וַיְהִי בְּחֹדֶשׁ נִיסָן שְׁנַת עֶשְׂרִים לְאַרְתַּחְשַׁסְתְּא הַמֶּלֶךְ יַיִן לְפָנָיו וָאֶשָּׂא אֶת הַיַּיִן וָאֶתְּנָה לַמֶּלֶךְ וְלֹא הָיִיתִי רַע לְפָנָיו
BN (BibleNet translation): And it came to pass in the month of Niysan, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes the king, when wine was before him, that I took up the wine, and gave it to the king. Now I had not previously been sad in his presence.
NIYSAN: Unclear why the Masoretes felt it necessary to add a Yud to what is usually pronounced Nisan.
More interesting however, re the date, is that Nisan comes four months after Kislev, which was the date of the previous chapter, the date of Nechem-Yah praying that all would go well when he got an audience with the king. Now, if he were a "high-ranking official at the court", as most of the history-scholars and religious-scholars insist, then it shouldn't have taken four months to get an audience with the king over something so important as the parlous state of affairs in the last remaining western frontier of his kingdom, at a time when the Peace of Callias was holding, but somewhat wobbly. On the other hand, if he was a mere house-servant, one of the kitchen servants with special responsibility for refilling and taking away the royal wine cup...
SHENAT ESRIM: But wait a moment. It was Kislev of the 20th year, in chapter 1, and now it's Nisan of the 20th year, but Kislev is November-December, and Nisan is March-April, and Nisan is the first month of the Babylonian year, so it must be the start of the 21st year? on the other hand, if Nechem-Yah is using the new Yisra-Eli calendar, with Tishrey as the first month, then Kislev would be the 3rd and Nisan the 7th, and so it could all be happening in the 20th year - but surely that new calendar was not yet in force?
RA: Hmmm! The word has only ever been used to mean "wicked" or "evil", yet here, and in the next verse, it clearly doesn't mean either of those. How does it suddenly come to mean "sad"? And does this change impact on previous usages? (see also verse 10).
Which year was it in the last chapter? Kislev to Nisan is how long?
2:2 VA YOMER LI HA MELECH MADU'A PANEYCHA RA'IM VE ATAH EYN'CHA CHOLEH EYN ZEH KI IM RO'A LEV VA IYR'A HARBEH ME'OD
KJ: Wherefore the king said unto me, Why is thy countenance sad, seeing thou art not sick? this is nothing else but sorrow of heart. Then I was very sore afraid,
2:3 VA OMAR LA MELECH HA MELECH LE OLAM YIHEYEH MADU'A LO YER'U PHANAI ASHER HA'IR BEIT KIVROT AVOTAI CHAREVAH U SHE'AREYHA UCHLU VA ESH
KJ: And said unto the king, Let the king live for ever: why should not my countenance be sad, when the city, the place of my fathers' sepulchres, lieth waste, and the gates thereof are consumed with fire?
BN: And I said to the king: "May the king live for ever: why would my countenance not be sad, when the city, the shrine of my fathers' sepulchres, lies in ruins, and its gates have been consumed with fire?"
VA OMAR: VA AMARTI would be grammatically more correct, or VA YOMER if he was using the Vav Consecutive - though it is not something usually done in conversation.
2:5 VA OMAR LA MELECH IM AL HA MELECH TOV VE IM YIYTAV AVDECHA LEPHANEYCHA ASHER TISHLACHENI EL YEHUDAH EL IR KIVROT AVOTAI VE EVNENAH
KJ: And I said unto the king, If it please the king, and if thy servant have found favour in thy sight, that thou wouldest send me unto Judah, unto the city of my fathers' sepulchres, that I may build it.
BN: And I said to the king: "If it please the king, and if your servant has found favour in your sight, that you would send me to Yehudah, to the city of my ancestors' sepulchres, that I may rebuild it...
2:6 VA YOMER LI HA MELECH VE HA SHEGAL YOSHEVET ETSLO AD MATAI YIHEYEH MAHALACHECHA U MATAI TASHUV VA YIYTAV LIPHNEY HA MELECH VA YISHLACHENI VA ETNAH LO ZEMAN
KJ: And the king said unto me, (the queen also sitting by him,) For how long shall thy journey be? and when wilt thou return? So it pleased the king to send me; and I set him a time.
וַיֹּאמֶר לִי הַמֶּלֶךְ מַדּוּעַ פָּנֶיךָ רָעִים וְאַתָּה אֵינְךָ חוֹלֶה אֵין זֶה כִּי אִם רֹעַ לֵב וָאִירָא הַרְבֵּה מְאֹד
KJ: Wherefore the king said unto me, Why is thy countenance sad, seeing thou art not sick? this is nothing else but sorrow of heart. Then I was very sore afraid,
BN: And the king said to me: "Why is your face so sad, seeing that you are not sick? Some wicked spirit is troubling you." Then I was sore afraid.
Where Ezra translates the words of the Persian king into Aramit, Nechem-Yah presents them in Yehudit. Where Ezra likes to show off his bilingual skills, and recognises that a new Yehudah will need to be bilingual, Nechem-Yah will make very clear that he sees the restoration of Yehudit as essential. And perhaps this also explains why Nechem-Yah has given the dates in the way he has, asserting the new calendar that will, perhaps, be introduced under his governorship later on (this is speculation; I have no textual or archaeological evidence to support the hypothesis). Both of them are role-modeling, but for very different ideals. Nechem-Yah will win the battle when the Tanach is written down in Yehudit; Ezra will win it in the political realm.
VA IR'A HARBEH ME'OD: Of what was he afraid? The king's butler brings him a glass of wine and the king is condescending enough to ask why he is looking so sad today. It's what kings do. But now go back to his lengthy prayer at the end of the last chapter: he is desperate to step out of his lowly slave-role and ask the king a massive favour, for himself and his people, and he isn't Mosheh, who is Pharaoh's adopted step-son and therefore has access. He prayed for it go well, if it ever even happened, and he has waited four months. "And he just spoke to me!" Gulp! Now is my opportunity, it may never come again. "And if not now, when?" He isn't just "sore afraid", he is absolutely quaking.
