4:17 The king sent the following response:
“To Rehum the commander, Shimshai the scribe, and the rest of their colleagues who live in Samaria and other parts of Trans-Euphrates: Greetings! 4
6:16 The people 7 of Israel – the priests, the Levites, and the rest of the exiles 8 – observed the dedication of this temple of God with joy.
[Aramaic:] 16
1 tn Aram “Osnappar” (so ASV, NASB, NRSV), another name for Ashurbanipal.
2 tc The translation reads with the ancient versions the plural בְּקֻרְיַהּ (bÿquryah, “in the cities”) rather than the singular (“in the city”) of the MT.
3 tn Aram “beyond the river.” In Ezra this term is a technical designation for the region west of the Euphrates river.
4 tn Aram “peace.”
7 tn Aram “then.” What follows in v. 9 seems to be the preface of the letter, serving to identify the senders of the letter. The word “from” is not in the Aramaic text but has been supplied in the translation for clarity.
8 tn For the qere of the MT (דֶּהָיֵא, dehaye’, a proper name) it seems better to retain the Kethib דִּהוּא (dihu’, “that is”). See F. Rosenthal, Grammar, 25, §35; E. Vogt, Lexicon linguae aramaicae, 36.
10 tn Aram “sons of.”
11 tn Aram “sons of the exile.”
13 tn Aram “may fall to you to give.”
16 tn Heb “not to you and to us.”
19 tn Heb “And in the days.”
20 tn The LXX understands this word as a prepositional phrase (“in peace”) rather than as a proper name (“Bishlam”). Taken this way it would suggest that Mithredath was “in agreement with” the contents of Tabeel’s letter. Some scholars regard the word in the MT to be a corruption of either “in Jerusalem” (i.e., “in the matter of Jerusalem”) or “in the name of Jerusalem.” The translation adopted above follows the traditional understanding of the word as a name.
21 tc The translation reads the plural with the Qere rather than the singular found in the MT Kethib.
22 sn Artaxerxes I ruled in Persia from ca. 465–425
23 tc It is preferable to delete the MT’s וּכְתָב (ukhÿtav) here.
24 sn The double reference in v. 7 to the Aramaic language is difficult. It would not make sense to say that the letter was written in Aramaic and then translated into Aramaic. Some interpreters understand the verse to mean that the letter was written in the Aramaic script and in the Aramaic language, but this does not seem to give sufficient attention to the participle “translated” at the end of the verse. The second reference to Aramaic in the verse is more probably a gloss that calls attention to the fact that the following verses retain the Aramaic language of the letter in its original linguistic form. A similar reference to Aramaic occurs in Dan 2:4b, where the language of that book shifts from Hebrew to Aramaic. Ezra 4:8–6:18 and 7:12-26 are written in Aramaic, whereas the rest of the book is written in Hebrew.
22 map For location see Map5-B1; Map6-F3; Map7-E2; Map8-F2; Map10-B3; JP1-F4; JP2-F4; JP3-F4; JP4-F4.
23 tn Heb “began”; the phrase “the work” is supplied in the translation for the sake of clarity.
24 tn Heb “their brothers.”
25 tn Heb “stood.”
26 tn Heb “from twenty years and upward.”