A transition in the discourse is marked at this point by the combination of the connective conjunction and an indication of the passage of some time: After these things had been done. The phrase does not mean that these things happened immediately after the commissions had been delivered to the authorities at the end of the preceding chapter. The events in chapters 9 and 10 take place four months after the arrival of Ezra and company in Jerusalem (see 10.9).

The officials approached me and said: A group of people came to Ezra to make a serious accusation. They were “leaders of the people of Israel” as Good News Translation specifies. Contemporary English Version calls them “Jewish leaders.” They were undoubtedly heads of families or of clans (compare Ezra 8.20). Their accusation is quoted in the form of direct quotation in Revised Standard Version. Good News Translation, however, renders it in indirect quotation. Translators must choose the form of quotation that is most appropriate for bringing this serious accusation to Ezra.

These leaders bring an accusation against The people of Israel and the priests and the Levites. This may refer to three categories of people: laity, priests, and Levites (so Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation, Bible en français courant, New Jerusalem Bible, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible). The conjunction and between The people of Israel and the priests can also be understood to mean “including” so that there is only one category of people: “The people of Israel, including the priests and Levites” (so New International Version, Revised English Bible). For people see the comments at Ezra 1.3 and 8.15.

The accusation is that the people have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands with their abominations. The Hebrew form of the verb for have … separated expresses a reflexive sense, that is, of “separating themselves from.” This is the second time that this expression occurs in the book of Ezra (also 6.21). Being separate is an important concept in the Old Testament (see Gen 1.12; Lev 19.19; Deut 22.9). Here again it refers to separating oneself from something that is not good, from something that will pollute or defile. It may be translated “they have not withheld themselves from,” “they have not kept themselves from,” or “they have not kept a distance between themselves and.”

The Hebrew word for abominations is used three times in this book, all in this chapter (verses 1, 11, 14), but this noun and related verbal forms are used quite often in the Old Testament (see 2 Kgs 21.2; 23.13; 2 Chr 28.3). It is a very strong word that refers to something that is disgusting, repulsive, or loathsome, something that evokes a sense of horror when one sees it. In Gen 43.32 the Egyptians considered eating with foreigners to be an abomination. In Lev 18 (especially verses 24-30), acts that defile a person are called abominations. In Psa 88.8 David uses a form of this word to describe himself as “a thing of horror to them” (Revised Standard Version). It may be translated with an equivalent adjective and noun, for example, “detestable practices” (New International Version), “disgusting practices” (New Jerusalem Bible), or “abhorrent practices” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). Or they may be described as “acts that cause loathing,” “acts that are repulsive,” or “acts that cause people to turn away in utter disgust.”

The peoples of the lands were those who had taken possession of the land in Judah after the exile to Babylonia in 586 B.C. The Hebrew term that is used here for peoples is a word that is used for nations other than Israel in Ezra and Nehemiah (see Ezra 3.3). In Hebrew these people are not explicitly identified as the Canaanites and other peoples who are cited in the list that follows (contrary to Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation). Rather, the people in the lands practiced the abominations of those peoples who used to live in the land and in neighboring countries (see New International Version “neighboring peoples with their detestable practices, like those of the Canaanites…”; similarly Revised English Bible). Their abominations were worshiping false gods and having foreign religious practices. They did not worship the God of Israel and they had their own religious customs. Those customs and practices were a potentially dangerous influence on the Jews.

The Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites: Using the pattern of lists that is found repeatedly in this book, the writer lists eight names representing various peoples (similarly Neh 9.8). This is an expansion and modification of the lists of between five and ten peoples that occur in the Pentateuch and in some of the historical books with reference to the inhabitants of the land of Palestine before the time of the Israelites (see Gen 15.19-21; Exo 3.8; Josh 9.1). These names often represented the traditional enemies of the Israelites. The list given here is a combination of names that are found in Deut 7.1-4 and 23.3-8. Many of these peoples no longer existed in the time of Ezra, but the people in the land in his time were like the people who are listed.

The Canaanites were the descendants of Canaan, one of the sons of Ham (Gen 10.6, 15-19). They were the earliest Semitic inhabitants of the territory that was known as Canaan in pre-Israelite times and that later came to be called Palestine. They were associated with the worship of the Baals, Astartes and the fertility goddess Asherah. Sometimes the term Canaanites is identified with the Phoenicians who lived along the Mediterranean coast of Palestine. The Hittites are identified in Gen 10.15 as the descendants of Heth, the son of Canaan. They were a powerful non-Semitic people originally from Asia Minor who lived in the area of Canaan and to the north from 1600 to 700 B.C. It was from a Hittite that Abraham bought land and a cave for his wife Sarah’s burial (Gen 23). The Perizzites are identified as people who lived in the land of Canaan as well, but little is known about their origins. Their descendants were included among Solomon’s slave laborers (1 Kgs 9.20-21). Some commentators consider that the name may refer to people who lived in unwalled cities or in the more rural areas of the country. The Jebusites were the early inhabitants of Jerusalem. The name Jebus was both their name as a people and the early name of the site that came to be known as Jerusalem (Josh 15.8).

The Ammonites were traditionally regarded as the descendants of Benammi, the son of Lot and his younger daughter (Gen 19.38). They lived in the region called Ammon east of the Jordan River and worshiped the god Moloch. Their name is the origin of Amman, the name of the modern-day capital of Jordan. The Moabites were traditionally regarded as the descendants of Moab, the son of Lot and his elder daughter (Gen 19.37). They lived in the region east of the Dead Sea and worshiped a god named Chemosh. The Egyptians were the people who lived in the land of Egypt and who were considered to be the descendants of Egypt, one of the sons of Ham (Gen 10.6). The Egyptians were known to worship a variety of deities, including Osiris the god of the Nile and Re (or, Ra) the sun god. The Amorites were a Semitic people who arrived in the area of Canaan later than the first Canaanites. The territory of the Amorites was called Amurru in Akkadian, a word that may have a basic meaning of being in the west or of being in the mountains. At one time their territory extended westward from Mesopotamia to the land of Canaan where they lived in the mountainous area. Sometimes in the Old Testament the name is used to refer to the Canaanites in general, but in this text a distinction is made between the Canaanites and the Amorites (see Josh 11.3).

There is no apparent reason for the order in which the names are given. Some commentators observe that it was only the Ammonites, the Moabites and the Egyptians who were still living in the neighboring areas at the time of Ezra. Good News Translation restructures the list to distinguish between names that refer to the people of countries and the names that refer to ethnic groups or genealogical descendants. Good News Translation lists the three countries or lands first and then the five ethnic groups. Translators will need to use the appropriate form in the receptor language to refer to lands and the people who dwell in them on the one hand, and names of groups of people on the other hand (see the comments on “Levites” at Ezra 1.5). For the first category, it will be necessary to use expressions that refer to the inhabitants of a geographical entity. For the second one, expressions should be used for peoples, such as a name that indicates ethnic identity or descent, for example, “the children of….”

Quoted with permission from Noss, Philip A. and Thomas, Kenneth J. A Handbook on Ezra. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2005. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

A number of names in the list are repeated several times and are common names found elsewhere in Ezra and Nehemiah. One person who can be identified is Jozabad in this verse. His name is also found in Ezra 8.33, where he was one of the Levites who received the gifts for the Temple from Ezra, in Neh 8.7 as one of the Levites who helped explain the Law, and in Neh 11.16 as one of the leaders of the Levites supervising the work on the outside of the Temple.

Also in this verse is Kelaiah (that is, Kelita), who is mentioned in Neh 8.7 and 10.10 by his nickname Kelita, which means “cripple” or “dwarf.” Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation both place the nickname in parentheses to show that while this is part of the text, it is an editorial comment or explanation (also Revised English Bible, New International Version). Other versions like New Jerusalem Bible, Osty-Trinquet and Traduction œcuménique de la Bible separate this explanation from the rest of the sentence by placing it between long dashes. Translators should do here as they have done elsewhere to indicate editorial comments in the text.