וָאֹמַר לַמֶּלֶךְ הַמֶּלֶךְ לְעוֹלָם יִחְיֶה מַדּוּעַ לֹא יֵרְעוּ פָנַי אֲשֶׁר הָעִיר בֵּית קִבְרוֹת אֲבֹתַי חֲרֵבָה וּשְׁעָרֶיהָ אֻכְּלוּ בָאֵשׁ
KJ: And said unto the king, Let the king live for ever: why should not my countenance be sad, when the city, the place of my fathers' sepulchres, lieth waste, and the gates thereof are consumed with fire?
BN: And I said to the king: "May the king live for ever: why would my countenance not be sad, when the city, the shrine of my fathers' sepulchres, lies in ruins, and its gates have been consumed with fire?"
VA OMAR: VA AMARTI would be grammatically more correct, or VA YOMER if he was using the Vav Consecutive - though it is not something usually done in conversation.
BEIT: Translating this as "place" is simply evasive, nebulous. Nor can it be "house". He means "shrine", as in Beit-El etc.
samech break
2:4 VA YOMER LI HA MELECH AL MAH ZEH ATAH MEVAKESH VA ETPALEL EL ELOHEY HA SHAMAYIM
KJ: Then the king said unto me, For what dost thou make request? So I prayed to the God of heaven.
samech break
וַיֹּאמֶר לִי הַמֶּלֶךְ עַל מַה זֶּה אַתָּה מְבַקֵּשׁ וָאֶתְפַּלֵּל אֶל אֱלֹהֵי הַשָּׁמָיִם
KJ: Then the king said unto me, For what dost thou make request? So I prayed to the God of heaven.
BN: Then the king said to me: "What exactly are you requesting?" So I prayed to the gods in the heavens.
AL MAH ZEH: I have kept this in standard English, which is very formal and proper; but actually the Yehudit here is so colloquial it is almost slang. The king is chatting, real person to real person. AL MAH ZEH is pub-talk, not court-talk. "Come on, Nechem-Yah, out with it. What are you asking me to do for you?" would get the spirit of the words, even if not quite their literality. And in the next phrase, not a real prayer, but that inner thought: "Nechem-Yah, you may never get a chance like this again. Don't mess it up". But you can't put a dialogue like that into the Bible; and so we get this verse.
ELOHEY HA SHAMAYIM: The concept of the deity has changed radically over the centuries. El Shadai and Pachad Yitschak (Genesis 31:42) were earth-bound; YHVH in Mosheh's time was a volcano-god who was then installed in a roofed sedan chair, the Mishkan; in the later parts of Mosheh we can see a sky god, but really it is still the sun-god inhabiting the visible skies, the daytime skies, coupled with the moon-goddess of the same realm, though she has Underworld and Afterlife dimensions. But Phaeton's Chariot and Noa'ch's Ark and Helios' travel-coach all sit this side of the Rakiy'a, the firmament which is the Jewish version of the Primum Mobile. Yet here, in Ezra and in Nechem-Yah, it is Elohey ha Shamayim, and the sense is very much that of a sky god inhabiting "the heavens", both this and the far side of the Rakiy'a, but not yet in a place called Heaven, nor with any of the Afterlife or Judgement Day superstitions that would later be attached to that abstraction. And still plural.
2:5 VA OMAR LA MELECH IM AL HA MELECH TOV VE IM YIYTAV AVDECHA LEPHANEYCHA ASHER TISHLACHENI EL YEHUDAH EL IR KIVROT AVOTAI VE EVNENAH
BN: And I said to the king: "If it please the king, and if your servant has found favour in your sight, that you would send me to Yehudah, to the city of my ancestors' sepulchres, that I may rebuild it...
IR KIVROT AVOTAI: Calling it this, without even naming it, elicits an emotional rather than a political response; good psychology.
VE EVNENAH: I want to assume a pause of truly Pinteresque longevity before he says this last. "Send me to Yehudah" is just a visit, a long weekend of putting flowers or a stone on someone's grave, maybe cleaning the gravestone, a family gathering and a prayer service. But that isn't what this is about. Nechem-Yah has a much larger aspiration, a dream - but does he dare to ask? Long pause, let the king wonder what's coming - then dare. "I want to rebuild the city." And the massive implication: "I'm not just asking you to send me. I'm asking you to fund it, to provision it." He doesn't say this explicitly; but he doesn't need to. First, he just needs to go and size up the scale of the problem, and be sure it's do-able. Then he will ask the king formally for what he needs.
But he is merely the king's cup-bearer, some minor valet who comes at the click of a royal finger and refills the glass of Shiraz wine. Isn't he? Are we mis-undertanding "cup-bearer"? Or do we need to wonder if all this is happening before or after the story of Ester, which may or may not have any historical base? Ester's king was Achashverosh in Yehudit, usually rendered as Ahasuerus in English, and widely disparate opinions as to which king that might have been, if it wasn't simply a made-up tale. The strongest candidate, if it is historic, is Xerxes, the father of Nechem-Yah's king, and mentioning the fact that the queen was also sitting there, as Nechem-Yah does in the next verse, seems to me to be a deliberate nod in that direction (why mention her otherwise?). We know from all sorts of archaeological evidence that the Medean Persians had great admiration for the Yehudim, as a people and particularly as a culture, and we also know that the battle for the Jewish mind for the next several centuries is going to be between those who likewise admired the Zoroastrian Persians, and brought many of their ideas into what would eventually become Judaism, versus those who would prefer the Hellenic route of the other super-power, Greece.
But he is merely the king's cup-bearer, some minor valet who comes at the click of a royal finger and refills the glass of Shiraz wine. Isn't he? Are we mis-undertanding "cup-bearer"? Or do we need to wonder if all this is happening before or after the story of Ester, which may or may not have any historical base? Ester's king was Achashverosh in Yehudit, usually rendered as Ahasuerus in English, and widely disparate opinions as to which king that might have been, if it wasn't simply a made-up tale. The strongest candidate, if it is historic, is Xerxes, the father of Nechem-Yah's king, and mentioning the fact that the queen was also sitting there, as Nechem-Yah does in the next verse, seems to me to be a deliberate nod in that direction (why mention her otherwise?). We know from all sorts of archaeological evidence that the Medean Persians had great admiration for the Yehudim, as a people and particularly as a culture, and we also know that the battle for the Jewish mind for the next several centuries is going to be between those who likewise admired the Zoroastrian Persians, and brought many of their ideas into what would eventually become Judaism, versus those who would prefer the Hellenic route of the other super-power, Greece.
