FOOTNOTES (continued 2)
Project Gutenberg EPUB3 edition
Smith, George Adam and Nicoll, W. Robertson (William Robertson), Sir
[987] Ezra iv. 6–23.
[988] This is recorded in the Aramean document which has been incorporated in our Book of Ezra, and there is no reason to doubt its reality. In that document we have already found, in spite of its comparatively late date, much that is accurate history. See above, p. 212. And it is clear that, the Temple being finished, the Jews must have drawn upon themselves the same religious envy of the Samaritans which had previously delayed the construction of the Temple. To meet it, what more natural than that the Jews should have attempted to raise the walls of their city? It is almost impossible to believe that they who had achieved the construction of the Temple in 516 should not, in the next fifty years, make some effort to raise their fallen walls. And indeed Nehemiah’s account of his own work almost necessarily implies that they had done so, for what he did after 445 was not to build new walls, but rather to repair shattered ones.
[989] See above, p. 335, n. 970, and below, p. 354, on “Mal.” i. 8.
[990] Cf. Stade, Gesch. des Volkes Israel, II., pp. 128–138, the best account of this period.
[991] “Mal.” iii. 14.
[992] “Mal.” i. 2, 6; iii. 8 f.
[993]Id. i. 7 f., 12–14.
[994]Id. i. 6 f., ii.
[995]Id. ii, 10.
[996] “Mal.” ii. 10–16.
[997] For proof of this see above, pp. 331 f.
[998] “Mal.” iii. 16.
[999] iii. 2, 19 ff. Heb., iv. 1 ff. Eng.
[1000] iii. 6.
[1001] i. 11.
[1002] See above, p. 343.
[1003] See above, Chapter XIV. on “Edom and Israel.”
[1004] Heb. xii. 16.
[1005] Romans ix. 13. The citation is from the LXX.: τὸν Ἰακὼβ ἠγάπησα, τὸν δὲ Ἠσαῦ ἐμίσησα.
[1006] This was mainly after the beginning of exile. Shortly before that Deut. xxiii. 7 says: Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite, for he is thy brother.
[1007] So even so recently as 1888, Stade, Gesch. des Volkes Israel, II., p. 112.
[1008] See above, p. 169. This interpretation is there said to be Wellhausen’s; but Cheyne, in a note contributed to the Z.A.T.W., 1894, p. 142, points out that Grätz, in an article “Die Anfänge der Nabatäer-Herrschaft” in the Monatschrift für Wissenschaft u. Geschichte des Judenthums, 1875, pp. 60–66, had already explained “Mal.” i. 1–5 as describing the conquest of Edom by the Nabateans. This is adopted by Buhl in his Gesch. der Edomiter, p. 79.
[1009] The verb in the feminine indicates that the population of Edom is meant.
[1010] i. 6.
[1011] Psalm ciii. 9. In Psalm lxxiii. 15 believers are called His children; but elsewhere sonship is claimed only for the king—ii. 7, lxxxix. 27 f.
[1012] Hosea xi. 1 ff. (though even here the idea of discipline is present) and Isa. lxiii. 16.
[1013] iii. 4.
[1014] Isa. lxiv. 8, cf. Deut. xxxii. 11 where the discipline of Israel by Jehovah, shaking them out of their desert circumstance and tempting them to their great career in Palestine, is likened to the father-eagle’s training of his new-fledged brood to fly: A.V. mother-eagle.
[1015] Cf. Cheyne, Origin of the Psalter, p. 305, n. O.
[1016] Vol. I., Chap. IX.
[1017] Or used polluted things with respect to Thee. For similar construction see Zech. vii. 5: צמתוני. This in answer to Wellhausen, who, on the ground that the phrase gives גאל a wrong object and destroys the connection, deletes it. Further he takes מגאל, not in the sense of pollution, but as equivalent to נבזה, despised.
[1018] Obviously in their hearts = thinking.
[1019] LXX. is there no harm?
[1020]Pacify the face of, as in Zechariah.
[1021] So LXX. Heb. is great, but the phrase is probably written by mistake from the instance further on: is glorified could scarcely have been used in the very literal version of the LXX. unless it had been found in the original.
[1022]מקום, here to be taken in the sense it bears in Arabic of sacred place. See on Zeph. ii. 11: above, p. 64, n. 159.
[1023] Wellhausen deletes מגש as a gloss on מקטר, and the vau before מנחה.
[1024] Heb. say.
[1025] Heb. also has ניבו, found besides only in Keri of Isa. lvii. 19. But Robertson Smith (O.T.J.C., 2, p. 444) is probably right in considering this an error for נבזה, which has kept its place after the correction was inserted.
[1026] This clause is obscure, and comes in awkwardly before that which follows it. Wellhausen omits.