxes (Ezr 4:6), the Compiler goes on to state that there were two such written accusations in the days of Artaxerxes. The first he says was written by Bishlam &c., the second by Rehum &c. In his mention of the first letter, he either condenses the full document into a brief notice or was only able to discover a short statement in the public chronicles. In his mention of the second, he is able to lay the document before his readers, obtaining it from an Aramaic chronicle, from which he makes a long extract and introduces it without further preface.
This explanation accounts for ( a) the abrupt transition from Ezr 4:7 to Ezr 4:8, ( b) the mention in both verses of a letter written to Artaxerxes, ( c) the continuance of the Aramaic language in the narrative, e.g. Ezr 5:17, Ezr 6:18.
Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel ] Names of foreign colonists, ‘Bishlam’ the LXX. renders ‘in peace’ ( ) as if not a proper name. On ‘Mithredath’ see note chap. Ezr 1:8. ‘Tabeel’ perhaps a Syrian name; cf. the name Tabeal (Isa 7:6), or a Persian (cf. Tabalus, Herod. I. 153).
the letter ] The Hebrew has here (cf. Ezr 4:18; Ezr 4:23) made use of a Persian word, which completely mystified the Versions. The LXX. renders it ‘the tax-collector’ ( ), the Vulgate ‘accusationis’. It is pronounced ‘nisht’ewn’ and is compared with a modern Persian ‘nuwischten’ to write. Perhaps the word occurred in the records from which the Compiler obtained his information as to the letter.
was written in the Syrian tongue, and interpreted in the Syrian tongue ] R.V. ‘ was written In the Syrian character, and set forth in the Syrian tongue’, margin ‘ Or Aramaic ’ for ‘Syrian’. This is all we hear about the letter. What occasioned its composition and how it was received we do not know.
We gather from this verse that in the days of Artaxerxes the official correspondence of the Syrian province or satrapy was conducted in Aramaic. This indeed, had been the language of diplomatic communication in the days of the Assyrian monarchy (2Ki 18:26; Isa 36:11). As the language of diplomacy and commerce among the races of Western Asia, it held its own with Greek and was only finally displaced in a much later time by the diffusion of Arabic, which followed upon the successes of the Mahommedans (see Introduction on ‘the Aramaic language’). The strange thing is that its use should have been made the subject of special remark in this verse. But probably the point to which attention is drawn, is the fact of the letter being written in Aramaic characters as well as expressed in the Aramaic tongue. The early Aramaic Alphabet probably differed considerably from the early Hebrew. The mention of the Aramaic characters is perhaps adduced as a proof that the Compiler had either seen the actual letter or obtained the account from a source which mentioned this point particularly. The verse shows conclusively that Aramaic was not yet the language of the Jewish people.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Note on Ezr 4:7-23
The names of the Persian kings which occur in this chapter occasion special difficulty. Upon their right identification necessarily depends our understanding of the whole passage.
( a) The Persian kings succeed one another in the following order: (1) Cyrus (died, 529); (2) Cambyses, 529 522; (3) Gomates or Pseudo-Smerdis, 522; (4) Darius Hystaspes, 522 485; (5) Xerxes, 485 465; (6) Artaxerxes I. Longimanus, 465 425; (7, 8) Xerxes II. and Sogdianus; (9) Darius II. Nothus, 424 395, &c.
( b) In chap. Ezr 4:5 we learn that the work of building the Temple was frustrated by the Samaritans “all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius king of Persia.’ Again in Ezr 4:24 (the work) ‘ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia’. The work therefore was frustrated more or less (Ezr 5:16) between the years 536 520.
( c) In Ezr 4:6 is mentioned a letter of opposition to the Jews written ‘in the reign of Ahasuerus’; in Ezr 4:7 a letter to the same purport ‘in the days of Artaxerxes’; in Ezr 4:7; Ezr 4:9 another letter to Artaxerxes with Artaxerxes’ reply.
( d) The name Ahasuerus (Heb. Akhashvrosh) is admitted to be the same as Xerxes (Khshyarsha). It appears throughout the book Esther as well as in this verse (Ezr 4:6). The name in Hebrew Arta-khshasta (Ezr 4:7-8, Ezr 6:14, Ezr 7:1; Ezr 7:11; Ezr 7:21; Neh 2:1; Neh 5:14; Neh 13:6) is clearly the name Artaxerxes.
( e) The question then arises how the names Xerxes and Artaxerxes occur in this passage, on either side of which stands the mention of the work of the Temple being stopped until the reign of Darius king of Persia; for that this Darius is Darius Hystaspes (521 485) and not Darius Nothus (424) is shown by the whole context and by chap. Ezr 5:1-5.
Only two answers to this question need come under discussion here.
(i) According to one view, the chronological sequence of the chapter is maintained. Ezr 4:5 is considered to be a brief compendium of the Samaritan opposition, which is then described in greater detail (6 23). The names Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes are assigned to the two kings Cambyses and Pseudo-Smerdis, who reigned between Cyrus and Darius. The advantage of this theory is obvious. The narrative flows smoothly on. The events of Ezr 4:6-23 amplify the statement of Ezr 4:5, and belong to the short period 529 521.
The objections that are presented ( a) by the interchange of the names, ( b) by the mention, in the letter, of the building of the city walls (Ezr 4:12; Ezr 4:16), rather than of the Temple, on which the Jews were at work (Ezr 4:1; Ezr 4:4; Ezr 4:14), have been met in the following way. ( a) It is said that the names Xerxes and Artaxerxes are appellatives, like Pharaoh and Csar, which could be applied to any Persian monarch, e.g. Cambyses is called Artaxerxes by Josephus ( Ant. ix. 2. 1). Furthermore it is argued that the Pseudo-Smerdis appears in history under several different names. ( b) It is supposed that the Samaritans would represent the Jewish undertaking in the most hostile light, as aggressive fortification rather than Temple building; and it must be remembered that the outer walls and outworks of the Temple were always the strongest fortifications in the city.
