Page:03.BCOT.KD.HistoricalBooks.B.vol.3.LaterProphets.djvu/729

This page needs to be proofread.

wall was that 400 cubits of the wall of Jerusalem, broken down by the Israelite king Joash, from the gate of Ephraim unto the corner gate (2Ki 14:13), and afterwards rebuilt by Uzziel of a greater breadth, and consequently of increased strength (Joseph. Antiq. ix. 10. 3). Now the gate of Ephraim not being mentioned among the rebuilt gates, and this gate nevertheless existing (according to Neh 8:16) in the days of Nehemiah, the reason of this omission must be the circumstance that it was left standing when the wall of Jerusalem was destroyed. The remark, then, in this verse seems to say the same concerning the broad wall, whether we understand it to mean: the builders left Jerusalem untouched as far as the broad wall, because this place as well as the adjoining gate of Ephraim needed no restoration; or: the Chaldeans had here left Jerusalem, i.e., either the town or town-wall, standing. So Hupfeld in his above-cited work, p. 231; Arnold; and even older expositors.^[1]

Verses 9-10

Further lengths of wall were built by Rephaiah ben Hur, the ruler of the half district of Jerusalem, i.e., of the district of country belonging to Jerusalem (comp. Neh 3:19 with Neh 3:15, where Mizpah and the district of Mizpah are distinguished); by Jedaiah ben Harumaph, בּיתו ונגד,

↑ Bertheau's interpretation of this statement, viz., that at the rebuilding and re-fortification of the town after the captivity, the part of the town extending to the broad wall was left, i.e., was not rebuilt, but delayed for the present, answers neither to the verbal sense of the passage nor to the particular mentioned Neh 12:38, that at the dedication of the wall the second company of them that gave thanks went upon the wall from beyond the tower of the furnaces even unto the broad wall, and over from beyond the gate of Ephraim, etc. Haneberg (in Reusch's theol. Literaturbl. 1869, No. 12) supports this view, but understands by “the broad wall” the wall which had a broad circuit, i.e., the wall previous to the captivity, and hence infers that the Jerusalem now rebuilt was not equal in extent to the old city. But if a portion of the former city had here been left outside the new wall, the gate of Ephraim would have been displaced, and must have been rebuilt elsewhere in a position to the south of the old gate. Still less can the attempt of the elder Buxtorf (Lexic. talm. rabb. s. v. עזב), now revived by Ewald (Gesch. iv. p. 174), to force upon the word עזב the meaning restaurare, or fortify, be justified.

[1] Bertheau's interpretation of this statement, viz., that at the rebuilding and re-fortification of the town after the captivity, the part of the town extending to the broad wall was left, i.e., was not rebuilt, but delayed for the present, answers neither to the verbal sense of the passage nor to the particular mentioned Neh 12:38, that at the dedication of the wall the second company of them that gave thanks went upon the wall from beyond the tower of the furnaces even unto the broad wall, and over from beyond the gate of Ephraim, etc. Haneberg (in Reusch's theol. Literaturbl. 1869, No. 12) supports this view, but understands by “the broad wall” the wall which had a broad circuit, i.e., the wall previous to the captivity, and hence infers that the Jerusalem now rebuilt was not equal in extent to the old city. But if a portion of the former city had here been left outside the new wall, the gate of Ephraim would have been displaced, and must have been rebuilt elsewhere in a position to the south of the old gate. Still less can the attempt of the elder Buxtorf (Lexic. talm. rabb. s. v. עזב), now revived by Ewald (Gesch. iv. p. 174), to force upon the word עזב the meaning restaurare, or fortify, be justified.

[1]