10. and the rest of the nations] Implying that the number was not nearly exhausted by these nine names.

whom the great and noble Asnappar] R.V. Osnappar. This name is nowhere else mentioned in the O.T. Who this Osnappar was, has been much disputed. Some have identified him with Esarhaddon, conjecturing that this was either another name or an honorific title. Others have supposed him to be a general commanding Esarhaddon’s armies. But the name nowhere occurs in the Inscriptions as a second name or as a title of Esarhaddon, even if it were probable that having been called Esarhaddon in Ezra 4:2 he should here be called by a different name or title without any explanatory word. No general appears of this name. And the manner of the allusion presupposes his royal dignity. Moreover, neither Esarhaddon nor any general of his invaded Elam.

Scholars now begin to accept the ingenious and most probable suggestion that ‘Osnappar’ is the Aramaic attempt to reproduce the name of Assur-bani-pal, the great Assyrian king. He was the only Assyrian king who captured Susa and could carry off ‘Susanchites’; no king so fully deserved the titles of ‘great and noble’; this name (‘Assur the father of the son’) by a strong contraction of the middle word, is not so far removed from the sound of ‘Osnappar’, especially if the final ‘1’ of ‘pal’ is changed to ‘r’ (cf. ‘Pôrus’ for ‘Pul’, or ‘Babiru’ for ‘Babilu’), and the ‘r’ of ‘Assur’ is weakened to ‘n’ (cf. Nebuchadrezzar and Nebuchadnezzar) = Assun … par.

Assur-bani-pal reigned 42 years (668–626). The records of his brilliant and successful reign have recently been deciphered (G. Smith’s Assurbanipal, p. 187). His arms were everywhere victorious. The severest contest in which he was engaged was with his own brother Sassumukem, governor of Babylon, who rebelled against him. The rebel’s death and the capture of Babylon (646) ended the struggle. But this fact in conjunction with his great conquest of Elam explains the joint mention of Babylonians, Susanchites and Elamites among the colonists, whom he transplanted into Samaritan territory.

It appears then that Assur-bani-pal by introducing his colonists into Samaria was the author of the fourth colonization. It would be wasted labour to try to identify the nationalities of Ezra 4:9 with the names recorded in 2 Kings 17:24 in connexion with a different colonization.

in the cities of Samaria] R.V. ‘in the city of Samaria’.—The word in the Aramaic is singular, cf. Ezra 4:17. The other cities are covered by the next phrase.

and the rest that are on this side the river] R.V. and in the rest of the country beyond the river. In these words two things deserve to be noted. (1) The words ‘beyond the river’ clearly indicate the country W. of the Euphrates. The names of the nationalities who send the letter are presented in the light in which they would appear to the receiver, i.e. the king, at Susa to the E. of the Euphrates. The phrase ‘The country beyond the river’ (the Abhar-Nahara) was a recognised geographical name for the Syrian satrapy. (2) The wideness of the expression ‘in the rest of the country’ may be compared with the version given in 1Es 2:17 where ‘the Dinaites, &c.’ are compressed into ‘the judges that are in Cœlesyria and Phœnice’. The word ‘judges’ is a mistranslation. But the mention of Cœlesyria and Phœnica corresponds with the indefinite language used in this verse. It is not impossible that the letter of accusation against the Jews may have been the joint production of many communities throughout the satrapy of Syria, who felt themselves aggrieved at privileges accorded to the Jews, or imperilled by the revival of their strength.

and at such a time] R.V. and so forth. The A.V. regarded this word as a brief way of expressing the date of the letter. The LXX. omitted it. The Vulgate rendered it as a salutation ‘in pace’.—It signifies the suppression of matter that is unimportant = ‘et cætera’.

Verse 10. - The rest of the nations whom the great and noble Asnapper brought over. Nothing more is known of "the great and noble Asnapper," who is here mentioned as bringing the colonists and setting them in the cities of Samaria. We must suppose him to have been an officer employed by Esar-haddon on this service. The name is Assyrian in form, and may have meant "Asshur pursues." The rest that are on this side the river. Rather, "across the river." As Romans in North Italy, writing to Rome, would have spoken of themselves as "Transpadani," so Persian subjects, writing to Susa from the west of the Jordan, speak of theft country as "across the Jordan." And at such a time. Rather, "and so forth." This and the preceding verse set forth the address of Rehum's letter. The whole address not being given, the writer ends with the phrase uk'eneth, which means "and so forth," or "et cetera" (comp. Ezra 7:12). Ezra 4:10After this introduction we naturally look for the letter itself in Ezra 4:9, instead of which we have (Ezra 4:9 and Ezra 4:10) a full statement of who were the senders; and then, after a parenthetical interpolation, "This is the copy of the letter," etc., the letter itself in Ezra 4:11. The statement is rather a clumsy one, the construction especially exhibiting a want of sequence. The verb to אדין is wanting; this follows in Ezra 4:11, but as an anacoluthon, after an enumeration of the names in Ezra 4:9 and Ezra 4:10 with שׁלחוּ. The sentence ought properly to run thus: "Then (i.e., in the days of Artachshasta) Rehum, etc., sent a letter to King Artachshasta, of which the following is a copy: Thy servants, the men on this side the river," etc. The names enumerated in Ezra 4:9 and Ezra 4:10 were undoubtedly all inserted in the superscription or preamble of the letter, to give weight to the accusation brought against the Jews. The author of the Chaldee section of the narrative, however, has placed them first, and made the copy of the letter itself begin only with the words, "Thy servants," etc. First come the names of the superior officials, Rehum and Shimshai, and the rest of their companions. The latter are then separately enumerated: The Dinaites, lxx Δειναῖοι, - so named, according to the conjecture of Ewald (Gesch. iii. p. 676), from the Median city long afterwards called Deinaver (Abulf. Gegr. ed. Paris. p. 414); the Apharsathchites, probably the Pharathiakites of Strabo (15:3. 12) (Παρητακηνοί, Herod. i. 101), on the borders of Persia and Media, described as being, together with the Elymaites, a predatory people relying on their mountain fastnesses; the Tarpelites, whom Junius already connects with the Τάπουροι dwelling east of Elymais (Ptol. vi. 2. 6); the Apharsites, probably the Persians (פרסיא with א prosthetic); the Archevites, probably so called from the city ארך, Genesis 10:10, upon inscriptions Uruk, the modern Warka; the בּבליא, Babylonians, inhabitants of Babylon; the Shushanchites, i.e., the Susanites, inhabitants of the city of Susa; דּהוא, in the Keri דּהיא, the Dehavites, the Grecians (Δάοι, Herod. i. 125); and lastly, the Elamites, the people of Elam or Elymais. Full as this enumeration may seem, yet the motive being to name as many races as possible, the addition, "and the rest of the nations whom the great and noble Osnapper brought over and set in the city of Samaria, and the rest that are on this side the river," etc., is made for the sake of enhancing the statement. Prominence being given both here and Ezra 4:17 to the city of Samaria as the city in which Osnapper had settled the colonists here named, the "nations brought in by Osnapper" must be identical with those who, according to Ezra 4:2, and 2 Kings 17:24, had been placed in the cities of Samaria by King Esarhaddon. Hence Osnapper would seem to be merely another name for Esarhaddon. But the names Osnapper (lxx Ἀσσεναφάρ) and Asarhaddon (lxx Ἀσαραδάν) being too different to be identified, and the notion that Osnapper was a second name of Asarhaddon having but little probability, together with the circumstance that Osnapper is not called king, as Asarhaddon is Ezra 4:2, but only "the great and noble," it is more likely that he was some high functionary of Asarhaddon, who presided over the settlement of eastern races in Samaria and the lands west of the Euphrates. "In the cities," or at least the preposition ב, must be supplied from the preceding בּקריה before נהרה עבר שׁאר: and in the rest of the territory, or in the cities of the rest of the territory, on this side of Euphrates. עבר, trans, is to be understood of the countries west of Euphrates; matters being regarded from the point of view of the settlers, who had been transported from the territories east, to those west of Euphrates. וּכענת means "and so forth," and hints that the statement is not complete.

On comparing the names of the nations here mentioned with the names of the cities from which, according to 2 Kings 17:24, colonists were brought to Samaria, we find the inhabitants of most of the cities there named - Babylon, Cuthah, and Ava - here comprised under the name of the country as בּבליא, Babylonians; while the people of Hamath and Sepharvaim may fitly be included among "the rest of the nations," since certainly but few colonists would have been transported from the Syrian Hamath to Samaria. The main divergence between the two passages arises from the mention in our present verse, not only of the nations planted in the cities of Samaria, but of all the nations in the great region on this side of Euphrates (נהרה עבר). All these tribes had similar interests to defend in opposing the Jewish community, and they desired by united action to give greater force to their representation to the Persian monarch, and thus to hinder the people of Jerusalem from becoming powerful. And certainly they had some grounds for uneasiness lest the remnant of the Israelites in Palestine, and in other regions on this side the Euphrates, should combine with the Jerusalem community, and the thus united Israelites should become sufficiently powerful to oppose an effectual resistance to their heathen adversaries. On the anacoluthistic connection of Ezra 4:11. פּרשׁגן, Ezra 4:11, Ezra 4:23; Ezra 5:6; Ezra 7:11, and frequently in the Targums and the Syriac, written פּתשׁגן Esther 3:14 and Esther 4:8, is derived from the Zendish paiti (Sanscr. prati) and enghana (in Old-Persian thanhana), and signifies properly a counterword, i.e., counterpart, copy. The form with ר is either a corruption, or formed from a compound with fra; comp. Gildemeister in the Zeitschr. fr die Kunde des Morgenl. iv. p. 210, and Haug in Ewald's bibl. Jahrb. v. p. 163, etc. - The copy of the letter begins with עבדּיך, thy servants, the men, etc. The Chethib עבדיך is the original form, shortened in the Keri into עבדּך. Both forms occur elsewhere; comp. Daniel 2:29; Daniel 3:12, and other passages. The וכענת, etc., here stands for the full enumeration of the writers already given in Ezra 4:9, and also for the customary form of salutation.

Ezra 4:10 Interlinear
Ezra 4:10 Parallel Texts


Ezra 4:10 NIV
Ezra 4:10 NLT
Ezra 4:10 ESV
Ezra 4:10 NASB
Ezra 4:10 KJV

Ezra 4:10 Bible Apps
Ezra 4:10 Parallel
Ezra 4:10 Biblia Paralela
Ezra 4:10 Chinese Bible
Ezra 4:10 French Bible
Ezra 4:10 German Bible

Bible Hub