Special Issue IOSOT 2013 - Books and Journals

72 S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 36-76
and frequent. On the other hand, it is totally limited to Ezr.-Neh. It might be
conjectured that it was rather common in a certain period or vicinity. To the
Chr., however, it is no longer known and it finds no place in his work.
הושב נשים .B
נשא and לקח אשה is parallel to the more common להושיב אשה In its meaning
185 and is translated as “marry”.186 It is peculiar to Ezr.-Neh. where it freely אשה
interchanges with the two others. It is not found elsewhere in the O.T.187
In Ezr.-Neh. it occurs in two different literary portions. In Nehemiah’s memoirs
(Neh. xiii 23, 27) and in what is termed the “chronistic parts” (Ezr. x 2, 10,
14, 17, 18). However, in Chr. it is absent.
We might assume that here again the somewhat strange expression was
common in a certain linguistic phase, and disappeared later. To the Chr. it is
already unknown, or at least disliked.
בית ה׳ אשר בירושלים .C
The description of the temple as “The house of God which is in Jerusalem” is
found in Ezr.-Neh. several times with small variations and first in the edict of
Cyrus: Ezr. i 3: “Whoever is among you of all his people . . . let him go up to Jerusalem
which is in Judah, and rebuild the house of the Lord, the God of Israel,
he is the god which is in Jerusalem”.
The dispute about the authenticity of this declaration is still going on.188
However, even those who consider it a mere fiction are inclined to regard some
the hand of the Lord was on Elijah and he girded his loins and ran before Ahab to the entrance of
Jezreel (1 Ki. xviii 46) or “The hand of the Lord was upon me and he brought me out by the spirit
of the Lord . . .” (Ez. xxxvii 1). In Ezr.-Neh. it denotes rather God’s permanent help and grace which
rest upon a person or a congregation. The expression was presumably formed when יד ה׳ was
semantically changed and lost its specific meaning as “strength, power”.
185) On the mutual relation of these two, cf. E. Y. Kutscher, Lešonenu XXX, 1965, p. 21ff.
(Hebrew).
186) Gcsenius-Buhl suggests a similar use in Ethiopic (p. 322). It is followed by Rudolph
(Esr.-Neh.), p. 92.
187) With perhaps the exception of the problematical Ps. cxiii 9.
188) Not only did the extreme criticism of C. C. Torrey deny it any historical value, but also
E. Meyer, who considered all the state-documents in Ezr.-Neh. as genuine and reliable, excluded
Ezr. i 2-4, E. Meyer, Die Entstehung des Judentums, 1896, p. 49; E. J. Bickermann in his detailed
discussion, “The Edict of Cyrus in Esra 1”, JBL 65, 1946, p. 249-275 had strongly argued for its originality.
His conclusion was that “Esra 1 preserves a genuine edict of Cyrus” (p. 175). This conviction
was accepted by H. Tadmor: “The historical background of the edict of Cyrus” in Jubilee Volume
in Honour of D. Ben-Gurion, 1964, pp. 450-473 (Hebrew). However, K. Galling has lately returned