Глава 2

1–64. A list of those who returned from captivity with Zerubbabel and their number. 65. Number of slaves, singers and female singers. 66–67. Number of horses and camels. 68–69. Donations to the church. 1Ezra 2:1. These are the sons of the country from the captives of the exile, whom Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon took to Babylon, who returned to Jerusalem and Judah, each to his own city, - “These are the sons of the country” - bnej hammedina, or rather the province. The name is adopted by Judea, which ceased to be an independent country, and was already one of the districts of the vast Persian state. The returned captives settled “each in his own city,” i.e. each in his assigned place. When resettling, of course, the place of residence of the ancestors of a particular family was taken into account. But it was impossible to comply with this in all cases, both because not all of the former territory passed into the possession of the Jews, and because some of those who returned “could not show about their generation and about their tribe” (1 Ezra 2.59). 1Ezra 2:2. those who came with Zerubbabel, Joshua, Nehemiah, Sarai, Reelai, Mordecai, Bilshan, Misphar, Bigwai, Rehum, Bahan. Number of people of the people of Israel: 1Ezra 2:3. sons of Parosh two thousand one hundred seventy two; 1Ezra 2:4. sons of Shaphatiah three hundred and seventy two; 1Ezra 2:5. the sons of Arach, seven hundred and seventy-five; 1Ezra 2:6. the sons of Pahath-Moab, of the sons of Joshua [and] Joab, two thousand eight hundred and twelve; 1Ezra 2:7. the sons of Elam one thousand two hundred and fifty-four; 1Ezra 2:8. sons of Zattuy nine hundred and forty-five; 1Ezra 2:9. the sons of Zacchaeus, seven hundred and sixty; 1Ezra 2:10. sons of Vanias, six hundred and forty-two; 1Ezra 2:11. sons of Bebay six hundred and twenty-three; 1Ezra 2:12. the sons of Azgad one thousand two hundred and twenty two; 1Ezra 2:13. the sons of Adonikam, six hundred and sixty-six; 1Ezra 2:14. sons of Bigwai two thousand fifty six; 1Ezra 2:15. the sons of Adin are four hundred and fifty-four; 1Ezra 2:16. the sons of Ather, of the house of Hezekiah, ninety-eight; 1Ezra 2:17. sons of Betzai three hundred and twenty-three; 1Ezra 2:18. the sons of Jorah are one hundred and twelve; 1Ezra 2:19. the sons of Hashum, two hundred and twenty-three; 1Ezra 2:20. the sons of Gibbar are ninety-five; 1Ezra 2:21. the natives of Bethlehem were one hundred and twenty-three; 1Ezra 2:22. the inhabitants of Netopha are fifty-six; 1Ezra 2:23. the inhabitants of Anathoth, one hundred and twenty-eight; 1Ezra 2:24. the natives of Azmavef are forty-two; 1Ezra 2:25. the natives of Kiriath-jearim, Kephira, and Beeroth, seven hundred and forty-three; 1Ezra 2:26. the natives of Rama and Geva, six hundred and twenty-one; 1Ezra 2:27. the inhabitants of Mikhmash were one hundred and twenty-two; 1Ezra 2:28. the inhabitants of Bethel and Ai, two hundred and twenty-three; 1Ezra 2:29. the natives of Nebo are fifty-two; 1 Esdras 2:30. the natives of Magbish are one hundred and fifty-six; 1Ezra 2:31. the sons of the other Elam one thousand two hundred and fifty-four; 1Ezra 2:32. sons of Harim three hundred and twenty; 1Ezra 2:33. the natives of Lydda, Hadid and Ono, seven hundred and twenty-five; 1Ezra 2:34. the natives of Jericho are three hundred and forty-five; 1Ezra 2:35. the natives of Senai are three thousand six hundred and thirty. 1Ezra 2:36. Priests: the sons of Jedaiah, of the house of Joshua, nine hundred and seventy-three; 1Ezra 2:37. the sons of Immer one thousand fifty two; 1Ezra 2:38. the sons of Pashhur one thousand two hundred and forty-seven; 1Ezra 2:39. the sons of Harim are one thousand and seventeen. 