Ezra 4:2

then they came&c. R.V. then they drew near to Zerubbabel, and to the heads of fathers" houses.

for we seek your God, as ye do The claim to cooperate in the work of building the Temple is based upon the assertion of common worship. The phrase -to seek" in the sense of -to worship" is not uncommon in these books and in Chronicles. Cf. Ezra 6:21; 1 Chronicles 22:19; 2Ch 15:13; 2 Chronicles 17:4; 2 Chronicles 31:21; 2 Chronicles 34:3.

and we do sacrifice unto him so R.V. text. R.V. margin. -Another reading is, yet we do no sacrifice since &c." The Hebrew words for "unto him" and "not" though written with a different second letter are pronounced in the same way, -lô". The context as a rule makes it easy to distinguish the meaning. But there are some fifteeninstances, in which the Hebrew Bibles preserve the tradition of confusion between the two words. It is even possible that the word -lô" (-unto him") may have sometimes been written with the same second letter as the negative (e.g. Exodus 21:8; 1 Samuel 2:3; 2 Samuel 16:18; 2 Kings 8:10).

In this verse the Hebrew text has the letters of the negative; the margin has the letters of the pronoun.

The externalevidence is in favour of the pronoun -unto him", being supported by the K'ri, by the LXX. (αὐτῷ), the Vulgate (-nos immolabimus victimas" without a negative), the Syriac, Versions and by the parallel text in 1Es 5:69 (-and do sacrifice unto him").

Internal evidence may thus be summarized. In favour of the negative(-yet we do no sacrifice"), it may be alleged

(1) that the statement contained in the alternative reading -we do sacrifice unto him" would have no weight, since the Jews would at once reject as idolatrous sacrifices not offered at Jerusalem:

(2) that the Samaritan argument requires the negative. Having pleaded sameness of worship, they regret the omission of sacrifice and proceed to entreat that they may obtain this privilege by becoming sharers in the work.

In favour of the pronoun(-unto him") it may be replied

(1) that had the disputed word been the negative, it would stand in the Hebrew in the wrong place, i.e. before the pronoun -we" instead of before the verb -sacrifice":

(2) that the affirmative clause (-and we do sacrifice unto him") expands the force of the plea for common worship. That they had not sacrificed at Jerusalem hitherto, was, they could plead, either due to ignorance or a fault which they now wished to rectify:

(3) that the argument is strengthened by the assertion of long-established custom of sacrifice:

(4) that the pronoun -unto him" was very liable to be altered to the negative by patriotic scribes who could not tolerate or credit the statement that their hated enemies had at such an early time done sacrifice to the God of Israel.

We conclude that the balance of probability preponderates for the reading -and we do sacrifice unto him".

since the days of Esar-haddon king of Assur R.V. Assyria. Esarhaddon succeeded Sennacherib (cf. 2 Kings 19:37; Isaiah 37:38) and reigned over Assyria 12 years, 680 668.

His name in the Assyrian Inscriptions appears as -Assur-ak-iddin" or -Assur sent a brother". The Greek attempts to transliterate the name are very strange: the LXX. gives -Asbakappas", 1Es 5:69 -Azbazareth".

In the A.V. - Assur" occurs also in Psalms 83:8, Asshurin Numbers 24:22; Numbers 24:24; Ezekiel 27:23; Ezekiel 32:22; Hosea 14:3. The difference in the spelling is purely arbitrary. The R.V. has altered -Assur" to -Assyria", but has left -Asshur" in the above passages. This is to be regretted, since there is no difference in the original to justify the preservation of -Asshur" by the side of -Assyria" (see Genesis 2:14; Ezekiel 23:7; Hosea 7:11; Hosea 8:9; Hosea 9:3; Hosea 10:6; Hosea 11:11).