Комментарии к Библии

Ch. 4. The Record of Opposition. (1) Ezra 4:1-5, from the reign of Cyrus to the reign of Darius. (2) Ezra 4:6, during the reign of Xerxes. (3) Ezra 4:7-23, during the reign of Artaxerxes

1. Now when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin] Here called ‘adversaries’ by anticipation. From the Compiler’s point of view, the Samaritans were never anything but foes of the Jews.

The word ‘adversaries’ is applied to them again Nehemiah 4:11.

Judah and Benjamin] as in chap. Ezra 1:5. The great majority of those who returned, exclusive of priests and Levites, belonged to these two tribes. In view of the use of the expression chap. Ezra 1:5, there is no necessity to see here (as some commentators have done,) an allusion to the old hostility between the Northern and Southern Tribes.

the children of the captivity] i.e. the ‘b’nê hag-gôlah’. The phrase occurs also in Ezra 6:16; Ezra 6:19-20; Ezra 8:35; Ezra 10:7; Ezra 10:16. On ‘the Captivity’ see note on Ezra 1:11. The meaning is the same as ‘the children of the province’ Ezra 2:1. ‘The children of the captivity’ recalls their past calamities; ‘the children of the province’, their new position of subjection in the old homes.

unto the Lord God of Israel] R.V. unto the lord, the God of Israel cf. Ezra 1:3.

2. then they came &c.] R.V. then they drew near to Zerubbabel, and to the heads of fathers’ houses.

for we seek your God, as ye do] The claim to cooperate in the work of building the Temple is based upon the assertion of common worship. The phrase ‘to seek’ in the sense of ‘to worship’ is not uncommon in these books and in Chronicles. Cf. Ezra 6:21; 1 Chronicles 22:19; 2 Chronicles 15:13; 2 Chronicles 17:4; 2 Chronicles 31:21; 2 Chronicles 34:3.

and we do sacrifice unto him] so R.V. text. R.V. margin. ‘Another reading is, yet we do no sacrifice since &c.’ The Hebrew words for “unto him” and “not” though written with a different second letter are pronounced in the same way, ‘lô’. The context as a rule makes it easy to distinguish the meaning. But there are some fifteen instances, in which the Hebrew Bibles preserve the tradition of confusion between the two words. It is even possible that the word ‘lô’ (‘unto him’) may have sometimes been written with the same second letter as the negative (e.g. Exodus 21:8; 1 Samuel 2:3; 2 Samuel 16:18; 2 Kings 8:10).

In this verse the Hebrew text has the letters of the negative; the margin has the letters of the pronoun.

The external evidence is in favour of the pronoun ‘unto him’, being supported by the K’ri, by the LXX. (αὐτῷ), the Vulgate (‘nos immolabimus victimas’ without a negative), the Syriac, Versions and by the parallel text in 1Es 5:69 (‘and do sacrifice unto him’).

Internal evidence may thus be summarized. In favour of the negative (‘yet we do no sacrifice’), it may be alleged

(1) that the statement contained in the alternative reading ‘we do sacrifice unto him’ would have no weight, since the Jews would at once reject as idolatrous sacrifices not offered at Jerusalem:

(2) that the Samaritan argument requires the negative. Having pleaded sameness of worship, they regret the omission of sacrifice and proceed to entreat that they may obtain this privilege by becoming sharers in the work.

In favour of the pronoun (‘unto him’) it may be replied

(1) that had the disputed word been the negative, it would stand in the Hebrew in the wrong place, i.e. before the pronoun ‘we’ instead of before the verb ‘sacrifice’:

(2) that the affirmative clause (‘and we do sacrifice unto him’) expands the force of the plea for common worship. That they had not sacrificed at Jerusalem hitherto, was, they could plead, either due to ignorance or a fault which they now wished to rectify:

(3) that the argument is strengthened by the assertion of long-established custom of sacrifice:

(4) that the pronoun ‘unto him’ was very liable to be altered to the negative by patriotic scribes who could not tolerate or credit the statement that their hated enemies had at such an early time done sacrifice to the God of Israel.

We conclude that the balance of probability preponderates for the reading ‘and we do sacrifice unto him’.

since the days of Esar-haddon king of Assur] R.V. Assyria. Esarhaddon succeeded Sennacherib (cf. 2 Kings 19:37; Isaiah 37:38) and reigned over Assyria 12 years, 680–668.

