In the days of Artaxerxes, Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of his companions, wrote to Artaxerxes king of Persia; and the writing of the letter was written in Syrian, and delivered in the Syrian language. Rehum the chancellor and Shimshai the scribe wrote a letter against Jerusalem to Artaxerxes the king as follows, then Rehum the chancellor, Shimshai the scribe, and the rest of their companions, the Dinaites, and the Apharsathchites, the Tarpelites, the Apharsites, the Archevites, the Babylonians, the Shushanchites, the Dehaites, the Elamites, and the rest of the nations whom the great and noble Osnappar brought over, and set in the city of Samaria, and in the rest of the country beyond the River, and so forth, wrote.
This is the copy of the letter that they sent: To King Artaxerxes, From your servants the men beyond the River.
Be it known to the king that the Jews who came up from you have come to us to Jerusalem. They are building the rebellious and bad city, and have finished the walls, and repaired the foundations. Be it known now to the king that if this city is built and the walls finished, they will not pay tribute, custom, or toll, and in the end it will be hurtful to the kings. Now because we eat the salt of the palace, and it is not appropriate for us to see the king’s dishonor, therefore we have sent and informed the king, that search may be made in the book of the records of your fathers. You will see in the book of the records, and know that this city is a rebellious city, and hurtful to kings and provinces, and that they have started rebellions within it in the past. That is why this city was destroyed. We inform the king that, if this city is built and the walls finished, then you will have no possession beyond the River.
Then the king sent an answer to Rehum the chancellor, and to Shimshai the scribe, and to the rest of their companions who live in Samaria, and in the rest of the country beyond the River: Peace.
The letter which you sent to us has been plainly read before me. I decreed, and search has been made, and it was found that this city has made insurrection against kings in the past, and that rebellion and revolts have been made in it. There have also been mighty kings over Jerusalem, who have ruled over all the country beyond the River; and tribute, custom, and toll, was paid to them. Make a decree now to cause these men to cease, and that this city not be built, until a decree is made by me. Be careful that you not be slack doing so. Why should damage grow to the hurt of the kings?
Then when the copy of king Artaxerxes’ letter was read before Rehum, Shimshai the scribe, and their companions, they went in haste to Jerusalem to the Jews, and made them to cease by force of arms. Then work stopped on God’s house which is at Jerusalem. It stopped until the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, 24 Called Artaxerxes, which signifieth in the Persian tongue, an…
Called Artaxerxes, which signifieth in the Persian tongue, an excellent warrior.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv7–24 Ezr 4:7 And in the days of Artaxerxes wrote…
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.
Read full note →
Wrote Bishlam, Mithredath] These were the king of Persia’s toparchs or deputies, beyond the river Euphrates.
Written in the Syrian tongue] Called also the Chaldee, Babylonish, and Assyrian; commonly spoken by the Jews, who, in the seventy years’ captivity, lost the purity of their own language; like as the Latins also did, when the Goths, Vandals, and other barbarous nations overran them, and mingled with them.
And interpreted in the Syrian tongue] i.e. With Syrian characters, Et Scriptura et lingua erat Syriaca, ut sine interprete in aula regis intelligeretur, saith Shindler. It was so written that it might be understood at court without an interpreter.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 24 In the days of Artaxerxes; either,
In the days of Artaxerxes; either,
1. Artaxerxes the son of Xerxes. Or,
Read full note →
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.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain On v17 Here we have,
Here we have,
I. The orders which the king of Persia gave, in answer to the information sent him by the Samaritans against the Jews. He suffered himself to be imposed upon by their fraud and falsehood, took no care to examine the allegations of their petition concerning that which the Jews were now doing, but took it for granted that the charge was true, and was very willing to gratify them with an order of council to stay proceedings. 1. He consulted the records concerning Jerusalem, and found that it had indeed rebelled against the king of Babylon, and therefore that it was, as they called it, a bad city (Ezr 4:19), and withal that in times past kings had reigned there, to whom all the countries on that side the river had been tributaries (Ezr 4:20), and that therefore there was danger that if ever they were able (which they were never likely to be) they would claim them again. Thus he says as they said, and pretends to give a reason for so doing. See the hard fate of princes, who must see and hear with other men's eyes and ears, and give judgment upon things as they are represented to them, though often represented falsely. God's judgment is always just because he sees things as they are, and it is according to truth. 2. He appointed these Samaritans to stop the building of the city immediately, till further orders should be given about it, Ezr 4:21, Ezr 4:22. Neither they, in their letter, nor he, in his order, make any mention of the temple, and the building of that, because both they and he knew that they had not only a permission, but a command, from Cyrus to rebuild that, which even these Samaritans had not the confidence to move for the repeal of. They spoke only of the city: "Let not that be built," that is, as a city with walls and gates; "whatever you do, prevent that, lest damage grow to the hurt of the kings:" he would not that the crown should lose by his wearing it.
Read full note →
II. The use which the enemies of the Jews made of these orders, so fraudulently obtained; upon the receipt of them they went up in haste to Jerusalem, Ezr 4:23. Their feet ran to evil, Pro 1:16. They were impatient till the builders were served with this prohibition, which they produced as their warrant to make them cease by force and power. As they abused the king in obtaining this order by their mis-informations, so they abused him in the execution of it; for the order was only to prevent the walling of the city, but, having force and power on their side, they construed it as relating to the temple, for it was that to which they had an ill will, and which they only wanted some colour to hinder the building of. There was indeed a general clause in the order, to cause these men to cease, which had reference to their complaint about building the walls; but they applied it to the building of the temple. See what need we have to pray, not only for kings, but for all in authority under them, and the governors sent by them, because the quietness and peaceableness of our lives, in all godliness and honesty, depend very much upon the integrity and wisdom of inferior magistrates, as well as the supreme. The consequence was that the work of the house of God ceased for a time, through the power and insolence of its enemies; and so, through the coldness and indifference of its friends, it stood still till the second year of Darius Hystaspes, for to me it seems clear by the thread of this sacred history that it was that Darius, Ezr 4:24. Though now a stop was put to it by the violence of the Samaritans, yet that they might soon after have gone on by connivance, if they had had a due affection to the work, appears by this, that before they had that express warrant from the king for doing it (ch. 6) they were reproved by the prophets for not doing it, Ezr 5:1, compared with Hag 1:1, etc. If they had taken due care to inform Cambyses of the truth of this case, perhaps he would have recalled his order; but, for aught I know, some of the builders were almost as willing it should cease as the adversaries themselves were. At some periods the church has suffered more by the coldness of its friends than by the heat of its enemies; but both together commonly make church-work slow work.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv7–23 Rehum the chancellor, and Shimshai the scribe, wrote a…
Rehum the chancellor, and Shimshai the scribe, wrote a letter against Jerusalem to Artaxerxes the king in this sort. This means the same letter as before; which, according to Jarchi, was sent in the name of Mithredath Tabeel and his company, was endited by Rehum, master of words or sense, and written by Shimshai the scribe, whom he makes to be a son of Haman (i); but it was written rather in all their names.
(i) So Midrash Esther, fol. 85. 3.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv7, 10, 12, 23, 24 Artaxerxes - Cambyses, called by his Chaldee name, Ahashuerus,…
Artaxerxes - Cambyses, called by his Chaldee name, Ahashuerus, ver.
6, and here by his Persian name, Artaxerxes: by which 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 - 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.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24 Verse 7. In the days of Artaxerxes] After the…
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.
Read full note →
Interpreted, in the Syrian tongue.] That is, the language, as well as the character, was the Syriac or Chaldaic.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24 Ezr 4:7. In the days of Artaxerxes, &c. —…
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.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 24 Artaxerxes - Gomates, the Pseudo-Smerdis. He succeeded Cambyses (521…
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.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24 Artaxerxes may be the Oropastes of Trogus, (Calmet) or…
Artaxerxes may be the Oropastes of Trogus, (Calmet) or the false (Haydock) Smerdis. (Herodotus) --- Beselam, &c. These governed the provinces on the west side of the Euphrates. --- Syriac comprises the Chaldean, with which it as a great resemblance. It was spoken at the court of Babylon. (Xenophon vii.) See 4 Kings xviii. 26., and 2 Machabees xv. 37., and Daniel ii. 4.
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 24 LETTER TO ARTAXERXES. (Ezra 4:7-24)
LETTER TO ARTAXERXES. (Ezra 4:7-24)
in the days of Artaxerxes wrote Bishlam, &c.--The three officers named are supposed to have been deputy governors appointed by the king of Persia over all the provinces subject to his empire west of the Euphrates.
Read full note →
the Syrian tongue--or Aramæan language, called sometimes in our version, Chaldee. This was made use of by the Persians in their decrees and communications relative to the Jews (compare Kg2 18:26; Isa 36:11). The object of their letter was to press upon the royal notice the inexpediency and danger of rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem. They labored hard to prejudice the king's mind against that measure.
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 20, 23, 24 7. Artaxerxes — This king is to be identified…
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, (ארמית). 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 מתרגם, 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.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv7–24 7. And in the days of Artaxerxes] Artaxerxes Longimanus…
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’.
Read full note →
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’ (ἐν εἰρήνη) 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’ (ὁ φορολόγος), the Vulgate ‘accusationis’. It is pronounced ‘nisht’ewân’ 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.
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. Akhashvêrosh) 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 Cæsar, 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.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 24 (7) In the days of Artaxerxes.—This must be Gomates,…
(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,
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24 And in the days of Artaxerxes. See the comment…
CHAPTER 4:7-16.
And in the days of Artaxerxes. See the comment on ver. 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 vers. 12, 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 ver. 21). The rest of their companions. Literally, of their companies the 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 (comp. 2Ki_18:26) Ezra gives the letter in Chaldee.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On vv14, 15, 17 Now because we have maintenance from the kings palace.
Ezr_4:14
Now because we have maintenance from the kings palace.
Read full note →
Good cause for great zeal
I. We acknowledge a very gracious fact.
1. We have been maintained from the Kings palace--
(1) In things temporal.
(2) In things spiritual.
2. Our maintenance from the Kings palace has cost His Majesty dear. He spared not His own Son.
3. We have had a bountiful supply.
4. We have had an unfailing portion.
5. The supply has ennobled us.
6. How cheering it is to have such a soul-satisfying portion in God.
II. Here is a duty recognised. By every sense of propriety we are bound not to see God dishonoured--
1. By ourselves.
2. By those who dwell under our roof.
3. By those with whom we have influence; particularly those who desire to unite with us in Church fellowship. We must not receive into our membership persons of unhallowed life--those who know not the truth as it is in Jesus.
4. By the mutilation and misrepresentation of His Word.
5. By a neglect of His ordinances.
6. By a general decline of His Church.
7. By so many rejecting His gospel. We cannot prevent their doing so, but we can weep for them, pray for them, etc.
III. A course of action pursued. Certified the king. It is a holy exercise of the saints to report to the Lord the sins and the sorrows they observe among the people and to plead for their removal. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain On vv7, 21 The Artaxerxes of Ezr 4:7 is identical with Ahasuerus…
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").
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On v11 The Letter To Artaxerxes
The Letter To Artaxerxes
v. 11. This is the copy of the letter that they sent unto him, even unto Artaxerxes the king, at least a summary of the contents, if not an exact copy. Thy servants, the men on this side the river, and at such a time, that is, "and so forth," all the compliments of the introduction being omitted.
Read full note →
v. 12. Be it known unto the king that the Jews which came up from thee to us are come unto Jerusalem, they had been returning from Babylon for a matter of some seventy years then, and small companies were still coming in from the East, building the rebellious and the bad city, and have set up the walls thereof, on which they were still building, and joined the foundations, they were still excavating and working to strengthen the foundations.
v. 13. Be it known now unto the king that, if this city be builded and the walls set up again, then will they not pay toll, the individual poll-tax, tribute, property-tax, and custom, all import and export duties, and so thou shalt endamage the revenue of the kings, and so their action would finally prepare damage for the king.
v. 14. Now, because we have maintenance from the king’s palace, literally, "because with the salt of the palace we are salted," said of living on any one’s bounty, and it was not meet for to see the king’s dishonor, therefore have we sent and certified the king, making known to him the following facts, suggesting the following procedure,
v. 15. that search may be made in the book of the records of thy fathers, this duty being performed by the keeper of the royal archives; so shalt thou find in the book of the records and know that this city is a rebellious city and hurtful unto kings and provinces, whose inhabitants are addicted to uproar and rebellions, and that they have moved sedition within the same of old time; for which cause was this city destroyed.
v. 16. We certify the king that, if this city be builded again and the walls thereof set up, all its defenses finished as in the days of its greatest power, by this means thou shalt have no portion on this side the river, the implication being that the Jews would cause the entire territory south and west of the Euphrates to declare and maintain its independence.
v. 17. Then sent the king an answer unto Rehum, the chancellor, and to Shimshai, the scribe, and to the rest of their companions that dwell in Samaria, all the communities of colonists, and unto the rest beyond the river, Peace, and at such a time, the usual complimentary remarks at the opening of a letter being omitted.
v. 18. The letter which ye sent unto us hath been plainly read before me.
v. 19. And I commanded, by issuing a decree or edict, and search hath been made, and it is found that this city of old time hath made insurrection, rising up in haughty rebellion, against kings and that rebellion and sedition have been made therein.
v. 20. There have been mighty kings also over Jerusalem, which have ruled over all countries beyond the river, this being true of David and Solomon; and toll, tribute, and custom was paid unto them, all the surrounding countries being tributary to their kingdom at that time.
v. 21. Give ye now commandment to cause these men to cease, and that this city be not builded, until another commandment shall be given from me.
v. 22. Take heed now that ye fail not to do this. Why should damage grow to the hurt of the kings? They should make no mistake in averting this damage, since it might so easily grow to be a pest.
v. 23. Now, when the copy of King Artaxerxes’ letter was read before Rehum and Shimshai, the scribe, and their companions, they went up in haste to Jerusalem unto the Jews and made them to cease by force and power, evidently using even troops to enforce their demand. This excursus, showing to what extent the hostility of the Samaritans went and how long it lasted, was inserted for the sake of completeness in characterizing them. The author now returns to his history of the building of the Temple, the last verse of the chapter connecting with v. 5 above.
v. 24. Then ceased the work of the house of God which is at Jerusalem. The foundation had been laid and the altar of burnt offering erected in its former place, but no more work was done. So it ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius, king of Persia, 520 B. C. The false church is ever the enemy of the true Church and is continually striving to deprive it of its rights and liberties, in order to hinder the spread of the Gospel.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 17, 20, 23 Bishlam ... Mithredath ... Tabeel ... Shimshai
Bishlam ... Mithredath ... Tabeel ... Shimshai
names of men (See: How to Translate Names)
Read full note →
The letter
This is the letter spoken of in Esra 4:6.
Aramaic
the language used in that area at the time for official business
translated
into Persian
Rehum
man's name. See how you translated this in Esra 2:1.
translationWords
Ahasuerus
companion
epistle
written
scribe
Artaxerxes
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24 4:7 The exact date of these events is unknown,…
4:7 The exact date of these events is unknown, but they might have occurred around the same time as an Egyptian revolt in 448 BC (a few years before Artaxerxes I sent Nehemiah to Jerusalem in 445 BC). If so, the enemies of Judah and Artaxerxes probably thought that the Jews would revolt as the Egyptians had. • Aramaic was the international diplomatic language of the Persian Empire.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.