On the other hand it seems fatal to this view that even if Xerxes and Artaxerxes are dynastic titles and not strictly names, no well-attested evidence is forthcoming of their promiscuous application. Josephus’ history of this period is notoriously imperfect and inaccurate, and he, it is to be noted, calls Cambyses, Artaxerxes, although the defenders of this view hold that Cambyses is called Xerxes and Pseudo-Smerdis Artaxerxes. It is surely rather unfortunate, to say the least, that supposing the names to be interchangeable, the interchange is not found elsewhere, and cannot even be proved from Josephus, whose evidence is chiefly relied upon. But the fact is that neither the testimony of Josephus nor, we may add, of Jewish tradition can be relied on for this period of history. The Jewish tradition appended to Nehemiah in the Masoretic note gives ‘the years from the 1st year of Cyrus king of the Persians to the 32nd year of Artaxerxes the king,’ (i.e. from 538 433) as fifty-one: while Hebrew commentary gives the Persian kings as Darius the Mede (1 year), Cyrus his son (2 years), Ahasuerus (14 years), Cyrus his son called Artaxerxes (32 years). Nor is it more satisfactory to see how the Pseudo-Smerdis is identified with Artaxerxes. Gomates or the Pseudo-Smerdis, it is said, appears under very different names, e.g. Mardus in Aeschylus ( Pers. 771), Smerdis in Herodotus, Speudadates in Ctesias, and hence, why not as Artaxerxes here? But the very fact that he is called by so many different names, and never once Artaxerxes, is not favourable to the identification. Again, the argument that Pseudo-Smerdis being a Magian would heartily oppose the building of the Temple is strangely at variance with the omission in the letters of any reference to the Temple. It is equally at variance with the other contention, that the Temple building is not referred to because the mention of fortified walls would be more likely to arouse the king’s indignation than that of sacred buildings. If further proof were needed of the improbability that ‘Artaxerxes’ is Pseudo-Smerdis, it would seem to be supplied by a recollection of the troubled time that followed upon the death of Cambyses. Pseudo-Smerdis’ 7 months’ reign was spent in the midst of suspicion, disquiet, and confusion. The hearing of petty complaints and the investigation of ancient chronicles is not what we should expect from a reign which had hardly ceased to be the work of usurpation when it had begun to close in ignominy. The Samaritans were not likely to imperil their cause by approaching, in a time of confusion, a sovereign of doubtful claims whose acts would inevitably be reversed by any successful rival.
But apart from the consideration of its details, the crowning condemnation of this view is to be found in its main hypothesis, that Xerxes and Artaxerxes do not here mean the kings generally known as Xerxes and Artaxerxes but two other kings, the mention of whose names would remove a difficulty from the passage.
(ii) The other view requires us to admit the presence of an interruption in the chronological sequence of the book. Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes are the Xerxes and Artaxerxes (Longimanus) familiar to us under those names. Ezr 4:6-23 do not expand the substance of Ezr 4:5, but they continue the historical treatment of its subject. That subject is the opposition of the Samaritans; and it is shown how their opposition displayed itself in the reigns of Xerxes and Artaxerxes.
The introduction of the times of Xerxes and Artaxerxes into this chapter interrupts, we must admit, the thread of the narrative. The passage, Ezr 4:8-23, is inserted by the Compiler at this point because he imagined it related to the building of the Temple. The names of the kings did not suggest to him his error. Whether this should be charged to mere inadvertency, or to ignorance of the Persian history, we cannot say.
The tone of the letters fully bears out this supposition. There is no allusion to the Temple. The Temple had been erected many years ago. The complaint is made that the people are fortifying the city. Such a complaint, made to the Persian king after the war with Greece, with reference to a city only a day’s march from the coast, had more significance than it could have had in the preceding century. It demanded serious consideration. The description in Neh 1:3 of the condition of the city walls and gates seems to imply devastation more recent than that of the Babylonians 140 years previously. The violent measures of the Samaritans which ‘by force and power’ compelled the Jews to desist from their work may well account for this description. The intercession of Nehemiah procured the favour of ‘the decree’ which the king had declared to be necessary before any building was resumed (Ezr 4:21).
Such an explanation fairly accounts for the presence of the names Xerxes and Artaxerxes. The internal evidence of the passage corresponds with it happily. The insertion of these ‘anticipatory’ fragments seems to us undoubtedly harsh. But it is very questionable whether in a work of such composite character it is not more natural to find occasionally an instance of harshness or inartistic arrangement due to compilation, than everywhere the smooth orderliness of th skilful modern historian.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Artaxerxes – Gomates, the Pseudo-Smerdis. He succeeded Cambyses (521 B.C.), and reigned for seven months, when he was deposed and executed by Darius Hystaspis.
Written in the Syrian tongue … – Or, written in Syriac characters and translated into Syriac. On the use of this tongue as a medium of communication between the Jews and their Eastern neighbors, see 2Ki 18:26 note.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 7. In the days of Artaxerxes] After the death of Cambyses, one of the Magi named Oropaestus by Trogus Pompeius, Smerdis by Herodotus, Mardus by AEschylus, and Sphendatates by Ctesias, usurped the empire, feigning himself to be Smerdis, the brother of Cambyses, who had been put to death. This is the person named Artaxerxes in the text: or, following the Hebrew, Artachshasta. It is generally believed, that from the time of Cyrus the great, Xerxes and Artaxerxes were names assumed by the Persian sovereigns, whatever their names had been before.
Written in the Syrian tongue] That is, the Syrian or Chaldean character was used; not the Hebrew.
Interpreted, in the Syrian tongue.] That is, the language, as well as the character, was the Syriac or Chaldaic.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
In the days of Artaxerxes; either,
1. Artaxerxes the son of Xerxes. Or,
2. Smerdis the magician. Or rather,
3. The same Cambyses, called by his Chaldee name Ahasuems, Ezr 4:6, and here by his Persian name Artaxerxes; by which name he is here called in the inscription of this letter, because so he was called by himself and others in the letters written either by him or to him. Interpreted, or exposed, or declared. The sense is, It was written in the Chaldee or Syrian language, and in the Syrian character; for sometimes the Chaldee or Syrian words are written in the Hebrew character, as Hebrew words are oft written in an English character.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
7. in the days of Artaxerxes wroteBishlam, c.The three officers named are supposed to have beendeputy governors appointed by the king of Persia over all theprovinces subject to his empire west of the Euphrates.
the Syrian tongueorAraman language, called sometimes in our version, Chaldee. This wasmade use of by the Persians in their decrees and communicationsrelative to the Jews (compare 2Ki 18:26Isa 36:11). The object of theirletter was to press upon the royal notice the inexpediency and dangerof rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem. They labored hard to prejudicethe king’s mind against that measure.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And in the days of Artaxerxes,…. The same with Ahasuerus, in the preceding verse; and who also is Cambyses, which is his name in Heathen authors, Artaxerxes being a common name to the kings of Persia; though some f think this was Smerdis, the magician and impostor, who was between Cambyses and Darius; but as he reigned but seven months, it is not very likely that he should be wrote unto, and an answer received from him; besides he sent to every nation he ruled over g, and so to the Jews, and proclaimed to them freedom from tribute and the militia for three years, to ingratiate himself to them:
wrote Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of their companions; or his company; for Jarchi thinks only one person is meant; that Mithredath Tabeel is the name of one of the adversaries of Judah; and that Bishlam is an appellative, and signifies that he wrote in peace, or in a way of salutation and greeting; but they seem to be the names of governors in the cities of Samaria under the king of Persia: these wrote
to Artaxerxes king of Persia; instigated by the Samaritans:
and the writing of the letter was written in the Syrian tongue, and interpreted in the Syrian tongue; or Chaldee, of which Ezra gives a copy in the Chaldee language; the meaning either is, that it was written both in Syriac letters, and in the Syriac language; for sometimes words are written in one language and in the character of another, as the Syriac is sometimes written in, Hebrew characters, and the Hebrew in Roman; or else there was a postscript added to this letter, explaining some things in it, which also was written in the same language: some take h the word “nishtevan”, rendered “written”, to be the name of a province on the borders of the country beyond Euphrates, whose figure and characters were in high esteem, and fit to write in to kings; but the words and language were Syrian, and needed interpretation.