וַיֹּאמֶר לִי הַמֶּלֶךְ
וְהַשֵּׁגַל יוֹשֶׁבֶת אֶצְלוֹ עַד מָתַי יִהְיֶה מַהֲלָכְךָ וּמָתַי תָּשׁוּב וַיִּיטַב לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ וַיִּשְׁלָחֵנִי וָאֶתְּנָה לוֹ זְמָן
KJ: And the king said unto me, (the queen also sitting by him,) For how long shall thy journey be? and when wilt thou return? So it pleased the king to send me; and I set him a time.
BN: Then the king said to me, and the queen was also sitting at his side: "How long are you planning for this journey ? When will you be back?" So it pleased the king to send me; and I set him a time.
Screenplay: The king nods, understanding the inference of the request. He and the queen exchange looks, sharing their understanding (it would make a much better movie if the queen was Ester herself, but that would be pushing matters even beyond Hollywood-fantasy proportions). Losing their cup-bearer for a weekend or even a couple of months isn't terribly important to them - the world is full of wannabe cup-bearers to the king. Rebuilding Yeru-Shala'im, on the other hand, would be a wonderful achievement. Didn't his great-grandfather Koresh talk to him about these Yehudim, their god who is not like Ahura Mazda, divided and torn between Angra Mainyu and Spenta Meynu, a Unity unlike their Duality, a god whose people believe that people may incline both towards good and evil, and make their own choices from there, rather than this Medaean faith, this Zoroastrianism, which separates Good from Evil, makes nouns of these things wherethey make adjectives, why does it have to be one thing or the other? Great-grandfather Koresh spoke highly of these people, encouraged, supported their return - so the documents my counsellors have found in the archives inform me too. And Yerushlem - the city of King Suleiman - the second greatest city the world has ever known (Susa, of course, the greatest, though a case could no doubt be made for Bavel); what a statement to immortality that would be: I, King Artachshast of the the Medes, who rebuilt the City of Peace for the Yehudim. Go tell that to the future Ayatollahs who my horoscope Magi have predicted!
VA YOMER LI: Rather than Elai - though of course these may not be errors, but simply the way the language was correctly spoken at that time.
SHEGAL: "The queen" is not really an accurate translation, though she would certainly have been his wife, and not just a concubine. But she is the consort, in the way that Philip is to Elizabeth, with no official power or authority - though in Persia before the Medes introduced Zoroastrianism she would have been Ishtar incarnate to the king's Marduk incarnate (Ester and Mordechai in the Purim tale) and would have had an important ceremonial-priestess role.
ZEMAN: Simply a date in a diary; there is no religious significance intended here. It is a ZEMAN, not an OT or a MO'ED. What Nechem-Yah is granted is extended leave, albeit with a fixed deadline.
2:7 VA OMAR LA MELECH IM AL HA MELECH TOV IGROT YITNU LI AL PACHAVOT EVER HA NAHAR ASHER YA'AVIYRUNI AD ASHER AV'O EL YEHUDAH
KJ: Moreover I said unto the king, If it please the king, let letters be given me to the governors beyond the river, that they may convey me over till I come into Judah;
וָאוֹמַר לַמֶּלֶךְ אִם עַל הַמֶּלֶךְ טוֹב אִגְּרוֹת יִתְּנוּ לִי עַל פַּחֲווֹת עֵבֶר הַנָּהָר אֲשֶׁר יַעֲבִירוּנִי עַד אֲשֶׁר אָבוֹא אֶל יְהוּדָה
KJ: Moreover I said unto the king, If it please the king, let letters be given me to the governors beyond the river, that they may convey me over till I come into Judah;
BN: Then I said to the king: "If it please the king, let letters be given me for the governors beyond the River, that they may let me pass on my way to Yehudah...
IGROT: A letter is a MICHTAV, in today's Ivrit, though that word is rather odd, because the grammar of it infers a dictated letter, and shouldn't really be used for a letter that one pens, or types, oneself. IGERET is definitely late Yehudit, and that initial Aleph suggests that it was probably an Aramaic word that entered Yehudit, though there is also the Persian "engariden", which may be its root. Gesenius is very clear about its very specific meaning:
"An epistle, especially used of the royal epistles and edicts, or those written by public authority, and sent by a public courier to any one (cf 2 Chronicles 30:1)."
And again we have to wonder whether we are mis-understanding the concept of cup-bearer. I strongly suspect that these titles were conveniences, and we see them in every governmental system: the Lady-in-Waiting with special responsibility for international affairs, as Hillary Clinton might have been described under Obama. A man of intellect and authority such as Nechem-Yah, immediately accepted by his people as a leader, and yet all he does all day is stand around waiting to fill a wine-glass?
EVER HA NAHAR: Presumably he means the Euphrates, rather than the Tigris, though to get to Yeru-Shala'im from Susa he will need to cross both. "On my way to Yehudah" confirms that he cannot mean the Yarden, though he will have to cross that rather narrower stream too.
2:8 VE IGERET EL ASAPH SHOMER HA PARDES ASHER LA MELECH ASHER YITEN LI ETSIM LEKAROT ET SHA'AREY HA BIYRAH ASHER LA BAYIT U LE CHOMAT HA IR VE LA BAYIT ASHER AV'O ELAV VA YITEN LO HA MELECH KE YAD ELOHAI HA TOVAH ALAI
KJ: And a letter unto Asaph the keeper of the king's forest, that he may give me timber to make beams for the gates of the palace whichappertained to the house, and for the wall of the city, and for the house that I shall enter into. And the king granted me, according to the good hand of my God upon me.
BN: "And a letter for Asaph, the keeper of the king's forest, that he may give me timber to make beams for the gates of the palace which are attached to the shrine, and for the wall of the city, and for the shrine to which this is my pilgrimage." And the good hand of my gods was upon me, for the king granted me [all this].
EVED: Servant, as in some junior slave-role of no importance, such as a "cup-bearer"? Or the ruler of a subject state? Or a worshipper, and Sanvalat the name of a deity?
2:11 VA AV'O EL YERU'SHALA'IM VA EHI SHAM YAMIM SHELOSHAH
KJ: So I came to Jerusalem, and was there three days.
BN: So I came to Yeru-Shala'im, and I had been there three days...
2:12 VA AKUM LAILAH ANI VA ANASHIM ME'AT IMI VE LO HIGADETI LE ADAM MAH ELOHAY NOTEN EL LIBI LA'ASOT LIYRU'SHALA'IM U VEHEMAH EYN IMI KI IM HA BEHEMAH ASHER ANI ROCHEV BAH
KJ: And I arose in the night, I and some few men with me; neither told I any man what my God had put in my heart to do at Jerusalem: neither was there any beast with me, save the beast that I rode upon.
BN: And I got up in the night, I and a few men with me; nor did I tell any one what my god had put into my heart to do for Yeru-Shala'im; nor was there any animal with me, save the animal on which I rode.
2:18 VA AGID LAHEM ET YAD ELOHAI ASHER HI TOVAH ALAI VE APH DIVREY HA MELECH ASHER AMAR LI VA YOMRU NAKUM U VANIYNU VA YECHAZKU YEDEYHEM LA TOVAH
KJ: Then I told them of the hand of my God which was good upon me; as also the king's words that he had spoken unto me. And they said, Let us rise up and build. So they strengthened their hands for this good work.
TOVI-YAH HA EVED: As noted last time we met him (verse 10), I don't think we translators have this right; I think EVED is a sobriquet, like Ethelred the Unready and William the Conqueror, and that his status as an EVED is not a servant of men but the represenative on Earth of his god: there are many examples of this: Abdu-Heba, if I recall correctly, is one, Pharaoh's military commander in Kena'an, according to the Tel el-Amarna letters.
וְאִגֶּרֶת אֶל אָסָף שֹׁמֵר הַפַּרְדֵּס אֲשֶׁר לַמֶּלֶךְ אֲשֶׁר יִתֶּן לִי עֵצִים לְקָרוֹת אֶת שַׁעֲרֵי הַבִּירָה אֲשֶׁר לַבַּיִת וּלְחוֹמַת הָעִיר וְלַבַּיִת אֲשֶׁר אָבוֹא אֵלָיו וַיִּתֶּן לִי הַמֶּלֶךְ כְּיַד אֱלֹהַי הַטּוֹבָה עָלָי
KJ: And a letter unto Asaph the keeper of the king's forest, that he may give me timber to make beams for the gates of the palace whichappertained to the house, and for the wall of the city, and for the house that I shall enter into. And the king granted me, according to the good hand of my God upon me.
BN: "And a letter for Asaph, the keeper of the king's forest, that he may give me timber to make beams for the gates of the palace which are attached to the shrine, and for the wall of the city, and for the shrine to which this is my pilgrimage." And the good hand of my gods was upon me, for the king granted me [all this].
ASAPH: King David's Leonard Bernstein was named Asaph, and scholars have always assumed it was a title rather than his actual name. The root yields LE'ESOPH, "to collect" or "to gather", and significant numbers of Psalms are indeed "collected" under Asaph's name. Now we have the keeper of the king's forest, being asked to provide timber, and we can once again assume the name is his title: "the king's timber-yard manager" might not quite do it, but something of that order.
Interesting that a cup-bearer in Susa would know the name of the forest-manager nearly a thousand miles away in the foothills of Mount Chermon. Maybe his "brethren" from Yeru-Shala'im (1:2) who brought him the mission, also fed him the necessary information to make the mission a success.
PARDES: "the king's park"? In modern Ivrit it is quite specifically a citrus orchard, while in modern English it is equally specfically the root of our word "Paradise" (see my notes to Genesis 3:10). But clearly Nechem-Yah isn't asking for lemon and orange trees as adornments; he needs timber to replace the cedars of Levanon of the First Temple. But transporting timber to Yeru-Shala'im requires a convoy, camels, trailers, hundreds of people for the amount he is going to need. So, again, "cup-bearer to the king" transforms itself into a rather more senior chamberlain. Wine-boys don't get multi-month extended leaves with timber-trees and royal letters thrown in, let alone building expeditions. Let alone a military escort, as we shall see in the next verse.
PARDES: "the king's park"? In modern Ivrit it is quite specifically a citrus orchard, while in modern English it is equally specfically the root of our word "Paradise" (see my notes to Genesis 3:10). But clearly Nechem-Yah isn't asking for lemon and orange trees as adornments; he needs timber to replace the cedars of Levanon of the First Temple. But transporting timber to Yeru-Shala'im requires a convoy, camels, trailers, hundreds of people for the amount he is going to need. So, again, "cup-bearer to the king" transforms itself into a rather more senior chamberlain. Wine-boys don't get multi-month extended leaves with timber-trees and royal letters thrown in, let alone building expeditions. Let alone a military escort, as we shall see in the next verse.
BIYRAH: see my note to this in chapter 1:1.
2:9 VA AVO EL PACHAVOT EVER HA NAHAR VE ETNAH LAHEM ET IGROT HA MELECH VA YISHLACH IMI HA MELECH SAREY CHAYIL U PHARASHIM
KJ: Then I came to the governors beyond the river, and gave them the king's letters. Now the king had sent captains of the army and horsemen with me.
BN: Then I came to the governors beyond the River, and gave them the king's letters. Now the king had sent with me captains of the army and horsemen.
2:9 VA AVO EL PACHAVOT EVER HA NAHAR VE ETNAH LAHEM ET IGROT HA MELECH VA YISHLACH IMI HA MELECH SAREY CHAYIL U PHARASHIM
וָאָבוֹא אֶל פַּחֲווֹת
עֵבֶר הַנָּהָר וָאֶתְּנָה לָהֶם אֵת אִגְּרוֹת הַמֶּלֶךְ וַיִּשְׁלַח עִמִּי
הַמֶּלֶךְ שָׂרֵי חַיִל וּפָרָשִׁים
BN: Then I came to the governors beyond the River, and gave them the king's letters. Now the king had sent with me captains of the army and horsemen.
pey break
2:10 VA YISHM'A SANVALAT HA CHORONI VE TOVI-YAH HA EVED HA AMONI VA YER'A LAHEM RA'AH GEDOLAH ASHER BA ADAM LEVAKESH TOVAH LIVNEY YISRA-EL
KJ: When Sanballat the Horonite, and Tobiah the servant, the Ammonite, heard of it, it grieved them exceedingly that there was come a man to seek the welfare of the children of Israel.
BN: And when Sanvalat of the Beney Choron, and Tovi-Yah his servant, the Amoni, heard about it, they were deeply concerned that a man was coming to take care of the welfare of the Beney Yisra-El.
וַיִּשְׁמַע סַנְבַלַּט הַחֹרֹנִי וְטוֹבִיָּה הָעֶבֶד הָעַמֹּנִי וַיֵּרַע לָהֶם רָעָה גְדֹלָה אֲשֶׁר בָּא אָדָם לְבַקֵּשׁ טוֹבָה לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל
KJ: When Sanballat the Horonite, and Tobiah the servant, the Ammonite, heard of it, it grieved them exceedingly that there was come a man to seek the welfare of the children of Israel.
BN: And when Sanvalat of the Beney Choron, and Tovi-Yah his servant, the Amoni, heard about it, they were deeply concerned that a man was coming to take care of the welfare of the Beney Yisra-El.
SANVALAT: Of whom we know nothing except the repeated mentions through this book. The overall impression is that he was some sort of satrap of the King of Persia, possibly a local governor, possibly an envoy or ambassador to one of the provinces, possibly a local chieftain who had been recruited as an ally.
BENEY CHORON: The only geographical CHORON of which we have Biblical evidence is Beit Choron, which occurs with no useful information in Joshua 10:10, but with the information that there was an Upper and a Lower Beit Choron in 16:3. My main link there is the same one I am placing here.
A full list of its many Biblical appearances can be found here; It also appears post-Biblically in the Book of the Maccabees 3:16 and 3:24. The name CHORON signifies a "hollow", which is to say a narrow combe or gorge between two hills.
Can we assume that this is the Choron that Nechem-Yah means? It makes sense: Beit Choron was located about ten miles north-west of Yeru-Shala'im, on the road towards the Mediterranean, in territory that had been the northern kingdom of Ephrayim before Sennacherib whisked it away to oblivion in 720 BCE, replacing it with his own garrisons and colonists out of Padan Aram, who would be augmented later on when Nebuchadnezzar took the Yehudim into captivity and filled the land with even more Padan Aramians - the people who became known as the Shomronim or Samaritans. With virtually no Yehudim left in the land, it was the Shomronim who held sway, and ruled it politically from the city of Shomron, religiously from their temple on Mount Gerizim; and with the Persian rulers a thousand miles away, and themselves strongly allied with the Greek invaders, the idea that the Persians might support the re-establishment of a Yehudan state, the Zionist invasion on this occasion coming from the east to establish an illegal settlement around Yeru-Shala'im, on the west bank of the river Yarden... I trust the modern analogy will convey the concern that will have occupied Sanvalat and Tovi-Yah the Amoni (Amon being the equivalent of today's Syrians, especially on the Golan Heights).
EVED: Servant, as in some junior slave-role of no importance, such as a "cup-bearer"? Or the ruler of a subject state? Or a worshipper, and Sanvalat the name of a deity?
RA'AH GEDOLAH: We questioned the translation of "RA'AH" as sad previously, and clearly it does not mean that here. They are worried that they are about to lose their power and priviliges.
וָאָבוֹא אֶל יְרוּשָׁלִָם וָאֱהִי שָׁם יָמִים שְׁלֹשָׁה
KJ: So I came to Jerusalem, and was there three days.
BN: So I came to Yeru-Shala'im, and I had been there three days...
AV'O: As in verse 3 with VA OMAR, this appears to be an unusual use of the Vav Consecutive (the conjunction "and" attached to the future tense in order to render the past) in the first person - but then it's a memoir not a narrative technique, and there hasn't been much 1st person previously.
VA EHI: ditto.
וָאָקוּם לַיְלָה אֲנִי וַאֲנָשִׁים מְעַט עִמִּי וְלֹאהִגַּדְתִּי לְאָדָם מָה אֱלֹהַי נֹתֵן אֶל לִבִּי לַעֲשׂוֹת לִירוּשָׁלִָם וּבְהֵמָה אֵין עִמִּי כִּי אִם הַבְּהֵמָה אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי רֹכֵב בָּהּ
KJ: And I arose in the night, I and some few men with me; neither told I any man what my God had put in my heart to do at Jerusalem: neither was there any beast with me, save the beast that I rode upon.
BN: And I got up in the night, I and a few men with me; nor did I tell any one what my god had put into my heart to do for Yeru-Shala'im; nor was there any animal with me, save the animal on which I rode.
EL LIBI: Into his heart, but we need to understand that he means, or we would call it, "put into my mind".
2:13 VA ETS'AH VE SHA'AR HA GAI' LAILAH VE EL PENEY EYN HA TANIN VE EL SHA’AR HA ASHPOT VE EHI SOVER BE CHOMOT YERU-SHALA'IM ASHER HEM PERUTSIM U SHE'AREYHA UCHLU VA ESH
KJ: And I went out by night by the gate of the valley, even before the dragon well, and to the dung port, and viewed the walls of Jerusalem, which were broken down, and the gates thereof were consumed with fire.
BN: And I went out by night through the Valley Gate, all the way down to the Dragon's Well, and to the Dung Gate, and viewed the walls of Yeru-Shala'im, which were broken down, its gates consumed with fire.
SHA'AR HA GAI': see the map at Nehemiah 1:1, and also the text at 3:13. GA'I is a slightly odd spelling-pronunciation for the word we usually know as GEY, as in Gey Hinnom; and clearly the Masoretes also felt this way, though they have responded by placing a sheva under the Yud, so that it sort of gets pronounced GUY'E.
2:14 VA E'EVOR EL SHA'AR HA AYIN VE EL BERECHAT HA MELECH VE EYN MAKOM LA BEHEMAH LA'AVOR TACHTAY
KJ: Then I went on to the gate of the fountain, and to the king's pool: but there was no place for the beast that was under me to pass.
BN: Then I went on to the Fountain Gate, and to the King's Pool; but there was no room for the beast that was under me to pass.
