Miles de Libros Cristianos Gratis. Accede a nuestra Biblioteca Virtual

Nehemiah, Book of

Para un estudio avanzado de: “Nehemiah, Book of” utilice nuestra app.

Nehemiah, Book of

Also called the second Book of Esdras (Ezra), is reckoned both in the Talmud and in the early Christian Church, at least until the time of Origen, as forming one single book with Esdras, and St. Jerome in his preface (ad Dominionem et Rogatianum), following the example of the Jews, still continues to treat it as making one with the Book of Esdras. The union of the two in a single book doubtless has its origin in the fact that the documents of which the Books of Esdras and Nehemiah are composed, underwent compilation and redaction together at the hands probably, as most critics think, of the author of Paralipomenon about B.C. 300. The separation of the Book of Nehemiah from that of Esdras, preserved in our editions, may in its turn be justified by the consideration that the former relates in a distinct manner the work accomplished by Nehemiah, and is made up, at least in the great part, from the authentic memoirs of the principal figure. The book comprises three sections: Section I (Chapters 1-6); Section II (Chapters 7-13:3); Section III (Chapter 13:4 – Chapter 31). Sections I and III will be treated first, and section II, which raises special literary problems, will be discussed at the end.

SECTION I: CHAPTERS 1-6

(1) comprises the account, written by Nehemiah himself, of the restoration of the walls of Jerusalem. Already in the reign of Xerxes (B. C. 485-65), and especially during the first half of the reign of Artaxerxes I (B. C. 465-24), the Jews had attempted, but with only partial success, to rebuild the walls of their capital, a work, up to then, never sanctioned by the Persian kings (see Ezra 4:6-23). In consequence of the edict of Artaxerxes, given in I Esd., iv, 18-22, the enemies of the Jews at Jerusalem forcibly stopped the work (ibid., 23) and pulled down a part of what had already been accomplished.

(2) With these events the beginning of the Book of Nehemiah is connected. Nehemiah, the son of Helchias, relates how, at the court of Artaxerxes at Susa where he fulfilled the office of the king’s cup-bearer, he received the news of this calamity in the twentieth year of the king (Nehemiah 1), and how, thanks to his prudence, he succeeded in getting himself sent on a first mission to Jerusalem with full powers to rebuild the walls of the Jewish capital (Nehemiah 2:1-8). This first mission lasted twelve years (v, 14; xiii, 6); he had the title of Perah (v, 14; xii, 26) or Athersatha (viii, 9; x,1). It had long been the opinion of most historians of Israel that the Artaxerxes of Nehemiah was certainly the first of that name, and that consequently the first mission of Nehemiah fell in the year B. C. 445. The Aramaic papyri of Elephantine, recently published by Sachau, put this date beyond the shadow of a doubt. For in the letter which they wrote to Bahohim, Governor of Judea, in the seventeenth year of Darius II ( B. C. 408), the Jewish priests of Elephantine say that they have also made an application to the sons of Sanaballat at Samaria. Now Sanaballat was a contemporary of Nehemiah, and the Artaxerxes of Nehemiah, therefore, was the predecessor, and not the successor, of Darius II.

(3) On his arrival at Jerusalem, Nehemiah lost no time; he inspected the state of the walls, and then took measures and gave orders for taking the work in hand (ii, 9-18). Chapter iii, a document of the highest importance for determining the area of Jerusalem in the middle of the fifth century B.C., contains a description of the work, carried out at all points at once under the direction of the zealous Jewish governor. The high priest Eliasib is named first among the fellow workers of Nehemiah (iii, 1). To bring the undertaking to a successful termination the latter had to fight against all sorts of difficulties.

(4) First of all, the foreign element had great influence in Judea. The Jews who had returned from captivity almost a century before, had found the country partly occupied by people belonging to the neighbouring races, and being unable to organize themselves politically, had seen themselves reduced, little by little, to a humiliating position in their own land. And so, at the time of Nehemiah, we see certain foreigners taking an exceedingly arrogant attitude towards the Jewish governor and his work. Sanaballat the Horonite, chief of the Samaritans (iv, 1, 2), Tobias the Ammonite, Gossem the Arabian, claim to exercise constant control over Jewish affairs, and try by all means in their power, by calumny (ii, 19), scoffs (iv, 1 ff), threats of violence (iv, 7 ff), and craft (vi, 1 ff), to hinder Nehemiah’ work or ruin him. The reason of this was that the raising up again of the walls of Jerusalem was destined to bring about the overthrow of the moral domination, which for many years circumstances had secured for those foreigners.

(5) The cause of the foreigners was upheld by a party of Jews, traitors to their own nation. The prophet Noadias and other false prophets sought to terrify Nehemiah (vi, 14); there were some who, like Samaia, allowed themselves to be hired by Tobias and Sanaballat to set snares for him (vi, 10-14). Many Jews sided with Tobias on account of the matrimonial alliances existing between his family and certain Jewish families. Nehemiah, however, does not speak of the mixed marriages as if they had been actually forbidden. The father-in-law of Tobias’ son, Mosollam, the son of Barachias, on the contrary, was a fellow worker of Nehemiah (vi, 18; iii, 4). The law of Deuteronomy only forbade marriages between Jews and Chanaanites (Deut. vii, 1, 3).

(6) Difficulties of a social nature, the result of the selfish treatment of the poor by the rich, who misused the common distress for their own ends, likewise called for the energetic intervention of Nehemiah (v). On this occasion Nehemiah recalls the fact that previous governors had practised extortion, while he was the first to show himself disinterested in the discharge of his duties (v, 15 ff).

(7) In spite of all these difficulties the rebuilding of the wall made rapid progress. We learn from vii, 15 that the work was completely finished within fifty-one days. Josephus (Ant., V, 7, 8) says that it lasted two years and four months, but his testimony, often far from reliable, presents no plausible reason for setting aside the text. The relatively short duration of the work is explained, when we consider that Nehemiah had only to repair the damage wrought after the prohibition of Artaxerxes (Ezra 4:23), and finish off the construction, which might at that moment have been already far advanced [see above (1)].

SECTION III: CHAPTER 13:4 TO CHAPTER 31)

After the expiration of his first mission, Nehemiah had returned to Susa in the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes (B. C. 433; 13:6). Some time after, he was charged with a fresh mission to Judea, and it is with his doings during this second mission that xiii, 4-31 is concerned. The account at the beginning seems mutilated. Nehemiah relates how, at the time of his second arrival at Jerusalem, he began by putting an end to the abuses which Tobias, the Ammonite, supported by the high priest Eliasib, was practising in the temple in the matter of the depository for the sacred offerings (xiii, 4-9). He severely blames the violation of the right of the Levites in the distribution of the tithes, and takes measures to prevent its occurrence in future (xiii, 10-14); he insists on the Sabbath being strictly respected even by the foreign merchants (xiii, 15-22). Finally he dealt severely with the Jews who were guilty of marriages with strange wives, and banished a grandson of Eliasib who had married a daughter of Sanaballat (xiii, 23-28). To this son-in-law of Sanaballat is generally attributed the inauguration of the worship in the temple of Garizim. It is plain that Nehemiah’ attitude during his second mission with regard to mixed marriages differs greatly from his attitude at the beginning of his first stay in Jerusalem [see section I, (5)].

SECTION II: CHAPTERS 7 TO 13:3

(1) contains accounts or documents relating to the work of politico-social and religious organization effected by Nehemiah, after the walls were finished. Here we no longer have Nehemiah speaking in the first person, except in vii, 1-5, and in the account of the dedication of the walls (xii, 31, 37, 39). He relates how, after having rebuilt the walls, he had to proceed to erect houses, and take measures for bringing into the town a population more in proportion to its importance as the capital (vii, 1-5; cf. Ecclus., xlix, 15).

(2) He gives (vii, 5 ff.) the list of the families who had returned from captivity with Zorobabel. This list is in I Esd., ii. It is remarkable that in the Book of Nehemiah, following on the list we find reproduced (vii, 70 ff.) with variants, the remark of I Esd., ii, 68-70 about the gifts given towards the work of the temple by Zorobabel’s companions, and the settlement of these latter in the country; and again that Neh., viii, 1 resumes the narrative in the very words of I Esd., iii. This dependence is probably due to the redactor, who in this place gave a new form to the notes supplied him by the Jewish governor’s memoirs which also explains the latter’s being spoken of in the third person, Neh., viii, 9.

(3) There is a description of a great gathering held in the seventh month under the direction of Nehemiah (viii, 9-12) at which Esdras reads the Law (viii, 13). They then kept the Feast of Tabernacles (viii, 13-18). When this feast is over, the people gather together again on the twenty-fourth day of the seventh month (ix, 1 ff.) to praise God, confess their sins, and to bind themselves by a written covenant faithfully to observe their obligations. Chapter X after giving the list of the subscribers to the covenant, sets forth the obligations, which the people bind themselves to fulfil; in particular the prohibition of mixed marriages (verse 30); the keeping of the Sabbath, especially in their treatment of foreign merchants (verse 31), the yearly tribute of a third part of a sicle for the Temple (verse 32), and other measures to ensure the regular celebration of sacrifices (verses 33-34), the offering of the firstfruits and of the first born (verses 35-37), and the payment and the distribution of the tithes (verses 35-39). After chapter x it is advisable to read xii, 43-xiii, 1-3; the appointment of a commission for the administration of things brought to the Temple, and the expulsion of foreigners from among the community. Chapter xi, 1, 2, recalls the measures taken to people Jerusalem; verses 3-36 give the census of Jerusalem and of other towns as Nehemiah’ measures left it. In chapter xii, 27-43, we have the account of the solemn dedication of the walls of Jerusalem; Esdras the scribe is mentioned as being at the head of a group of singers (verse 35). The list in xii, 1-26, has no connexion whatever with the events of this epoch.

(4) The proceedings set forth in viii-x are closely connected with the other parts of the history of Nehemiah. The obligations imposed by the covenant, described in x, have to do with just the very matters with which Nehemiah concerned himself most during his second stay (see above, section III). The regulation concerning the providing of the wood for the altar (x, 34) is recalled by Nehemiah in xiii, 31, and the very words used in x, 39 (end of verse), we find again in xiii, 11. The covenant entered into by the people during Nehemiah’ first mission was broken in his absence. At the time of his second mission he put down the abuses with severity. For instance, the attitude he takes towards mixed marriages is quite different from his attitude at the beginning of his first stay [see above section I (5); section III]. This change is explained precisely by the absolute prohibition pronounced against these marriages in the assembly described in ix-x. The view has been put forward that viii-x gives an account of events belonging to the period of the organization of worship under Zorobabel, the names of Nehemiah (viii, 9; x, 1) and Esdras (viii, 1 ff.) having been added later. But there was certainly sufficient reason for the reorganization of worship in the time of Nehemiah (cf. the Book of Malachi and Nehemiah 13). Others on the contrary would regard Neh., viii-x, as the sequel to the narrative of I Esdras, ix-x, and they likewise hold that Nehemiah’ name has been interpolated in Neh., viii, 9, and x, 1. This theory is equally untenable. It is true that in the Third Book of Esdras (the Greek I Esdras) the narrative of Neh., viii, is reproduced immediately after that of Esdras, ix-x; but the author of the Third Book of Esdras was led to do this by the fact that Neh., viii, presents his hero as reader of the Law. He has moreover preserved (III Ezra 9:50) the information of Neh., viii, 9, about the intervention of the Athersatha (Nehemiah), Esdras’ superior, which clearly proves that this account does not refer to the epoch when Esdras had returned to Jerusalem entrusted by the king with full powers for the administration of the Jewish community. See, moreover, the following paragraph.