f Prideaux’s Connect. par. 1. p. 175. Authors of the Universal History, vol. 5. p. 199, 203. So Vitringa, Hypotypos. Hist. Sacr. p. 108. g Herodot. Thalia, sive, l. 3. c. 67. Justin. l. 1. c. 9. h Praefat. Arugas Habbosem apud Buxtorf. de liter. Heb. add.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
(7) In the days of Artaxerxes.This must be Gomates, the Magian priest who personated Smerdis, the dead son of Cyrus, and reigned only seven months: note that the expression used is days, and not reign as in the previous verse. This Artaxerxes has been thought by many commentators to be the Longimanus of the sequel of this book and of Nehemiah, and they have identified the Ahasuerus of Ezra and Esther with Xerxes. This would explain the reference to the walls in Ezr. 4:12; but in Ezr. 4:23-24 the sequence of events is strict, and the word ceased links the parts of the narrative into unity. Moreover, the Persian princes had often more than one name. At the same time, there is nothing to make such an anticipatory and parenthetical insertion impossible.
In the Syrian tongue.The characters and the words were Syrian or Aramaic; this explains the transition to another language at this point,
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
7. Artaxerxes This king is to be identified with Smerdis the Magian, who, in the absence of Cambyses from the capital, and perhaps instigated by the reports of the king’s many tyrannical and brutal deeds, gave out that he was Smerdis the son of Cyrus, and took possession of the kingdom. He is called Gaumata in the Behistun inscription; Tanyoxares by Xenophon and Ctesias; and Oropastes by Justinus. Ewald thinks this latter name should be written Ortosastes, which would closely resemble Artaxerxes. This variety of names shows that no conclusive argument can be made against identifying Ahasuerus with Cambyses, (Ezr 4:6,) or Artaxerxes with Smerdis, solely from the difference in their names. The usurpation of the Magian seems to have been connected with an effort to overthrow the Zoroastrian religion in the Persian empire, and establish Magianism in its place. The Behistun inscription says that Smerdis destroyed the temples of worship in the land. But the usurper was assassinated after a reign of seven months, and Darius Hystaspes gained the throne, and restored the ancient religion of Ormazd. Rawlinson calls attention to the fact “that the only Persian king who is said to have interrupted the building of the temple is that Magian monarch, the pseudo-Smerdis, who was opposed to the pure Persian religion, and would therefore have been likely to reverse the religious policy of his predecessors. The Samaritans weakened the hands of Judah, and troubled them during the reigns of Cyrus and Cambyses; but it was not till the letter of the pseudo-Smerdis was received that the work of the house of God ceased. The same prince, that is, who is stated in the inscriptions to have changed the religion of Persia, appears in Ezra as the opponent of a religious work which Cyrus had encouraged, and Cambyses had allowed to be carried on.” Hist. Ev., p. 148.
Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel These, with the rest of their companions, were the “counsellors” (Ezr 4:5) whom the Samaritans hired to work with the Persian officers named in the next verse. They were probably persons that stood high in the community, possibly holding offices of some kind among the nations mentioned in Ezr 4:9. These counsellors wrote the document which follows, (Ezr 4:8-16,) that is, they drew up or prepared the letter for the Persian officers to sign and send unto Artaxerxes king of Persia. From the statement which follows, that the epistle was written in the Syrian tongue, and interpreted in the Syrian tongue, we may infer that these counsellors first prepared it in a Palestinean dialect, that was commonly spoken among the colonists of Samaria, and the Persian officers mentioned in the next verse translated it into Syriac or Aramaean. The Syrian tongue here mentioned, and of which the following letter is a specimen, was the language current at the time of this writing in Syria, Mesopotamia, and Chaldea, and is more properly called Aramaean, ( ). It is commonly called Chaldee, and often distinguished from the Western-Aramaean, or more modern Syriac, and was the language of Babylonia at the time of the exile. During their exile the Jews acquired this language, and gradually lost the use of the ancient Hebrew, so that upon their return they transplanted this language to Palestine, and subsequently used it as their common tongue. The mass of the people who returned from exile were not able to understand the language in which the law was written, but required to have it explained to them, Neh 8:8; and for the same reason the Targums, or Chaldee paraphrases of the Hebrew Scriptures, were written. There seems to be a sort of confusion and tautology in the statement that it was “written and interpreted” in this Aramaean language. The words are usually explained as meaning that the writing was both in the Aramaean characters and also in the Aramaean language. But the Hebrew word for interpreted is , and properly means translated. From the same root comes the word Targum, the common name of the Chaldee translations of the Old Testament. So the apparently superfluous addition, translated into Aramaean, is, perhaps, best explained as a repetition designed to emphasize the fact that the epistle was not originally drawn up in Aramaean, but translated into that language before it was sent to the king. Hence it is seen how Bishlam and his companions wrote the letter which it seems the chancellor and scribe also wrote. The former wrote it in their common dialect, the latter translated it into Aramaean.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
EXPOSITION
Ezr 4:7
And in the days of Artaxerxes. See the comment on Ezr 4:6. If Artaxerxes be the Pseudo-Smerdis, we can readily understand why an application was not made to him at once, and how it came about that the Jews recommenced their building, as they appear from Ezr 4:12, Ezr 4:13 to have done. The Pseudo-Smerdis was a usurper; his reign was a time of partial anarchy; in a distant part of the empire it would not be known for a while who was king. Men would be thrown on themselves, and would do as it seemed good in their own eyes. Later, there may have been some doubt whether a king, who was known to be a religious reformer, would follow the policy of his predecessor with respect to the Jews, or reverse it. Hence a delay, and then a more formal application than before for a positive decree to stop the building (see Ezr 4:21). The rest of their companions. Literally, of their companiesthe abstract for the concrete. The writing of the letter was written in the Syrian tongue. Rather, “in the Syrian fashion,” i.e. in Syriac characters. And interpreted in the Syrian tongue. Or “translated into the Syriac language.” The character and the words were alike Syriac. Ezra gives the letter in Chaldee.