וָאֵצְאָה בְשַׁעַר הַגַּיְא לַיְלָה וְאֶל פְּנֵי עֵין הַתַּנִּין וְאֶל שַׁעַר הָאַשְׁפֹּת וָאֱהִי שֹׂבֵר בְּחוֹמֹת יְרוּשָׁלִַם אֲשֶׁר הֵם פְּרוּצִים וּשְׁעָרֶיהָ אֻכְּלוּ בָאֵשׁ
KJ: And I went out by night by the gate of the valley, even before the dragon well, and to the dung port, and viewed the walls of Jerusalem, which were broken down, and the gates thereof were consumed with fire.
BN: And I went out by night through the Valley Gate, all the way down to the Dragon's Well, and to the Dung Gate, and viewed the walls of Yeru-Shala'im, which were broken down, its gates consumed with fire.
EYN HA TANIN: Names change as cities change, especially for specific places - Beech Tree Lane suddenly turned into Winston Churchill Avenue and then Nelson Mandela Highway; Currickeston translated from the Celtic into Saxon Christon; Peking in Cantonese became Bei-Jing in Mandarin. But I think it's a fairly safe bet that EYN HA TANIN was the Pool of Gihon, where Shelomoh was anointed king in 1 Kings 38 ff, and which was the supply-channel for the Waters of Shiloh; all this will be explained in my Walking-Tour of Jerusalem, due for publication very soon: but for a foretaste:
Our next excursion begins outside the Damascus Gate, or Bab el Aud if you prefer, and this time we are heading southward, albeit with the slightest deflection to the east, so that the route literally splices the city in two like a ripe fruit; until it joins, once again, the Valley of Hinnom. Along the way it too crosses the Transverse Valley, doing so at its opening, and then forms a gorge of some depth that separates Mount Tsi'on from Mount Mor-Yah. That gorge, if you ascended it vertically though the rocks, would bring you to the Kotel, or Western Wall, or Wailing Wall, less than a hundred feet from the most south-westerly angle of the Temple: the wall in question being a mere barbican to a rampart to a late addition to the fortifications, but it is all that remains, and is therefore very holy. The gorge also contains, at its other end, the Pool of Shilo'ah or Siloam - so many variations of so many of these names - which is filled by means of a subterranean channel known in English as the Virgin's Fountain, in Yehudit as Gihon, and in Catholic Latin as Mary's Well (not to be confused with the one in Nazareth), whose waters flow through the hollows of Kidron...
And for the needs of the verse that follows:
To make the King's Pool (Nehemiah 2:14), or King's Aqueduct, this conduit was dammed with a wall a little over two hundred feet long, thereby catching and holding any rain that fell in the valley. Josephus simply referred to it as "the wide valley" (Jewish Wars, 5:4:1), while the Arabs are even more prosaic, calling it simply El Wad, "the valley". But most prosaic of all are the 19th century engineers; like the Transverse Valley mentioned above, this one is listed with unutterable tedium and laziness as "the central valley".
וָאֶעֱבֹר אֶל שַׁעַר הָעַיִן וְאֶל בְּרֵכַת הַמֶּלֶךְ וְאֵין מָקוֹם לַבְּהֵמָה לַעֲבֹר תַּחְתָּי
KJ: Then I went on to the gate of the fountain, and to the king's pool: but there was no place for the beast that was under me to pass.
BN: Then I went on to the Fountain Gate, and to the King's Pool; but there was no room for the beast that was under me to pass.
Why not? Too narrow between walls of buildings or the cliff-face of the gorge? Too overgrown with trees? Too piled high with refuse (probably not, but that would definitely have been the case if he had arrived in mid-19th century Jerusalem).
2:15 VA EHI OLEH VA NAHCHAL LAILAH VA EHI SOVER BA CHOMAH VA ASHUV VA AV'O BE SHA’AR HA GAI' VA ASHUV
KJ: Then went I up in the night by the brook, and viewed the wall, and turned back, and entered by the gate of the valley, and so returned.
BN: Then went I up at night into the valley, and viewed the wall; and I turned back, and entered by the valley gate, and so returned.
2:15 VA EHI OLEH VA NAHCHAL LAILAH VA EHI SOVER BA CHOMAH VA ASHUV VA AV'O BE SHA’AR HA GAI' VA ASHUV
וָאֱהִי עֹלֶה בַנַּחַל לַיְלָה וָאֱהִי שֹׂבֵר בַּחוֹמָה וָאָשׁוּב וָאָבוֹא בְּשַׁעַר הַגַּיְא וָאָשׁוּב
KJ: Then went I up in the night by the brook, and viewed the wall, and turned back, and entered by the gate of the valley, and so returned.
BN: Then went I up at night into the valley, and viewed the wall; and I turned back, and entered by the valley gate, and so returned.
I'm not quite sure how you go "up" (OLEH) into a valley? But I'm also not sure why the sentence needs both EHI and OLEH, so I am assuming that the OLEH is telling us that he climbed up the hill at the side of the valley.
2:16 VE HA SEGANIM LO YAD'U ANAH HALACHTI U MAH ANI OSEH VE LA YEHUDIM VE LA KOHANIM VE LA CHORIM VE LA SEGANIM U LE YETER OSEH HA MELA'CHAH AD KEN LO HIGADETI
KJ: And the rulers knew not whither I went, or what I did; neither had I as yet told it to the Jews, nor to the priests, nor to the nobles, nor to the rulers, nor to the rest that did the work.
BN: And the city authorities had no idea where I had gone, nor what I was doing; nor had I until now told any of the Yehudim, nor the priests, nor the nobles, nor the city authorities, nor any of the others who would undertake the work.
2:16 VE HA SEGANIM LO YAD'U ANAH HALACHTI U MAH ANI OSEH VE LA YEHUDIM VE LA KOHANIM VE LA CHORIM VE LA SEGANIM U LE YETER OSEH HA MELA'CHAH AD KEN LO HIGADETI
וְהַסְּגָנִים לֹא יָדְעוּ אָנָה הָלַכְתִּי וּמָה אֲנִי עֹשֶׂה וְלַיְּהוּדִים וְלַכֹּהֲנִים וְלַחֹרִים וְלַסְּגָנִים וּלְיֶתֶר עֹשֵׂה הַמְּלָאכָה עַד כֵּן לֹא הִגַּדְתִּי
KJ: And the rulers knew not whither I went, or what I did; neither had I as yet told it to the Jews, nor to the priests, nor to the nobles, nor to the rulers, nor to the rest that did the work.