Quoted with permission from Noss, Philip A. and Thomas, Kenneth J. A Handbook on Ezra. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2005. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Now be it known to the king: The writers repeat this formula from the beginning of the letter (see the previous verse) to make an appeal to the economic consequences of the Jews’ actions: the king is in danger of losing income to the royal treasury. They state a condition (rebuilding of Jerusalem with its walls). If the condition is met, there will be one result (no taxes paid by the Jews) that will bring about a second result (harm to the empire). Translators should use a sentence construction that makes the conditional aspect clear.

If this city is rebuilt and the walls finished: In some languages it may be necessary to restructure these clauses using active verbs, for example, “If the people rebuild the city and if they complete the walls….”

They will not pay tribute, custom, or toll: The three kinds of taxes cannot be exactly defined, but generally tribute may refer to payment in money or kind to the king, custom may refer to a poll tax paid in kind and based on one’s capacity for work, and toll may refer to a property tax. Everyone other than members of the Temple hierarchy was required to pay these taxes (see Ezra 7.24). Many translations use three separate words but with closely related meanings as Revised Standard Version has done. Good News Translation groups the three payments under the one word “taxes,” while Contemporary English Version says “any kind of taxes.” Translators should try to reflect the fact that several different kinds of taxes are referred to here.

The royal revenue will be impaired: The general meaning of the text here is evident from the context, but the exact translation is uncertain. Some translations interpret as Revised Standard Version has done; for example, “the royal revenues will suffer” (New International Version, Chouraqui) or “there will be less money in your treasury” (Contemporary English Version; compare New King James Version “the king’s treasury will be diminished”). However, the word translated as revenue is a Persian loanword and may mean “in the end,” while royal is literally “kings.” Other translations therefore translate “in the end they will harm the monarchy” (New English Bible; similarly New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh) or “thus the king will incur a loss” (New Jerusalem Bible; similarly Bible de Jérusalem). These translations may better represent the Aramaic text and should therefore be followed by translators.

Quoted with permission from Noss, Philip A. and Thomas, Kenneth J. A Handbook on Ezra. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2005. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

This verse continues the command from the preceding verse. Although both Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation translate the three commands in verses 6-7 separately (“keep away”; let the work … alone; let … rebuild this house …), Good News Translation links the second command with the first one by means of the conjunction “and.”

Let the work … alone: The verb here is a masculine plural imperative that means “leave,” that is, “Permit the work to continue…” (see Chouraqui), “Let the work continue” (Traduction œcuménique de la Bible), or “Allow the work … to go on” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). This affirmative command may be restated as a negative command as Good News Translation has done (“do not interfere with…”). In some languages this may be expressed as “Do not put your mouths into…” or “Do not let your mouths enter….” This command may also be restructured to make the governor and the elders the objects of the verb here and to combine it with the next command. Thus, the order is to allow the governor and the elders to get on with the work of rebuilding the Temple (so New Jerusalem Bible, Revised English Bible). However, because the emphasis is on the theme of the work of rebuilding the Temple in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah (see Neh 2.16), translators should retain this focus in the first part of the verse as both Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation have done.

Governor of the Jews: The same term is used here as for the Persian governor Tattenai. See Ezra 5.3.

For elders of the Jews, see Ezra 5.5.

Its site is the place where the Temple had stood before it was destroyed (see Ezra 2.68).

Quoted with permission from Noss, Philip A. and Thomas, Kenneth J. A Handbook on Ezra. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2005. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Whoever will not obey the law of your God and the law of the king, let judgment be strictly executed upon him: It is a question here whether Ezra had responsibility not only for the customary law of the Jews but also for the Persian laws of the state. Some commentators consider that Ezra had responsibility for both as it is stated Whoever will not obey the law of your God and the law of the king will be judged. But it is not stated who will make judgment. Let judgment be strictly executed upon him is in an impersonal form. Either way, the Persian king does not see a conflict between the Law of God and the law of the king. The Persian kings had respect for the religions and laws of the various peoples in their empire and were willing to have them followed as far as possible as a means to bring blessing to the king and the empire.