Ezr 4:8
Rehum the chancellor. Literally, “the lord of judgment.” It may be conjectured that Rehum was the sub-satrap (, Xen.), of the province of Samaria. And Shimshai the scribe. Or “secretary.” Herodotus tells us that in every Persian province the governor had a secretary attached to him, who was appointed by the crown, and acted as a check upon his nominal master (Herod; 3:128). The position assigned to Shim-shai in this chapter (see especially Ezr 4:9, Ezr 4:17, Ezr 4:23) is such as might be expected under these circumstances.
Ezr 4:9
The Dinaites, etc. It is curious that the Samaritans, instead of using a general appellation, describe themselves under the names of the various nations and cities which had furnished the colonists of whom they were the descendants. It would seem that they were not yet, in the time of the Pseudo-Smerdis, amalgamated into a single people. From the list of names we may gather that the colonists of Esar-haddon’s time had been derived chiefly from Southern Babylonia and the adjacent regions of Susiana, Persia, and Elymais. The Babylonians, Susanchites, and Elamites speak for themselves, and require no explanation. The Archevites are the people of Ereeh or Orchoe (now Warka), a city to the south-east of Babylon. The Apharsites are no doubt Persians; the Dehavites, Dai or Dahae, a tribe located in Persia Proper (‘Herod.,’ 1:125). If uncertainty attaches to any of the names, it is to two onlythe Dinaites and the Tarpelites. Of these, the Dinaites are probably the people of Dayan, a country bordering on Cilicia, whose inhabitants are often mentioned by the Assyrian monarchs. The Tarpelites have been regarded as the people of Tripolis; but it is improbable that that city had as yet received its Greek name. Perhaps they are the Tuplai, or people of Tubal, mentioned in Scripture and the Assyrian inscriptions, the letter r being a euphonic addition, as in Darmesek for Dammesek sharbith for shebeth, and the like.
Ezr 4:10
The rest of the nations whom the great and noble Asnapper brought over. Nothing more is known of “the great and noble Asnapper,” who is here mentioned as bringing the colonists and setting them in the cities of Samaria. We must suppose him to have been an officer employed by Esar-haddon on this service. The name is Assyrian in form, and may have meant “Asshur pursues.” The rest that are on this side the river. Rather, “across the river.” As Romans in North Italy, writing to Rome, would have spoken of themselves as “Transpadani,” so Persian subjects, writing to Susa from the west of the Jordan, speak of theft country as “across the Jordan.” And at such a time. Rather, “and so forth.” This and the preceding verse set forth the address of Rehum’s letter. The whole address not being given, the writer ends with the phrase uk‘eneth, which means “and so forth,” or “et cetera” (comp. Ezr 7:12).
Ezr 4:11
This is the copy of the letter. The address having been given, the writer now proceeds to the contents of the letter. Thy servants the men on this side the river, etc. This was a sort of heading inside the lettera repetition in brief of the address.
Ezr 4:12
The Jews which came up from thee. i.e. from the central provincesfrom that part of the empire where thou dwellest. To us. To our part of the worldto Palestine. Are building the rebellious and the bad city. The ground of this accusation must be sought in the various revolts of the Jews from the Babylonians recorded in 2Ki 24:1-20; 2Ki 25:1-30. There had been one, or perhaps two, previous revolts from Assyria (2Ki 18:7; 2Ch 33:11); but of these the Samaritans probably knew nothing. They would, however, be likely to know that before Nebuchadnezzar took the extreme measure of removing the Jews from their own land to Babylon, they had rebelled against him three several timesonce under Jehoiakim (2Ki 24:1), once under his son Jehoiachin (2Ki 24:9, 2Ki 24:10), and once under Zedekiah, the last king (2Ki 24:20). Thus they had a basis of truth on which to ground their charge that Jerusalem was “the rebellious and the bad city.” And have set up the walls thereof. It appears very clearly from the book of Nehemiah that the walls of Jerusalem were not restored till his time, seventy-five years after this. The Samaritans, however, would naturally exaggerate, and call the rebuilding of the temple, and of a certain number of dwelling-houses, a fortifying of the place. The exaggeration, however, is not so great in the Chaldee text as in the Authorized Version. What is said seems to be, that “they are setting up the walls and joining the foundations.“ That the work was far from complete is admitted in the next verse. We may doubt whether it was really begun.
Ezr 4:13
Then will they not pay toll, tribute, and custom. This was plausible reasoning. In Greece, if a subject city set to work to fortify itself, rebellion was immediately anticipated, not unfairly. But the circumstances of the Persian empire were different. In the remoter parts of that empire the central government was weak, and disorders frequently occurred. A city might need fortifications to protect it against its immediate neighbours, when it had not the slightest intention of asserting independence. Judging from the later history, which shows no revolt of the Jews against Persia, we may say that the accusation now alleged was unfounded, though perhaps it was not made in bad faith. Toll, tribute, and custom represent the chief heads of Persian taxation, which, however, did not include “custom” in our sense of the word. The three terms used by the Samaritans really represent, respectively, “tribute,” or the money payment required from each province, “provision,” or the payment in kind equally required (Herod; 1.192; 3.91), and “toll,” or contributions from those who made use of the Persian highways. According to the Samaritans, none of these would be paid by the Jews if Jerusalem was once fortified. And so thou shalt endamage the revenue. The general meaning is given correctly enough by this rendering, but “revenue” is not expressly mentioned. Aphthom, the word so translated, means really “at length,” “at last.” Translate, “And so at last thou shalt endamage the kings.”
Ezr 4:14
We have maintenance from the king’s palace. The marginal rendering is better, and shows the true sense. “Eating a man’s salt” in the East is deriving one’s subsistence from him. The man who eats another’s salt is bound to look after his interests. It was not meet for us to see the king’s dishonour. Rather, “the king’s detriment or loss”it was not meet for us to stand by tamely and see the king stript of his due.
Ezr 4:15
That search may be made in the book of the records of thy fathers. It was the practice at the Persian court to register all important events in a book, which from time to time was read to the kings (Est 2:23; Est 6:1). The Samaritans suggest a consultation of this book, which would at any rate contain their own previous accusations against Jerusalem (supra, Ezr 4:5, Ezr 4:6), and might make some mention of the revolts from Babylon (see the comment on Ezr 4:12). For which cause was this city destroyed. This was the great fact on which the Samaritans relied. Nebuchadnezzar had only destroyed Jerusalem in consequence of repeated rebellions. True; but no sufficient indication that there would be revolt from Persia, which was anti-idolatrous, and had proved herself so true a friend to the Jews.
Ezr 4:16
Thou shalt have no portion on this side the river. It is not quite clear whether the river intended here and in Ezr 4:10 is the Euphrates or the Jordan. Generally in the Old Testament hannahar means the Euphrates, but the exaggeration is gross if that river was intended here. Only twice in their history had the Israelites advanced their frontier as far as that streamunder Solomon (1Ki 4:21) and under Menahem (2Ki 15:16); in their present depressed condition it was absurd to imagine that they could rival those early glories. But jealousy does not stop to weigh the reasonableness of its accusations.
HOMILETICS
Ezr 4:6-16
The work maligned.
Besides “hiring counsellors,” as mentioned in Ezr 4:5; or, it may be, in order to provide these counsellors with documents to present and act on; we are here told that the Samaritan “adversaries” sent various letters to the Persian kings against the temple builders at Jerusalem. One of these, sent to a king here styled Ahasuerus, is merely referred to as an “accusation.” Another and more successful one, sent “in the days of Artaxerxes,” is described at full length. With many commentators of note and of various schools (see Wordsworth, in loc.), we shall assume these two kings, notwithstanding the apparent diversity of their names, to be Cambyses and the Pseudo-Smerdis, the son and pretended son, and two next successors, of Cyrus. In any case the latter-named letter (verse 33), if not an exact copy, may be regarded as a fair sample, of what was sent. Looked at thus from the Jewish side of the question, it was a most formidable production:equally so whether we now consider, on the one hand, its writers; or, on the other hand, its contents.
I. THE WRITERS. Much of the importance of a letter turns, of course, on this point. Were they
(1) persons of note? It is evident that they were in this case. “Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel”(Ezr 4:7) were clearly well-known names at that time. No one then required to be told who they were. It is also evident that they were
(2) persons of much acuteness. They had their letter written in the Syrian or Aramaic language and characters, as being those used (Lange) in Western Persia in all official documents. Such a plan, of course, would give their letter all the better chance of perusal. Further, it was so contrived that some of those signing the letter should be
(3) men of rank. Every Persian governor (so Herodotus, quoted by Rawlinson) was accompanied to his province by a royal secretary, having an independent authority of his own. These correspond in this instance to the “chancellor” and the “scribe” who are described in Ezr 4:8 as writing the “letter against Jerusalem.” Bish-lam, etc; in all probability, were its concocters and framers; Rehum and Shimshai its official senders. Both sets appear also to have been
(4) men of much influence. Mention is made both of them and their “companions.“ They acted for others besides themselves; for others who could be named, but are not. At the same time, there were others named by them, as persons joining with them in sending this letter, whose names were such as to give it much additional weight. These were men, for example, who, in the matter of origin, represented very various cities, provinces, and races in the wide empire of Persia; such as ancient Erech (Gen 10:10), mighty Babylon, royal Susa, and others. Yet they were men, again, who, as to recent history and present position, represented only the province from which the letter came, having been brought long ago to where they were by the same kind of imperial authority as that to which they appealed (Ezr 4:10). All these things made them the right persons to address the ruler of the whole empire respecting a matter affecting the welfare of the whole empire, yet arising exclusively in that province of it in which they all dwelt. Not only so, these same individuals, as a matter of fact, represented the whole of that province. With the exception of those they wrote about, they were able to speak of themselves as all “the men on that side the river.” In a word, numbers, rank, influence, authority, character, origin, situationthe writers of the present letter had all these things on their side. It was, indeed, a great league; reminding us of what we read of in Psa 83:3-8, and Act 4:27, and (as something to happen hereafter) in Rev 20:7-9. In the presence of such a league the temple builders were like the two flocks described in 1Ki 20:27; or like the disciples when the Saviour said to them as in Mat 10:16.
II. THE CONTENTS of the letter. These also were very formidable, because both weighty and well put. They comprised
1. A severe accusation. The returned Jews were described as rebuilding a city always notorious for its evil nameJerusalem “the rebellious” (Mat 10:12). Such a charge no chief governor could afford to pass by. Such a charge, also, in this instance, had a very plausible look. Situated as the temple was, at the eastern edge of the city heights, the building of its foundation and enclosures (the real work of the men of Jerusalem) might easily be misrepresented as a “making ready” of the “walls” of the “city” itself.
2. A plain warning. “In the judgment of us who live on the spot, this thing is even worse than it seems. The building of this city means, in reality, the building of a fortress against the king; and that means, in turn, serious loss of revenue; for no taxes of any sort will that city pay, whether in money, or kind, or for using the highways.”
3. A skilful apology. Why do we refer at all to so unpleasant a contingency? Simply as a matter of duty, and because of our loyalty. Having eaten of the king’s salt (margin), being his dependents and subjects (possibly also his covenanted servants, 2Ch 13:5), we could not see even such possibility of hurt without speaking.
4. An appeal to history. Besides, the king can judge for himself on this subject. He has only to inquire for himself in the government records, and see what has always been said there about this city. Why, in fact, if not thus “rebellious,” was it ever destroyed?
5. An appeal to reason. If things be thus, what must be the consequencethe inevitable consequence of such a city being again established? Has our warning gone far enough, in reality? There will not only be rebellion here, but a rival sovereignty; not only some revenue, but a whole province, lost. Such, at any rate (so we assure the king), is our fear.
This subject illustrates
1. The perilous nature of Christian warfare. All the neighbours of the Jews were against them; all that could be urged was urged against them, and in the very best way. It would be difficult to improve the letter before us, considering the purpose in view. So many, so powerful, so subtle always are the enemies of the Church. (Comp. Mat 24:9; Luk 21:16, Luk 21:17; Act 28:22.) Consider also, in a different sphere, Job 1:9-11; Job 2:4-6; Rev 12:10; and the very meaning of the name Diabolus.
2. The secret of Christian vitality. How has the Church survived all this except by help from above? Could Jerusalem have survived this present league and letter if left to itself? Comp. “I have reserved to myself,” in Rom 11:4; 1Ki 19:18.
3. The proper direction of Christian trust. With such enemies, with such accusers, to whom must we look for defence? Not to other men, not to ourselves, but only to the appointed “Advocate, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1Jn 2:1). He is more than all that are against us (Num 14:9; Psa 27:1-3; Psa 118:6). Also, being our “propitiation” (1Jn 2:2), he can say more for us than they against us. (Comp. “I have prayed for thee,” in Luk 22:31, Luk 22:32; and see Rom 8:33, Rom 8:34; Heb 7:25.)
HOMILIES BY J.S. EXELL
Ezr 4:4-16
The world’s opposition to the Church.