His name in the Assyrian Inscriptions appears as ‘Assur-ak-iddin’ or ‘Assur sent a brother’. The Greek attempts to transliterate the name are very strange: the LXX. gives ‘Asbakappas’, 1Es 5:69 ‘Azbazareth’.

In the A.V. ‘Assur’ occurs also in Psalm 83:8, Asshur in Numbers 24:22; Numbers 24:24; Ezekiel 27:23; Ezekiel 32:22; Hosea 14:3. The difference in the spelling is purely arbitrary. The R.V. has altered ‘Assur’ to ‘Assyria’, but has left ‘Asshur’ in the above passages. This is to be regretted, since there is no difference in the original to justify the preservation of ‘Asshur’ by the side of ‘Assyria’ (see Genesis 2:14; Ezekiel 23:7; Hosea 7:11; Hosea 8:9; Hosea 9:3; Hosea 10:6; Hosea 11:11).

3. But Zerubbabel &c.… the chief of the fathers] R.V. … heads of fathers’ houses. Zerubbabel’s name stands first, as in Ezra 3:8, in connexion with the work, with which he had been commissioned by Cyrus.

You have nothing to do with us] literally ‘It is not for you and for us’. A common Hebrew idiom, cf. Jdg 11:12, ‘What hast thou to do with me?’ literally ‘What is there for thee and for me &c.?’ 2 Kings 3:13; for its occurrence in the N. T., cf. Mark 1:24; John 2:4. The A.V. of 1Es 5:70 gives ‘It is not for us and you to build together’.

unto our God] Almost as if they had said ‘our God and not yours’.

ourselves together] The union of the new community and the exclusion of all strangers. The word rendered ‘together’ is not to be understood as if the phrase were an exclusive one, ‘ourselves alone’. It emphasizes the combined action of the true Israelites. Cf. Psalm 2:2 ‘take counsel together’.

unto the Lord God of Israel] R.V. ‘unto the Lord, the God of Israel’, cf. Ezra 4:4, Ezra 1:3. This implies, though it does not assert in so many words, that the applicants were not members of Israel.

as king Cyrus &c.] referring to the words in Ezra 1:3 ‘Who is there among you of all his people? his God be with him &c.’

The refusal of the application is thus technically based upon the wording of Cyrus’ decree; the applicants failed to come under the permission which Cyrus had granted, and could not therefore take part in the work. Zerubbabel and his companions evaded the dilemma of having to meet the religious plea either by counter-argument or by direct contradiction. At the same time they made it quite evident that they declined to recognize the identity of worship which was pleaded, or the claim to relationship and political union which underlay the plea.

On the two points (a) who made the overtures? (b) how we are to regard their rejection by the Jewish leaders, see Introduction, § 6. Outline of History.

4. Then the people of the land] i.e. the Samaritans, as opposed to ‘the people of Judah’. It is noteworthy that this expression ‘the people of the land’ (’am haâreç) became a synonym for ‘the ignorant’ or ‘the vulgar’ in contrast to ‘the wise’, with special reference to a knowledge of ‘the law’. Cf. John 7:49 ‘This people who knoweth not the law are cursed’. Buxtorf gives illustrations by the Jewish proverbs ‘Better is the bastard who is the disciple of the wise than the high-priest of the people of the land’ (i.e. who is ‘vulgar’) ‘The people of the land (i.e. the ‘vulgar’) have degrees of morals but none of intelligence’.

weakened the hands] The Hebrew construction gives the idea of a continuous policy of weakening, terrifying, and bribing. For the phrase itself compare Jeremiah 38:4.

the people of Judah] ‘The children of the captivity’ are here given the name of the old southern kingdom. Cf. Ezra 4:12.

troubled] so R.V.: marg. Or ‘terrified’. There are two readings. The reading of the Hebrew text or K’thib gives a word that does not occur elsewhere in the O.T. but is connected with a substantive rendered ‘terror’ (R.V. Isaiah 17:14). The reading of the Hebrew tradition or K’ri, preserved with the text, gives an otherwise unused form of a common word meaning ‘to trouble’. In all probability the letters of the unused root were transposed by a scribe so as to give the familiar root; preference should be given to the harder rendering, ‘terrified them from building’.

5. This verse describes one effectual method of opposition, ‘hired counsellors against them’. This will not necessarily imply that bribes were given to the king’s ministers referred to elsewhere (Ezra 7:28, Ezra 8:25) as ‘his counsellors’. We should in that case have had the word more definitely expressed as ‘the counsellors’ or ‘the king’s counsellors’.

It rather means that ‘the people of the land’ paid officials (probably connected with the satrapy of Syria) to make unfavourable reports at the king’s Court respecting ‘the people of Judah’.

hired] Cf. the application of Samaritan money within the Jewish community, Nehemiah 6:12-13. The word used with special reference to Balaam in Deuteronomy 23:4; Nehemiah 13:2.

to frustrate their purpose] i.e. to render fruitless their cherished scheme of rebuilding the Temple. ‘Frustrate’ = ‘break’, Ezra 9:14. ‘Purpose’ = ‘counsel’ Ezra 10:3; Ezra 10:8; Nehemiah 4:15. The two words occur together Psalm 33:10 ‘The Lord bringeth the counsel of the nations to nought’.

all the days of Cyrus, &c.] Cyrus died in 529.

even until the reign of Darius king of Persia] Cyrus was succeeded by Cambyses, who died in 522. Pseudo-Smerdis then reigned for 7 months, and was succeeded by Darius Hystaspes 522. (Upon the disputed question of chronology raised in this verse, see the note on Ezra 4:7.) Darius, Darayavus, ‘the Preserver’ (Herod. VI. 98 translates ἑρξείης) gave order and system to the Persian Empire, of which he was the second founder. Darius consolidated the successes of Cyrus. Like Augustus following upon Julius Cæsar, he gave, as a statesman, system and cohesion to the Empire, which he had inherited from his predecessor’s military genius.

6. Ahasuerus] R.V. margin ‘Or Xerxes. Heb. Ahashverosh’. The well-known Xerxes, the son of Darius, who reigned 20 years (485–465). He is generally identified with the Ahasuerus of the book ‘Esther’.

in the beginning of his reign] i.e. on the death of Darius, who had favoured the Jews.

unto him] R.V. omits these words, which are not found in the Hebrew.

an accusation] Heb. ‘sitnah’, which occurs elsewhere only in Genesis 26:21 as the name of a well called ‘sitnah’ or ‘enmity’ by Isaac on account of the opposition of the Philistines. Akin to the name ‘Satan’, opposer. The LXX. misunderstanding the original renders by ἐπιστολή.

the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem] Another designation, cf. Ezra 4:1 ‘Judah and Benjamin’, Ezra 4:4 ‘the people of Judah’.

7. And in the days of Artaxerxes] Artaxerxes Longimanus succeeded his father Xerxes and reigned forty years (465–425). He is mentioned in Ezra 7:1; Nehemiah 2:1.

The name in the inscriptions appears as Artakshathra, compounded of ‘Arta’ meaning ‘great’ (cf. Arta-phernes, Arta-bazus) and ‘Khsathra’ ‘kingdom’.

The view which identifies this Artaxerxes with Pseudo-Smerdis or Gomates, the usurper of the Persian crown on the death of Cambyses, is discussed in the Note on the whole section appended to Ezra 4:23.

wrote Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of their companions] It has been very commonly supposed that this verse introduces the letter which is so fully described in Ezra 4:8-10, and is therefore to be explained in close connexion with Ezra 4:8. According to this view ‘Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel and the rest of their companions’ are the Samaritans who originate the accusation of the Jews before Artaxerxes, while Rehum, Shimshai &c. (Ezra 4:8-9) are assumed to be the Persian officials of the Province, induced by the bribes or misrepresentations of the Samaritan community to forward to the king in writing their formal complaint against the Jews. Furthermore, as the letter is said to have been written in Aramaic, and we pass immediately from Hebrew into Aramaic, this in itself would be a reason for supposing that Ezra 4:8 &c. described more fully in detail the writing mentioned in Ezra 4:7. But (a) this theory fails to account for the abruptness of style and the want of connexion between Ezra 4:7-8, which is evident even in the English version; (b) the bare statement of Ezra 4:7 that Bishlam and his companions ‘wrote to Artaxerxes’, and of Ezra 4:8 that Rehum and Shimshai also wrote to Artaxerxes, can only by a process of imagination be transformed into private Samaritan information imparted to the Persian officials and then lodged by them before the king in the shape of a departmental complaint; (c) the theory does not explain why the Hebrew is not resumed after the conclusion of the letters (Ezra 4:17; Ezra 4:21). The version preserved in 1Es 2:16 cuts the knot by freely fusing the two verses together ‘But in the time of Artaxerxes king of the Persians, Belemus, and Mithridates, and Tabellius, and Rathumus, and Beeltethumus, and Semellius the secretary, with others that were in commission with them, dwelling in Samaria and other places, wrote unto him against them that dwelt in Judea and Jerusalem these letters following’.

It seems preferable to ascribe the disjointed character of these Ezra 4:6-8 to the roughness of the Compiler’s work, and to suppose that each of these three verses presents us with a separate instance of Samaritan opposition in which the Samaritans ‘wrote’ an indictment against the Jews. Having mentioned what took place in the reign of Xerxes (Ezra 4:6), the Compiler goes on to state that there were two such written accusations in the days of Artaxerxes. The first he says was written by Bishlam &c., the second by Rehum &c. In his mention of the first letter, he either condenses the full document into a brief notice or was only able to discover a short statement in the public chronicles. In his mention of the second, he is able to lay the document before his readers, obtaining it from an Aramaic chronicle, from which he makes a long extract and introduces it without further preface.

This explanation accounts for (a) the abrupt transition from Ezra 4:7 to Ezra 4:8, (b) the mention in both verses of a letter written to Artaxerxes, (c) the continuance of the Aramaic language in the narrative, e.g. Ezra 5:17, Ezra 6:18.

Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel] Names of foreign colonists, ‘Bishlam’ the LXX. renders ‘in peace’ (ἐν εἰρήνη) as if not a proper name. On ‘Mithredath’ see note chap. Ezra 1:8. ‘Tabeel’ perhaps a Syrian name; cf. the name Tabeal (Isaiah 7:6), or a Persian (cf. Tabalus, Herod. I. 153).

the letter] The Hebrew has here (cf. Ezra 4:18; Ezra 4:23) made use of a Persian word, which completely mystified the Versions. The LXX. renders it ‘the tax-collector’ (ὁ φορολόγος), the Vulgate ‘accusationis’. It is pronounced ‘nisht’ewân’ and is compared with a modern Persian ‘nuwischten’ to write. Perhaps the word occurred in the records from which the Compiler obtained his information as to the letter.

was written in the Syrian tongue, and interpreted in the Syrian tongue] R.V. ‘was written In the Syrian character, and set forth in the Syrian tongue’, margin ‘Or Aramaic’ for ‘Syrian’. This is all we hear about the letter. What occasioned its composition and how it was received we do not know.

We gather from this verse that in the days of Artaxerxes the official correspondence of the Syrian province or satrapy was conducted in Aramaic. This indeed, had been the language of diplomatic communication in the days of the Assyrian monarchy (2 Kings 18:26; Isaiah 36:11). As the language of diplomacy and commerce among the races of Western Asia, it held its own with Greek and was only finally displaced in a much later time by the diffusion of Arabic, which followed upon the successes of the Mahommedans (see Introduction on ‘the Aramaic language’). The strange thing is that its use should have been made the subject of special remark in this verse. But probably the point to which attention is drawn, is the fact of the letter being written in Aramaic characters as well as expressed in the Aramaic tongue. The early Aramaic Alphabet probably differed considerably from the early Hebrew. The mention of the Aramaic characters is perhaps adduced as a proof that the Compiler had either seen the actual letter or obtained the account from a source which mentioned this point particularly. The verse shows conclusively that Aramaic was not yet the language of the Jewish people.

Note on Ezra 4:7-23The names of the Persian kings which occur in this chapter occasion special difficulty. Upon their right identification necessarily depends our understanding of the whole passage.

(a) The Persian kings succeed one another in the following order: (1) Cyrus (died, 529); (2) Cambyses, 529–522; (3) Gomates or Pseudo-Smerdis, 522; (4) Darius Hystaspes, 522–485; (5) Xerxes, 485–465; (6) Artaxerxes I. Longimanus, 465–425; (7, 8) Xerxes II. and Sogdianus; (9) Darius II. Nothus, 424–395, &c.

(b) In chap. Ezra 4:5 we learn that the work of building the Temple was frustrated by the Samaritans “all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius king of Persia.’ Again in Ezra 4:24 (the work) ‘ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia’. The work therefore was frustrated more or less (Ezra 5:16) between the years 536–520.

(c) In Ezra 4:6 is mentioned a letter of opposition to the Jews written ‘in the reign of Ahasuerus’; in Ezra 4:7 a letter to the same purport ‘in the days of Artaxerxes’; in Ezra 4:7; Ezra 4:9 another letter to Artaxerxes with Artaxerxes’ reply.

(d) The name Ahasuerus (Heb. Akhashvêrosh) is admitted to be the same as Xerxes (Khshyarsha). It appears throughout the book Esther as well as in this verse (Ezra 4:6). The name in Hebrew Arta-khshasta (Ezra 4:7-8, Ezra 6:14, Ezra 7:1; Ezra 7:11; Ezra 7:21; Nehemiah 2:1; Nehemiah 5:14; Nehemiah 13:6) is clearly the name Artaxerxes.

(e) The question then arises how the names Xerxes and Artaxerxes occur in this passage, on either side of which stands the mention of the work of the Temple being stopped until the reign of Darius king of Persia; for that this Darius is Darius Hystaspes (521–485) and not Darius Nothus (424) is shown by the whole context and by chap. Ezra 5:1-5.

Only two answers to this question need come under discussion here.

(i) According to one view, the chronological sequence of the chapter is maintained. Ezra 4:5 is considered to be a brief compendium of the Samaritan opposition, which is then described in greater detail (6–23). The names Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes are assigned to the two kings Cambyses and Pseudo-Smerdis, who reigned between Cyrus and Darius. The advantage of this theory is obvious. The narrative flows smoothly on. The events of Ezra 4:6-23 amplify the statement of Ezra 4:5, and belong to the short period 529–521.

The objections that are presented (a) by the interchange of the names, (b) by the mention, in the letter, of the building of the city walls (Ezra 4:12; Ezra 4:16), rather than of the Temple, on which the Jews were at work (Ezra 4:1; Ezra 4:4; Ezra 4:14), have been met in the following way. (a) It is said that the names Xerxes and Artaxerxes are appellatives, like Pharaoh and Cæsar, which could be applied to any Persian monarch, e.g. Cambyses is called Artaxerxes by Josephus (Ant. ix. 2. 1). Furthermore it is argued that the Pseudo-Smerdis appears in history under several different names. (b) It is supposed that the Samaritans would represent the Jewish undertaking in the most hostile light, as aggressive fortification rather than Temple building; and it must be remembered that the outer walls and outworks of the Temple were always the strongest fortifications in the city.

On the other hand it seems fatal to this view that even if Xerxes and Artaxerxes are dynastic titles and not strictly names, no well-attested evidence is forthcoming of their promiscuous application. Josephus’ history of this period is notoriously imperfect and inaccurate, and he, it is to be noted, calls Cambyses, Artaxerxes, although the defenders of this view hold that Cambyses is called Xerxes and Pseudo-Smerdis Artaxerxes.—It is surely rather unfortunate, to say the least, that supposing the names to be interchangeable, the interchange is not found elsewhere, and cannot even be proved from Josephus, whose evidence is chiefly relied upon. But the fact is that neither the testimony of Josephus nor, we may add, of Jewish tradition can be relied on for this period of history. The Jewish tradition appended to Nehemiah in the Masoretic note gives ‘the years from the 1st year of Cyrus king of the Persians to the 32nd year of Artaxerxes the king,’ (i.e. from 538–433) as fifty-one: while Hebrew commentary gives the Persian kings as Darius the Mede (1 year), Cyrus his son (2 years), Ahasuerus (14 years), Cyrus his son called Artaxerxes (32 years). Nor is it more satisfactory to see how the Pseudo-Smerdis is identified with Artaxerxes. Gomates or the Pseudo-Smerdis, it is said, appears under very different names, e.g. Mardus in Aeschylus (Pers. 771), Smerdis in Herodotus, Speudadates in Ctesias, and hence, why not as Artaxerxes here? But the very fact that he is called by so many different names, and never once Artaxerxes, is not favourable to the identification. Again, the argument that Pseudo-Smerdis being a Magian would heartily oppose the building of the Temple is strangely at variance with the omission in the letters of any reference to the Temple. It is equally at variance with the other contention, that the Temple building is not referred to because the mention of fortified walls would be more likely to arouse the king’s indignation than that of sacred buildings. If further proof were needed of the improbability that ‘Artaxerxes’ is Pseudo-Smerdis, it would seem to be supplied by a recollection of the troubled time that followed upon the death of Cambyses. Pseudo-Smerdis’ 7 months’ reign was spent in the midst of suspicion, disquiet, and confusion. The hearing of petty complaints and the investigation of ancient chronicles is not what we should expect from a reign which had hardly ceased to be the work of usurpation when it had begun to close in ignominy. The Samaritans were not likely to imperil their cause by approaching, in a time of confusion, a sovereign of doubtful claims whose acts would inevitably be reversed by any successful rival.

But apart from the consideration of its details, the crowning condemnation of this view is to be found in its main hypothesis, that Xerxes and Artaxerxes do not here mean the kings generally known as Xerxes and Artaxerxes but two other kings, the mention of whose names would remove a difficulty from the passage.

(ii) The other view requires us to admit the presence of an interruption in the chronological sequence of the book. Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes are the Xerxes and Artaxerxes (Longimanus) familiar to us under those names. Ezra 4:6-23 do not expand the substance of Ezra 4:5, but they continue the historical treatment of its subject. That subject is the opposition of the Samaritans; and it is shown how their opposition displayed itself in the reigns of Xerxes and Artaxerxes.

The introduction of the times of Xerxes and Artaxerxes into this chapter interrupts, we must admit, the thread of the narrative. The passage, Ezra 4:8-23, is inserted by the Compiler at this point because he imagined it related to the building of the Temple. The names of the kings did not suggest to him his error. Whether this should be charged to mere inadvertency, or to ignorance of the Persian history, we cannot say.

The tone of the letters fully bears out this supposition. There is no allusion to the Temple. The Temple had been erected many years ago. The complaint is made that the people are fortifying the city. Such a complaint, made to the Persian king after the war with Greece, with reference to a city only a day’s march from the coast, had more significance than it could have had in the preceding century. It demanded serious consideration. The description in Nehemiah 1:3 of the condition of the city walls and gates seems to imply devastation more recent than that of the Babylonians 140 years previously. The violent measures of the Samaritans which ‘by force and power’ compelled the Jews to desist from their work may well account for this description. The intercession of Nehemiah procured the favour of ‘the decree’ which the king had declared to be necessary before any building was resumed (Ezra 4:21).

Such an explanation fairly accounts for the presence of the names Xerxes and Artaxerxes. The internal evidence of the passage corresponds with it happily. The insertion of these ‘anticipatory’ fragments seems to us undoubtedly harsh. But it is very questionable whether in a work of such composite character it is not more natural to find occasionally an instance of harshness or inartistic arrangement due to compilation, than everywhere the smooth orderliness of th skilful modern historian.

8. At this verse begins the first long section (Ezra 4:8 to Ezra 6:18) written in the Aramaic language (see Introd.), which the Compiler has probably extracted bodily from Aramaic records.

Ezra 4:8 introduces briefly the description of the letter of accusation against the Jews sent by Rehum and Shimshai.

Rehum the chancellor and Shimshai the scribe] Rehum was probably the chief official of the Samaritan community. The name is considered by some to be of Persian origin, and a contraction of some longer Persian name, e.g. Rheomithres, which is found in Arrian. It appears also in Jewish lists (see Ezra 2:2; Nehemiah 3:17; Nehemiah 10:25), but that need not exclude its foreign origin.

the chancellor] Literally ‘the lord of judgement’. Sayce suggests ‘lord of official intelligence’, the Aramaic word for ‘judgement’ being practically identical with the Assyrian word ‘dhem’, used of the official reports sent to the king by provincial rulers. Here the title apparently belongs to the chief officer of the district.

In the LXX., Syr. and Vulg. the title not being understood appears as a proper name; 1Es 2:16 makes the same error ‘Rathumus and Beeltethmus’.

Shimshai] Perhaps the same name as the Persian ‘Sisamnes’.

the scribe] i.e. the governor’s secretary. Each governor of a Persian province was attended by this official (Herod. III. 128), who acted as a check upon the governor as well as for administrative purposes.