(5) according to our view the return of Esdras with his emigrants and the reform effected by him (Ezra 7-10) ought, chronologically, to be placed after the history of Nehemiah, and the Artaxerxes, in the seventh year of whose reign Esdras returned to Jerusalem, is Artaxerxes II (B. C. 405-358). As a matter of fact, Esdras finds the wall of Jerusalem rebuilt (Ezra 9:9), Jerusalem well populated (x, 1 ff.), the Temple treasure under proper management (viii, 29 ff.), Jonathan, son of Eliasib, high priest (10:6; cf. Nehemiah 12:23, Hebrew text), and the unlawfulness of mixed marriages recognized by every one (ix, 1 ff.). The radical reform, which Esdras introduced in this matter without being troubled by foreigners who still held the upper hand at the time of Nehemiah’ first coming, definitively put an end to the abuse in question which had proved rebellious to all preventive measures (x). The politics and social situation described in the first six chapters of Nehemiah [see above, section I (4), (5), (6)], the religious situation to which the proceedings of the gathering in Neh., x, bear witness [see above, section II (3)], do not admit of being explained as immediately following after the mission of Esdras, who particularly, in virtue of the king’s edict, disposed of very valuable resources for the celebration of worship (Ezra 7-8:25 ff.). Esdras is again entirely unnoticed in Neh., i-vi, and in the list of the subscribers to the covenant (x,1 ff.). He is mentioned in Neh., viii, 1 ff., and in xii, 35, as fulfilling subordinate functions. Considering the singular number of the verbs in Neh., viii, 9, 10, it is probable that in the former of these two verses “Esdras and the Levites” being named as part of the subject of the phrase is due to a later hand. At the epoch of Nehemiah, therefore, Esdras was at the beginning of his career, and must have gone a little later to Babylonia, whence he returned at the head of a band of emigrants n the seventh year of Artexerxes II (B. C. 398).

(6) Many critics have maintained that in Neh., viii, we have the history of the first promulgation of the “Priestly Code” by Esdras, but the narrative in question does not authorize such an interpretation. Esdras was probably still a very young man at this time, and all he does is to read the Law before the assembled people. It is quite true that in I Esd., vii, there is made mention in the royal edict of the Law of his God which Esdras has in mind (verse 14), but besides the fact that we hold the events related in I Esd., vii, to be posterior to Neh., viii [see above (5)], these words must not be understood literally of a new document of which Esdras was the bearer. In the same terms mention is made of the wisdom of his God which Esdras has in mind (verse 25), and in this same passage it is supposed that Esdras’ compatriots already know the Law of their God.

———————————–

A. VAN HOONACKER Transcribed by Sean Hyland

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XCopyright © 1911 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, October 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia

Nehemiah, Book Of

the latest of all the historical books of Scripture, both as to the time of its composition and the scope of its narrative in general, and as to the supplementary matter of chapter 12 in particular, which reaches down to the time of Alexander the Great.

1. Authorship. This book, which bears the title Nehemiah’s Words, was anciently connected with Ezra, as if it formed part of the same work (Eichhorn, Einleitung, 2:627). This connection is indicated by its first word, , “And it came to pass.” It arose, doubtless, from the fact that Nehemiah is a sort of continuation of Ezra (q.v.). Some ancient writers called this book the second Book of Ezra, and regarded that learned scribe as the author of it (Carpzov, Introductio, etc., page 336). There can, however, be no reasonable doubt that it proceeded from Nehemiah, for its style and spirit, except in one portion, are wholly unlike Ezra’s. Here we find no Chaldee documents, as in Ezra, though we might expect some from chapters 2, 7, 8, 9, and chapter 6:5; and here also the writer discovers a species of egotism never manifested by Ezra (Neh 5:14-19; Eichhorn, Einleitung ins A. Test. 2:619).

While the book as a whole is considered to have come from Nehemiah, it consists in part of compilation. He doubtless wrote the greater part himself, but some portions he evidently took from other works. It is allowed by all that he is, in the strictest sense, the author of the narrative from Nehemiah 1 to Neh 7:5 (Havernick, Einleitung, 2:304). The account in Neh 7:6-73 is avowedly compiled, for he says in Neh 7:5, “I found a register,” etc. This register we find also in Ezr 2:1-70, hence it might be thought that our author borrowed this part from Ezra; but it is more likely that they both copied from public documents, such as “the Book of the Chronicles” ( ), mentioned in Neh 12:23. Had Nehemiah taken his list from Ezra, we might expect agreement, if not identity, in the contents; but the two records vary much in details, and are only reconciled with difficulty. “The second part (chapters 8, 9, 10) is said to be marked by a strong Levitical or priestly bias, different from the tone of the rest of the book, whose interests all tend in the direction of civil society; also by different words and phrases, and by the use of the third person, instead of the first, when speaking of Nehemiah. Hence critics differ in their opinions, some ascribing these chapters to Ezra, some making them the composition of an unknown author in a later age. The third portion (chapters 9, 12, 13) is again pronounced to be the work of Nehemiah, though with certain additions, which (in the estimation of these critics) are seen to be excrescences, or which betray a different authorship, chiefly on account of chronological facts which are irreconcilable with the supposition that Nehemiah wrote them.

“The most of the supposed difficulties vanish, or rather give place to a conviction of the unity of the book, as soon as we take the proper position for looking at the events narrated, as they would appear to Nehemiah, the narrator of his own feelings and transactions. Such a person does not write exactly in the order of time; nor do events seem in the same proportion to each other in his eyes and in the eyes of many of his readers. This is notorious to every reader of memoirs and biographies, particularly autobiographies. If at times there be something peculiar in the arrangements of this book of Nehemiah, as we have indicated that there is also in Ezra, this ought to be admitted as a consequence of the writer’s own state of mind or circumstances. Certainly those who have written later than the date of these books of Ezra and Nehemiah, and have endeavored to arrange their details in a different order to suit their own purposes, have effected little as to the point of consecutiveness. This is seen in the case of the tolerably respectable compiler of the third Book of Esdras, which is preserved in the Apocrypha.

