Ezra 4:6-23

Official Complaints Are Lodged Against the Jews

4:6 ¹ At the beginning of the reign of Ahasuerus ²  they filed an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem. ³  4:7 And during the reign ⁴  of Artaxerxes, Bishlam, ⁵  Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of their colleagues ⁶  wrote to King Artaxerxes ⁷  of Persia. This letter ⁸  was first written in Aramaic but then translated.

[Aramaic:] ⁹ 

4:8 Rehum the commander ¹⁰  and Shimshai the scribe ¹¹  wrote a letter concerning ¹²  Jerusalem to King Artaxerxes as follows: 4:9 From ¹³  Rehum the commander, Shimshai the scribe, and the rest of their colleagues – the judges, the rulers, the officials, the secretaries, the Erechites, the Babylonians, the people of Susa (that is, ¹⁴  the Elamites), 4:10 and the rest of nations whom the great and noble Ashurbanipal ¹⁵  deported and settled in the cities ¹⁶  of Samaria and other places in Trans-Euphrates. ¹⁷  4:11 (This is a copy of the letter they sent to him:)

“To King Artaxerxes, ¹⁸  from your servants in ¹⁹  Trans-Euphrates: 4:12 Now ²⁰  let the king be aware that the Jews who came up to us from you have gone to Jerusalem. They are rebuilding that rebellious and odious city. ²¹  They are completing its walls and repairing its foundations. 4:13 Let the king also be aware that if this city is built and its walls are completed, no more tax, custom, or toll will be paid, and the royal treasury ²²  will suffer loss. 4:14 In light of the fact that we are loyal to the king, ²³  and since it does not seem appropriate to us that the king should sustain damage, ²⁴  we are sending the king this information ²⁵  4:15 so that he may initiate a search of the records ²⁶  of his predecessors ²⁷  and discover in those records ²⁸  that this city is rebellious ²⁹  and injurious to both kings and provinces, producing internal revolts ³⁰  from long ago. ³¹  It is for this very reason that this city was destroyed. 4:16 We therefore are informing the king that if this city is rebuilt and its walls are completed, you will not retain control ³²  of this portion of Trans-Euphrates.”

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! ³³  4:18 The letter you sent to us has been translated and read in my presence. 4:19 So I gave orders, ³⁴  and it was determined ³⁵  that this city from long ago has been engaging in insurrection against kings. It has continually engaged in ³⁶  rebellion and revolt. 4:20 Powerful kings have been over Jerusalem who ruled throughout the entire Trans-Euphrates ³⁷  and who were the beneficiaries of ³⁸  tribute, custom, and toll. 4:21 Now give orders that these men cease their work and that this city not be rebuilt until such time as I so instruct. ³⁹  4:22 Exercise appropriate caution so that there is no negligence in this matter. Why should danger increase to the point that kings sustain damage?”

4:23 Then, as soon as the copy of the letter from King Artaxerxes was read in the presence of Rehum, Shimshai the scribe, and their colleagues, they proceeded promptly to the Jews in Jerusalem ⁴⁰  and stopped them with threat of armed force. ⁴¹ 

[4:6]  ¹ sn The chronological problems of Ezra 4:6-24 are well known and have been the subject of extensive discussion since ancient times. Both v. 5 and v. 24 describe the reign of Darius I Hystaspes, who ruled Persia ca. 522–486 b.c. and in whose time the rebuilt temple was finished. The material in between is from later times (v. 16 describes the rebuilding of the walls, not the temple), and so appear to be a digression. Even recognizing this, there are still questions, such as why Cambyses (530-522 b.c.) is not mentioned at all, and why events from the time of Xerxes (486-465 b.c.) and Artaxerxes (464-423 b.c.) are included here if the author was discussing opposition to the building of the temple, which was finished in 516 b.c. Theories to explain these difficulties are too numerous to mention here, but have existed since ancient times: Josephus, the first century Jewish historian, rearranged the account to put Cambyses before Xerxes and replacing Artaxerxes with Xerxes (for further discussion of Josephus’ rearrangement see L. L. Grabbe, “Josephus and the Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration” JBL 106 [1987]: 231-46). In brief, it seems best to view the author’s primary concern here as thematic (the theme of opposition to the Jewish resettlement in Jerusalem, including the rebuilding of the temple and restoration of Jerusalem’s walls) rather than purely chronological. In the previous verses the author had shown how the Jews had rejected an offer of assistance from surrounding peoples and how these people in turn harassed them. The inserted account shows how, in light of the unremitting opposition the Jews experienced (even extending down to more recent times), this refusal of help had been fully justified. Some of the documents the author employed show how this opposition continued even after the temple was rebuilt. (The failure to mention Cambyses may simply mean the author had no documents available from that period.) For detailed discussion of the difficulties presented by the passage and the various theories advanced to explain them, see H. G. M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah (WBC), 56-60.

[4:6]  ² sn Ahasuerus, otherwise known as Xerxes I, ruled ca. 486-464 b.c.

[4:6]  ³ map For location see Map5 B1; Map6 F3; Map7 E2; Map8 F2; Map10 B3; JP1 F4; JP2 F4; JP3 F4; JP4 F4.

[4:7]  ⁴ tn Heb “And in the days.”

[4:7]  ⁵ 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.

[4:7]  ⁶ tc The translation reads the plural with the Qere rather than the singular found in the MT Kethib.

[4:7]  ⁷ sn Artaxerxes I ruled in Persia from ca. 465–425 b.c.

[4:7]  ⁸ tc It is preferable to delete the MT’s וּכְתָב (ukhÿtav) here.

[4:7]  ⁹ 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.

[4:8]  ¹⁰ tn Aram “lord of the command.” So also in vv. 9, 17.

[4:8]  ¹¹ sn Like Rehum, Shimshai was apparently a fairly high-ranking official charged with overseeing Persian interests in this part of the empire. His title was “scribe” or “secretary,” but in a more elevated political sense than that word sometimes has elsewhere. American governmental titles such as “Secretary of State” perhaps provide an analogy in that the word “secretary” can have a broad range of meaning.

[4:8]  ¹² tn Or perhaps “against.”

[4:9]  ¹³ 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.

[4:9]  ¹⁴ 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.

[4:10]  ¹⁵ tn Aram “Osnappar” (so ASV, NASB, NRSV), another name for Ashurbanipal.

[4:10]  ¹⁶ 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.

[4:10]  ¹⁷ tn Aram “beyond the river.” In Ezra this term is a technical designation for the region west of the Euphrates river.

[4:11]  ¹⁸ tn The Masoretic accents indicate that the phrase “to Artaxerxes the king” goes with what precedes and that the letter begins with the words “from your servants.” But it seems better to understand the letter to begin by identifying the addressee.

[4:11]  ¹⁹ tn Aram “men of.”

[4:12]  ²⁰ tn The MT takes this word with the latter part of v. 11, but in English style it fits better with v. 12.

[4:12]  ²¹ sn Management of the provinces that were distantly removed from the capital was difficult, and insurrection in such places was a perennial problem. The language used in this report about Jerusalem (i.e., “rebellious,” “odious”) is intentionally inflammatory. It is calculated to draw immediate attention to the perceived problem.

[4:13]  ²² tn Aram “the treasury of kings.” The plural “kings” is Hebrew, not Aramaic. If the plural is intended in a numerical sense the reference is not just to Artaxerxes but to his successors as well. Some scholars understand this to be the plural of majesty, referring to Artaxerxes. See F. C. Fensham, Ezra and Nehemiah (NICOT), 74.

[4:14]  ²³ tn Aram “we eat the salt of the palace.”

[4:14]  ²⁴ tn Aram “the dishonor of the king is not fitting for us to see.”

[4:14]  ²⁵ tn Aram “and we have made known.”

[4:15]  ²⁶ tn Aram “the book of the minutes.”

[4:15]  ²⁷ tn Aram “of your fathers.”

[4:15]  ²⁸ tn Aram “discover…and learn.” For stylistic reasons this has been translated as a single concept.

[4:15]  ²⁹ tn Aram “is a rebellious city.”

[4:15]  ³⁰ tn Aram “revolts they are making in its midst.”

[4:15]  ³¹ tn Aram “from olden days.” So also in v. 19.

[4:16]  ³² tn Aram “will not be to you.”

[4:17]  ³³ tn Aram “peace.”

[4:19]  ³⁴ tn Aram “from me was placed a decree.”

[4:19]  ³⁵ tn Aram “and they searched and found.”

[4:19]  ³⁶ tn Aram “are being done.”

[4:20]  ³⁷ sn The statement that prior Jewish kings ruled over the entire Trans-Euphrates is an overstatement. Not even in the days of David and Solomon did the kingdom of Israel extend its borders to such an extent.

[4:20]  ³⁸ tn Aram “were being given to them.”

[4:21]  ³⁹ tn Aram “until a command is issued from me.”

[4:23]  ⁴⁰ tn Aram “to Jerusalem against the Jews.”

[4:23]  ⁴¹ tn Aram “by force and power,” a hendiadys.