The same Persian loanword dat in the singular form is used here in reference to both the law of the God of the Jews and the law of the king (see the comments at verses 12 and 25 above). Revised Standard Version translates both in the singular, implying that God’s Law is the Torah and the king’s law is the law of the land. Good News Translation, however, interprets the meaning here to be the more general sense of the word, that is, “the laws” of God and “the laws” of the king. This is consistent with the plural form used in the preceding verse as translated by Revised Standard Version. Chouraqui translates similarly by saying “the order of your God and the order of the king.” The repetition of law and the contrast between the law of your God and the law of the king is a very effective literary device that should be reflected in translation.

Let judgment be strictly executed upon him is literally “with all diligence punishment let it be done upon him.” Chouraqui follows the same structure with “justice will be carried out against him,” while New International Version restructures to say “Whoever … must surely be punished.” Strictly has also been translated “rigorously” (Revised English Bible) or “swiftly” (New Jerusalem Bible). For “with all diligence,” see the comments on verse 17 above. In some languages this command will need to be changed from the passive verb form to the active; for example, “you must surely punish him.”

Whether for death or for banishment or for confiscation of his goods or for imprisonment: Four kinds of punishment are given here in descending order of severity. The punishment should be according to what the guilty persons deserve (so Bible en français courant, Parole de Vie). The citation of the word death means that the first and most severe punishment is “being put to death” or “being executed.” The second level of punishment is banishment. This term is from a Persian word that can mean “physical punishment,” and it is so translated in the Greek 1 Esdras (8.24). It is not indicated where the guilty persons will be banished or exiled to. The third level of punishment is confiscation of his goods, which is literally “punishment of wealth”; that is, the possessions of the guilty persons would be taken away from them. Finally, there is imprisonment, which is not mentioned in the Torah, but was a Persian form of punishment. The basic meaning of the Aramaic word is “fetters, bonds” and therefore “prison.”

The original text uses nouns to cite the four types of punishment that the king orders to be imposed upon those who are judged to be guilty. The translator may need to use passive verb constructions; for example, “they shall be executed, they shall be sent into exile, their possessions shall be taken from them, or they shall be put in prison.” Alternatively, in some languages it may be necessary for translators to restructure the sentence to use active verbs with explicit direct objects; for example, “you will execute them, you will exile them, you will seize their possessions, or you will put them in prison.”

The change from the singular him and his in Revised Standard Version to the plural forms in Good News Translation and New Revised Standard Version is a shift to inclusive language since this command applies to both men and women.

The king’s letter ends here, but there is no formal closing to the letter. Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation mark the end with closing quotation marks. Other versions like Revised English Bible that set off the letter by indented formatting bring that special formatting to an end here.

Quoted with permission from Noss, Philip A. and Thomas, Kenneth J. A Handbook on Ezra. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2005. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

And after …: The connective conjunction (And) with the prepositional phrase after … introduces the next long sentence in Ezra’s prayer. Verses 13-14a are one sentence in Hebrew as in Revised Standard Version, which may be summarized as follows: “13 If all this has fallen on us, even though it is really less than we deserve, 14 then how can we…?” It can be separated as Good News Translation has done. Some translations take the second half of verse 13 as elliptical and set it off with long dashes (so New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, Revised English Bible, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible), but the Hebrew syntax makes it an integral part of the statement of what has happened to them.

Evil deeds … great guilt: Similarly to verse 6 above, near synonyms are used by the author to express the cause of the bad events that have befallen the Jews. Here both are qualified by an adjective: the deeds are evil and the guilt is great as it was in verse 7.

Seeing that could be better translated “yet,” “when” or “though,” since it introduces concessive clauses. Revised English Bible says “although” (also Nouvelle version Segond révisée, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible).

Thou, our God: Ezra speaks to God dramatically, using the independent second person singular pronoun for emphasis and focus. The translator should use an equally emphatic grammatical construction to draw attention to the mercy of God over against the faithlessness of the people. It should be remembered here that in Hebrew the second person singular is the normal form for speaking to another person, whether that person is an inferior or a superior. The receptor language should use the appropriate emphatic form, at the same time showing respect to God in this context.

Hast punished us less than our iniquities deserved: The sense of the word punished is “to cause suffering” to someone because of some wrong or evil that person has done. Here it is God who has punished his people because of their sins or their faithlessness. However, it is acknowledged that God has not punished them according to the degree of their sins. Less is literally “below.” Even as the sins of the people reached up to the heavens (Ezra 9.6), their punishment was “below” the true height of their sins. This may be translated “you did not show us suffering equal to our wrongdoings.” For iniquities see verse 6 above.

A remnant such as this: See verse 8 above. Ezra refers here to those people who have returned to Jerusalem from captivity.

Quoted with permission from Noss, Philip A. and Thomas, Kenneth J. A Handbook on Ezra. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2005. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

The repetition of the information that they rebuilt the altar is to stress that this was done in spite of opposition by the peoples who lived around them.

They set the altar in its place: The language is very precise here. They did not merely “build” the altar as they had set out to do. They “set it up,” or literally “they erected the altar upon its place.” This refers to deliberately placing it or rebuilding it where it had been before the destruction of the Temple. Traduction œcuménique de la Bible says “They re-established the altar on its foundations.”

For fear was upon them: Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation reflect two distinct interpretations of this line. The difference is in two different meanings of the Hebrew word that is translated for by Revised Standard Version and “Even though” by Good News Translation. The first interpretation gives a reason for rebuilding the altar, namely their fear (also Biblia Dios Habla Hoy, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, Amplified Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, Osty-Trinquet). New English Bible is more specific for the first part of the verse by saying “They put the altar in place first, because they lived in fear.” The second interpretation understands this clause to be a concession: “Even though” (Good News Translation) or “Despite” (New International Version, Bible en français courant, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, La Sainte Bible: La version Etablie par les moines de Maredsous, New Jerusalem Bible, Nouvelle version Segond révisée) their fear, they rebuilt the altar. Because both interpretations are widely accepted, one may be put in the text and the other in a footnote as Good News Translation has done. This Handbook recommends the interpretation adopted by Good News Translation.

The peoples of the lands: This phrase occurs thirteen times in Ezra–Nehemiah, with peoples and lands in either singular or plural (Ezra 3.3; 4.4; 6.21; 9.1, 2, 11; 10.2, 11; Neh 9.24, 30; 10.28, 30, 31). The singular form of the Hebrew word translated peoples usually refers to a community of people who are related to each other (see Ezra 1.3). The singular and plural forms of lands often seem to be used synonymously in this phrase, but there may also be a subtle distinction in meaning according to the context. The plural may refer to people from various foreign lands, as in Ezra 9.1, while the singular may refer to foreign people living alongside the Jews in the land, as in Ezra 10.2.

Although the Hebrew text gives few details, the phrase as it is used here refers to the people who were already living in the area when the people of Israel returned from Babylonia. Bible en français courant makes this meaning quite explicit: “those who had settled in the land during the exile.” Revised English Bible calls them “the foreign population.” But these translations are too narrow. The people who were already living in the land included those people of Israel who had not been taken into exile plus other peoples who had come to live in the area. A translation like Good News Translation or like Nouvelle version Segond révisée “the local population” may be used for more clarity.

The people who lived there wanted to help with the rebuilding of the Temple but they were not permitted to do so by the people who returned from Babylonia. According to Ezra 4.1-5, it is stated that the local population had been offering sacrifices to God. Their opposition to the rebuilding of the altar may have been because they were excluded from the rebuilding of the Temple.

They offered burnt offerings upon it to the LORD: See the comments on LORD in “Translating Ezra and Nehemiah,” pages 18-19.

Burnt offerings morning and evening: Morning and evening were the prescribed times for the daily burnt offerings of a lamb with flour, oil and wine, and also a grain offering and a drink offering (Exo 29.38-46; Num 28.3-8). The times of the sacrifices were early in the morning and in the evening at twilight. Translators may use general terms for morning and evening, but they should avoid words that would suggest a late morning hour or an evening hour after dark.

Quoted with permission from Noss, Philip A. and Thomas, Kenneth J. A Handbook on Ezra. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2005. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .