Ezra 4:7

And in the days of Artaxerxes wrote Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of their companions, unto Artaxerxes king of Persia; and the writing of the letter was written in the Syrian tongue, and interpreted in the Syrian tongue.

EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

(7) In the days of Artaxerxes.—This must be Gomates, the Magian priest who personated Smerdis, the dead son of Cyrus, and reigned only seven months: note that the expression used is “days,” and not “reign” as in the previous verse. This Artaxerxes has been thought by many commentators to be the Longimanus of the sequel of this book and of Nehemiah, and they have identified the Ahasuerus of Ezra and Esther with Xerxes. This would explain the reference to “the walls” in Ezra 4:12; but in Ezra 4:23-24 the sequence of events is strict, and the word “ceased” links the parts of the narrative into unity. Moreover, the Persian princes had often more than one name. At the same time, there is nothing to make such an anticipatory and parenthetical insertion impossible.

In the Syrian tongue.—The characters and the words were Syrian or Aramaic; this explains the transition to another language at this point,

Benson Commentary

Ezra 4:7. 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.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

4:6-24 It is an old slander, that the prosperity of the church would be hurtful to kings and princes. Nothing can be more false, for true godliness teaches us to honour and obey our sovereign. But where the command of God requires one thing and the law of the land another, we must obey God rather than man, and patiently submit to the consequences. All who love the gospel should avoid all appearance of evil, lest they should encourage the adversaries of the church. The world is ever ready to believe any accusation against the people of God, and refuses to listen to them. The king suffered himself to be imposed upon by these frauds and falsehoods. Princes see and hear with other men's eyes and ears, and judge things as represented to them, which are often done falsely. But God's judgment is just; he sees things as they are.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

Artaxerxes - Gomates, the Pseudo-Smerdis. He succeeded Cambyses (521 B.C.), and reigned for seven months, when he was deposed and executed by Darius Hystaspis.

Written in the Syrian tongue ... - Or, "written in Syriac characters and translated into Syriac." On the use of this tongue as a medium of communication between the Jews and their Eastern neighbors, see 2 Kings 18:26 note.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

Ezr 4:7-24. Letter to Artaxerxes.

7. in the days of Artaxerxes wrote Bishlam, &c.—The three officers named are supposed to have been deputy governors appointed by the king of Persia over all the provinces subject to his empire west of the Euphrates.

the Syrian tongue—or Aramæan language, called sometimes in our version, Chaldee. This was made use of by the Persians in their decrees and communications relative to the Jews (compare 2Ki 18:26; Isa 36:11). The object of their letter was to press upon the royal notice the inexpediency and danger of rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem. They labored hard to prejudice the king's mind against that measure.

Matthew Poole's Commentary

In the days of Artaxerxes; either,

1. Artaxerxes the son of Xerxes. Or,

2. Smerdis the magician. Or rather,

3. The same Cambyses, called by his Chaldee name Ahasuems, Ezra 4:6, and here by his Persian name Artaxerxes; by which name 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, or exposed, or declared. The sense is, 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, as Hebrew words are oft written in an English character.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

And in the days of Artaxerxes,.... The same with Ahasuerus, in the preceding verse; and who also is Cambyses, which is his name in Heathen authors, Artaxerxes being a common name to the kings of Persia; though some (f) think this was Smerdis, the magician and impostor, who was between Cambyses and Darius; but as he reigned but seven months, it is not very likely that he should be wrote unto, and an answer received from him; besides he sent to every nation he ruled over (g), and so to the Jews, and proclaimed to them freedom from tribute and the militia for three years, to ingratiate himself to them:

wrote Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of their companions; or his company; for Jarchi thinks only one person is meant; that Mithredath Tabeel is the name of one of the adversaries of Judah; and that Bishlam is an appellative, and signifies that he wrote in peace, or in a way of salutation and greeting; but they seem to be the names of governors in the cities of Samaria under the king of Persia: these wrote

to Artaxerxes king of Persia; instigated by the Samaritans:

and the writing of the letter was written in the Syrian tongue, and interpreted in the Syrian tongue; or Chaldee, of which Ezra gives a copy in the Chaldee language; the meaning either is, that it was written both in Syriac letters, and in the Syriac language; for sometimes words are written in one language and in the character of another, as the Syriac is sometimes written in, Hebrew characters, and the Hebrew in Roman; or else there was a postscript added to this letter, explaining some things in it, which also was written in the same language: some take (h) the word "nishtevan", rendered "written", to be the name of a province on the borders of the country beyond Euphrates, whose figure and characters were in high esteem, and fit to write in to kings; but the words and language were Syrian, and needed interpretation.

(f) Prideaux's Connect. par. 1. p. 175. Authors of the Universal History, vol. 5. p. 199, 203. So Vitringa, Hypotypos. Hist. Sacr. p. 108. (g) Herodot. Thalia, sive, l. 3. c. 67. Justin. l. 1. c. 9. (h) Praefat. Arugas Habbosem apud Buxtorf. de liter. Heb. add.

Geneva Study Bible

And in the days of {e} Artaxerxes wrote Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of their companions, unto Artaxerxes king of Persia; and the writing of the letter was written in the Syrian tongue, and interpreted in the Syrian tongue.

(e) Called Artaxerxes, which signifies in the Persian tongue an excellent warrior.

EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

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.

Pulpit Commentary

Verse 7. - And in the days of Artaxerxes. See the comment on ver. 6. If Artaxerxes be the Pseudo-Smerdis, we can readily understand why an application was not made to him at once, and how it came about that the Jews recommenced their building, as they appear from vers. 12, 13 to have done. The Pseudo-Smerdis was a usurper; his reign was a time of partial anarchy; in a distant part of the empire it would not be known for a while who was king. Men would be thrown on themselves, and would do as it seemed good in their own eyes. Later, there may have been some doubt whether a king, who was known to be a religious reformer, would follow the policy of his predecessor with respect to the Jews, or reverse it. Hence a delay, and then a more formal application than before for a positive decree to stop the building (see ver. 21). The rest of their companions. Literally, of their companies - the abstract for the concrete. The writing of the letter was written in the Syrian tongue. Rather, "in the Syrian fashion," i.e. in Syriac characters. And interpreted in the Syrian tongue. Or "translated into the Syriac language." The character and the words were alike Syriac (comp. 2 Kings 18:26). Ezra gives the letter in Chaldee. Ezra 4:7

Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

Complaints against the Jews to Kings Ahashverosh and Artachshasta. - The right understanding of this section depends upon the question, What kings of Persia are meant by Ahashverosh and Artachshasta? while the answer to this question is, in part at least, determined by the contents of the letter, Ezra 4:8-16, sent by the enemies of the Jews to the latter monarch.

Ezra 4:6-7

And in the reign of Ahashverosh, in the beginning of his reign, they wrote an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem. שׂטנה, not to mention the name of the well, Genesis 26:21, occurs here only, and means, according to its derivation from שׂטן, to bear enmity, the enmity; hence here, the accusation. ישׁבי על belongs to שׂטנה, not to כּתבוּ; the letter was sent, not to the inhabitants of Judah, but to the king against the Jews. The contents of this letter are not given, but may be inferred from the designation שׂטנה. The letter to Artachshasta then follows, Ezra 4:7-16. In his days, i.e., during his reign, wrote Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of their companions. כּנותו, for which the Keri offers the ordinary form כּנותיו mrof yra, occurs only here in the Hebrew sections, but more frequently in the Chaldee (comp. Ezra 4:9, Ezra 4:17, Ezra 4:23; Ezra 5:3, and elsewhere), in the sense of companions or fellow-citizens; according to Gesenius, it means those who bear the same surname (Kunje) together with another, though Ewald is of a different opinion; see 117, b, note. The singular would be written כּנת (Ewald, 187, d). And the writing of the letter was written in Aramaean (i.e., with Aramaean characters), and interpreted in (i.e., translated into) Aramaean. נשׁתּון is of Aryan origin, and connected with the modern Persian nuwishten, to write together; it signifies in Hebrew and Chaldee a letter: comp. Ezra 4:18, where נשׁתּונא is used for אגּרתּא of Ezra 4:11. Bertheau translates הנּשׁתּון כּתב, copy of the letter, and regards it as quite identical with the Chaldee אגּרתּא פּרשׁגן, Ezra 4:11; he can hardly, however, be in the right. כּתב does not mean a transcript or copy, but only a writing (comp. Esther 4:8). This, too, does away with the inference "that the writer of this statement had before him only an Aramaean translation of the letter contained in the state-papers or chronicles which he made use of." It is not כּתב, the copy or writing, but הנּשׁתּון, the letter, that is the subject of ארמית מתרגּם, interpreted in Aramaean. This was translated into the Aramaean or Syrian tongue. The passage is not to be understood as stating that the letter was drawn up in the Hebrew or Samaritan tongue, and then translated into Aramaean, but simply that the letter was not composed in the native language of the writers, but in Aramaean. Thus Gesenius rightly asserts, in his Thes. p. 1264, et lingua aramaea scripta erat; in saying which תרגם does not receive the meaning concepit, expressit, but retains its own signification, to interpret, to translate into another language. The writers of the letter were Samaritans, who, having sprung from the intermingling of the Babylonian settlers brought in by Esarhaddon and the remnants of the Israelitish population, spoke a language more nearly akin to Hebrew than to Aramaean, which was spoken at the Babylonian court, and was the official language of the Persian kings and the Persian authorities in Western Asia. This Aramaean tongue had also its own characters, differing from those of the Hebrew and Samaritan. This is stated by the words ארמית כּתוּב, whence Bertheau erroneously infers that this Aramaean writing was written in other than the ordinary Aramaean, and perhaps in Hebrew characters.

This letter, too, of Bishlam and his companions seems to be omitted. There follows, indeed, in Ezra 4:8, etc., a letter to King Artachshasta, of which a copy is given in Ezra 4:11-16; but the names of the writers are different from those mentioned in Ezra 4:7. The three names, Bishlam, Mithredath, and Tabeel (Ezra 4:7), cannot be identified with the two names Rehum and Shimshai (Ezra 4:8). When we consider, however, that the writers named in Ezra 4:8 were high officials of the Persian king, sending to the monarch a written accusation against the Jews in their own and their associates' names, it requires but little stretch of the imagination to suppose that these personages were acting at the instance of the adversaries named in Ezra 4:7, the Samaritans Bishlam, Mithredath, and Tabeel, and merely inditing the complaints raised by these opponents against the Jews. This view, which is not opposed by the כּתב of Ezra 4:7, - this word not necessarily implying an autograph, - commends itself to our acceptance, first, because the notion that the contents of this letter are not given finds no analogy in Ezra 4:6, where the contents of the letter to Ahashverosh are sufficiently hinted at by the word שׂטנה; while, with regard to the letter of Ezra 4:7, we should have not a notion of its purport in case it were not the same which is given in Ezra 4:8, etc.

(Note: The weight of this argument is indirectly admitted by Ewald (Gesch. iv. p. 119) and Bertheau, inasmuch as both suppose that there is a long gap in the narrative, and regard the Aramaean letter mentioned in Ezra 4:7 to have been a petition, on the part of persons of consideration in the community at Jerusalem, to the new king, - two notions which immediately betray themselves to be the expedients of perplexity. The supposed "long gaps, which the chronicler might well leave even in transcribing from his documents" (Ew.), do not explain the abrupt commencement of Ezra 4:8. If a petition from the Jewish community to the king were spoken of in Ezra 4:7, the accusation against the Jews in Ezra 4:8 would certainly have been alluded to by at least a ו adversative, or some other adversative particle.)

Besides, the statement concerning the Aramaean composition of this letter would have been utterly purposeless if the Aramaean letter following in Ezra 4:8 had been an entirely different one. The information concerning the language in which the letter was written has obviously no other motive than to introduce its transcription in the original Aramaean. This conjecture becomes a certainty through the fact that the Aramaean letter follows in Ezra 4:8 without a copula of any kind. If any other had been intended, the ו copulative would not more have been omitted here than in Ezra 4:7. The letter itself, indeed, does not begin till Ezra 4:9, while Ezra 4:8 contains yet another announcement of it. This circumstance, however, is explained by the fact that the writers of the letters are other individuals than those named in Ezra 4:7, but chiefly by the consideration that the letter, together with the king's answer, being derived from an Aramaean account of the building of the temple, the introduction to the letter found therein was also transcribed.