BN: And the city authorities had no idea where I had gone, nor what I was doing; nor had I until now told any of the Yehudim, nor the priests, nor the nobles, nor the city authorities, nor any of the others who would undertake the work.
Presumably because, until he has seen the extent of the problem, he doesn't want to risk holding out false hopes. However, he just arrived with a convoy carrying enough trees to build a town, letters from the king of Persia, and a military escort, so probably the city spies have been keeping an eye on this unexplained visitor, and have reported back exactly where he has been.
SEGANIM: A SAGAN is really a "substitute" or "deputy"; the word is used for anyone who stands in for the king, as would a provincial governor, and is the same word used for the second Kohen Gadol who is set up to be ready in case of need for Yom Kippur, and who deputises at any other time that the Kohen Gadol is "on duty"; all of which I mention because there is an enormous conflict in the Gospel story of Jesus' arrest during the Passover ceremonies, the High Priest Caiaphas supposedly coming out of the Temple, or from his required seclusion, to officiate; this would have been done by the Sagan, and we can therefore conclude that Caiaphas must have been the Sagan at the time, and not yet the Kohen Gadol. Click here for the preferred Christian interpretation.
CHORIM: This too is complex, because, originally, the CHORIM were the Horites, the aboriginal natives of Mount Se'ir in Edom - and there is absolutely no reason why Nechem-Yah would have included them, at any time. So if it is not that, is it, as King James and other translators render it, "nobles"? The problem with that translation is that there is no Biblical usage of the word, except possibly here. The root may be CHOR, meaning "white", or it may be CHOR, meaning "a hole" (the same root actually: Mount Se'ir has a chalk base, so the hollows would have been white), the latter being the source of the "hollow" at Beit Choron (see my notes to verse 10), the former being used for a type of white linen, probably byssus, also known as sea-silk, in Isaiah 19:9; the scholarly hypothesis is that byssus was the cloth of the nobility, because no one else could afford it, and that it became a slang term for "nobles". And if so, might CHORIM then connect to Sanvalat ha Choroni, suggesting that he was "Sanvalat the noble", rather than Sanvalat of Beit Choron? Or even "Sanvalat the noble from Beit Choron"?
There is also the name Churi, which occurs just once, in 1 Chronicles 5:14.
2:17 VA OMAR AL'EHEM ATEM RO'IM HA RA'AH ASHER ANACHNU VAH ASHER YERU-SHALA'IM CHAREVAH U SHE'AREYHA NITSTU VA ESH LECHU VE NIVNEH ET CHOMAT YERU-SHALA'IM VE LO NIHEYEH OD CHERPAH
KJ: Then said I unto them, Ye see the distress that we are in, how Jerusalem lieth waste, and the gates thereof are burned with fire: come, and let us build up the wall of Jerusalem, that we be no more a reproach.
BN: Then I said to them, "You see the terrible situation that we are in, how Yeru-Shala'im lies in ruins, and its gates have been burned with fire. Come, let us rebuild the wall of Yeru-Shala'im, so that we shall no longer be in a state of despair."
RA'AH...CHERPAH: See my notes in 1:3.
וָאוֹמַר אֲלֵהֶם אַתֶּם רֹאִים הָרָעָה אֲשֶׁר אֲנַחְנוּ בָהּ אֲשֶׁר יְרוּשָׁלַםִ חֲרֵבָה וּשְׁעָרֶיהָ נִצְּתוּ בָאֵשׁ לְכוּ וְנִבְנֶה אֶת חוֹמַת יְרוּשָׁלַםִ וְלֹא נִהְיֶה עוֹד חֶרְפָּה
KJ: Then said I unto them, Ye see the distress that we are in, how Jerusalem lieth waste, and the gates thereof are burned with fire: come, and let us build up the wall of Jerusalem, that we be no more a reproach.
BN: Then I said to them, "You see the terrible situation that we are in, how Yeru-Shala'im lies in ruins, and its gates have been burned with fire. Come, let us rebuild the wall of Yeru-Shala'im, so that we shall no longer be in a state of despair."
RA'AH...CHERPAH: See my notes in 1:3.
2:18 VA AGID LAHEM ET YAD ELOHAI ASHER HI TOVAH ALAI VE APH DIVREY HA MELECH ASHER AMAR LI VA YOMRU NAKUM U VANIYNU VA YECHAZKU YEDEYHEM LA TOVAH
וָאַגִּיד לָהֶם אֶת יַד אֱלֹהַי אֲשֶׁר הִיא טוֹבָה עָלַי וְאַף דִּבְרֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲשֶׁר אָמַר לִי וַיֹּאמְרוּ נָקוּם וּבָנִינוּ וַיְחַזְּקוּ יְדֵיהֶם לַטּוֹבָה
KJ: Then I told them of the hand of my God which was good upon me; as also the king's words that he had spoken unto me. And they said, Let us rise up and build. So they strengthened their hands for this good work.
BN: And I told them of the hand of my gods which was good upon me; as also the king's words which he had spoken to me. And they said: "Let's get up and start building". So they strengthened their hands for the good work.
ELOHAI: Does Nechem-Yah ever use YHVH? If so, how often, in what contexts? To which the answer is: 5:13, but he is describing the people praying to YHVH, while he prays to Elohim. 8:1, when Ezra brings the Torah for its first reading - Nechem-Yah speaks of the law "which YHVH gave to Mosheh". In 8:6 Ezra then blesses YHVH, but Nechem-Yah describes this YHVH as ELOHIM GADOL. 8:9 ff finds the two of them, with the priests, addressing the people together, and there YHVH is named repeatedly, but it is the dedication ceremony for the newly created Torah, and that name is now embedded in the Torah, possibly for the first time. 9:3 has them again reading Torah, so it is YHVH who is named (YHVH, not YHVH Tseva'ot), and throughout this chapter the people are being taught that YHVH is the name of your god, YHVH gave us this law, etc. So perhaps Nechem-Yah too has only now encountered this name, or only now been shown that YHVH is the head of the polytheon. Or perhaps not fully, even now, because in 10:30 he still describes it as "the Torah of Elohim...which was given by the hand of Mosheh the servant of YHVH..."
YECHAZKU: A key word throughout the Book of Ezra.
Ezra 7:8 has Ezra arriving in Yeru-Shala'im in the seventh year of king Artaxerxes, while this chapter has told us that Nehemiah arrived in Artaxerxes' twentieth year. If this was Artaxerxes I (465–424 BCE), then Ezra arrived in 458 and Nehemiah in 445 BCE; but even if it wasn't that Artaxerxes, the 12-year difference remains the same, and Ezra, as we shall learn later, was still very much alive and a key figure in the city, so we can safely assume that Ezra was among the Seganim and Kohanim et al with whom Nechem-Yah is having this meeting.
pey break
2:19 VA YISHM'A SANVALAT HA CHORONI VE TOVI-YAH HA EVED HA AMONI VE GESHEM HA ARVI VA YAL'IGU LANU VA YIVZU ALEYNU VA YOMRU MAH HA DAVAR HA ZEH ASHER ATEM OSIM HA AL HA MELECH ATEM MORDIM
KJ: But when Sanballat the Horonite, and Tobiah the servant, the Ammonite, and Geshem the Arabian, heard it, they laughed us to scorn, and despised us, and said, What is this thing that ye do? will ye rebel against the king?
BN: But when Sanvalat the Choroni, and Tovi-Yah his servant, the Amoni, and Geshem the Arvi heard it, they laughed us to scorn, and despised us, and said: "What is this thing that you are doing? will you rebel against the king?"
2:19 VA YISHM'A SANVALAT HA CHORONI VE TOVI-YAH HA EVED HA AMONI VE GESHEM HA ARVI VA YAL'IGU LANU VA YIVZU ALEYNU VA YOMRU MAH HA DAVAR HA ZEH ASHER ATEM OSIM HA AL HA MELECH ATEM MORDIM
וַיִּשְׁמַע סַנְבַלַּט הַחֹרֹנִי וְטֹבִיָּה הָעֶבֶד הָעַמּוֹנִי וְגֶשֶׁם הָעַרְבִי וַיַּלְעִגוּ לָנוּ וַיִּבְזוּ עָלֵינוּ וַיֹּאמְרוּ מָה הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם עֹשִׂים הַעַל הַמֶּלֶךְ אַתֶּם מֹרְדִים
KJ: But when Sanballat the Horonite, and Tobiah the servant, the Ammonite, and Geshem the Arabian, heard it, they laughed us to scorn, and despised us, and said, What is this thing that ye do? will ye rebel against the king?
BN: But when Sanvalat the Choroni, and Tovi-Yah his servant, the Amoni, and Geshem the Arvi heard it, they laughed us to scorn, and despised us, and said: "What is this thing that you are doing? will you rebel against the king?"
GESHEM HA ARVI: Arvi is not the same as Aravi, and should not be translated as "Arabian", a concept not yet in existence in Nechem-Yah's time. But neither is it the Arvites, mentioned in 2 Kings 17:31 - that is an error in the English; the Yehudit names them as Avites. I have no idea who the Arvim were.
HA AL HA MELECH: A grammatical form sadly gone out of use in modern Ivrit, though it is in all the text books, and was very much in use during the early years of the revival of the language. The equivalent of the French "est-ce que", as a way of asking a question. Nowadays people just make a statement in an interrogative tone and hope you understand it's a question. I have a banal example of this in my novel "A Little Oil & Root", when Ari goes over to chat up Rivka in a Haifa bar and asks "Ha at rotsa mah lishtot?" - "Would you like something to drink?" - where anyone else would have said "At rotsa lishtot mahshehu" - "You want to drink something", which has to be given a question-mark to make sense, though grammatically it's a statement of what she wants and not a question.
2:20 VA ASHIV OTAM DAVAR VA OMAR LAHEM ELOHEY HA SHAMAYIM HU YATSLIYACH LANU VA ANACHNU AVADAV NAKUM U VANIYNU VE LACHEM EYN CHELEK U TSEDAKAH VE ZICHARON BIYRU-SHALA'IM
KJ: Then answered I them, and said unto them, The God of heaven, he will prosper us; therefore we his servants will arise and build: but ye have no portion, nor right, nor memorial, in Jerusalem.
BN: Then I sent word back to them, and said to them, "It is Elohey ha Shamayim who will make us prosper; therefore we his servants will get up and build; but you have no portion, nor right, nor memorial, in Yeru-Shala'im."
Both halves of this are provocative, to say the least; the fact that they are followers of a different god, as well as the statement of intent to build, in the first half; but even more so the derogation and the challenge in the second half: this is ours, not yours, step back. Fortunately he asked the king for a letter and came with a military escort!
ELOHEY: See my note, above. Note that he uses the plural ELOHIM but the singular HU. It works perfectly grammatically in Yehudit, because the multiple plural is a compound noun, and therefore uses the singular.
וָאָשִׁיב אוֹתָם דָּבָר וָאוֹמַר לָהֶם אֱלֹהֵי הַשָּׁמַיִם הוּא יַצְלִיחַ לָנוּ וַאֲנַחְנוּ עֲבָדָיו נָקוּם וּבָנִינוּ וְלָכֶם אֵין חֵלֶק וּצְדָקָה וְזִכָּרוֹן בִּירוּשָׁלִָם
BN: Then I sent word back to them, and said to them, "It is Elohey ha Shamayim who will make us prosper; therefore we his servants will get up and build; but you have no portion, nor right, nor memorial, in Yeru-Shala'im."
Both halves of this are provocative, to say the least; the fact that they are followers of a different god, as well as the statement of intent to build, in the first half; but even more so the derogation and the challenge in the second half: this is ours, not yours, step back. Fortunately he asked the king for a letter and came with a military escort!
ELOHEY: See my note, above. Note that he uses the plural ELOHIM but the singular HU. It works perfectly grammatically in Yehudit, because the multiple plural is a compound noun, and therefore uses the singular.
Copyright
© 2020 David Prashker
All
rights reserved
The
Argaman Press
No comments:
Post a Comment