king, twelve years, I and my brothers did not eat the governor's bread.’ But in 185 Neh. says, ‘ While all this was going on I was
* ‘The prophets of the time were opposed to Neb. and appar- ently inh e with the hostile neighbours,’ Montefiore, 312; see also Wellh. Gesch.2194. But these prophets, inferior as they were to their predecessors of pre-exilic days, felt that Neh., like Ezra, was reconstituting Judaism on lines not in harmony with prophetism ; and in a measure they were right. See, fora fuller development of this view, Kuenen, Rel. of Jer. ii. 238 ff.
t According to Jos. (Ant. x1. v. 8) the wall was two years and four months in building ; according to Ewald, Hist. v. 157, nearly five years. The fifty-two days is not only a very short time for such a great work, but also for the conditions described in ch. δ to develop. Yet there was every motive for urgent haste. Perhaps only the main part of the work was accomplished in the fifty-two days.
t Sunrise being the usual time for opening the gates.
§ See Milman, Hist. of the Jews, vol. i. P. 437.
| According to Gritz, Hist, 394, this celebration took place two years and four months after Neh,’s arrival in Jerus,; according to Rawlinson, Ezr.-Neh. 150, not till Neh,’s second visit. There are no good grounds for the latter view.
«“ On the relation of Ezra and Neh. in theiradministration, and on the promulgation of the Law (Neh 8-10), see art. Exma; and Kosters, Wiederherstellung Israels, 1895.
not in Jerus. : forin the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes the king of Babylon, 1 went unto the king, and asked of the king a leave of absence. And I went to Jerusalem.’ This verse is obscure, and its meaning uncertain. ‘I went unto the king’ may refer to Neh.’s return from Jerus., or to his entering the royal presence to prefer his request. The other doubtful clause is literally ‘to end of days,’ and is generally taken as a reference to the undefined period between Neh.’s return to the king and his second departure. The words favour this interpretation, the context the notion of a limited leave as rende above. See the commentaries on the passage.
Neh. either returned to the king after twelve years’ absence, and then, after a period of a year as Kuenen supposes, or three or tour years as Gratz holds, secured a second leave; or else he returned sooner, and in the thirty-second year, B.c. 433, started again for Jerusalem. 5!4in the latter case would mean that Neh. was the real governor of Judah even when absent oncourt duty, ruling by his appointed deputies. On the whole, this view seems more probable than the other; for it seems unlikely that the king, who required Neh. to stipulate a limit to his leave before he would grant it (26), would agree to so long a period as twelve years. Neh.’s chief purpose was to rebuild the walls: if this took only fifty-two days, there would be noreason for a long stay. The events narrated might all easily take place in three or four years, and they are described as initial movements. If Neh, had ΧΟ Ασα his stay, we should probably be informed of the
loings of such an active and zealous man. Then, again, the supposed interval of a year or so does not allow time for the development of the ΕΝ 8 pie confronted "ΟΣ ie second administration, especially for the appearance of a speech among the children of half-foreign parentage (13%).
During Nehemiah’s absence at the Persian court, serious evils had made their appearance in Jeru- salem. Sanballat and his allies had been check- mated; Jerus. had been freed from external enemies; but internal disorders had sprung up which affected the life of the people harmfully. Eliashib had housed Tobiah in one of the temple chambers (130); the Levites* were not supplied with their lawful portions (see Mal 37), so that they were com- pelled to seek their living as laymen, or wander about homeless (13!) as in the days of Micah (see Jg17f.). On the Sabbath day, work in the fields went on as usual (13'°); produce was carried to the market in Jerus. ; and the Tyrian merchants sold fish and merchandise on that day (v.'°). In spite of Ezra’s great effort, marriages with foreign women were common, and the children of such mar- riages spoke partly the language of their mothers (v.%t), Even a grandson of Eliashib the high priest had married a daughter of Neh.’s inveterate enemy Sanballat (v.*). Tt is nly probable that the report of these evils impelle Neh.’s return. When he arrived he set about the necessary reforms with characteristic vigour. Tobiah’s belongings were cast out of the temple chamber, and it was restored to its sacred uses (13%). The people were compelled to pay the tithe Ὁ for the support of the Levites and other temple officers (v.%). The city gates were ordered to be closed during the whole of the Sabbath, the vendors who then set up their stalls outside of the gates were threatened so that they were afraid to renew the offence (ν. 95), The men with foreign wives suffered disgrace and punishment, and the people were put under oath to discontinue this violation of the Law. The arch-offender, Eliashib’s grandson, was banished from Jerus. (v.*"). According to Jos. (Ant. XI. vii. 2, viii. 2), Manasseh, a brother of Jaddua, married Nicaso the daughter of Sanballat, left Jerus. and built the rival temple on Gerizim. Josephus places these events in the time of Alex- ander, but he was not a master of chronology, ¢.g. he places Neh. in the time of Xerxes; and many hold that this Manasseh was the son of Joiada anc rrandson of Eliashib (see Kuenen, Rel. Jer. ii. 236 ;