성경 주석서

이 장에는 다음 내용이 있다. I. 바사 왕 고레스가 바벨론에서 포로로 잡혀 있던 모든 유다 사람을 놓아 보내고 예루살렘에 성전을 건축하게 하려고 내린 조서, 스 1:1-4. II. 그에 따라 많은 사람이 돌아온 일, 스 1:5,6. III. 성전 기명들을 회복하라는 명령, 스 1:7-11. 이것은 그들의 구원의 날이 동트는 장면이다.

에스라 서론

에스라서와 느헤미야서가 유대 교회와 초기 기독교 교부들 모두에게서 두 부분으로 된 한 책으로 여겨졌던 것은 의심할 여지가 없다. 그러나 에스라서와 느헤미야서가 본래 서로 구별된 두 저작이었다는 현대 비평의 판단은, 전체적으로 볼 때 받아들일 만한 것으로 보인다.

에스라서 저자의 목적은 포로 생활에서 돌아온 일과, 그 뒤 팔레스타인 유대인들이 아닥사스다 롱기마누스 제8년, 곧 주전 457년까지 겪은 형편을 기록하는 데 있다. 그가 주목하는 사항은 오직 세 가지이다.

(1) 에스라와 스룹바벨과 함께 바빌로니아에서 돌아온 사람들의 수, 가문, 그리고 어느 정도는 그 이름들이다(에스라 2; 에스라 8:1-20).

(2) 성전 재건과 그와 관련된 정황이다(에스라 1:1-11; 에스라 3-7).

(3) 돌아온 유대인들이 이방인과의 혼인 문제에서 보인 잘못된 행실과, 그 결과 에스라가 취한 조치이다(에스라 9-10).

에스라서는 완전히 구별되는 두 부분으로 이루어져 있다.

(a) 에스라 1-6장에서 저자는 포로 생활에서 돌아온 일과 그 뒤에 일어난 사건들, 곧 주전 538-516년의 23년 기간을 다룬다. 이 시기는 스룹바벨이 유대의 총독이고, 예수아가 대제사장이며, 스가랴와 학개가 선지자였던 때에 속한다.

(b) 에스라 7-10장은 아닥사스다가 자기 통치 제7년(주전 458년)에 에스라에게 내린 위임, 에스라의 예루살렘 여행, 그리고 그곳에서의 활동(주전 458년 4월-주전 457년 4월)을 서술한다. 그러므로 이 책의 첫 부분과 둘째 부분 사이에는 57년의 간격이 있다. 이 점에서 둘째 부분의 저자가 첫 부분에 기록된 사건들의 목격자였다고 보기는 어렵다.

유대 전승은 이 책 전체의 저작권을 에스라에게 돌린다. 현대 비평가들은 대체로 에스라가 둘째 부분 전체, 곧 에스라 7-10장의 원저자이자 유일한 저자였다는 점은 인정하지만, 첫 부분인 에스라 1-6장은 국가 문서, 민족 기록, 명단들을 바탕으로 편집한 것이라고 본다. 에스라서는 이방인과의 혼인에 관한 조처가 마무리된 직후, 곧 주전 457년이나 456년에 작성되었을 가능성이 높다.

에스라서는 성격상 역사서이며, 역대기와 마찬가지로 종교의 외적 요소를 크게 강조한다. 레위인들에게 특별한 중요성을 부여하고, 족보적 성향을 드러내며, 특별 섭리라는 일반 원리를 매우 분명하게 제시한다(에스라 8:22). 또한 이 원리를 역사 속의 특정 지점들에 자주 적용한다.

문체 면에서 에스라는, 역대기를 제외하면 성경의 어떤 책보다도 다니엘서와 닮아 있다. 이는 두 저자가 모두 바빌론 유대인이었다는 사실로 설명될 수 있다. 이 저작에는 페르시아어로 알려져 있거나 그렇게 추정되는 고유명사와 단어도 상당수 들어 있다. 전체적으로 그 언어는 당시의 상황에서 예상할 수 있는 모습이다. 유대인들이 바빌로니아인들과 페르시아인들과 접촉하게 되면서, 그들 사이에 자연스럽게 많은 외래어와 말투가 유입되었기 때문이다.

에스라서의 본문 상태는 좋지 않다. 그러나 포로 생활에서 돌아온 사람들의 이름과 숫자, 제사용 기명들의 무게와 수와 같은 세부 사항에 주로 영향을 주는 작은 흠들이 있을 뿐, 이야기의 전체 흐름은 손상되지 않았다.

성전 재건을 위한 고레스의 조서가 선포된다(스 1:1-4). 백성은 귀환을 준비한다(스 1:5, 스 1:6). 고레스는 느부갓네살이 솔로몬의 성전에서 가져갔던 기명들을 세스바살에게 돌려준다(스 1:7-11).

이 책의 서론에서 독자는 에스라의 역사가 상당히 길게 자세히 설명된 것을 보게 될 것이다. 여기서는 그가 유대인들 사이에서 일반적으로 제사장 가문 출신으로 인정되며, 그러므로 칠십인역에서 ὁ ἱερευς, 곧 제사장이라고 불린다는 것만 말하면 충분하다. 랍비들 사이에서 그는 성경의 여러 부분을 모으고 배열하며 하나의 체계로 정리하도록 하나님께 권위를 받은 매우 비범한 비평가로 여겨진다. 이 주제에 관해 그들이 말하는 모든 것이 어디까지 참인지는 우리가 말할 수 없다. 그는 논쟁의 여지 없이 매우 탁월한 사람이었고, 그가 행한 모든 일에서 전능하신 분의 직접적인 인도와 영감 아래 행동했다.

이 역사는 약 팔십이 년 동안의 사건들을 담고 있다. 어셔 대주교에 따르면 바벨론에서 고레스 제일년, 곧 세계력 3468년부터, 느헤미야를 예루살렘으로 보낸 아르드쉬르 디라즈 데스트, 또는 아닥사스다 롱기마누스 제십구년, 곧 세계력 약 3550년까지이다. 그 밖의 모든 세부 사항은 서론을 보라.

에스라 서론

이 책은 불가타 라틴어역과 아랍어역에서 에스라 "제1서"라 불리고 느헤미야가 "제2서"로 헤아려지지만, 유대인들은 둘을 한 권의 책으로 여겼다(a). 시리아어역에서는 선지자 에스라의 글 또는 책이라 불리며, 이 칭호는 유대인들(b)과 그리스도인들(c)이 모두 그에게 돌린 것이다. 아랍어역에서는 율법에 능한 제사장 에스라의 제1서라 불린다. 그가 제사장이었다는 것은 분명하니, 그는 느부갓네살에게 죽임을 당한 대제사장 스라야의 아들이었고, 아버지를 이어 대제사장이 된 요사닥의 아우였으며, 요사닥을 이어 대제사장이 된 여호수아에게는 숙부였기 때문이다. 또한 그는 모세의 율법에 능숙한 서기관이었으니 Ezra 7:1을 보라. 에스라가 이 책의 기록자라는 것은 유대인들(d)이 믿는 바요 그리스도인 대다수가 믿는 바다. 다만 후에티우스(e)만은 처음 여섯 장이 다른 사람의 손으로 기록되었다고 보지만, 그가 든 근거는 만족스럽지 않다. 그리고 이 책은 모든 이에게 두루 정경으로 받아들여져 왔다. 이 책은 학개와 스가랴의 예언과 부합하며 그 예언들을 밝혀 주는 데 이바지한다. 또한 거룩한 역사를 이어 가는 데 유용하여, 유대인이 포로 생활에서 돌아오는 일과 성전을 재건하는 일에 관한 예언들이 성취되었음을 가리켜 보인다. 나아가 그 시대 교회의 형편과 교회가 만난 곤경과 어려움, 그리고 메시아가 누구에게서 나셨는지 알 수 있도록 지파와 가문을 구별해 지키는 데 어떤 주의를 기울였는지를 우리에게 알려 준다. 이 책은 어셔 주교(f)의 계산에 따르면 A. M. 3468년부터 A. M. 3538년까지 칠십 년의 역사를 담고 있다.

(a) Origen apud Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 25. Hieron. Opera, tom. 3. Epist. ad Paulin. fol. 6. B. & ad Domnion. & Rogat. fol. 7. G. (b) Seder Olam Zuta, p. 108. (c) Lactant. Institut. l. 4. c. 11. (d) T. Bab. Bava Bathra, fol. 15. 1. (e) Demonstr. Evangel. prop. 4. p. 208, 209. (f) Annal. Vet. Test. p. 146, 193.

에스라 1장 서론

이 장은 유대인이 자기 땅으로 돌아가 성전을 재건하도록 페르시아 왕 고레스가 내린 조서를 우리에게 알려 주고(Ezra 1:1), 그에 따라 그들 가운데 우두머리들이 그 일을 위해 일어났으며 주변 사람들이 그들의 손을 강하게 하고 필요한 것을 공급했음을 말하며(Ezra 1:5), 특히 고레스가 성전에 속한 기물들을 그들에게 내주라고 명령한 일을 말한다(Ezra 1:7).

EZRA.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO EZRA AND NEHEMIAH.

Ezra.

BY

THE REV. W. B. POPE, D.D.

ALTHOUGH these two books have distinct authors, they describe consecutive periods of the same general stage of Jewish history, and in many respects are closely linked. Hence much of the matter introductory to their exposition must necessarily be common to the two, and equally applicable to both.

I. The names of Ezra and Neheiniah are combined in revelation after a manner of which Moses and Aaron furnish the only parallel. The analogy, though not perfect, will bear to be followed out to a certain extent. Strictly speaking, Zerubbabel and Joshua were the Moses and Aaron of the new Israel redeemed from captivity in Babylon. But these two names fade in the presence of their greater successors, who finished the work they only began. This has been the view of Jewish tradition; and Christian sentiment agrees with Jewish tradition. Here, however, the analogy begins to fail. Judaism has always regarded the priest Ezra alone as the restorer of the law and the polity, making Nehemiah with his book merely an adjunct; just as the Pentateuch was “the book of the law of Moses,” Aaron being altogether or almost kept out of view. When we go to the Scriptures themselves, Ezra and Nehemiah, the spiritual and the civil rulers of the new constitution, have an equal dignity, and both are very subordinate characters in comparison with those first organs of Divine revelation. They introduce nothing really original; they bring no new tables from the Mount; they have no Urim and Thummim; and are rather administrators of a revived law than legislators themselves. A few minor institutions owe their origin to Nehemiah. But neither he nor Ezra was directly the founder of the synagogue and other great additions to the Mosaic economy. The greatness of these two names is, in fact, very much the result of wonderful traditions which have been most prodigal in their honour, and especially in the glorification of Ezra.

II. Ezra and Nehemiah are both, though in different ways, connected by Jewish tradition with the final settlement of the Old Testament canon. Among the early Fathers an opinion was current that, when the originals of Scripture were burned with the Temple, Ezra, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, restored the Law and the Prophets, adding or authenticating the books which were afterwards written. Another tradition is preserved in the Mishna, and has found more favour, that Ezra, or Ezra and Nehemiah, instituted the GREAT SYNAGOGUE, numbering 120 associates, and in conjunction with them settled the limits of the canon. In many parts of the Talmud such a college is referred to; but neither the canonical nor the apocryphal scriptures yield this tradition any real support. The “company of scribes” of 1 Maccabees 7:12 has been supposed to refer to this body. But 2 Maccabees 2:13 gives the tradition a different form. it alludes to and quotes certain “writings and commentaries” of Nehemiah, and describes him as having “established a library” or collection of holy documents, including historical and prophetical books and writings of David, thus not obscurely pointing to the threefold conventional order of our present canonical volume. If we understand the “letters of kings concerning offerings” to mean the decrees of the Persian monarchs that make up a large part of our two books, the tradition may be understood to embrace the whole canon. It will be seen that there are traces in Nehemiah of interpolation as late as the days of Alexander the Great; and the question of the final ratification of the Hebrew canon is one still involved in obscurity.

III. The relation of these two to the other historical books of the canon has been matter of some controversy. Without any support from subsequent Jewish literature, a certain class of critics have invented a later editor, who, living in the time of the Greek Dominion, constructed the Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah as one series of historical works. Agreeing in this, the hypotheses then differ; and their differences are of such a character as to confirm our confidence in the traditional view that the three books are distinct, that their true common editor was Ezra, and that only a very few additions were left for aftertimes. While the end of Chronicles is the beginning of Ezra, a long and unrecorded period comes between; Ezra and Nehemiah give the history of a totally different century of the national life; and they close the inspired historical records of the ancient nation. Malachi alone comes after them; while Haggai and Zechariah immediately precede, or rather they delivered their predictions in the days which the former part of Ezra describes. The last historical books of the Old Testament are works of which the authors were to a great extent editors also; and there is every reason to think that the chief of these editors was Ezra, who put the finishing touches on all that preceded his own annals. It can hardly be maintained that his editorship included the book of Nehemiah. seeing that this contains a long list of names almost entirely coinciding with a similar list in his predecessor.

IV. The authenticity of these two records cannot be reasonably called in question: the only attacks proceed from that style of criticism which makes the entire history of the Old Testament a series of inventions based on but a slight substratum of actual events. There is nothing here but a series of plain statements concerning a great historical fact which cannot be called in question. We observe the same use of public documents and genealogical lists with which the rest of the Bible makes us familiar. The sources [ are never referred to as such; for both writers, from their position, were above the necessity of giving their authorities. But we may be sure that the history of the first return under Zerubbabel had been preserved, and only required Ezra’s abridgment. The Persian documents quoted were in public archives. There is not an incident recorded, nor a character introduced, which is out of keeping with internal probability or external independent vouchers. The simplicity of the narrative and its utter absence of disguise, when recording the humble estate and deep unworthiness of the rescued people, plead irresistibly for the truth of the whole. The very dislocations of the narratives, with the repetition of lists, are in favour of the trustworthiness of the narrators. The want of strict agreement between them in names and numbers here and there simply indicates that the text, especially that of Ezra, is not in a perfect state. It must be admitted that the discrepancies between the two books themselves, as also between both and the Chronicles, are very numerous: no two lists perfectly agree either in order of names or amount of numbers. But a careful and dispassionate examination of the differences will lead to the conclusion that the text of one or the other or of both has suffered through transcription. Besides what has been said on this subject in former Introductions, something in the nature of historical vindication will be found in the course of the exposition itself.

V. As these two books give the history of the return from the Captivity, they cannot be understood without some knowledge of the character of that Captivity. In the last words of inspiration before our history commences the prophecies of Jeremiah are put into an historical form: the people were to be servants in Babylon until the reign of the kingdom of Persia; and the emptied land was to enjoy her Sabbaths, in sad vindication of ages of Sabbath neglect, “to fulfil threescore and ten years.” But there was mercy in the great visitation. Though the bondmen were sometimes made to howl (Isaiah 52:5), they were also to have peace in the peace of the place of their captivity for which they prayed (Jeremiah 29:5-7). They rose to wealth in the enjoyment of civil rights; they occupied places of high trust in the courts of their oppressors; they maintained their religious customs as far as they might do so in a strange land; above all, they kept alive their hope of restoration, and in token of this carefully preserved the records of their genealogies. These important facts have their illustration at all points in the books which contain the history of the Return.

VI. It follows that the events of which Ezra and Nehemiah are the historians must be studied in the light of the purposes of God in regard to His ancient people, and can be understood only in that light. In other words, they form a chapter in the history of redemption. It must needs be that the “holy seed “—holy because of it Christ was to come according to the flesh—should be kept undefiled among the nations, that the “holy land” should be ready to become the land of Immanuel, that the “holy city should both welcome and reject Him as its king, and that the “holy place” should receive the true High Priest, and be closed by His voice. Generally speaking, it was necessary, for the fulfilment of prophecy, for the maintenance of true religion in the world, and for the preparation of the earthly sphere of the Incarnate Son, that the ancient polity should be renewed and kept up until the “fulness of time.” Their relation to the future Saviour of the world—its present Saviour not yet revealed—gave to the Jewish remnant, and to everything connected with their history, an immeasurable importance. We may not be able to see the precise bearing on this of many details in these books and that of Esther; nor is it necessary to believe that many of them—in a certain sense the greater part of the minute narrative, with its genealogical and other lists—had any such precise bearing. Granted the general necessity for the new life of the people, as a witness of the past and the future, the particulars of its new history become on that account important. To sum up, if we consider the re-establishment of the people and the revival of the worship of Zion as a record of past prophecy fulfilled, as a means of keeping up the knowledge of God and the hope of His Kingdom in the present, and as part of the great preparation for the supreme future of finished redemption—these three in one—then scarcely any detail in these narratives will be thought to be without its meaning. Nothing is more needful as a preparation for the study of our history than the deep conviction of this principle.

VII. It is a narrower view of the same subject that sees in these histories the foundation of that Judaism of the interval with which the Gospel narrative and the Christian Church are so intimately bound up. To understand this we must remember that with Ezra and Nehemiah and Esther are to be connected the final post-exile prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. The entire cycle, taken as a whole, reveals the tendencies of the Judaism which grew up after prophetic inspiration had ceased, and the finished development of which our Saviour found so utterly wanting. But in the process we must distinguish between the good and the evil. The good elements were many: the ancient Scriptures were restored to their place in the popular heart; Ezra was the first of an order of scribes entirely devoted to its exposition; and the synagogue worship, unknown in the Old Testament, was based on a revival of Sabbath devotion throughout the land. And the dispersion soon began to claim its rights beyond the land itself. Though Ezra and Nehemiah rebuilt the Temple and threw walls around Jerusalem—giving no hint themselves that the kingdom of God was on its way to the Gentiles—the prophets of their new economy were less restricted. And when the intermediate “fulness of time “came, Greek Scriptures and a Jewish service in Egypt and other lands paved the way for the Gospel. The evil elements were also very many. An internal, hard, ceremonial religion became, after four centuries, what the Lord found in Pharisaism; the scepticism which Malachi rebuked developed into Sadduceeism; and the descendants of the “perfect scribe” laid more than the foundation of Talmudical Rabbinism.

VIII. Out of this arises another canon, namely, that this portion of the history of the one CIVITAS DEI which runs through all ages has, like every other, its lessons to teach the Christian Church. In regard to this expositors have run into the usual opposite extremes. Some have gone so far as to find in Ezra and Nehemiah types of Christ; and their several and combined work has been made to prefigure the relations of Church and State for ever. It is easy to trace and condemn the error here. But we should be on our guard against the notion that the books contain only old history that has passed away. Devotion to the kingdom of God on the part of His servants, its grace and its dignity and its reward; opposition to that kingdom, its low endeavours, its futility, and its condemnation—these are lessons taught in every chapter. The everlasting distinction between the saints and the children of this world, and the importance of remembering this under all circumstances, is also taught. They who condemn the intolerance of Ezra and Nehemiah, and think the rigorous separation of the ancient people from their foreign wives a great mistake of these new legislators, altogether miss the lesson the books were intended to convey. The providence of God in the world, which is now the government of His Son the Head over all things to the Church, has no sublimer illustration than they present.—It may be added that the two writers, who are also the two main actors, are noble examples of the passive and active virtues of religion. Though their writings are not quoted in the New Testament, they contain a fair proportion of those precious apophthegms and watchwords of devotion that are the heritage of God’s people in every age.

IX. It is of great importance to fix in the mind, before entering on the study of our two historians, a clear idea of the relation of the events they record to profane history and secular chronology. On one or two points opinions are divided; but the following dates may on the whole be relied on as most probably satisfying all demands :—

B.C.

558-529. Cyrus becomes king of the Medes and Persians, on the defeat of Astyages. 541. Belshazzar, vice-king of Babylon (Daniel’s vision, chapter 7).

538.Babylonian empire subverted, and Medo-Persian empire established by Cyrus. Darius the Mede made king of Babylon.

536.First year of Cyrus. Return under Zerubbabel (Ezra 1).

535.Second Temple founded (Ezra 3:8).

529.Opposition of Samaritans (Ezra 4:6), Cambyses (Ahasuerus of Ezra 4:6).

522.Building of Temple stopped. Gomates or pseudo-Smerdis (Artaxerxes of Ezra 4:7).

521-486.Darius I., son of Hystaspes, king of Persia, having slain Gomates (Ezra 4:5-24; Ezra 5:5; Ezra 6:1). Haggai and Zechariah begin their prophecies.

515.Second Temple completed (Ezra 6:15).

486-465.Xerxes (Ahasuerus of Esther).

465-425.Artaxerxes Longimanus (Ezra 7:1, Nehemiah 2:1). Return of Jews under Ezra.

445.Nehemiah goes to Jerusalem (Nehemiah 2:1; Nehemiah 5:14).

433.Nehemiah’s return to Jerusalem (Nehemiah 13:6).

401-399.Malachi’s last predictions. Death of Cyrus the Younger (also of Thucydides and Socrates).

X. The two books are the centre of what may be called the ESDBAS CYCLE of Biblical literature, the details of which are complicated, and must be studied in special works on the canon. The ancient Jews regarded the two canonical works as one, and in this they were followed by the early Fathers of the Christian Church. In the catalogues handed down to us they are distinguished as I. and II. Ezra or Esdras: so the Vulgate, Origen, and the Council of Laodicea. In the Alexandrine version, however, first comes our book of Ezra, with enlargements of various kinds; then, secondly, the genuine book itself; Nehemiah is there III. Esdras; and to these is added the later apocryphal IV. Esdras, containing certain final accretions to the Ezra literature. In the Vulgate the two added books, the enlarged translation and the apocryphal, are III. and IV. Ezra. At the close of the fourth century Jerome calls II. Ezra by the name of Nehemiah; and gradually its thoroughly independent character became generally recognised. For the character of the two apocryphal books—the latter of which has very little connection with the Biblical Ezra—works on the Apocrypha must be consulted. Suffice it to say here that what may be called—following the Greek style—I. Esdras is subordinately useful in some points of the textual criticism of our book of Ezra, especially where its numbers differ from those of Nehemiah.

INTRODUCTION

TO

EZRA.

Ezra.

BY

THE REV. R. SINKER, B.D.

I. All that is certainly known concerning Ezra is found in his own narrative as continued in Nehemiah. He was a priest, descended, through Seraiah, from Eleazar the son of Aaron; and also a scribe, devoted to the exposition of the Law of Moses. In the seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, B.C. 458, he went from Babylon to Jerusalem at the head of a second company of the children of the Captivity, and with an ample commission for the restoration of the Temple and the reform of religion. After a rigorous inquisition into the abuses connected with mixed marriages, he is lost sight of, re-appearing afterwards in Nehemiah, with whom or under whom he takes part in the dedication of the wall and the conduct of religious service generally. He then finally disappears from the sacred history. Jewish tradition glorified his memory as second only to that of Moses. He is regarded as having been the first president of the “Great Synagogue,” to which is attributed the settlement of the Jewish canon; to have instituted the synagogue service; to have been the organiser of much authoritative tradition traced down from Moses; to have introduced the present Hebrew type; and clone other service to Jewish literature. Josephus says that he lived to a great age, and was buried in Jerusalem. Other traditions assign him a grave near Samara, after returning to Persia, and dying there aged 120.—There is no character in the Old Testament more perfect and complete than that of Ezra. We see him as a servant and as a master, as a student of the law and as its administrator, as supreme in authority and as subordinate, in public and private, uniformly and always the same devout, disinterested, patriotic lover of his people and friend of God.

II. The question of Ezra’s authorship is closely connected with an analysis of the book. It contains two distinct records: one, of the first return from the Captivity under Zerubbabel, occupying six chapters; and the other, of the second detachment, under Ezra himself, occupying the remaining four. Between the two there is a chasm of fifty-seven years passed over in total silence. The former part, embracing a period of twenty-two years, from the memorable first year of Cyrus, B.C. 538, is mainly made up of extracts from archives which Ezra has woven into a narrative. Certain portions of this, as of the second part, are written in Chaldee: the documents, namely, are given in their original, and the writer, equally familiar with both forms of the Hebrew, does not quite limit himself to the documents themselves, the Chaldee overflowing here and there. Certainly the first six chapters may be regarded as Ezra’s own compilation, and therefore as his own work. The second part gives the history of twelve months, being the record as it were of the discharge of a commission, narrating that in full and then abruptly breaking off. A close examination of the four chapters shows the same hand; the peculiar phrases—such as the “Lord God of Israel” and many others—are similar, with just those variations in uniformity which might be expected in one who had several languages at command. But there is one remarkable anomaly, that sometimes the first and sometimes the third person is used—an anomaly, however, that equally occurs in Daniel. It is to be explained at the outset by the humility of the writer, who introduces himself and his own character in the third person before he uses the direct style of narrative; and afterwards by the fact that public and great events are incorporated in the very style in which they were from time to time recorded. On the whole there is no reason to distrust the uniform tradition that has ascribed the whole book to Ezra.

스 1:1-6. 성전 건축을 위한 고레스의 조서.

1. 페르시아 왕 고레스 원년에--페르시아, 메대, 바벨론, 갈대아와 많은 작은 속국들을 포함한 페르시아 제국은 주전 536년에 고레스가 세웠다[HALES].

여호와께서 예레미야의 입으로 하신 말씀을 이루시려고--렘 25:12; 29:10을 보라.

이 언급은 역사가가 덧붙인 삽입 설명이며, 조서 자체의 일부는 아니었다.

고레스 원년은 그가 유대인들에 대해 주권을 행사하기 시작한 첫해, 곧 주전 538년으로 이해해야 한다.

이제 첫째 해에 - 이것은 앞 책의 마지막 두 절과 한 글자도 다르지 않다. 여기서는 그것들이 본래의 자리와 연결 안에 서 있지만, 거기서는 연대기적 연결과 관련이 전혀 결여되어 있다.

고레스 - 고대에 매우 저명했던 이 군주는 페르시아 왕 캄비세스와 메대 왕 아스티아게스의 딸 만다네 사이에서 난 아들이었다고 전해지며, 그리스도보다 약 육백 년 전에 태어났다. 요세푸스는 그가 유대인들에게 호의를 보인 이유를 이렇게 설명한다. 곧 이사야 선지자의 글에서 자기 이름이 언급되고 자기의 공적과 정복이 예언된 곳을 그에게 보여 주었기 때문이라는 것이다. 관련 구절들을 보라. 이렇게 자신이 유대인의 하나님께 특별히 구별되었음을 알게 된 그는, 그 보답으로 하나님께 감사의 증거를 드리고자 했다. 그래서 유대인들에게 유리한 조서를 내리고, 그들의 거룩한 기명들을 돌려주며, 그들이 자기 땅으로 돌아갈 자유를 주고, 여호와의 성전을 다시 세우도록 격려했다.

고레스가 바벨론을 점령했을 때 그곳에서 다니엘을 발견했을 가능성이 매우 크다. 다니엘은 오랫동안 온 동방에서 가장 지혜로운 국무 대신들 가운데 하나로 명성이 높았다. 그리고 바로 이 사람이 그에게 이사야의 예언을 지적해 주고, 자기에게 계시된 하나님의 뜻에 관한 더 많은 암시를 알려 주었을 가능성이 가장 크다. 그의 죽음에 관해서는 서로 모순되는 기록들이 있다. 헤로도토스는 이렇게 말한다. 고레스가 무기를 돌려 마사게타이를 치고 그들의 여왕 토미리스의 아들을 죽이자, 그 어머니는 아들의 죽음에 복수하기를 참지 못하고 그에게 도전장을 보내어 그에게 피를 실컷 마시게 하겠다고 약속했다. 그리고 그를 공격한 뒤 일부러 패한 척하며 도망함으로써, 그와 그의 군대를 매복지로 끌어들였다. 거기서 그는 패하여 죽임을 당했고, 그의 군대 상당수도 멸망했다. 격분한 여왕은 그의 시신을 찾아 머리를 베어 인간의 피가 가득한 그릇에 던져 넣고, 가장 쓰라린 조롱으로 이렇게 말했다.

Ευ μεν, εμευ ζωσης τε και νικωσης ες μαχην, απωλεσας παιδα τον εμον, ἑλων δολῳ· σε δ' εγω, καταπερ ηπειλησα, αἱματος κορεσω.

• Herod. Clio, c. 214.

"내가 살아 있고 전쟁에서 이겼는데도, 너는 속임수로 내 아들을 사로잡아 죽임으로써 나를 멸망시켰다. 그러나 내가 위협한 대로 이제 내가 너를 피로 배부르게 하겠다."

고레스여, 네 갈증은 피였으니 이제 실컷 마시라.

예레미야로 말미암아 - 이 선지자는 바벨론 포로 생활이 칠십 년만 지속될 것이라고 예언했었다. 이제 그 기간이 끝났다. 고레스는 유대인들에게 유대로 돌아가 여호와의 성전을 재건하도록 허락과 격려를 주었다. 이렇게 예레미야의 예언이 성취되었다.