We observe, in reference to the world’s opposition to the Church
I. THAT IT OFTEN SEEKS TO HINDER USEFUL ENTERPRISE, These Samaritans sought to “trouble them in building” (Ezr 4:4). As Israel was employed in rebuilding the ruined temple, so the Church is engaged in erecting a great spiritual temple; this noble enterprise is hindered by the varied enmity of the world. The moral building is hindered as well by the pleasures as by the enmity of men: how sinful to hinder the work of God.
II. THAT IT COMBINES A VARIED AGENCY.
1. Costly. “And hired counsellors against them” (Ezr 4:5). The world often expends much time and money in its opposition to the work of God; it always has “counsellors” ready to take its unprofitable pay. The Church opposes with the unsearchable riches of Christ.
2. Numerous. The enemies of the Church are legion; but more are for it than all that can be against it.
3. Competent. The men here named were capable of the most effective method of obtaining their end; the enemies of the Church are often socially great and mentally gifted. Learning is sometimes arrayed against the Church. But God hath chosen the weak things of the earth to confound the mighty.
4. Influential. These men have influence with the king, and stay the work of Israel. But a faithful Israel has power with God, and shall prevail. Strange are the intellectual and social elements allied against the Church.
III. THAT IT TAKES ADVANTAGE OF POLITICAL CHANGES. “And in the reign of Ahasuerus” (Ezr 4:6). During the former reign the Samaritan enmity did not obtain much favour; but it is more successful with the new king. This opposition is
1. Persistent. Kings may die, but it continues.
2. Vigilant. It is ever on the outlook for new opportunity.
3. Flattering. Thus it seeks to win its way with the new monarch. The Church must remember that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, to-day, and ever; his purpose standeth sure.
4. An appeal to self-interest. “En-damage the revenue of the kings” (Ezr 4:13).”
IV. THAT IT MAKES A CUNNING USE OF MISREPRESENTATION. “They will not pay toll” (Ezr 4:13). The worldly opposition represents the Church of God as injurious to the state.
1. Rebellious. “Building the rebellious” (Ezr 4:12). That the Church will obey God rather than the king; true if their laws come into collision; but are not Christians the most law-abiding subjects?
2. Defrauding. “They will not pay toll.” But does not the Church render unto God the things that are his, and to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s?
3. Hypocritical. They build not the walls of Jerusalem for God, but to shut out the king.
4. Wicked. They designate Jerusalem a “bad city.” Thus the world maligns the Church; it spoke evil of Christ; it will undervalue his followers.
V. THAT IT MAKES THE PRETENCE OF A DISINTERESTED MOTIVE. “It was not meet for us to see the king’s dishonour” (Ezr 4:14). The world will not allow that its opposition is angry or jealous. The most wicked plans seek the aid of righteous pleas. This opposition appears
1. Disinterested. It does not seek its own, but the king’s welfare.
2. Loyal. They had “the king’s maintenance,” and therefore inform the king of his peril.
3. Open. They will tell the king plainly of the matter, and he can decide. Thus would the world conceal its hatred to the Church.
VI. THAT IT PUTS A FALSE INTERPRETATION UPON NATIONAL HISTORY. “That search may be made in the book of the records of thy fathers” (Ezr 4:15).
1. The historical record. The history of the Church is blended with the history of the world; the Divine and human records move together.
2. The historical argument.
3. The historical perversion. History, rightly interpreted, is on the side of the Church.
4. The historical vindication. We justify Israel now and condemn the Samaritans; time will surely vindicate the Church.E.
HOMILIES BY W. CLARKSON
Ezr 4:6-24
Three thoughts from old documents.
The determined attempts made by the Samaritans to prevent the Jews from building the temple and the walls of Jerusalem are well illustrated in the correspondence between them and the king of Persia. Documents passed between the two of which we have the superscription and contents in these verses. They remind us
I. THAT MEN MAY TAKE AN IMMENSITY OF TROUBLE TO DO OTHER PEOPLE HARM AND MAKE THEMSELVES INFAMOUS. These men, “in the days of Artaxerxes” (Ezr 4:7), secured the sympathy and co-operation of the Persian “chancellor” and “scribe” (Ezr 4:8); also of their “companions,” various Persian colonists then living in Samaria (Ezr 4:9), with “the rest of the nations” whom “Asnapper brought over and set in their cities” (Ezr 4:10): with their aid and through their medium they gained access to King Artaxerxes, and induced him to listen to a long statement of complaint. They had a momentary success, as the king granted their prayer and arrested the work; but in the end their evil designs were defeated, and those against whom they plotted gained their end. All that these malignant Samaritans did was to annoy and delay without defeating their neighbours, while they have earned for themselves a most unenviable immortality. This document is only read now by those who will condemn their conduct. How often do we see men putting forth patient energy, expending great ingenuity and labour, to compass that in which it is best for them to fail, of which they will live to be ashamed. If there be a sense in which “all labour is profit” (Pro 14:23), it is also painfully true that thousands of men are laboriously engaged in doing work which will perish, and had better perish; in making a name and repute which they would be glad afterwards to hide. Well for those who are doing that which really serves, that which will stand, that for which other generations will not rebuke but bless them.
II. THAT A TIME OF SPECIAL ACTIVITY WILL PROBABLY PROVE A TIME OF UNUSUAL ENDURANCE (Ezr 4:12-16). The Jews at this time were actively engaged in buildingnot merely in erecting stone walls, but in rebuilding a nation, in relaying the foundations of the kingdom and cause of God. Thus employed, they found themselves exposed to bitter hostility and deadly machination. Their nearest neighbours were plotting against them; and now they were doing that which is always found very difficult to endurethey were misrepresenting and maligning them; they were reporting them to the king as a “rebellious and bad city” (Ezr 4:12), bent on refusing to “pay toll, tribute, and custom” (Ezr 4:13), “hurtful unto kings and provinces,” intending to break off their allegiance, so that the king “would have no portion on this side the river.” Though not incapable of turbulence, and not indisposed to throw off a foreign yoke when that should be possible, the Jews were not cherishing any purpose of this kind; they had been faithful subjects when in Persia, and they had honourable and loyal intentions now. This “accusation” (Ezr 4:6) was essentially false; it was a malignant misrepresentation. When men are actively engaged in building the kingdom of Christ, they may expect Samaritan misrepresentations. Things will be said-by the ill-disposed which, as here, may have a colouring of truth, but which are essentially false. We must not mind misrepresentation when we are doing earnest and faithful work. The very excellency of our effort will bring down the hatred and opposition of those who are enemies of the truth, and our work and ourselves will be slandered; we may find ourselves members of a “sect everywhere spoken against.” We shall not, then, forget who it was that was charged with sedition, and so far from being surprised that “the disciple is not above his master,” we shall rejoice that we are counted worthy to “partake of the sufferings of Christ.” No truly great work has ever been wrought which has not been covered at times with black clouds of misrepresentation.
III. THAT SELFISHNESS AND JUSTICE ARE SELDOM ASSOCIATED TOGETHER. The king listened to those who seemed so desirous of serving him; he was inclined to believe those that were anxious his “revenue should not be endamaged” (Ezr 4:13), who did not wish to “see the king’s dishonour” (Ezr 4:14), and who took measures that he should not lose his “portion on one side the river” (Ezr 4:16). And search being made, it was easy to find some incidents which might be construed in the sense of these complainants: the city “of old time had made insurrection,” etc. (Ezr 4:19); there had been “mighty kings” to whom “toll, tribute, and custom” had been paid, etc.there might be some possible danger too in the future; let the work cease for the present (Ezr 4:21), for “why should damage grow to the hurt of the kings?” (Ezr 4:22). Rather send bitter disappointment to the holiest hopes of a province than endanger the prosperity of kings. Thus does self-interest pervert justice. To save themselves from slight, remote, and contingent harm, men will cause much present and certain injury to their fellows. Selfishness is unfair and often cruel. To be true and just one must be disinterested.C.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
Ezr 4:7 And in the days of Artaxerxes wrote Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of their companions, unto Artaxerxes king of Persia; and the writing of the letter [was] written in the Syrian tongue, and interpreted in the Syrian tongue.
Ver. 7. And in the days of Artaxerxes ] This seems to be Cambyses’ Persian name, as Ahasuerus was his Chaldee name. It is as much as Bellator egregius, an excellent warrior. So Scipio was called Fulmen belli, the lightening bolt of war; Bajazet, the Great Turk, Gilderun, or lightning; Albert, Marquis of Brandenburg, was called Achilles Teutonicus (Bucholc.). Our Black Prince was so named, not of his colour, but of his courage, and of his dreaded acts in battle; for he assailed no nation which he overcame not, he besieged no city which he took not (Speed). Cambyses had great success in his wars, and added Egypt, and other countries, to the Persian monarchy.
Wrote Bishlam, Mithredath
Written in the Syrian tongue
And interpreted in the Syrian tongue
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Ezr 4:7-11 a
7And in the days of Artaxerxes, Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel and the rest of his colleagues wrote to Artaxerxes king of Persia; and the text of the letter was written in Aramaic and translated from Aramaic. 8Rehum the commander and Shimshai the scribe wrote a letter against Jerusalem to King Artaxerxes, as follows9then wrote Rehum the commander and Shimshai the scribe and the rest of their colleagues, the judges and the lesser governors, the officials, the secretaries, the men of Erech, the Babylonians, the men of Susa, that is, the Elamites, 10and the rest of the nations which the great and honorable Osnappar deported and settled in the city of Samaria, and in the rest of the region beyond the River. Now 11this is the copy of the letter which they sent to him:
Ezr 4:7 Artaxerxes, king of Persia Artaxerxes was the successor of Xerxes I and reigned from 464 to 423 B.C. It was during his reign that Ezra (Ezra 7-10) and Nehemiah (the book of Nehemiah) lived and worked.
Bishlam Most English translations consider this a proper name (BDB 133), but the NJB, NAB, and REV do not. The Septuagint understands the word as literally in peace, meaning in agreement with or with the approval of. The Anchor Bible, vol. 14, p. 32, says it means concerning Jerusalem or on the Jerusalem affair.
Midhredath See note at Ezr 1:8. This is a different person than the man by the same name in Babylon.
written in Aramaic and translated from Aramaic It must be remembered that the Persians spoke Persian, but used Aramaic as the official language of the empire because of the wide variety of languages in the ancient Near East. Aramaic is a Semitic language which was used by the Assyrians.
Ezr 4:8 Rehum the commander This would have been the highest ranking Persian official in this list who dictated the letter.
Shimshai the scribe We learn from Herodotus (Hist. 3.128) that each Persian satrap had a special scribe appointed by the Persian king to keep tabs on them.
wrote This begins the Aramaic section (cf. Ezr 4:8 through Ezr 6:18). Much of Ezra is made up of official documents translated into the text. I believe that there are three different letters referred to in this section. There is one in Ezr 4:6-8.
Ezr 4:9 their colleagues, the judges and the lesser governors, the officials, the secretaries These terms are all uncertain, but possibly relate to levels of governmental officials in Samaria or the Province Beyond the River.
It is possible that these are the personal names of people from the exiled people groups (from Erech, Babylon; from Susha, Elamites, cf. the Qere of the MT, also see Oxford Study Bible and Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 4, pp. 632-33 footnote #9).
The implication of the list is that everyone agreed with the accusations and complaints against the newly returned Jews.
the men of Erech Erech was a major city of the Sumerians (cf. Gen 10:10). The people of Samaria are describing themselves according to the geographical location from which they originally came. This is the first of a series of geographical groups which made up the returnees (cf. Ezr 4:10) to the Province Beyond the River (cf. Ezr 4:11 b).
Ezr 4:10 Osnappar This probably refers to Ashurbanipal, who was the son of Esarhaddon (681-609 B.C., cf. Ezr 4:2). He reigned from 669 to 627 B.C. This last great king of Assyria completed the deportations begun by his father. This may refer to the deportation of Shusha (Susa) in 645 B.C. to the area of Samaria.
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Artaxerxes = the great king. Used here of the Cyrus of Ezr 4:3. See App-57, and p. 618. Ezr 4:7-23 may also be retrospective of Neh 2:20 Neh 6:5,
companions = colleagues or associates.
the Syrian tongue: i.e. in Aramaic characters as well as in the Aramaic language. Compare Est 1:22; Est 8:9, where “writing” (Hebrew. kathab, to grave) is the same word as in this book.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Artaxerxes
The Artaxerxes of Ezr 4:7 is identical with Ahasuerus of Ezr 4:6, i.e. the Cambyses of profane history. The Artaxerxes of Ezr 7:1 is the Longimanus of secular history, BC 418. But (See Scofield “Dan 5:31”).
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
am 3482, bc 522
Artaxerxes: This Artaxerxes was one of the Magi, who usurped the throne after the death of Cambyses, for seven months, feigning himself to be Smerdis, brother of Cambyses: he is called Oropoestus by Justin, Smerdis by Herodotus, Mardus by AEschylus, and Sphendatates by Ctesias.
Bishlam: or, in peace
companions: Heb. societies, Ezr 4:9, Ezr 4:17, Ezr 5:6
the Syrian tongue: That is, probably, both the language and character were Syrian or Chaldaic; and therefore, from the Ezr 4:8, of this chapter, to Ezr 7:27, the original is not Hebrew, but Chaldee, in those parts which consist of letters, decrees, etc., originally written in that language. 2Ki 18:26, Isa 36:11, Dan 2:4
Reciprocal: 1Ki 21:8 – she wrote Ezr 8:36 – lieutenants Jer 29:25 – Because Oba 1:19 – the fields of Ephraim Zec 1:19 – scattered
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Ezr 4:7. In the days of Artaxerxes, &c. The sacred writer, having in the foregoing verse mentioned a stop being put to the building of the temple, till the reign of Darius, now proceeds to relate particularly how it was effected. By Artaxerxes here is probably meant the son of Cyrus, called Cambyses by heathen writers. Written in the Syrian tongue, and interpreted in the Syrian tongue That is, it was written both in the Syrian character, and the Syrian language: for sometimes the Chaldee or Syrian words were written in the Hebrew character.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
4:7 And in the days of {e} Artaxerxes wrote Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of their companions, unto Artaxerxes king of Persia; and the writing of the letter [was] written in the Syrian tongue, and interpreted in the Syrian tongue.
(e) Called Artaxerxes, which signifies in the Persian tongue an excellent warrior.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Opposition during Artaxerxes’ reign 4:7-23
Artaxerxes was the successor of Ahasuerus (Xerxes), who ruled the Persian Empire from 464 to 424 B.C. [Note: See William H. Shea, "Who Succeeded Xerxes on the Throne of Persia?" Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 12:1 (Spring 2001):83-88, who argued that Darius succeeded Xerxes.] Clearly the incident reported in these verses took place long after the temple was complete. It really involved the attempt by Israel’s enemies to halt the rebuilding of Jerusalem’s wall in the days of Nehemiah. It evidently took place about 446 B.C. (cf. Ezr 4:21-23; Neh 1:1-3). The writer’s purpose in inserting this incident in the text was evidently to show the continued antagonism of Israel’s enemies and the faithfulness of God in giving the Jews victory over them.
"Near Eastern kings used an elaborate system of informers and spies. Egyptian sources speak of the ’ears and eyes’ of the Pharaoh. Sargon II of Assyria had agents in Urartu whom he ordered, ’Write me whatever you see and hear.’ The efficient Persian intelligence system is described by Xenophon. [Note: Xenophon, Cyropaedia, 8:2:10-12.] The King’s Eye and the King’s Ear were two distinct officials who reported to the monarch. [Note: Cf. J. Balcer, "The Athenian Apiskopos and the Achaemenid ’King’s Eye,’" American Journal of Philology 98 (1977):252-63.] But God’s people could take assurance in their conviction that God’s intelligence system is not only more efficient than any king’s espionage network but is omniscient (cf. 2Ch 16:9; Zec 4:10)." [Note: Yamauchi, "Ezra-Nehemiah," p. 629. Cf. A. L. Oppenheim, "The Eyes of the Lord," Journal of the American Oriental Society 88 (1968):173-79.]
The antagonists enlisted the help of local Persian officials, including Rehum and Shimshai (Ezr 4:8), to appeal to Artaxerxes to issue an order stopping work on the walls. The letter was in Aramaic, the common language of the Persian Empire. This is the language in which it appears in the oldest Hebrew texts of Ezra. The writer evidently wrote all of Ezr 4:8 to Ezr 6:18 as well as Ezr 7:12-26 in Aramaic originally. The other Aramaic portions of the Old Testament are two words in Gen 31:47 (translated "the heap of witness"), Jer 10:11 (a divine announcement of the destruction of idols), and Dan 2:4 b to Dan 7:28 (which reports the words of Babylonian astrologers and following words addressed to the kings of the earth). Aramaic was a language well known to all the Jews living in the empire, as well as Gentiles. The writer may have written this entire section of the book in Aramaic to avoid changing back and forth from Hebrew to Aramaic so many times. [Note: Kidner, p. 136.]
"The end of Ezr 4:7 is literally ’and he wrote the letter written in Aramaic and translated in Aramaic.’ . . . This could mean that while the letter had been written in Aramaic, the author’s copy had been translated into Hebrew. [Note: Blenkinsopp, p. 112.] Since the actual letter is not given, however, it more likely would mean that although the letter had been written in Aramaic it was translated into Persian when it was read to the king." [Note: Breneman, p. 101.]
Osnappar (Ezr 4:10) is evidently an Aramaic form of Ashurbanipal (669-ca. 660 B.C.), the Assyrian king who succeeded Esarhaddon. [Note: A. R. Millard, "Assyrian Royal Names in Biblical Hebrew," Journal of Semitic Studies 21:1&2 (1976):11.] The phrase "beyond the river" (Ezr 4:10-11; Ezr 4:16-17; Ezr 4:20) refers to the Persian province that lay to the southwest of the upper Euphrates, namely, the one that encompassed Syria and Palestine.
The Jews mentioned in this letter (Ezr 4:12) would have been those who returned with Ezra in 458 B.C., the second group of Jews to leave Babylon. That group attempted to rebuild the walls of the city, having received permission from Artaxerxes in 458 B.C. to do so (Ezr 7:21).
Israel’s enemies presented three reasons Artaxerxes should withdraw the Jews’ building permit. They warned that the Jews would stop paying taxes when their fortifications were complete (Ezr 4:13), and the consequent decline in revenue would hurt the king’s reputation (Ezr 4:14). Moreover, if the Jews continued to rebuild a city that had a reputation for rebellion, their actions might encourage other peoples in other parts of the empire to revolt (Ezr 4:15-16).
"The historical justification for the claim that Jerusalem is a chronically rebellious city will have consisted in such events as Hezekiah’s withholding of tribute from Assyria (2Ki 18:7, ca. 724 B.C.) and Zedekiah’s abortive bid for freedom from the Babylonians, which led to the cataclysm of 587 (2Ki 24:20 ff.). The Assyrian and Babylonian annals were evidently available to the Persian kings. And it is clear that a nerve is touched." [Note: McConville, pp. 28-29.]
In his reply Artaxerxes explained that, having done some research, he had concluded that it seemed to be in his best interests to halt work temporarily. He put an order to stop work into effect only until he could determine a permanent solution to the problem (Ezr 4:21, "until . . ."). About two years later (444 B.C.), Artaxerxes released Nehemiah to go to Jerusalem to finish rebuilding the wall (Neh 2:8). Evidently the king had concluded that, all things considered, it was better to have Jerusalem defended than undefended.
When the Samaritans received Artaxerxes’ reply, they immediately forced the Jews to stop building the wall. They may even have destroyed part of the rebuilt wall and burned the gates (cf. Neh 1:3).
"This was a day of great shame to the Jewish population because their honest endeavor was thwarted by their archenemies, the Samaritans, and it was forced on them by Samaritan soldiers." [Note: Fensham, The Books . . ., p. 76.]