“On the other hand, the book appears from the course of the life of Nehemiah (see below) to be a continuous record, written in a lively, distinct, and energetic manner, such as is admitted, by every one to be very suitable to the circumstances in which it is said to have been composed. This is a fact which strikes us in reading all the accounts-the building of the ruins, the earlier and the later reforms, and the sacred services at the feast of tabernacles. Of course such different subjects are not described in the self-same words or style; and this diversity illustrates the working of Nehemiah’s mind as that of a man deeply interested in the affairs in which he took an active part. It is only a perverted ingenuity which would make these differences an evidence that chapters 8, 9, 10 have come from a different author. Those who wish to go into the particulars of a verbal criticism may find the materials in Keil’s Introduction to the Old Testament. He shows how the difference in the use of the names of God is suitable to the different circumstances in which they are used; how the language of the Levites in prayer is naturally more akin to the language of the law of Moses and of the Psalms than to that of plain history; how the expression, ‘the nobles and the rulers,’ which is frequent elsewhere, is wanting in this section; while instead of it we once meet with the Mosaic term, ‘chief of the fathers,’ or rather, ‘heads of the fathers’ houses’ (chapter 8:13); though he might have mentioned that still a different expression is found in this disputed section, and in a passage which is confessedly genuine (chapter 10:29, and 3:5); and that Ezra is not named among those who signed the covenant, because he acted the part of ‘mediator’ in the transaction, as Moses had done before. This pre-eminent position assigned to Ezra necessarily threw even Nehemiah somewhat into the background, and led him to speak of himself in the third person instead of in the first, as in the rest of his book. Indeed this was the more natural and more distinct, because the first person plural, ‘we,’ ‘our,’ is used throughout the account of the sealing (chapters 9, 10), which sufficiently marks the writer as an eye- witness and party in the transaction, yet one who wished not to appear singled out from his countrymen, except where this was unavoidable on account of his official capacity. When he does so mention himself it is with the addition, ‘the Tirshatha,’ a peculiar word, of uncertain origin and meaning, though unmistakably an attributive title of the governor. Perhaps he may have used this title rather than another, in these descriptions of ecclesiastical affairs, because of the title being given to Zerubbabel, the governor whom God had so greatly honored in the restoration of the church, while it occurs nowhere else.’

The mention of Jaddua as a high-priest (Neh 12:11; Neh 12:22) has occasioned much perplexity. This Jaddua appears to have been in office in B.C. 332, when Alexander the Great came to Jerusalem (Joseph. Ant. 11:8) how then could he be named by Nehemiah? Some (e.g. Vitringa, Rambach) suppose the: 10th and 11th verses to be a later addition, which seems to be the only reasonable solution; others (Havernick, Keil) endeavor to show that Nehemiah wrote it, supposing that he lived to be an old man, so as possibly to see the year B.C. 370; and that Jaddua had at that time entered on his office, so that he filled it for about forty years, i.e., till B.C. 332 (see especially Havernick’s Einleitung, 2:320-324). But this Davidson rightly thinks improbable (see Horne’s Introd. 2:694). Some finally resort to the belief that Jaddua is only mentioned here as having been born, but not as yet an incumbent of high-priesthood. It is difficult in that case to see why he is named at all, as the writer could not have foreseen that he would ever fill the office. SEE JADDUA.

A similar addition by a still later hand, probably some member of the so-called “Great Sanhedrim,” perhaps Simon the Just, its president, has evidently been made in the list of the Davidic line (1Ch 3:23-24), which comes down to the 3d century B.C. SEE GENEALOGY OF OUR LORD.

This leads to a presumption of an occasional interpolation of these few genealogical items, which (as in the case of the notice of the death of Moses in Deu 34:5-12) do not affect the general authorship of the book. SEE EZRA, BOOK OF.

2. As to the date of the book, it is not likely that it came from Nehemiah’s hand till near the close of his life. Certainly it could not have been all written before the expulsion of the priest recorded in chapters 13:23-29, which took place about the year B.C. 413.

3. The canonical character of Nehemiah’s work is established by very ancient testimony. It should be noticed, however, that this book is not expressly named by Melito of Sardis (A.D. 170) in his account of the sacred writings; but this creates no difficulty, since he does mention Ezra, of which Nehemiah was then considered but a part (Eichhorn, Einleitung, 2:627). Thus the Book of Nehemiah has always had an undisputed place in the Canon, being included by the Hebrews under the general head of the Book of Ezra, and as Jerome tells us in the Prolog. Gal. by the Greeks and Latins under the name of the second Book of Ezra. SEE ESDRAS, FIRST BOOK OF.

“There is no quotation from it in the N.T., and it has been comparatively neglected by both the Greek and Latin fathers, perhaps on account of its simple character, and the absence of anything supernatural, prophetical, or mystical in its contents. St. Jerome (ad Paulinam) does indeed suggest that the account of the building of the walls, and the return of the people, the description of the priests, Levites, Israelites, and proselytes, and the division of the labor among the different families, have a hidden meaning; and also hints that Nehemiah’s name; which he interprets consolator a Domino, points to a mystical sense. But the book does not easily lend itself to such applications, which are so manifestly forced and strained that even Augustine says of the whole Book of Ezra that it is simply historical rather than prophetical (De Civit. Dei, 18:36). Those however who wish to see St. Jerome’s hint elaborately carried out may refer to the Ven. Bede’s Allegorica Expositio in Librum Nehenice, qui et Ezrce Secundus, as well as to the preface to his exposition of Ezra; and, in another sense, to Bp. Pilkington’s Exposition upon Nehemiah, and John Fox’s Preface (Park. Soc.). It may be added that Bede describes both Ezra and Nehemiah as prophets, which is the head under which Josephus includes them in his description of the sacred books (C. Rev 1:8).”

4. The contents of the book have been specified above in the biography of the author. The work can scarcely be called a history of Nehemiah and his times; it is rather a collection of notices of some important transactions that happened during the first year of his government, with a few scraps from his later history. The contents appear to be arranged in chronological order, with the exception perhaps of Neh 12:27-43, where the account of the dedication of the wall seems to be out of its proper place: we might expect it rather after Neh 7:1-4, where the completion of the wall is mentioned.

The whole narrative gives us a graphic and interesting account of the state of Jerusalem and the returned captives in the writer’s times, and, incidentally, of the nature of the Persian government and the condition of its remote provinces. The documents appended to it also give some further information as to the times of Zerubbabel on the one hand, and as to the continuation of the genealogical registers and the succession of the high- priesthood to the close of the Persian empire on the other. The view given of the rise of two factions among the Jews the one the strict religious party, adhering with uncompromising faithfulness to the Mosaic institutions, headed by Nehemiah; the other, the gentilizing party, ever imitating heathen customs, and making heathen connections, headed, or at least encouraged by the high-priest Eliashib and his family sets before us the germ of much that we meet with in a more developed state in later Jewish history from the commencement of the Macedonian dynasty till the final destruction of Jerusalem. Again, in this history as well as in the Book of Ezra. we see the bitter enmity between the Jews and Samaritans acquiring strength and definitive form on both religious and political grounds. It would seem from Neh 4:1-2; Neh 4:8 (A.V.), and Neh 6:2; Neh 6:6, etc., that the depression of Jerusalem was a fixed part of the policy of Sanballat, and that he had the design of raising Samaria as the head of Palestine, upon the ruin of Jerusalem, a design which seems to have been entertained by the Samaritans in later times. The book also throws much light upon the domestic institutions of the Jews. We learn incidentally the prevalence of usury, and of slavery as its consequence, the frequent and burdensome oppressions of the governors (Neh 5:15), the judicial use of corporal punishment (Neh 13:25), the continuance of false prophets as an engine of policy, as in the days of the kings of Judah (Neh 6:7; Neh 6:12; Neh 6:14), the restitution of the Mosaic provision for the maintenance of the priests and Levites and the due performance of the Temple service (Neh 13:10-13), the much freer promulgation of the Holy Scriptures by the public reading of them (Neh 8:1; Neh 9:3; Neh 13:1), and the more general acquaintance with them arising from their collection into one volume, and the multiplication of copies of them by the care of Ezra the scribe and Nehemiah himself (2Ma 2:13), as well as from the stimulus given to the art of reading among the Jewish people during their residence in Babylon, SEE HILICIAH; the mixed form of political government still surviving the ruin of their independence (Neh 5:7; Neh 5:13; Nehemiah 10), the reviving trade with Tyre (Neh 13:16), the agricultural pursuits and wealth of the Jews (Neh 5:11; Neh 13:15), the tendency to take heathen wives, indicating, possibly, a disproportion in the number of Jewish males and females among the returned captives (Neh 10:30; Neh 13:3; Neh 13:23), the danger the Jewish language was in of being corrupted (Neh 13:24), with other details which only the narrative of an eye-witness would have preserved to us. Some of these details give us incidentally information of great historical importance.

“

(a.) The account of the building and dedication of the wall (Neh 3:12) contains the most valuable materials for settling the topography of Jerusalem to be found in Scripture. SEE JERUSALEM.

“

(b.) The list of returned captives who came under different leaders from the time of Zerubbabel to that of Nehemiah (amounting in all to only 42,360 adult males, and 7337 servants), which is given in chapter 7, conveys a faithful picture of the political weakness of the Jewish nation as compared with the times when Judah alone numbered 470,000 fighting men (1Ch 21:5). It justifies the description of the Palestine Jews as ‘the remnant that are left of the captivity’ (Neh 1:3), and as ‘these feeble Jews’ (Neh 4:2), and explains the great difficulty felt by Nehemiah in peopling Jerusalem itself with a sufficient number of inhabitants to preserve’ it from assault (Neh 7:3-4; Neh 11:1-2). It is an important aid, too, in understanding the subsequent history, and in appreciating the patriotism and valor by which they attained their independence under the Maccabees. “

(c.) The lists of leaders, priests, Levites, and of those who signed the covenant, reveal incidentally much of the national spirit as well as of the social habits of the captives, derived from older times. Thus the fact that twelve leaders are named in Neh 7:7 indicates the feeling of the captives that they represented the twelve tribes, a feeling further evidenced in the expression ‘the men of the people of Israel.’ The enumeration of twenty-one and twenty-two, or, if Zidkijah stands for the head of the house of Zadok, twenty-three chief priests in Neh 10:1-8; Neh 12:1-7, of whom nine bear the names of those who were heads of courses in David’s time (1 Chronicles 24), SEE JEHOARIB, shows how, even in their wasted and reduced numbers, they struggled to preserve these ancient institutions, and also supplies the reason of the mention of these particular twenty-two or twenty-three names.

“

(d.) Other miscellaneous information contained in this book embraces the hereditary crafts practiced by certain priestly families, e.g. the apothecaries, or makers of the sacred ointments and incense (Neh 3:8), and the goldsmiths, whose business it probably was to repair the sacred vessels (Neh 3:8), and who may have been the ancestors, so to speak, of the money-changers in the Temple (Joh 2:14-15); the situation of the garden of the kings of Judah by which Zedekiah escaped (2Ki 25:4), as seen in Neh 3:15; and statistics, reminding one of Domesday-Book, concerning not only the cities and families of the returned captives, but the number of their horses, mules, camels, and asses (chapter 7), to which more might be added.”

5. In respect to language and style, this book is very similar to the Chronicles of Ezra. Nehemiah has, it s true, quite his own manner, and, as De Wette has observed, certain phrases and modes of expression peculiar to himself. He has also some few words and forms not found elsewhere in Scripture; but the general Hebrew style is exactly that of the books purporting to be of the same age. Some words, as , ‘cymbals,” occur in Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, but nowhere else. occurs frequently in the same three books, but only twice (in Judges 5) besides or aXn ,, “a letter,” is common only to Nehemiah, Esth., Ezra, and Chronicles , and its Chaldee equivalent, , whether spoken of the palace at Susa or of the Temple at Jerusalem, are common only to Nehemiah, Ezra, Esth., Dan., and Chronicles: to Nehemiah and Dan., and Psalms 45. The phrase and its Chaldee equivalent, “the God of Heavens,” are common to Ezra, Nehemiah, and Dan. “distinctly,” is common to Ezra and Nehemiah Such words as and such Aramaisms as the use of Neh 1:7, , , Neh 1:5, Neh 1:4, etc., are also evidences of the age when Nehemiah wrote. As examples of peculiar words or meanings, used in this book alone, the following may be mentioned: , “to inspect,” Neh 2:13; Neh 2:15; , in the sense of “interest,” Neh 5:11; ., (in Hiph.), “to shut,” Neh 7:3; , “a lifting up,” Neh 8:6; , “praises,” or “choirs,” Neh 12:8; ” a procession,” Neh 12:32;

, in the sense of” reading,” Neh 8:8; , for , Neh 13:8, where both form and sense are alike unusual. The Aramsean form, , Hiph. of , for , is very rare, only five other analogous examples occurring in the Heb. Scriptures, though it is very common in Biblical Chaldee. The phrase , Neh 4:17 (which is omitted by the Sept.), is incapable of explanation. One would have expected, instead of , as in 2Ch 23:10. , “the Tirshatha,” which only occurs in Ezr 2:63; Neh 7:65; Neh 7:70; Neh 8:9; Neh 10:1, is of uncertain etymology and meaning. It is a term applied almost exclusively to Nehemiah, and seems to be more likely to mean “cupbearer” than ” governor,” though the latter interpretation is adopted by Gesenius (Thes. s.v.).

The text of Nehemiah is generally pure and free from corruption, except in the proper names, in which there is considerable fluctuation in the orthography, both as compared with other parts of the same book and with the same names in other parts of Scripture; and also in numerals. Of the latter we have seen several examples in the parallel passages of Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7; and the same lists give variations in names of men. So does Neh 12:1-7, compared with Neh 12:12, and. with Neh 10:1-8. A comparison of Neh 11:3, etc., with 1Ch 9:2, etc., exhibits the following fluctuations: Neh 11:4, Athaiah of the children of Perez = 1Ch 9:4, Uthai of the children of Perez,; Neh 5:5, Maaseiah the son of Shiloni = Neh 5:5, of the Shilonites, Asaiah; Neh 5:9, Judah the son of Senuah (Heb. Ha-senuah) = Neh 5:7, Hodaviah the son of Hasenuah; 5:10, Jedaiah the son of Joiarib, Jachin Neh 5:10, Jedaiah, Jehoiarib, Jachin; 5:13, Annasai son of Azareel = Neh 5:12, Maasai son of Jahzerah; 5:17, Micah the son of Zabdi = Neh 5:15, Micah the son of Zichri (comp. Neh 12:35). To these many others might be added.

6. Commentaries. The special exegetical helps on the Book of Nehemiah are not numerous: Bede, In Nehemiae allegorica expositio (in Opp. 4; and Works, by Giles, 1:1); Brenz, Comment. in Nehemiae (in Opp. 2); Wdiplpius, In Nehemiae librum commentaria (Tigur. 1570, fol.); Strigel, Agumentum et Scholia (Lips. 1571, 1572, 8vo); Pilkington, Expositio on certain chapters (Lond. 1585, 4to; also in Works, page 275); Pempel, Explanatio [includ. Ezra and Dan.] (in Works, Lond. 1585); Rambach, Adnotationes (in his work on the O.T. 3:107); Sanctius, Commentarii [includ. Ruth, etc.] (Lugd. 1628, fol.); Ferus, Erklarung (Mayence, 1619, 8vo); Crommius, In hist. Nehemiae, etc. [includ. other books] (Lovan. 1632, 4to); Lombard, Commentarius [includ. Ezra] (Par. 1643, fol.); Trapp, Commentary [includ. Ezra, etc.] (Lond. 1656, fol.); Jackson, Explanation [includ. Ezra and Esth.] (Lond. 1657, 4to); De Oliva, Commentarii [includ. other books] (Lugd. 1664, 1679, 2 vols. fol.); Bertheau, Commentary [includ. Ezra and Esth.] (in the Exeg. Handb. Leips. 1862, 8vo); Barde, Etude critique et exegetique (Ttibing. 1861, 8vo); also, Lange’s and Keil and Delitzsch’s Bible-works. SEE COMMENTARY.

Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

Nehemiah, Book of

The author of this book was no doubt Nehemiah himself. There are portions of the book written in the first person (ch. 1-7; 12:27-47, and 13). But there are also portions of it in which Nehemiah is spoken of in the third person (ch. 8; 9; 10). It is supposed that these portions may have been written by Ezra; of this, however, there is no distinct evidence. These portions had their place assigned them in the book, there can be no doubt, by Nehemiah. He was the responsible author of the whole book, with the exception of ch. 12:11, 22, 23.

The date at which the book was written was probably about B.C. 431-430, when Nehemiah had returned the second time to Jerusalem after his visit to Persia.

The book, which may historically be regarded as a continuation of the book of Ezra, consists of four parts. (1.) An account of the rebuilding of the wall of Jerusalem, and of the register Nehemiah had found of those who had returned from Babylon (ch. 1-7). (2.) An account of the state of religion among the Jews during this time (8-10). (3.) Increase of the inhabitants of Jerusalem; the census of the adult male population, and names of the chiefs, together with lists of priests and Levites (11-12:1-26). (4.) Dedication of the wall of Jerusalem, the arrangement of the temple officers, and the reforms carried out by Nehemiah (12:27-ch. 13).

This book closes the history of the Old Testament. Malachi the prophet was contemporary with Nehemiah.

Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary

Nehemiah, Book Of

NEHEMIAH, BOOK OF.The two books, separated in our Bible and appearing there as Ezra and Nehemiah, originally formed a single book (as appears from the Talmud, the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] , and from internal evidence), which was the sequel to Chronicles. In fact Ezra verbally continues the narrative of 2Ch 36:1-23 (cf. 2Ch 36:22-23 with Ezr 1:1-2), and the whole work1 and 2 Chron., Ezra, and Nehemiahforms a single continuous narrative from Adam to Nehemiahs second visit to Jerusalem, and was probably compiled by the Chronicler. That part of this voluminous work which now bears the title Nehemiah is so called because it deals largely with the career of the Jewish patriot whose name it carries, and embodies excerpts of considerable extent from his personal memoirs.

1. Extracts from the memoirs embodied in Nehemiah.(a) Neh 1:1 to Neh 7:5. At the outset we meet with a long section where the first person sing, is used throughout, viz. Neh 1:1 to Neh 7:6. These chapters are indubitably authentic extracts from Nehemiahs personal memoirs. They are distinguished by individual characteristics which help us to form a distinct idea of the writers personality. Enthusiasm for a great idea, and unstinting and unselfish devotlon to its realization, are marked features. From Neh 5:14 it is clear that the narrative can not have been put into its present form till some years after the events recounted. Doubts have been raised as to the authenticity of Neh 6:15 (the walls finished in 52 days), but the objection is not a fatal one. It should be noted, however, that according to Josephus (Ant. XI. Neh 6:8) the building of the walls lasted 2 years and 8 months. On what authority Josephus bases this assertion is not known. (Neh 3:1-32, a llst of persons who helped to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, has also been the subject of doubt.)

(b) Neh 7:6-73 a. This section contains a list of the exiles who returned with Zerubbabel, which Nehemiah (Neh 7:5) says he found: it also appears in Ezras memoirs (Ezr 2:1-70), with slight differences. It forms a natural and easy continuation to Neh 7:5, and probably from the very first stood as a constituent element in Nehemiahs memoirs.

(c) Ch. 11. This chapter, which contains a list of persons who drew lots to reside at Jerusalem, and other details regarding the settlement of the capital, probably also stood in the original memoirs. The listwhich partly recurs in 1Ch 9:3-17is to be regarded as the immediate continuation of ch. 7 (with Ewald), and refers to measures taken by Zerubbabel. Doubtless it was followed in the memoirs by an account of what Nehemiah did to resume and complete these measures (cf. Neh 7:4; Neh 7:6), but this has, unfortunately, not been preserved to us.

(d) Neh 12:27-43. Account of the dedication of the walls. Notice the resumption of the 1st pers. sing, (Neh 12:31; Neh 12:38; Neh 12:40). This passage is an excerpt from the memoirs, but has been abridged and revised by the compiler.

(e) Neh 13:4-31. Another extract from the memoirs, giving details of a time some 12 or more years later than that referred to in the earlier extracts. It deals with Nehemiahs second visit.

2. Passages in Nehemiah not derived from the memoirs.(a) Neh 7:73 b10:40 (39). This long section breaks the connexion which it is generally agreed exists between Neh 7:73 a and ch. 11. In its present form it is doubtless due to the compiler; but it contains so many details of an apparently authentic character, its representation is often so vivid, that it is probable that the work of an eye-witness has been used and worked up by the compiler in producing the present narrative. Probably Neh 9:6-38; Neh 10:1-39 has been taken over directly from the memoirs of Ezra (the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] ascribes the prayer beginning in Neh 9:6 to Ezra: And Ezra said). The whole section, therefore, can be regarded as of first-rate authority.

(b) Neh 12:1-26. A list of priests and Levites who returned with Zerubbabel. Notice how the priestly genealogy is carried far down below Nehemiahs time, as far, in fact, as the reign of Darius the Persian (Neh 12:22), i.e. Darius iii. Codomannus (reigned b.c. 335331). The high priest Jaddua mentioned in Neh 12:11 is known from Josephus to have been a contemporary of Alexander the Great.

3. Historical value of the Book.On the whole, recent criticism has been favourable to the older view as to the essential trustworthiness of the narrative of events given in Ezra-Nehemiah. Reference has already been made in the previous article to the view that the Artaxerxes mentioned is the second of that name. If this is accepted, Ezras visit and work of reform fall in the year 398. Kosters goes much further than this.

According to him, a return of exiles in the second year of Cyrus did not take place at all; the building of the Temple and the walls was rather the work of the population that had remained behind in the land (2Ki 25:12), of whom Zerubbabel and Nehemiah were governors; Ezras visit and work of reform fall in the second governorship of Nehemiah, after the events narrated in Neh 13:4-31. Ezra arrived for the first time after 433; first of all the community was reconstituted by the dissolution of the mixed marriages, and then solemnly bound to the observance of the Law which had been brought with him by Ezra: the first return-journey under Zerubbabel, with all those who joined themselves with him, has been invented by the Chronicler, who reversed the order of events. Finally, according to Torrey, the I passages, with the exception of Neh 1:1-11; Neh 2:1-20 (mainly) and Neh 3:32 to Neh 6:19 (mainly), have been fabricated by the Chronicler, who in them created his masterpiece: and Nehemiah also belongs to the reign of Artaxerxes ii. (Cornill).

Kosters theory has been energetically opposed by Wellhausen, and since Ed. Meyers demonstration of the essential authenticity of the documents embodied in Ezr 4:1-24; Ezr 5:1-17; Ezr 6:1-22; Ezr 7:1-28, the extreme form of the critical theory may be regarded as having lost most of its plausibility.

G. H. Box.

Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible

Nehemiah, Book of

See EZRA-NEHEMIAH.

Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

Nehemiah, book of

The Book of Nehemiah, which bears the title Nehemiah’s Words, was anciently connected with Ezra, as if it formed part of the same work. It arose, doubtless, from the fact that Nehemiah is a sort of continuation of Ezra [EZRA].

The canonical character of Nehemiah’s work is established by very ancient testimony.

The contents of the book have been specified above in the biography of the author. The work can scarcely be called a history of Nehemiah and his times. It is rather a collection of notices of some important transactions that happened during the first year of his government, with a few scraps from his later history. The contents appear to be arranged in chronological order, with the exception perhaps of Neh 12:27-43, where the account of the dedication of the wall seems out of its proper place: we might expect it rather after Neh 7:1-4, where the completion of the wall is mentioned.

As to the date of the book, it is not likely that it came from Nehemiah’s hand till near the close of his life. Certainly it could not have been all written before the expulsion of the priest, recorded in Neh 13:23-29, which took place about the year B.C. 413.

Nehemiah 8-10 were probably not written by Nehemiah, since the narrative respecting him is in the third person (Neh 8:9; Neh 10:1), and not in the first, as usual (Neh 2:9-20). Havernick, indeed, makes it appear, from the contents and style, that Ezra was the writer of this portion. The remaining chapters (Nehemiah 11-13) also exhibit some marks of compilation (Neh 12:26; Neh 12:47); but there are, on the contrary, clear proofs of Nehemiah’s own authorship in Neh 12:27-43, and in Neh 13:6-31; and hence Havernick thinks he wrote the whole except Neh 12:1-26, which he took from ‘the book of the chronicles,’ mentioned m Neh 12:23.

Fuente: Popular Cyclopedia Biblical Literature

Nehemiah, Book of

[Nehemi’ah]

This is the latest of the historical books of the O.T. It commences with the twentieth year of Artaxerxes: this is an important date, because of ‘the seventy weeks’ of Dan. 9, which run from the command to restore and rebuild Jerusalem. This commission was given to Nehemiah; the command to build the temple was given by Cyrus. Ezr 1:1. See SEVENTY WEEKS.

Neh. 1: Nehemiah had God’s interests at heart. He heard at Shushan the desolate state of Jerusalem, and he wept and mourned, and prayed. He occupied a post of honour at the court as the king’s cupbearer.

Neh. 2; Neh. 3: Artaxerxes the king noticed Nehemiah’s sad countenance, and inquired the cause. On being informed, he graciously desired Nehemiah to express his wishes. Nehemiah, after prayer to God, asked to be sent to build Jerusalem, and that he might have timber for the purpose, and letters to the governors. All was granted, and an escort was deputed to accompany him.

On arriving at Jerusalem, Nehemiah was opposed by Sanballat the Horonite and Tobiah the Ammonite, who were grieved that a man had come “to seek the welfare of the children of Israel.” But this only the more stirred up the energy of Nehemiah, and the work of rebuilding the wall proceeded.

Neh. 4: The enemies first mocked him, and then plotted with others to attack him. But being aware of it, he armed the people, and kept part of them ready to repel the attack; and those that worked had a sword as well as a trowel. With Nehemiah was a trumpeter to sound an alarm. Cf. Num 10:9.

Neh. 5: Nehemiah also took up the cause of his distressed brethren. The poor had been compelled to mortgage their lands and vineyards to their richer brethren, who made them pay interest, which was contrary to the law. Nehemiah sharply rebuked the rich for this, and bound them by oath to release the persons and lands. He set them an example by feeding a hundred and fifty at his table, and by not taking any stipend as governor.

Neh. 6 is significant of the separate path necessary to be maintained by God’s people. Num 23:9. Their enemies tried to entice Nehemiah to a conference on various pleas; but in faith he returned the noble answer, “I am doing a great work, so that I cannot come down: why should the work cease, whilst I leave it, and come down to you?” They pretended that he was building the city in order to revolt from the king of Persia, saying that he had appointed prophets to say of him at Jerusalem, “There is a king in Judah.” He denied the accusations: they had feigned them in their own hearts. He would not meet them. To add to his distress there were some in Jerusalem who had formed an alliance with Tobiah, and had correspondence with him, reporting the good deeds of Tobiah to him, and sending his words to Tobiah. They thus sought to put him in fear. His devotedness to God’s interests, and obedience to His word, saved him from all the wiles of the adversary. In fifty-two days the wall and gates were finished, and the enemies perceived that the work was wrought of God.

Neh. 7: Levites were appointed to their stations, and the charge of the city gates was given to Hanani brother to Nehemiah, and to Hananiah, ruler of the palace, or fortress. A register is given of those who had returned with Zerubbabel, amounting to 42,360, besides their servants. Oblations were then made by Nehemiah and all the people.

Neh. 8: In the seventh month they assembled as one man and kept the Feast of Trumpets. Then the law was read, and great pains were taken that the people should understand it. The people wept when they heard what the law enjoined; but the Levites instructed them rather to rejoice, for the day was holy, and the joy of the Lord was their strength. They were exhorted to eat and drink, and to send portions to those who had nothing. The Feast of Tabernacles was then kept, and in such a way as it had not been kept since the days of Joshua. They entered into the joys that belonged to ‘all Israel.’

Neh. 9; Neh. 10: The people humbled themselves with fasting, and confessed their sins, separating themselves from all persons who were not of the seed of Israel. The word was read, and they worshipped. The Levites then made a solemn confession, recapitulating all the faithfulness and goodness of God towards their nation; acknowledging their sins against Him, and ending with their making a written covenant and calling upon the princes, Levites, and priests to seal it. A list is given of those who sealed, and the covenant itself is set forth, stating clearly what it was the people bound themselves by a curse and an oath to keep. They thus placed themselves again under law, not having yet learned their own weakness and utter inability to keep it. The priests and Levites were provided for, according to Num 18.

Neh. 11: The inhabitants of Jerusalem were few, and more were needed for its protection. Some volunteered to live there, and the people blessed them; lots were cast for others, one in ten being thus obtained.

Neh. 12 gives a list of the priests and Levites, and the joyful dedication of the wall of Jerusalem. Great sacrifices were offered and they rejoiced with their wives and children, for God had made them to rejoice, and the sounds of their rejoicing were heard afar off. Appointments were then made for the service of the temple.

Neh. 13: Apparently a period of time elapsed between Neh. 12, Neh. 13. The words ‘on that day’ refer to what follows in the verse. Nehemiah, after being twelve years at Jerusalem, had returned to Artaxerxes, in the thirty-second year of his reign, leaving, according to the end of Neh. 12 all things in due order in Jerusalem. How long he remained at the court is not stated, but after a certain time he obtained leave, and returned to Jerusalem, and he proceeds to relate what had taken place during his absence.

The law forbad that the Ammonite and Moabite should ever come into the congregation of the Lord, Deu 23:3-4; and yet Eliashib the high priest, who was allied to Tobiah the Ammonite, had prepared a chamber in the temple for this man. The enemy of God had thus been received inside. Nehemiah turned out all the household stuff of Tobiah, cleansed the chamber, and restored it to its former use.

The service of the temple had been neglected; for the tithes had been withheld, so that the Levites had to go to their fields for support. The sabbath was also desecrated, work being done and things sold in Jerusalem. Nehemiah expostulated with them and caused the gates of the city to be kept shut on the sabbath day. The merchants then tarried outside the walls on the sabbath, but Nehemiah threatened them, and the evil ceased. It was also found that some had married heathen wives, and their children spake half in the speech of Ashdod and could not speak in the Jews’ language. Nehemiah cursed these men, and sharply rebuked, and chastised them. One of the grandsons of Eliashib having married the daughter of Sanballat, was cast out from the priesthood. (Josephus relates that he went to Samaria, where Sanballat built a temple on Gerizim, which became a refuge for apostate Jews)

The book closes with the setting right, outwardly, of all these evils. Nothing more is said of the solemn covenant that had been sealed by so many. It had been altogether violated; and Nehemiah felt his loneliness. Again and again he says, “Remember me, O my God,” speaking of the good deeds he had done, and casting himself upon the greatness of God’s mercy .

The Book of Nehemiah gives the partial and outward re-establishment of some of the Jews in their own land. There was no throne of God nor throne of David, and they were still subject to the Gentiles. The decree Lo-ammi was not removed; but they were restored to the land, ready for the manifestation of their Messiah, who would come seeking fruit, and ready in grace to bless them. The prophecy of Malachi followed this return, and shows the sad moral condition of the people, and the coming of Jehovah in judgement.

The spiritual value of this book, and of Ezra, is the setting forth of the principle that, in a day of ruin, a humble godly remnant represents the whole body, and receives mercy, and enjoys the best privileges of the dispensation, though at the same time being identified with, and suffering for the sins of the whole.

For events succeeding the time of Nehemiah see ANTIOCHUS.

Fuente: Concise Bible Dictionary

Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles