Ezra 2:1

The Names of the Returning Exiles

2:1 ¹ These are the people ²  of the province who were going up, ³  from the captives of the exile whom King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon had forced into exile in Babylon. They returned to Jerusalem ⁴  and Judah, each to his own city.

Nehemia 7:6

7:6 These are the people ⁵  of the province who returned ⁶  from the captivity of the exiles, whom King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon had forced into exile. ⁷  They returned to Jerusalem and to Judah, each to his own city.

Nehemia 11:3

11:3 These are the provincial leaders ⁸  who settled in Jerusalem. (While other Israelites, the priests, the Levites, the temple attendants, and the sons of the servants of Solomon settled in the cities of Judah, each on his own property in their cities,

Ester 1:1

The King Throws a Lavish Party

1:1 ⁹ The following events happened ¹⁰  in the days of Ahasuerus. ¹¹  (I am referring to ¹²  that Ahasuerus who used to rule over a hundred and twenty-seven provinces ¹³  extending all the way from India to Ethiopia. ¹⁴ )

Ester 1:22

1:22 He sent letters throughout all the royal provinces, to each province according to its own script and to each people according to its own language, ¹⁵  that every man should be ruling his family ¹⁶  and should be speaking the language of his own people. ¹⁷ 

[2:1]  ¹ sn The list of names and numbers in this chapter of Ezra has a parallel account in Neh 7:6-73. The fact that the two lists do not always agree in specific details suggests that various textual errors have crept into the accounts during the transmission process.

[2:1]  ² tn Heb “the sons of.”

[2:1]  ³ tn The Hebrew term הָעֹלִים (ha’olim, “those who were going up” [Qal active participle]) refers to continual action in the past. Most translations render this as a simple past: “went up” (KJV), “came up” (RSV, ASV, NASV, NIV), “came” (NRSV). CEV paraphrases: “were on their way back.”

[2:1]  ⁴ map For location see Map5 B1; Map6 F3; Map7 E2; Map8 F2; Map10 B3; JP1 F4; JP2 F4; JP3 F4; JP4 F4.

[7:6]  ⁵ tn Heb “the sons of”; KJV, ASV “the children of”; NAB “the inhabitants of.”

[7:6]  ⁶ tn Heb “who were going up.”

[7:6]  ⁷ tc One medieval Hebrew manuscript has “to Babylon.” Cf. Ezra 2:1.

[11:3]  ⁸ tn Heb “the heads of the province.”

[1:1]  ⁹ sn In the English Bible Esther appears adjacent to Ezra-Nehemiah and with the historical books, but in the Hebrew Bible it is one of five short books (the so-called Megillot) that appear toward the end of the biblical writings. The canonicity of the book was questioned by some in ancient Judaism and early Christianity. It is one of five OT books that were at one time regarded as antilegomena (i.e., books “spoken against”). The problem with Esther was the absence of any direct mention of God. Some questioned whether a book that did not mention God could be considered sacred scripture. Attempts to resolve this by discovering the tetragrammaton (YHWH) encoded in the Hebrew text (e.g., in the initial letters of four consecutive words in the Hebrew text of Esth 5:4) are unconvincing, although they do illustrate how keenly the problem was felt by some. Martin Luther also questioned the canonicity of this book, objecting to certain parts of its content. Although no copy of Esther was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, this does not necessarily mean that the Qumran community did not regard it as canonical. It is possible that the absence of Esther from what has survived at Qumran is merely a coincidence. Although the book does not directly mention God, it would be difficult to read it without sensing the providence of God working in powerful, though at times subtle, ways to rescue his people from danger and possible extermination. The absence of mention of the name of God may be a deliberate part of the literary strategy of the writer.

[1:1]  ¹⁰ tn Heb “it came about”; KJV, ASV “Now it came to pass.”

[1:1]  ¹¹ tn Where the Hebrew text has “Ahasuerus” (so KJV, NAB, NASB, NRSV) in this book the LXX has “Artaxerxes.” The ruler mentioned in the Hebrew text is Xerxes I (ca. 486-465 B.C.), and a number of modern English versions use “Xerxes” (e.g., NIV, NCV, CEV, NLT).

[1:1]  ¹² tn Heb “in the days of Ahasuerus, that Ahasuerus who used to rule…” The phrase “I am referring to” has been supplied to clarify the force of the third person masculine singular pronoun, which is functioning like a demonstrative pronoun.

[1:1]  ¹³ sn The geographical extent of the Persian empire was vast. The division of Xerxes’ empire into 127 smaller provinces was apparently done for purposes of administrative efficiency.

[1:1]  ¹⁴ tn Heb “Cush” (so NIV, NCV; KJV “Ethiopia”) referring to the region of the upper Nile in Africa. India and Cush (i.e., Ethiopia) are both mentioned in a tablet taken from the foundation of Xerxes’ palace in Persepolis that describes the extent of this empire. See ANET 316-17.

[1:22]  ¹⁵ sn For purposes of diplomacy and governmental communication throughout the far-flung regions of the Persian empire the Aramaic language was normally used. Educated people throughout the kingdom could be expected to have competence in this language. But in the situation described in v. 22 a variety of local languages are to be used, and not just Aramaic, so as to make the king’s edict understandable to the largest possible number of people.

[1:22]  ¹⁶ tn Heb “in his house”; NIV “over his own household.”

[1:22]  ¹⁷ tc The final prepositional phrase is not included in the LXX, and this shorter reading is followed by a number of English versions (e.g., NAB, NRSV, NLT). Some scholars suggest the phrase may be the result of dittography from the earlier phrase “to each people according to its language,” but this is not a necessary conclusion. The edict was apparently intended to reassert male prerogative with regard to two things (and not just one): sovereign and unquestioned leadership within the family unit, and the right of deciding which language was to be used in the home when a bilingual situation existed.