Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

the son of a Maachathite, they and their men. (24) And Gedaliah sware to them, and to their men, and said unto them, Fear not to be the servants of the Chaldees: dwell in the land, and serve the king of Babylon; and it shall be well with you.

(25) But it came to pass in the seventh month, that Ishmael the son of Nethaniah, the son of Elishama, of the seed royal, came, and ten men with him, and "smote Gedaliah, that he died, and the Jews and the Chaldees that were with him at Mizpah. (26) And all the people, both small and great, and the captains of the armies, arose, and came to Egypt: for they were afraid of the Chaldees.

vii. 26. salem.

B.C 588.

Jehoiachin advanced.

(27) And it came to pass in the seven and thirtieth year of the captivity of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the twelfth month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, that Evil-merodach king of Babylon in the year that Heb., of the king- he began to reign did lift up the head of Jehoiachin king of Judah out of prison; (28) and he spake kindly to him, and set his throne above the throne of the kings that were with him in Babylon; (29) and changed his prison garments: and he did eat bread continually before him all the days of his life. (30) And his allowance was a continual allowance given him of the king, a daily rate for every day, all the days of his life.

a Jer. 41. 2.

2 Heb..good things with him.

It may be Beit Nettif south-west of Jeru

The son of a (the) Maachathite.-His father was an alien, and belonged to the Syrian state of Maachah (2 Sam. x. 6, 8).

(24) Fear not to be the servants.-Rather, Be not afraid of the servants. By "the servants of the Chaldees" Gedaliah probably means those who recognised the Chaldeans as their masters-that is to say, himself and those who adhere to him. He promises immunity for the past if only the captains and their men will settle down quietly as subjects of the conqueror.

(25) In the seventh month.-Only two months after the fall of Jerusalem (verse 8).

Smote Gedaliah. At a friendly meal in the governor's own house (Jer. xli. 1, 2). Perhaps, as Josephus says, when he and his followers were overcome with wine.

Of the seed royal.-Perhaps this reveals Ishmael's motive. He thought his claim to the government of the community was greater than Gedaliah's. Baalis king of the Ammonites had incited him to the crime (Jer. xl. 14).

The Chaldees that were with him. They were soldiers left to support his authority (Jer. xli. 3). That he died. - The Jews afterwards observed the day of Gedaliah's death as a day of mourning.

(26) Arose and came to Egypt.-They took Jeremiah with them (Jer. xliii. 6). This verse only gives the end of the story as it is told in Jeremiah.

(27-30) The captivity of Jehoiachin ameliorated by the new king of Babylon. (See Jer. lii. 31-34.)

(27) In the seven and thirtieth year. . .-Jehoiachin was now fifty-five years old (chap. xxiv. 8, 12). On the seven and twentieth day.-Jer. lii. 31: five and twentieth, which is probably right. (See Note on verse 19.)

[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

561, 560, B.C.). He came to the throne 562 B.C., upon the death of Nebuchadnezzar, who had reigned fortythree years. According to the canon of Ptolemy, Evilmerodach reigned two years. He was murdered by his brother-in-law Neriglissar-i.e., Nergal-sharezer.

Did lift up the head of Jehoiachin . . . out of prison-i.e., brought him out of prison (Gen. xl. 13, 20). The LXX., Syriac, and Arabie add, "and brought him forth" before the words "ont of prison." So Jer. lii. 31.

(28) Set his throne above the throne of the kings...-Gave him precedence of the other captive kings who were kept at the Babylonian court by way of enhancing its glory (comp. Judg. i. 7), and probably marked this precedence by allowing him a higher chair of state in the royal hall. So Cyrus kept Croesus king of Lydia at his court (Herod. i. 88). We may remem ber also the chivalrous behaviour of our own Black Prince towards his royal captive John of France.

(29) And changed.-Rather, and he (i.e., Jehoiachin) changed his prison garments-th t is to say, he discarded them for others more suitable to his new condition. Joseph did the same when taken from prison to the Egyptian court (Gen. xli. 14).

He did eat bread continually before him .-Jehoiachin became a perpetual guest at the royal table. (Comp. 2 Sam. ix. 10-13.)

(30) His allowance.-For the maintenance of his little court. Literally, And (as for) h allowance a continual allowance was given him from the king, a day's portion in its day.

All the days of his (Jehoiachin's) life.-He may have died before Evil-merodach was inured. There would be nothing strange in this, considering his age and his thirty-seven years of imprisonment.

The writer evidently dwells with pleasure on this faint gleam of light amid the darkness of the exile. It was a kind of foreshadowing of the pity which afterwards was to be extended to the captive people, when the divine purpose had been achieved, on the exile had done its work of chastisement and purifica ion. (Comp. Ps. cvi. 46; Ezra ix. 9; Neh. i. 2.)

THE FIRST BOOK OF THE CHRONICLES.

INTRODUCTION

ΤΟ

THE BOOKS OF THE CHRONICLES.

§ 1. Title. In the Hebrew MSS. the Books of Chronicles form a continuous work, bearing the general name of Dibrê hayyûmim (“ Events of the Days," or "History of the Times "), which is no doubt an abridgment of Sepher dibré hayyamim-i.e., "The Book of the Events (or History) of the Times." (Comp. 2 Kings xiv. 19; 1 Chron. xxvii. 24; Esther vi. 1, x. 2.) This designation is not given in the text of the work itself, but was prefixed by some unknown editor. Accordingly we find a different title in the LXX., which divides the work into two books, called Παραλειπομένων πρῶτον and devтepòv ("First and Second [Book] of Things omitted"); or, Параλειтоμévшv Bariλéwv or, in some MSS., Tŵr Bariλelwy Iovdà, a and 8 (“First and Second Book of omitted Notices of the Kings or the Kingdoms of Judah "). This title indicates that, in the opinion of the Greek translators, the work was intended as a kind of supplement to the older historical books. In that case, however, great part of Chronicles could only be considered redundant and superfluous, consisting, as it does, in the mere repetition of narratives already incorporated in Samuel and Kings. (See § 5, infra.) The name by which we know the work, and which fairly represents the Hebrew designation, is derived from St. Jerome, who says:"Dibre hayamim, id est, Verba dierum, quod signifi. cantius Chronicon totius divinae historiae possumus appellare, qui liber apud nos Paralipomenon primus et secundus inscribitur" (Prolog. galeat.). The work, however, is not a mere chronicle or book of annals, although somewhat resembling one in its external form, and deriving its facts from annalistic sources (§ 7, infra). In the Vulgate we find the heading, "The First Book of Paralipomena, in Hebrew Dibre Haiamim." In the Peshito-Syriac, "Next the Book of the Rule of Days (Dúbor yaumátha) of the Kings of Judah, which is called Sephar debar yamin." In the Arabic, In the name of God the Merciful, the Compassionate. The First Book of the Kitab 'akhbari 'l'ayyami-the Book of the Histories of the Days; which is called in the Hebrew, Dibrâ hayyâmîn.”

[ocr errors]

That Chronicles was originally a single, undivided work, is evident from the Masoretic note at the end of the Hebrew text, which states that 1 Chron. xxvii. 25 is the middle verse of the whole book. Moreover, Josephus, Origen (ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vi. 25), Jerome, and the Talmud reckon but one book of Chronicles. The Peshito-Syriac ends with the remark: "Finished is the book of Debar yamin, in which are 5,603 verses -implying the unity of the work. The present division into two books, which certainly occurs in the most suitable place, was first made by the LXX. translators, from whom it was adopted by St. Jerome in the Vul

[ocr errors]

gate, and so passed into the other versions and the modern printed editions of the Hebrew Bible.

§ 2. Relation to the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah.-An attentive examination of the Hebrew text of the Books of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, soon reveals the important fact that the three apparently separate works resemble each other very closely, not only in style and language, which is that of the latest age of Hebrew writing, but also in the general point of view, in the manner in which the original authorities are handled and the sacred Law expressly cited, and. above all, in the marked preference for certain topics, such as genealogical and statistical registers, descriptions of religious rites and festivals, detailed accounts of the sacerdotal classes and their various functions. notices of the music of the Temple, and similar matters connected with the organisation of public worship. These resemblances in manner, method, and matter. raise a strong presumption of unity of authorship, which is accordingly asserted by most modern scholars. As regards Chronicles and Ezra, this result is further indicated by the strange termination of the Chronicles in the middle of an unfinished sentence, which finds its due completion in the opening verses of Ezra. (Comp. 2 Chron. xxxvi. 22, 23 with Ezra i. 1-4.) Had Chronicles been an independent work, it might have ended less abruptly at 2 Chron. xxxvi. 21. But there is no real break in the narrative between 2 Chron. xxxvi. and Ezra i.; and the awkwardness of the existing division simply points to the perplexity of some editor or transcriber, who did not know where to leave off. It is absurd to lay any stress on the two trivial variants between the two passages. They are not marks of an editorial hand, but merely errors of transcription. (See Notes on 2 Chron. xxxvi. 22, 23.)

There are other facts which combine with the above considerations to prove that Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah originally constituted a single great history. composed upon a uniform plan by one author. Thus there is actually extant part of a Greek version of the three books which ignores their division. The Third Book of Esdras is, with certain important omissions and additions, an independent translation of the history from 2 Chron. xxxv. to Neh. viii. 12. In this work the edict of Cyrus occurs but once; and it is evident that the author's Hebrew text did not divide the history into three distinct books.

Further, the ancients did not separate Ezra and Nehemiah in the modern fashion. The Talmudic treatise Baba bathra (fol. 15. A), the Masorah, and the Christian fathers Origen and Jerome, regard EzraNehemiah as a single work; and it appears in the

« PreviousContinue »