1 Esdras 2:40. Levites: the sons of Joshua and Kadmiel, of the sons of Hodaviah, seventy-four; 1Ezra 2:41. singers: the sons of Asaph one hundred and twenty-eight; 1Ezra 2:42. the sons of the gatekeepers: the sons of Shallum, the sons of Ater, the sons of Talmon, the sons of Akkub, the sons of Hatita, the sons of Shobai - in all one hundred and thirty-nine. 1Ezra 2:43. The Nethinites: the sons of Zichah, the sons of Hasupha, the sons of Tabbaoth, 1Ezra 2:44. the sons of Keros, the sons of Siaga, the sons of Fadon, 1Ezra 2:45. the sons of Lebana, the sons of Hagaba, the sons of Akkub, 1Ezra 2:46. the sons of Hagab, the sons of Shamlai, the sons of Hanan, 1Ezra 2:47. the sons of Giddel, the sons of Gahar, the sons of Reaiah, 1Ezra 2:48. the sons of Rezin, the sons of Nekoda, the sons of Gazzam, 1Ezra 2:49. the sons of Uzza, the sons of Paseach, the sons of Besai, 1 Esdras 2:50. the sons of Asna, the sons of Meunim, the sons of Nephisim, 1Ezra 2:51. the sons of Bakbuk, the sons of Hakufa, the sons of Harhur, 1Ezra 2:52. the sons of Basluth, the sons of Mehida, the sons of Harsha, 1Ezra 2:53. the sons of Barkos, the sons of Sisra, the sons of Thamach, 1Ezra 2:54. the sons of Netziach, the sons of Hatifa; 1 Esdras 2:55. the sons of Solomon's servants: the sons of Sotai, the sons of Hassophereth, the sons of Feruda, 1Ezra 2:56. the sons of Jaal, the sons of Darkon, the sons of Giddel, 1Ezra 2:57. the sons of Sephatiah, the sons of Hattil, the sons of Poheref-Gazzebayim, the sons of Amiyah, - 1Ezra 2:58. in all, the Nethinim and the sons of Solomon's servants were three hundred and ninety-two. 1Ezra 2:59. And now those who came out from Tel-Melah, Tel-Harsha, Cherub-Addan-Immera, who could not show about their generation and about their tribe - whether they were from Israel: 1 Esdras 2:60. the sons of Delaiah, the sons of Tobiah, the sons of Nekoda, six hundred fifty-two. 1Ezra 2:61. And from the sons of the priests: the sons of Habaiah, the sons of Hakkoz, the sons of Barzillai, who took a wife from the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite and began to be called by their name. 1Ezra 2:62. They looked for their genealogy record, and it was not found, and therefore they were excluded from the priesthood. 1Ezra 2:63. And Tirshapha told them not to eat the great holy thing until the priest stood up with the Urim and Thummim. 1Ezra 2:64. The whole society together consisted of forty-two thousand three hundred and sixty people, A list of the Jews who returned with Zerubbabel, in addition to this place, is also given in Nehemiah 7 and 2Ezra 5. The fact that this list appears in three places in the Bible shows that it was extremely important in the life of post-exilic Israel. The same fact strongly speaks against the opinion of Torrey, who considers the list to be a simple “invention of the chronicler” (Tarrey, pp. 39–41). Some researchers (Wellhausen, Elgorst, Marquardt), without denying the historical basis of the list, believe, however, that it cannot relate to the time of Cyrus, was compiled long after that and was mistakenly placed by the editor in Chapter II. But in the list itself there are signs that it was compiled either at the very arrival of the Jews in Palestine or shortly after that. This is indicated by the inscription of the list (“here are the sons of the country from the captives of the migration”), from which it is clear that the list refers to returned captives. Then, when describing the property of the captives in v. 66–67. are called horses, horses, camels, donkeys, i.e. pack animals needed on the journey. But there is no mention of domestic animals, which are necessary for a settled life. From this we can conclude that the list was compiled before the beginning of this life. The total number of returnees in all three lists is determined by the figure 42,360 (cf. 1Ezra 2.64; Neh. 7.66; 2Ezra 5.41). But if you add up the numbers of returned persons of individual classes indicated in the lists, then for each list you will get its own figure and, moreover, less than that indicated above - namely, for 1 Ezra 2 - 29,818, for Neh. 7 - 31,089 and for 2 Ezra 5 - 30,143. According to the general opinion of exegetes, the discrepancy between the total sum and the terms from which it was composed can only be explained by errors in the text. That errors actually penetrated into the lists under consideration can be seen from a comparison of the names mentioned in them. Thus, the same persons in 1Ezra 2.2 are called Seraiah, Vani (v. 10), Jorah (v. 18) and in Nehemiah 6.15 - Binnu, Harith (v. 24). But it is easier to allow for errors in figures indicating individual classes of returnees. The total amount of those returned, due to the fact that it is transmitted equally in all three lists, can be considered correct. Since the Jews usually counted males and those who had reached 20 years of age, this sum (42,360), one must think, covers only males. Adding to this amount the number of women and children, the figure of all those who returned from Babylonian captivity with Zerubbabel can presumably be determined at 150 thousand (Smend) or even 200 thousand (Herzfeld, Koehler). Some researchers (Kosters, Wellhausen) consider the above figure of men returning from captivity under Cyrus to be too high due to the fact that, in their opinion, only about 14 thousand Jews were taken into captivity by the Chaldeans. However, based on general considerations about the population size in Judah before the Babylonian captivity, and also in view of the biblical evidence about the campaigns of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Chronicles 36.6; Jer 25:1, 52:8; 2 Kings 24.11-16; 2 Chronicles 36.9-10; 2 Kings 25.7; 2 Chronicles 35.17-19); 2 Kings 25.19–20; 2 Chronicles 36.19–20) with great right, the number of captives can be determined at 40–50 tons. Netophah (cf. 2 Kings 23.28; 1 Chronicles 2.54) the current Beit-Nettif west of Bethlehem. Azmabeth or Beth-Haemabeth (Nehemiah 7.28) present-day El-Chizmeh, an area north of Jerusalem on the road from Anathoth to Gibeah. Nebo, maybe Nubai or Beth-Nuba. The locality of this name is unknown. Therefore, it is believed that Magbish is the name of a person, and not a place, and that instead of “natives of Magbish” one should read sons of Magbish. Mentioned in Art. 33 Lydda is the Lydda of apostolic history (Acts 9:32), the current Ludd (cf. 1 Chr. 8.12). Near Lydda there was Ono and Hadid, mentioned in Neh 11.35 and 1 Chron 8.12, the current Ep-Hadit (cf. 1 Mac 12:38, 13:13). Senaa is an area that is definitely unknown. Apparently, she lay not far from Jerusalem. The enumeration of the cities inhabited by the captives shows that the territory occupied by the returning Jews was insignificant. The number of returning Levites (74) seems too small compared to the number of priests (4289). One might think that there were few Levites in captivity in general, since they were scattered throughout Judea and could not be taken away in large numbers. In addition, to the Levites who returned from captivity, we must add the singers who belonged to them (1Ezra 2.41; Nehemiah 7.44; cf. 2Ezra 5.27) and the gatekeepers (1Ezra 2.42; Nehemiah 7.45). Then the number of Levites will not be strikingly disproportionate in relation to the number of priests. The Nethinim, along with the “slaves of Solomon,” occupied the lowest positions in the church. According to the most widespread opinion in literature, the Nethinim were the descendants of those inhabitants of Gibeon who, resorting to cunning, entered into an alliance with the Jews under Joshua (Joshua 9.3–18) and were then assigned to the lower menial labor for the altar of the Lord (Joshua 9.21–27). The ranks of the Nethinim were subsequently swelled by workers who were donated to the church by David and his princes (1 Ezra 8:20). Along with the Nethinims, “Solomon’s servants” are supplied. By “slaves of Solomon” we can mean either the workers who were given by Solomon to the church, or the captives of foreigners who were also given to the church by him (cf. 1 Kings 9.20–21). As can be seen, they formed a special small society among the church staff. Tel-Melach and Tel-harsha, as can be seen from the context of the speech, are the names of Babylonian cities or regions. As for what is mentioned in Art. 59 Kherub-Addan-Immera, it is not clear whether this is the name of persons who could not show about their generation, or the name of localities; and in the latter case - the name of one locality or three. Usually the name in question is understood in a geographical sense, but from a comparison of Art. 59 with 60 conclude that Kherub-Addam-Immera is the name of one locality. The confusion regarding the sons of Delaiah, Tobiah and Nekoda concerned their belonging to the people of Israel. In particular, regarding the sons of Nekoda, the question could arise whether they belong to the Nethinim, among whom the sons of Nekoda are also mentioned (v. 48). The sons of Habaiah, Hakkotz and Barzillai, who did not provide a pedigree record with which they could prove their priestly origin, were “expelled from the priesthood”, i.e. they were forbidden to eat the great shrine (cf. Lev. 2:3, 10, 6:10, 22; Num. 18.9), make sacrifices (Ex. 29:37, 38:10), and enter the sanctuary (Num. 18.10). This ban was imposed on them by Tirshafa. Tirshafa (probably the same with Persian tarsata, with the form of tars to fear 3), is an honorary title - reverendus, excellency, acquired by pecha - the governor (1Ezra 5.14; Neh.8:9, 10:1; cf. Neh. 12:26). In the place in question, near Tirshatha, of course, Zerubbabel. From the expression “until the priest arises with the Urim and Thummim,” they conclude that there was no high priest at that time. But the point is not that there was no high priest, but that in the absence of the church, the will of God was not revealed through the Urim and Thummim. For the Urim and Thummim, see note. to Exodus 28:30; Numbers 27:21; 1 Samuel 28.6. “In the hope that with the restoration of the altar and church to the Lord, His gracious presence would again be in the revived community, Zerubbabel awaited the appearance of the high priest with the Urim and Thumim, who would give the final decision regarding the priests who could not indicate their descent from Aaron” (Keil, Comment. 423). But, according to the view of the later Jews (Bukhstor), in the post-exilic time God no longer revealed his will through the Urim and Thummim, although on the basis of Sir. 36.3 and Jude.Ant. 3:8–9 some consider this (Bertolet) probable. 1Ezra 2:65. besides their male and female servants, who were seven thousand three hundred and thirty-seven; and with them there were two hundred singers and female singers. The singers and singers counted here must be seen, in contrast to those named in Art. 41 church singers, persons who served entertainment and probably belonged to foreigners. 1Ezra 2:66. They have seven hundred and thirty-six horses, and two hundred and forty-five horses; 1Ezra 2:67. They have four hundred and thirty-five camels, and six thousand seven hundred and twenty donkeys. From the mention of only pack animals, it can be concluded that the counting of those returning to the fatherland was made either before arrival, or soon after it, when real settled life had not yet begun. 1Ezra 2:68. Some of the heads of the generations, when they came to the house of the Lord in Jerusalem, willingly gave to the house of God to rebuild it on its foundations. 1Ezra 2:69. Due to their wealth, they gave sixty-one thousand drachmas of gold and five thousand minas of silver and one hundred priestly vestments to the treasury for the work. In the book. Nehemiah 7.70–72 indicates other amounts of donations for the church that are comparable to this place. The text of the book of Nehemiah is considered more complete evidence. The amount of donations in both these places is calculated in coins, which are called darkmonin in the Hebrew text. By the name dartanonim, some researchers mean Persian dariks; and since these coins appeared only during the time of Darius Hystaspes, hence the lists of 1Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7 are considered to have been compiled long after the events and, therefore, not accurate. Ho dartunonrm in 1Ezd 2.69 must be distinguished from those mentioned in 1Ed 8.27 adarknim. Since adarknim undoubtedly serves as the name for dariks, then by darkmonim one should think that other coins are meant - namely drachmas. According to Meyer's calculations, a drachma of gold is equal in value to 12 Germans. marks (about 5 rubles 50 k.), and a mina of silver is 10 drachmas of gold; In total, the donations amounted to more than half a million. rubles with our money. However, De Lagarde derives the word from Bactrian. antarekhshatru and understands it to mean “substitute for the personality of the king” (Symm I, 60) You might be interested in: