Page:03.BCOT.KD.HistoricalBooks.B.vol.3.LaterProphets.djvu/171

 the post-exilic inhabitants of Jerusalem. Bertheau, e.g., comes to the following decision as to the relation of our register, vv. 2-34, to that in Neh 11:3-24: “As the result of the comparison, we have found that both registers correspond exactly in their plan, and agree as to all the main points in their contents.” The first point in this result has some foundation; for if we turn our attention only to the enumeration of chiefs dwelling in Jerusalem, then the registers in 1Ch 9:4-17 of our chapter and in Neh 11:3-19 are identical in plan. But if we consider the whole of the registers, as found in 1 Chron 9:2-34 and Neh 11:3-24, we see that they do differ in plan; for in ours, the enumeration of the inhabitants of Jerusalem is introduced by the remark, 1Ch 9:2, “The former inhabitants in their possessions in their cities, were Israel, the priests,” etc., according to which the following words, 1Ch 9:3, “And in Jerusalem there dwelt of the sons of Judah,” etc., can only be understood of the pre-exilic inhabitants. When Bertheau refers, in opposition to this, to Neh 5:15, where the time between Zerubbabel and Ezra is called the time of the former governors (הראשׁנים הפּחות), with whom Nehemiah contrasts himself, the later governor, to prove that according to that the former inhabitants in our passage may very well denote the inhabitants of the land in the first century of the restored community, he forgets that the governors were changed within short periods, so that Nehemiah might readily call his predecessors in the office “former governors;” while the inhabitants of the cities of Judah, on the contrary, had not changed during the period from Zerubbabel to Ezra, so as to allow of earlier and later inhabitants being distinguished. From the fact that the inhabitants “of their cities” are not contrasted as the earlier, with the inhabitants of Jerusalem as the later, but that both are placed together in such a way as to exclude such a contrast, it is manifest that the conclusion drawn by Movers and Bertheau from Neh 11:1, that the “former inhabitants in their possessions in their cities” are those who dwelt in Jerusalem before it was peopled by the inhabitants of the surrounding district, is not tenable. In Neh 11, on the contrary, the register is introduced by the remark, 1Ch 9:3, “These are the heads of the province who dwelt in Jerusalem; and they dwelt in the cities of Judah, each in his possession in their cities, Israel, the priests,” etc. This introduction, therefore, announces a register of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and of the other cities