Ezra · Chapter 4

V. 1. The adversaries-The Samaritans. The relicks of the ten tribes, and the foreigners who had joined with them.

Verse 1. Now when the adversaries] These were the Samaritans, and the different nations with which the kings of Assyria had peopled Israel, when they had carried the original inhabitants away into captivity, see Ezra 4:9, 10.

Verse 1. Now when the adversaries of Judah, &c. — The Samaritans, the relics of the ten tribes, and foreigners that had joined themselves to them, and patched up that mongrel religion of which we had an account 2 Kings 17:33, where it is said, They feared the Lord, and served their own gods. They are called the people of the land, verse 4. Thus, the worst enemies that Judah and Benjamin had were those that said they were Jews, and were not.

Verse 1. The adversaries of Judah. These were the Samaritans; that is, Jews of the ten tribes, apostate from the religion of their fathers, now intermarried with the heathen, who were worshippers of God and of idols. Consequently they could not be admitted into the Jewish church. This people, Asnapper the Assyrian general, had brought and planted in the cities of Samaria. The other adversaries are here named, the principal of whom was Tobias, at the head of the Ammonites. These several reduced nations or colonies, inhabiting the ancient kingdom of David, after some time, took the alarm on seeing Zerubbabel, one of David’s line, invested with the government of Jerusalem.

THE REBUILDING OF THE TEMPLE SUSPENDED, 1-24.

1. The adversaries of Judah and Benjamin — The foreign population, who had been transported from various cities of Chaldaea and settled in the depopulated towns of Israel, especially the cities of Samaria. Compare verses 2, 9, 10, 17 with 2 Kings 17:24. The names of their principal leaders and counsellors are given in verses 7 and 8. The children of the captivity — Those who had gone into exile, and had returned again. Most of the returned had been born in exile.

V. 2. With you-This they spake not sincerely, but that by this conjunction with them, they might pry into their counsels, and thereby find some matter of accusation against them. We seek-For so they did, though in a mongrel way, 2 Kings 17:26, &c. Esarhaddon-Son of Sennacherib, and after him king of Assyria, who brought or sent these persons hither, either,

1. in the day’s of Salmanasar, who reigned in Assyria but eight years before Esarhaddon; and so Esarhaddon might be one of his commanders, and the man by whom that colony was sent. Or,

2. in the reign of Esarhaddon, who sent this second colony to strengthen the first.

Verse 2. Let us build with you] We acknowledge the same God, are solicitous for his glory, and will gladly assist you in this work. But that they came with no friendly intention, the context proves.

Verse 2. They came to Zerubbabel, &c., and said, Let us build with you — Hearing that the temple was in building, they were presently aware that it would be a fatal blow to their superstition, and therefore set themselves to oppose it. But as they had not power to do it openly and by force, they endeavoured to do it secretly and by wiles. They offer their service to build with them, but only that by this conjunction with them they might pry into their counsels, find some matter of accusation against them, and thereby retard the work, while they pretended to further it. For we seek your God, as ye do — This was false; for though they sought the same God, they did not seek him only, nor seek him in the way he had appointed, as the true Jews did. And we do sacrifice unto him since the days of Esar-haddon — Son of Sennacherib, and after him king of Assyria, who brought or sent these persons thither, either, 1st, in the days of Shalmaneser, who reigned in Assyria but eight years before Esar-haddon, and so Esar-haddon might be one of his commanders, and the man by whom that colony was sent; or, 2d, in the reign of Esar-haddon, who sent a second colony to strengthen the first.

2. Let us build with you — Did they honestly desire to unite with the Jews in rebuilding the temple, or was this proposition made with evil design to provoke a quarrel, and find an occasion of hindering the work of the exiles? The context implies the latter. Already the hostile attitude of this foreign population had caused them fear, (Ezra 3:3,) and their subsequent opposition shows that they had no real friendship toward the Jews, and apparently only sought occasion to trouble and perplex them in their attempts to rebuild the temple of Jehovah. It is possible that some of the hostility was prompted by lingering elements of the old Israelitish enmity toward Judah, which may have been still represented by Israelites dwelling among these heathen colonists in the cities of Samaria. Such priests as had taught them to worship Jehovah (2 Kings 17:28, 32) may also have inspired them with sentiments of hostility toward the kingdom of Judah. We seek your God — They had been taught by Israelitish priests to fear Jehovah, but they also served their own idol gods. See note, 2 Kings 17:33. Since the days of Esar-haddon — The first colonists of the depopulated towns of Samaria were settled there by Sargon, (see note on 2 Kings 17:24,) but other colonists were also transported thither by later kings, as this verse shows. Esar-haddon was the son and successor of Sennacherib. On his accession to the throne of Assyria see note on 2 Kings 19:37. He was the last Assyrian monarch whose name occurs in the Scriptures, and it was doubtless his captains who captured King Manasseh, and carried him to Babylon. 2 Chronicles 33:11-13. It is suggested by Rawlinson (Ancient Mon., vol. ii, page 194) that this planting of foreign colonists in Samaria, in addition to what Sargon had previously done, was done in connexion with the restoration of Manasseh to his kingdom. He hoped by that measure to strengthen the hold of Assyria upon Palestine. Esar-haddon reigned thirteen years, and was one of the most enterprising and powerful of the Assyrian kings. Assur — An incorrect form of anglicising the Hebrew word rwva, Asshur, or Assyria.

V. 3. With us-As being of another nation and religion, and therefore not concerned in Cyrus’s grant, which was confined to the Israelites. Take heed, whom you go partners with, and on whose hand you lean. While we trust God with an absolute confidence, we must trust men with a prudent caution.

Verse 3. Ye have nothing to do with us] We cannot acknowledge you as worshippers of the true God, and cannot participate with you in anything that relates to his worship.

Verse 3. Ye have nothing to do with us — The chief of the fathers were soon aware that they meant them no kindness, whatever they might pretend, but really designed to do them an injury; and therefore, (though they had need enough of help, if it had been such as they could confide in,) they told them plainly they could not accept it, nor unite with them, as being of another nation and religion, and therefore not concerned in Cyrus’s grant, which was confined to the Israelites. But we ourselves will build — For you are none of those with whom we dare hold communion. Thus we ought to take heed with whom we go partners, and on whose hand we lean. While we trust God with an absolute confidence, we must trust men with a prudent caution. They do not plead to them the law of their God, which forbade them to mingle themselves with strangers, though they especially had an eye to that, but they urge what they knew would have greater weight with them, the king’s commission, which was directed to themselves only. In doing good we have need of the wisdom of the serpent, as well as of the innocence of the dove.

3. Ye have nothing to do with us — Literally, It is not to you and to us to build, etc., that is, ye have no proper right or claim to be associated with us in rebuilding the temple, for, as 2 Kings 17:41 shows, while these nations feared Jehovah, they still worshipped the graven images of their false gods, and so were really idolaters. The true Hebrew could not fellowship such worshippers of God.

Verse 4. Weakened the hands] Discouraged and opposed them by every possible means.

Verse 4. But the people of the land — Hebrew of that land; namely, the Samaritans, the present inhabitants of that province. Weakened the hands of the people of Judah — As they could not divert them from the work, they endeavoured to discourage them in it, by persuading them it was in vain to attempt it, and that they would never be able to finish what they had begun. And troubled them in building — Laying all the impediments they could in their way; by false reports and slanders; by threatenings; and by preventing materials or provisions from coming to them; or by enticing away their workmen, and other means described afterward.

4. Weakened the hands of the people — By throwing all possible difficulties in their way. We have no mention of the particular measures they took to weaken and trouble the Jews, except what is related in the sequel of their accusation against them before successive Persian kings.

V. 5. Cyrus-For though Cyrus still favoured the Jews, yet he was then diverted by his wars, and his son Cambyses was left his vice-roy, who was a wicked prince, and an enemy to the Jews. Until-Heb. and until, &c. not only in the reign of Cyrus but also of Cambyses, and of the magician, after whom was Darius.

Verse 5. Hired counsellors] They found means to corrupt some of the principal officers of the Persian court, so that the orders of Cyrus were not executed; or at least so slowly as to make them nearly ineffectual. Until the reign of Darius] This was probably Darius the son of Hystaspes.

Verse 5. And hired counsellors against them — Bribed some of the king’s council, in order that by their artifices, and interests in his court, they might give some stop to the work, and frustrate the purpose of the Jews. All the days of Cyrus king of Persia — For though Cyrus still favoured the Jews, yet he was then diverted by his wars, and his son Cambyses was left his viceroy, who was a wicked prince, and an enemy to the Jews. Even until the reign of Darius — The son of Hystaspis, who, having killed the magi, (that, after Cambyses, had possessed themselves of the kingdom,) was made king; and marrying Atossa, the daughter of Cyrus, and loving her very much, confirmed the decree of Cyrus, and followed his steps, that he might stand the safer himself.

5. Hired counsellors against them — This is to be understood of such men as Bishlam and his companions, (ver. 7,) who were commissioned and employed by the enemies of Judah to work with the officers of the Persian empire, and obtain their help to hinder the building of the temple. To frustrate their purpose — Namely, the purpose of the Jews to rebuild the house of God at Jerusalem. These counsellors probably prevailed on the governors of the neighbouring provinces to hinder the Jews from obtaining the material necessary for their work. This would greatly weaken and trouble the returned exiles, especially if the governor of Phoenicia had been prevailed on to oppose their obtaining cedar wood from Lebanon. All the days of Cyrus — Who reigned, according to Herodotus, twenty-nine years. During his reign they obtained no reversal of his edict to have the temple rebuilt, but he was probably so much engaged in wars that the matter was left largely in the hands of the governors of the neighbouring provinces. Until the reign of Darius — In his second year, verse 24. This Darius was the son of Hystaspes, famous in Persian history for his assassination of Smerdis the Magian, who had usurped the throne of Cyrus, assuming to be Cyrus’s son. See note on verse 24. Between Cyrus and this Darius two other kings reigned over Persia. The first was Cambyses, Cyrus’s son, (the Ahasuerus of the next verse,) who succeeded his father, and reigned seven years. The other was Gomates, one of the Magi, who took advantage of Cambyses’s absence to usurp the throne, and reigned seven months. So from the first year of Cyrus to the second of Darius was a period of thirty-eight years, during which hardly any thing was done towards rebuilding the temple except the laying of its foundation.

V. 6. Ahasuerus-A common name to divers kings of Persia. Cambyses the son and successor of Cyrus, was known to be no friend to the Jewish nation.

Verse 6. In the reign of Ahasuerus] This is the person who is called Cambyses by the Greeks. He reigned seven years and five months; and during the whole of that time the building of the temple was interrupted.

Verse 6. In the reign of Ahasuerus — A common name of divers kings of Persia. This Ahasuerus was probably Smerdis, one of the magi who seized the kingdom after Cambyses. Wrote they unto him an accusation against Judah and Jerusalem — Importing that they intended to set up for themselves, and not to depend upon the king of Persia.

Ver. 6. Ahasuérus, who is called Cambyses by Herodotus; he reigned during the absence of Cyrus his father. His reign was short, only seven years and five months. He led his army like a fool against Ethiopia, without guides, and without provisions: and they perished in the deserts.

6. Ahasuerus — It is quite generally allowed that by this king we are to understand Cambyses, the son and successor of Cyrus. Some, indeed, have sought to identify him with Xerxes, the Ahasuerus of the Book of Esther, but that hypothesis is utterly incompatible with the order of time evidently followed in this book. How Cambyses came to be called Ahasuerus by our author may not be now decided, but the difference in the names is not in itself sufficient to disprove the identity of the persons, and the son of Cyrus may have borne both these names. It appears that Smerdis was known by various names. See note on verse 7. And the writer of Esther (Ezra 1:1) is careful to define the Ahasuerus of his book, assuming that there was more than one Ahasuerus known to his readers. Cambyses is represented in all accounts that remain of him as one of the most passionate and tyrannical of kings. He early assassinated his brother Smerdis, being jealous of him as a rival. He is said to have married his own sisters, and to have brutally killed one of them in a fit of madness. He invaded and conquered Egypt, and this was the great deed of his reign. While absent upon this expedition he learned, according to Herodotus, that Smerdis the Magian had usurped his throne, and in his haste to mount his horse and return home to punish the impious pretender his sword accidentally struck his thigh, and he died soon after from the wound. So the Magian continued for a time in peaceable possession of the empire. An accusation — hncc. This Hebrew word is the feminine form of the name of Satan, (ˆcc,) the arch-adversary and accuser of mankind. This accusation against the Jews seems not to have accomplished any thing of note with this king of Persia; at least no result of it is recorded.

V. 7. 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.

Verse 7. In the days of Artaxerxes] After the death of Cambyses, one of the Magi named Oropæstus by Trogus Pompeius, Smerdis by Herodotus, Mardus by Æschylus, and Sphendatates by Ctesias, usurped the empire, feigning himself to be Smerdis, the brother of Cambyses, who had been put to death. This is the person named Artaxerxes in the text: or, following the Hebrew, Artachshasta. It is generally believed, that from the time of Cyrus the great, Xerxes and Artaxerxes were names assumed by the Persian sovereigns, whatever their names had been before.

Written in the Syrian tongue] That is, the Syrian or Chaldean character was used; not the Hebrew.

Interpreted, in the Syrian tongue.] That is, the language, as well as the character, was the Syriac or Chaldaic.

Verse 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.

Ver. 7. In the days of Artaxerxes, surnamed Longimanus, or Longhand. During the seven years that Cambyses son of Cyrus reigned, the adversaries had grieved, but kept silence; for they thought the son would not act against his sire. Now, a new prince having usurped the throne, they lost no time to excite his jealousy against the Jews. Learned men cannot fully clear up the names and time that each of the Persian kings reigned. See the notes on chapters 5. 6.

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, (verse 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” (verse 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 verse 9. These counsellors wrote the document which follows, (verses 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, (tymra). 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, Nehemiah 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 µgrtm, 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.

Verse 8. Rehum the chancellor] With this verse the Chaldee part of the chapter begins; and the same language continues to the end of Ezra 6:18. These men wrote to Darius in their own language; and the king in the same dialect returns an answer, chap. v. This circumstance adds authenticity to what is written: so scrupulous was the inspired penman, that he not only gave the words which each spoke and wrote, but he gave them also in the very language in which they were conceived and in the character peculiar to that language.

Verses 8, 9. Rehum the chancellor and Shimshai the scribe wrote a letter, &c. — These two, as it was their office, put into writing, or drew up, a letter, agreeable to what had been resolved on in a council of the great men, or governors, mentioned in the foregoing verse. The Dinaites, &c. — These nine nations came out of Assyria, Persia, Media, Susiana, and other provinces of that vast empire; who, with one consent, joined in this letter or petition.

Ver. 8. Wrote a letter against Jerusalem, in the Chaldaic language, and the answer is returned in the same tongue. Therefore Ezra inserts them here untranslated.

8. The chancellor — Hebrew, Lord of counsel, that is, a royal counsellor. He seems to have been the Persian governor and judge of the district of Samaria, and of the colonists mentioned in the next verse. The Sept. and Vulg. take the word as a proper name — Baaltam. The scribe — Probably the secretary of the governor, or chancellor, and the one who translated this letter against Jerusalem into the Aramaean language. In this sort — The two following verses (9-10) are to be regarded, not as an exact transcript, but a running paraphrase, giving the sentiment and general form of expression at the beginning of the letter. The introduction to the letter was in this sort, or after this manner. Hence the repetition in verse 11, after which follows what we may regard as an exact copy.

Verses 8, 9. Rehum the chancellor and Shimshai the scribe wrote a letter, &c. — These two, as it was their office, put into writing, or drew up, a letter, agreeable to what had been resolved on in a council of the great men, or governors, mentioned in the foregoing verse. The Dinaites, &c. — These nine nations came out of Assyria, Persia, Media, Susiana, and other provinces of that vast empire; who, with one consent, joined in this letter or petition.

9. Of the names here given to the colonists according to the various cities or provinces of the Assyrian empire, the Dinaites, Apharsathchites, Tarpelites, and Apharsites are otherwise unknown. The various conjectures as to their origin are not worth recording. The Archevites were, perhaps, from the Babylonian city Erech. Genesis 10:10. The Babylonians were undoubtedly either from the city or province of Babylon. Compare 2 Kings 17:24. The Susanchites were evidently from Susa or Shushan, which became the metropolis of the Persian empire, (Nehemiah 1:1; Esther 1:2,) but was originally the capital of the land of Elam. The Dehavites are generally thought to be identical with the Davi or Dahi of Herodotus, Strabo, and other classic writers, a Persian nomadic tribe, “whose name,” says Rawlinson, (Herod., i, p. 338,) “is equivalent to the Latin ‘Rustici,’ and who were spread over the whole country from the Caspian to the Persian Gulf and the Tigris.” The Elamites were natives of the province of which Shushan was the capital, (Daniel 8:2,) and which was originally settled by the descendants of Shem. Genesis 10:22.

V. 10. Asnapper-Either Esarhaddon, or some other person of eminency, who was captain of this colony, and conducted them hither. The river-Euphrates. Time-The date of the epistle was particularly expressed therein, but here it was sufficient to note it in general.

Verse 10. The great and noble Asnapper] Whether this was Shalmaneser, or Esar-haddon, or some other person, learned men and chronologists are not agreed. The Syriac terms him Asphid; but of this person we know no more than we do of Asnapper. He might have been the military officer who was appointed to escort this people to Judea.

Verse 10. Whom the great and noble Asnapper brought over — Some take Asnapper to be another name for Shalmaneser, or for Esar-haddon, who sent these colonies hither. But it is more reasonable to think he was some great commander, or other person of eminence, who was appointed captain of this colony, and intrusted with the office of conducting them over the river Euphrates, and seeing them settled in these countries.

10. The great and noble Asnapper — Some have supposed that Asnapper is another name, or another form of the name, of Shalmanezer, or of Esar-haddon, and such a supposition is especially plausible here, as the name occurs in a document written in a different language, in which the form of the name might suffer change. But it is, perhaps, better to understand the name as the title of the Assyrian general or satrap by whom these nations were brought over and settled in Samaria. Thus it was Esar-haddon’s “captains” that carried Manasseh to Babylon. 2 Chronicles 33:11. To such an officer these nations would naturally apply the epithets great and noble. On this side the river — Better, beyond the river, that is Euphrates. The writer employs the usus loquendi of the Persians, who would speak of the country west of the Euphrates as beyond the river. Furst renders it, the (western) bank district of the river. Syria and Palestine probably formed one satrapy under the Persian kings, and was under the charge of one governor. Compare Ezra 5:3, note. And at such a time — Chald. tn[kw, and so forth; compare verses 11 and 17, and 7:12: a sort of abbreviation where certain items or forms of statement are assumed to be understood, and, therefore, not expressed, but simply indicated. Hence it indicates not the date of the letter, but the omission of certain formularies of introduction, and is equivalent to our et cetera — and so forth.

Verse 11. And at such a time.] The word וכענת ucheeneth has greatly perplexed all commentators and critics. The versions give us no light; and the Vulgate translates it et dicunt salutem, “and they wish prosperity.” Some translate it and so forth; and our translators supposed that it referred to the date, which however is not specified, and might have been as easily entered as the words and at such a time.

In our first translation of the Bible, that by Coverdale, in 1535, the passage stands thus: “And other on this syde the water, and in Canaan.” In that by Becke, 1549, it is thus: “And other on this syde the water, and in Ceneeth:” and in the margin he enters “or peace,” “or health.” In Cardmarden’s Bible, printed at Rouen, 1566, it stands thus: “And other that are nowe on thys syde the water.”

In that printed by Barker, 1615, we find the text thus: “AND OTHER that are beyond the river, and Cheeneth;” on which is the following marginal note: “To wit, Euphrates: and he meaneth in respect of Babel, that they dwelt beyond it.” And the note on Cheeneth is, “Which were a certain people that envied the Jews.” All this is merely guessing, in the midst of obscurity; most of these having considered the original word כענת Ceeneth as the name of a people; and in this they follow the Syriac, which uses the word Acaneth.

Calmet thinks we should read ובעת ubaeth, “and at this time; “ as if they had said, “We wish thee to enjoy the same health and prosperity at all future times, which thou dost at present.” This is not remote from the meaning of the Chaldee original.

11. This is the copy — After this verse (verses 12-16) we seem to have an exact transcript of the substance of the letter that they sent. What precedes in verses 9 and 10 was a sort of paraphrase of the introduction to the letter. See note on verse 8.

V. 12. Be it known, &c.-This is a mere fiction, which being confidently affirmed, they thought would easily find belief with a king whose heart and ears they possessed by their hired counsellors.

Verse 12. And have set up the walls thereof — This was a mere calumny, for they had attempted no such thing as to build the walls of Jerusalem. They had indeed built some houses, without which the place could not be inhabited, and were now employed in erecting the walls of the temple: but they had not begun to encompass the city with walls, to defend it against the incursions of their enemies. This was not undertaken till long after. The assertion of the Samaritans, therefore, was without foundation. But being confidently affirmed, they thought it would be easily credited by the king, whose heart and ears they had contrived to possess by their counsellors.

12. The Jews — This name came to be the common appellation of all Israelites after the exile. It was, doubtless, due to the permanence of the kingdom of Judah long after the northern kingdom of Israel had ceased, and to the fact that by far the greater portion of the exiles who returned were of the tribe and kingdom of Judah. The rebellious and the bad city — “In their craftiness they do not mention the temple which the Jews were building, and which Cyrus had encouraged them to build, but they mention the city, which they were not building.” — Wordsworth. Set up the walls — It was perfectly in keeping with the character of these enemies of the Jews to misrepresent their work in this way. The exiles had received a royal charter permitting them to rebuild the temple, but not to rebuild the walls of the city. By confounding the two things these crafty Samaritans make out a damaging case against the Jews.

Verse 13. Toll, tribute, and custom] The first term is supposed to imply the capitation tax; the second, an excise on commodities and merchandise; the third, a sort of land tax. Others suppose the first means a property tax; the second, a poll tax; and the third, what was paid on imports and exports. In a word, if you permit these people to rebuild and fortify their city, they will soon set you at naught, and pay you no kind of tribute.

Verse 13. Then will they not pay toll, tribute, and custom — “By the first of these, Grotius understands that which every head paid to the king, and which we call poll-money; by the second, the excise, as we now speak, which was upon commodities and merchandise; and by the last, the land-tax.” — Dodd.

13. Toll, tribute, and custom — Comprising all kinds of revenue. It is difficult to decide the precise import of each term. Following the etymology of the original words used, we may say that toll (hdnm) denotes some tax or portion measured out, an assessment; probably a poll tax. Tribute (wlb) comes from a root which signifies to consume, to use up. Hence Furst defines it as a tax on articles consumed; excise. Custom (Ëlh) from the root which means to walk, or travel, may denote a sort of road tax or toll levied on travellers or caravans who passed over the public roads.

Verse 14. Now because we have maintenance from the king’s palace] More literally: Now because at all times we are salted with the salt of the palace; i.e., We live on the king’s bounty, and must be faithful to our benefactor. Salt was used as the emblem of an incorruptible covenant; and those who ate bread and salt together were considered as having entered into a very solemn covenant. These hypocrites intimated that they felt their conscience bound by the league between them and the king; and therefore could not conscientiously see any thing going on that was likely to turn to the king’s damage. They were probably also persons in the pay of the Persian king.

Verse 14. Now because we have maintenance from the king’s palace — In the Hebrew it is, we are salted with the salt of the palace. That is, are sustained by the king’s munificence, or have a salary from him, as Junius translates it. In ancient times, it appears, it was usual to allow those who had deserved well, and on that account were honourably provided for at the king’s charge, among other things, a daily quantity of salt; it being a thing very necessary in human life. Locke, however, who translates the clause, we have eaten of the king’s salt, understands the meaning to be, “We have engaged ourselves in a covenant of friendship with him.” It was not meet for us to see the king’s dishonour — Thus they represent themselves as very loyal to the government, and mightily concerned for the honour and interest of it; and hence they urge the king to put a stop to the building of the city and temple of Jerusalem, as what would certainly be to his loss and dishonour.

14. We have maintenance from the king’s palace — Omit the interpolation, kings, of the translators. This version gives the sense, but the margin gives the Chaldee more correctly: We are salted with the salt of the palace. To take or eat one’s salt is a common saying among many nations for receiving one’s living from another. Our word salary comes from the Latin word for salt, (sal,) and arose from the custom of paying Roman soldiers in salt. These Samaritans profess great zeal for the king, inasmuch as they obtained their living from him.

Verse 15. The book of the records of thy fathers] That is, the records of the Chaldeans, to whom the Persians succeeded.

Verse 15. In the book of the records of thy fathers — That is, thy predecessors, the former emperors of this empire; namely, in the Assyrian and Babylonish records; which, together with the empire, were now in the hands of the Persian kings.

15. Book of the records — Public and official annals of the kingdom, and of the acts of its kings, prepared by the scribes and recorders, and deposited for reference and use among the archives of the nation. See Introduction to the Books of Kings, (chapter on the sources.) Of thy fathers — This word is here used of the king’s predecessors on the throne — records of previous kings and dynasties that had held dominion over all Western Asia. These records contained accounts of the rebellions in different provinces of the empire, and of the efforts that had been made to suppress them; and prominent among them must have been the rebellions and wars of Judah and Jerusalem — the causes of their exile.

Ver. 16. On this side the river; not the Jordan, but the Euphrates.

Verses 6-23. These verses are regarded by a number of recent critics as an interpolation, consisting of a document belonging to the times of Nehemiah and Artaxerxes Longimanus, when, it is assumed, the Jews made an attempt to rebuild the walls and city of Jerusalem, but were made to cease, as herein described. The arguments by which this position is maintained are ingenious and plausible, but by no means conclusive. 1. It is said that Ahasuerus (verse 6) is the Scripture name of Xerxes, who was the son and successor of Darius Hystaspes; and that Artaxerxes (ver. 7) is in this same book (Ezra 7:1) the name of Artaxerxes Longimanus, the son and successor of Xerxes. But it does not follow from this that Cambyses, and Smerdis the Magian, may not also have been known to the Jews under the names, respectively, of Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes. 2. It is urged that nothing is said in this document about the temple, but the Jews are charged with rebuilding the walls of the city. Comp. verses 12, 13, 16. Now, as Nehemiah, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, is informed that the walls of Jerusalem are broken down, and the gates burned with fire, (Nehemiah 1:3,) it is assumed that in the earlier part of the reign of that king the Jews were rebuilding the city of Jerusalem, and were complained of in this letter to the king, and by his decree, as given in verses 21 and 22, the work was forcibly stopped, and the walls and gates, newly built, were again demolished. So this section, verses 6-23, belongs, chronologically, at the beginning of the Book of Nehemiah. But all this is at best a very doubtful hypothesis, and too easily set aside to be of any force. The fact that in this letter the enemies of the Jews do not mention the temple, but represent that the walls of the city are being rebuilt, is in perfect keeping with the inimical and crafty designs of those enemies. We naturally expect them to misrepresent the Jews before the king, and their letter contains just truth enough to blind the king, and prevent him from understanding all the facts in the case, for he would not be likely to inquire whether the Jews were building the foundations and walls of the city, or only of the temple. Further, it is hardly supposable that if Artaxerxes Longimanus had written the letter in verses 17-22, he would so soon afterwards have shown Ezra such favours and such authority as is recorded in chapter vii, favours of such a character as caused Ezra to class him among those who even helped to complete the temple. See note on chap. 6:14. Nor would the same king have been likely, a few years later, to have commissioned Nehemiah to go and rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. 3. It is also claimed by some that after the mention of Darius in verse 5, the writer goes forward to record the success of these enemies of Judah, subsequent to the times of Darius. But, on the contrary, it is much more evident, both from the words of verse 5 and verse 24, that in verses 6-23 the writer describes what took place between the time of Cyrus and the second year of Darius. The emphatic statement of verse 24, “Then ceased the work of the house of God,” can only refer to the statement immediately preceding, that upon receiving the king’s letter the enemies of Judah “went up in haste to Jerusalem… and made them to cease by force and power.”

Verse 17. Peace, and at such a time] The word וכעת ucheeth is like that which we have already considered on Ezra 4:10, and probably has the same meaning.

17. An answer — The original word (µgtp) conveys the idea not only of an answer, but also of a decree: an edict. Peace, and at such a time — Rather, peace, and so forth. This expression denotes that the customary formularies of introduction are omitted. See note on verse 11.

Verses 6-23. These verses are regarded by a number of recent critics as an interpolation, consisting of a document belonging to the times of Nehemiah and Artaxerxes Longimanus, when, it is assumed, the Jews made an attempt to rebuild the walls and city of Jerusalem, but were made to cease, as herein described. The arguments by which this position is maintained are ingenious and plausible, but by no means conclusive. 1. It is said that Ahasuerus (verse 6) is the Scripture name of Xerxes, who was the son and successor of Darius Hystaspes; and that Artaxerxes (ver. 7) is in this same book (Ezra 7:1) the name of Artaxerxes Longimanus, the son and successor of Xerxes. But it does not follow from this that Cambyses, and Smerdis the Magian, may not also have been known to the Jews under the names, respectively, of Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes. 2. It is urged that nothing is said in this document about the temple, but the Jews are charged with rebuilding the walls of the city. Comp. verses 12, 13, 16. Now, as Nehemiah, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, is informed that the walls of Jerusalem are broken down, and the gates burned with fire, (Nehemiah 1:3,) it is assumed that in the earlier part of the reign of that king the Jews were rebuilding the city of Jerusalem, and were complained of in this letter to the king, and by his decree, as given in verses 21 and 22, the work was forcibly stopped, and the walls and gates, newly built, were again demolished. So this section, verses 6-23, belongs, chronologically, at the beginning of the Book of Nehemiah. But all this is at best a very doubtful hypothesis, and too easily set aside to be of any force. The fact that in this letter the enemies of the Jews do not mention the temple, but represent that the walls of the city are being rebuilt, is in perfect keeping with the inimical and crafty designs of those enemies. We naturally expect them to misrepresent the Jews before the king, and their letter contains just truth enough to blind the king, and prevent him from understanding all the facts in the case, for he would not be likely to inquire whether the Jews were building the foundations and walls of the city, or only of the temple. Further, it is hardly supposable that if Artaxerxes Longimanus had written the letter in verses 17-22, he would so soon afterwards have shown Ezra such favours and such authority as is recorded in chapter vii, favours of such a character as caused Ezra to class him among those who even helped to complete the temple. See note on chap. 6:14. Nor would the same king have been likely, a few years later, to have commissioned Nehemiah to go and rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. 3. It is also claimed by some that after the mention of Darius in verse 5, the writer goes forward to record the success of these enemies of Judah, subsequent to the times of Darius. But, on the contrary, it is much more evident, both from the words of verse 5 and verse 24, that in verses 6-23 the writer describes what took place between the time of Cyrus and the second year of Darius. The emphatic statement of verse 24, “Then ceased the work of the house of God,” can only refer to the statement immediately preceding, that upon receiving the king’s letter the enemies of Judah “went up in haste to Jerusalem… and made them to cease by force and power.”

Verse 19. Hath made insurrection against kings] Mow true is the proverb, “It is an easy thing to find a staff to beat a dog!” The struggles of the Israelites to preserve or regain their independency, which they had from God, are termed insurrection, rebellion, and sedition: because at last they fell under the power of their oppressors. Had they been successful in these struggles, such offensive words had never been used. In 1688 the people of England struggled to throw off an oppressive government, that was changing the times and the seasons, and overthrowing the religion of the country, and setting up in its place the spurious off-spring of popery and arbitrary government. They were successful; and it is called the Revolution: had they failed it would have been called rebellion; and the parties principally concerned would have been put to death.

Verses 19, 20. That rebellion and sedition have been found therein — One instance or two of it, in latter times, had served to fasten this odious character upon them, as if they had been always guilty of these crimes. There have been mighty kings also over Jerusalem — And therefore the king thought it not advisable to permit them to go on with rebuilding the city, lest they should become powerful again.

Verses 6-23. These verses are regarded by a number of recent critics as an interpolation, consisting of a document belonging to the times of Nehemiah and Artaxerxes Longimanus, when, it is assumed, the Jews made an attempt to rebuild the walls and city of Jerusalem, but were made to cease, as herein described. The arguments by which this position is maintained are ingenious and plausible, but by no means conclusive. 1. It is said that Ahasuerus (verse 6) is the Scripture name of Xerxes, who was the son and successor of Darius Hystaspes; and that Artaxerxes (ver. 7) is in this same book (Ezra 7:1) the name of Artaxerxes Longimanus, the son and successor of Xerxes. But it does not follow from this that Cambyses, and Smerdis the Magian, may not also have been known to the Jews under the names, respectively, of Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes. 2. It is urged that nothing is said in this document about the temple, but the Jews are charged with rebuilding the walls of the city. Comp. verses 12, 13, 16. Now, as Nehemiah, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, is informed that the walls of Jerusalem are broken down, and the gates burned with fire, (Nehemiah 1:3,) it is assumed that in the earlier part of the reign of that king the Jews were rebuilding the city of Jerusalem, and were complained of in this letter to the king, and by his decree, as given in verses 21 and 22, the work was forcibly stopped, and the walls and gates, newly built, were again demolished. So this section, verses 6-23, belongs, chronologically, at the beginning of the Book of Nehemiah. But all this is at best a very doubtful hypothesis, and too easily set aside to be of any force. The fact that in this letter the enemies of the Jews do not mention the temple, but represent that the walls of the city are being rebuilt, is in perfect keeping with the inimical and crafty designs of those enemies. We naturally expect them to misrepresent the Jews before the king, and their letter contains just truth enough to blind the king, and prevent him from understanding all the facts in the case, for he would not be likely to inquire whether the Jews were building the foundations and walls of the city, or only of the temple. Further, it is hardly supposable that if Artaxerxes Longimanus had written the letter in verses 17-22, he would so soon afterwards have shown Ezra such favours and such authority as is recorded in chapter vii, favours of such a character as caused Ezra to class him among those who even helped to complete the temple. See note on chap. 6:14. Nor would the same king have been likely, a few years later, to have commissioned Nehemiah to go and rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. 3. It is also claimed by some that after the mention of Darius in verse 5, the writer goes forward to record the success of these enemies of Judah, subsequent to the times of Darius. But, on the contrary, it is much more evident, both from the words of verse 5 and verse 24, that in verses 6-23 the writer describes what took place between the time of Cyrus and the second year of Darius. The emphatic statement of verse 24, “Then ceased the work of the house of God,” can only refer to the statement immediately preceding, that upon receiving the king’s letter the enemies of Judah “went up in haste to Jerusalem… and made them to cease by force and power.”

Verse 20. Beyond the river] That is, the Euphrates. Both David and Solomon carried their conquests beyond this river. See 2 Samuel 8:3, &c., and 1 Kings 4:21, where it is said, Solomon reigned over all kingdoms from the river (Euphrates) unto the land of the Philistines; and unto the borders of Egypt.

Verses 19, 20. That rebellion and sedition have been found therein — One instance or two of it, in latter times, had served to fasten this odious character upon them, as if they had been always guilty of these crimes. There have been mighty kings also over Jerusalem — And therefore the king thought it not advisable to permit them to go on with rebuilding the city, lest they should become powerful again.

20. Mighty kings also over Jerusalem — Reference is especially to Solomon, who reigned over all kingdoms between Egypt and the Euphrates, and received tribute from them. 1 Kings 4:21. David’s conquests had also extended to the Euphrates. 2 Samuel 8:3. Toll, tribute, and custom — See on verse 13.

Verse 21. Until another commandment shall be given from me.] The rebuilding was only provisionally suspended. The decree was, Let it cease for the present; nor let it proceed at any time without an order express from me.

Verse 21. Give ye now commandment to cause these men to cease — Thus he suffered himself to be imposed upon by their fraud and falsehood, and took no care to examine the allegations of their petition concerning what the Jews were now doing; but took all they had asserted for matter of fact, and therefore was very ready to gratify them with an order of council to stay proceedings. Until another commandment shall be given — So that, it appears, however, he kept his ears open to further information; which if he should receive, different from theirs, he might give other orders.

Verses 6-23. These verses are regarded by a number of recent critics as an interpolation, consisting of a document belonging to the times of Nehemiah and Artaxerxes Longimanus, when, it is assumed, the Jews made an attempt to rebuild the walls and city of Jerusalem, but were made to cease, as herein described. The arguments by which this position is maintained are ingenious and plausible, but by no means conclusive. 1. It is said that Ahasuerus (verse 6) is the Scripture name of Xerxes, who was the son and successor of Darius Hystaspes; and that Artaxerxes (ver. 7) is in this same book (Ezra 7:1) the name of Artaxerxes Longimanus, the son and successor of Xerxes. But it does not follow from this that Cambyses, and Smerdis the Magian, may not also have been known to the Jews under the names, respectively, of Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes. 2. It is urged that nothing is said in this document about the temple, but the Jews are charged with rebuilding the walls of the city. Comp. verses 12, 13, 16. Now, as Nehemiah, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, is informed that the walls of Jerusalem are broken down, and the gates burned with fire, (Nehemiah 1:3,) it is assumed that in the earlier part of the reign of that king the Jews were rebuilding the city of Jerusalem, and were complained of in this letter to the king, and by his decree, as given in verses 21 and 22, the work was forcibly stopped, and the walls and gates, newly built, were again demolished. So this section, verses 6-23, belongs, chronologically, at the beginning of the Book of Nehemiah. But all this is at best a very doubtful hypothesis, and too easily set aside to be of any force. The fact that in this letter the enemies of the Jews do not mention the temple, but represent that the walls of the city are being rebuilt, is in perfect keeping with the inimical and crafty designs of those enemies. We naturally expect them to misrepresent the Jews before the king, and their letter contains just truth enough to blind the king, and prevent him from understanding all the facts in the case, for he would not be likely to inquire whether the Jews were building the foundations and walls of the city, or only of the temple. Further, it is hardly supposable that if Artaxerxes Longimanus had written the letter in verses 17-22, he would so soon afterwards have shown Ezra such favours and such authority as is recorded in chapter vii, favours of such a character as caused Ezra to class him among those who even helped to complete the temple. See note on chap. 6:14. Nor would the same king have been likely, a few years later, to have commissioned Nehemiah to go and rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. 3. It is also claimed by some that after the mention of Darius in verse 5, the writer goes forward to record the success of these enemies of Judah, subsequent to the times of Darius. But, on the contrary, it is much more evident, both from the words of verse 5 and verse 24, that in verses 6-23 the writer describes what took place between the time of Cyrus and the second year of Darius. The emphatic statement of verse 24, “Then ceased the work of the house of God,” can only refer to the statement immediately preceding, that upon receiving the king’s letter the enemies of Judah “went up in haste to Jerusalem… and made them to cease by force and power.”

Verse 22. Take heed now that ye fail not, &c. — Let not a thing, which may be of such ill consequence, grow to a head, whereby others may be excited to follow the example, and rebel against the king.

Verses 6-23. These verses are regarded by a number of recent critics as an interpolation, consisting of a document belonging to the times of Nehemiah and Artaxerxes Longimanus, when, it is assumed, the Jews made an attempt to rebuild the walls and city of Jerusalem, but were made to cease, as herein described. The arguments by which this position is maintained are ingenious and plausible, but by no means conclusive. 1. It is said that Ahasuerus (verse 6) is the Scripture name of Xerxes, who was the son and successor of Darius Hystaspes; and that Artaxerxes (ver. 7) is in this same book (Ezra 7:1) the name of Artaxerxes Longimanus, the son and successor of Xerxes. But it does not follow from this that Cambyses, and Smerdis the Magian, may not also have been known to the Jews under the names, respectively, of Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes. 2. It is urged that nothing is said in this document about the temple, but the Jews are charged with rebuilding the walls of the city. Comp. verses 12, 13, 16. Now, as Nehemiah, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, is informed that the walls of Jerusalem are broken down, and the gates burned with fire, (Nehemiah 1:3,) it is assumed that in the earlier part of the reign of that king the Jews were rebuilding the city of Jerusalem, and were complained of in this letter to the king, and by his decree, as given in verses 21 and 22, the work was forcibly stopped, and the walls and gates, newly built, were again demolished. So this section, verses 6-23, belongs, chronologically, at the beginning of the Book of Nehemiah. But all this is at best a very doubtful hypothesis, and too easily set aside to be of any force. The fact that in this letter the enemies of the Jews do not mention the temple, but represent that the walls of the city are being rebuilt, is in perfect keeping with the inimical and crafty designs of those enemies. We naturally expect them to misrepresent the Jews before the king, and their letter contains just truth enough to blind the king, and prevent him from understanding all the facts in the case, for he would not be likely to inquire whether the Jews were building the foundations and walls of the city, or only of the temple. Further, it is hardly supposable that if Artaxerxes Longimanus had written the letter in verses 17-22, he would so soon afterwards have shown Ezra such favours and such authority as is recorded in chapter vii, favours of such a character as caused Ezra to class him among those who even helped to complete the temple. See note on chap. 6:14. Nor would the same king have been likely, a few years later, to have commissioned Nehemiah to go and rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. 3. It is also claimed by some that after the mention of Darius in verse 5, the writer goes forward to record the success of these enemies of Judah, subsequent to the times of Darius. But, on the contrary, it is much more evident, both from the words of verse 5 and verse 24, that in verses 6-23 the writer describes what took place between the time of Cyrus and the second year of Darius. The emphatic statement of verse 24, “Then ceased the work of the house of God,” can only refer to the statement immediately preceding, that upon receiving the king’s letter the enemies of Judah “went up in haste to Jerusalem… and made them to cease by force and power.”

V. 23. To cease. &c.-As they abused the king by their misinformations, in the obtaining of this order, so they abused him in the execution of it; for the order was only to prevent the walling of the city. But having power in their hands, they, on this pretence, stopt the building of the temple. See what need we have to pray, not only for kings, but for all in authority under them: because the quietness of our lives depends much on the integrity and wisdom of inferior magistrates as well as the supreme.

Verse 23. Made them to cease by force and power.] Commanded them on pain of the king’s displeasure not to proceed, obliging all to remit their labours, and probably bringing an armed force to prevent them from going forward.

Verse 23. And made them to cease by force and power — As they abused the king by their misinformations, in the obtaining of this order, so they abused him in the execution of it; for the order was only to prevent the building of the city and its walls. But, having power in their hands, they on this pretence stopped the building of the temple. See what need we have to pray, not only for kings, but for all in authority under them; because the quietness of our lives depends much on the integrity and wisdom of inferior magistrates as well as the supreme.

23. Went up in haste — The haste was the more necessary that the Jews might have no opportunity to learn and expose their misrepresentations of their work. Had they had an opportunity to show that they were building not the city but the temple, the Samaritans might not have been so successful with the king. By force and power — Literally, by arm and might, that is, by sheer violence. They forced them to cease work.

V. 24. Darius-Darius the son of Hystaspes, successor of Cambyses.

Verse 24. So it ceased unto the second year of-Darius] They had begun in the first year of Cyrus, B.C. 536, to go up to Jerusalem, and they were obliged to desist from the building B.C. 522; and thus they continued till the second year of Darius, B.C. 519. See the chronology in the margin and the following chapter.

EZRA

Verse 24. Then ceased the work of the house of God — For they neither could nor might proceed in that work against their king’s prohibition, without a special command from the King of heaven, which, however, they afterward received. But even then they were cold and indifferent about it, and were accordingly reproved by the Prophets Haggai and Zechariah 5:1, compared with Haggai 1:2. So that the work, in a great measure, stood still until the second year of the reign of Darius — This, as was intimated on verse 6, was Darius the son of Hystaspis, successor of Cambyses; not, as some would have it, Darius Nothus, the son of Artaxerxes Longimanus: for he was not emperor till above one hundred years after Cyrus, and, if he had been the Darius here intended, there must consequently have been about one hundred and thirty years from the beginning of the building of the temple to the finishing of it; which is not credible to any one that considers, 1st, That the same Zerubbabel did both lay the foundation, and finish the work, Zechariah 4:9. 2d, That some of the same persons who saw the finishing of this second house; had seen the glory of the first house, Haggai 2:3.

Ver. 24. Darius king of Persia. This prince is surnamed Bastard by the historians.

24. Then ceased — That is, as the evident connexion with the preceding section shows, when these enemies, by authority from the king, forcibly obliged them to stop work on the temple. This verse shows that the Artaxerxes of verse 23 cannot be the same as the one mentioned Ezra 6:14, and 7:1, but is a king who preceded Darius. Unto the second year of… Darius — Artaxerxes, the pseudo-Smerdis, who issued the edict for the work to cease, was assassinated in less than a year after he began to reign, and Darius Hystaspes immediately took the kingdom, so that the work of rebuilding was not made to cease for more than two years, probably not much more than one. See on Ezra 5:16. This Darius was the son of Hystaspes, and a descendant of the ancient Achaemenian kings. On the death of Cambyses, who died without issue; he was probably the hereditary heir to the throne, and this fact may have had much to do with his daring efforts to slay the Magian usurper. Having obtained the kingdom he instituted a general slaughter of the Magi, apparently aiming at their extermination. He restored the Zoroastrian temples and worship, which the Magian had attempted to destroy, and it was therefore very natural that he should revoke the edict which had caused the rebuilding of the Jewish temple to cease. His genealogy, and the principal acts of the first four years of his reign, are recorded in the celebrated Behistun inscription on the rocks of western Persia. Under him began those great struggles with the West which finally ended in the fall of the Persian empire before the arms of Alexander. “Darius Hystaspes was, next to Cyrus, the greatest of the Persian kings, and he was even superior to Cyrus in some particulars. To him, and him alone, the empire owed its organization. He was a skillful administrator, a good financier, and a wise and far-seeking ruler. Of all the Persian princes he is the only one who can be called ‘many sided.’ He was organizer, general, statesman, administrator, builder, patron of art and literature, all in one. Without him Persia would probably have sunk as rapidly as she rose, and would be known to us only as one of the many meteor powers which have shot athwart the horizon of the East.” — RAWLINSON, Ancient Monarchies, vol. iii, p. 445.