Nehushtan (Hastings' Dictionary)

In the received text of 9 Καὶ 184 we read that Hezekiah, in addition to remov- ing the baméth (EV ‘high places’), with their mazzébahs (RV ‘ pillars’), throughout the country, carried his zeal for reform so far as to ‘cut down the Asherah’ (so RV ; see ASHERAH)—presumably that attached to the Temple at Jerusalem—and to break in pieces ‘the brazen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he (Hezekiah) called it Nehushtan.

’ The doubts which so many recent critics have expressed regarding the his- toricity of the greater part of this verse we need not pause to examine, inasmuch as it must be, and is, admitted that at least the statement with which the verse closes, and which alone concerns us here, is certainly historical. The further question as to the relation of this incident to the Pentateuch narrative, Nu 214" (esp. y.%), also lies without the urview of this article (see SERPENT [BRAZEN)).

wo points, however, appear to demand examina- tion, viz.: (1) the eae of the name here sen to the object destroyed, and (2) the reason alleged for its destruction. (1) The name of ‘ Nehushtan. Two significa- tions of Néhushtan (p73) are possible. (a) That clearly intended by the Massoretic punctuators, and since generally adopted, viz. ‘the brazen thing’ [opus]aeneum κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν. ae to this view, Néhushtan is a denominative from nyh} néhdsheth by addition of the formative suffix -dn (so Ges.

-Buhl, Stade, Konig, Lehrgeb. ii. 8 60. 95, Barth, Nominalbildg. § 207°). The further idea of the Massoretes, reflected in our EV, that this name was given to the venerable object by Hezekiah at the time of its destruction, must, however, be rejected. The context requires rather that we should find in Neéhushtan the name by which it was pularly known, and this may be got by a slight change in the pointing of the verb (cf. Lucian’s text καὶ ἐκάλεσαν αὐτὸν Neec@dv, and see the Commentaries).

(4) The transliteration of the word in the oldest Greek versions (A Νεσθάν, B Νεσθαλεί, and best of all Νεεσθάν, Lucian) sug- gests aflinity with vy} nahash ‘serpent’ rather than with néhésheth “brass. For in 2 K 248 the name of the queen-mother, who appears ir MT as xpyni Néhushtad, appears in A as Ναισθά, which is identical with B’s Νεσθά, Luc. Νεεσθάν (see NE- HUSHTA).

But it is far more probable that the personal name Nehushta is to be classed with the other ‘serpent-names,’ NAHASH and NAHSHON (which see), than with the derivatives of néhisheth. Hence it is possible, at least, that the name of this object of the Hebrews’ venera- Dexasp nounced with vowels other than those of Neéhus was also connected in the popular the great evil to be the imperilling of the mother tongue by the introduction of foreign elements.

From this it would a pear that already the OM Heb. speech was in danger, and the patriotism of the ple was appealed to to preserve it from extinction. How long it lasted as a living tongue after this time is uncertain. But the seeds of death must have been apparent. Tradition was as little silent about Neh. as about Ezra (see Ewald, Hist. v. 161ff.) To these two men ‘grateful posterity has attributed all the beneficial institutions, of whose origin it was ignorant.

’ Among the worthies praised by Jesus the son of Sirach is Neh., whose ‘ memorial is great, who raised up for us the walls that were fallen, and set up the gates and bars, and raised up our homes again’ (Sir 49"), In 2 Mac 1188. we read that Neh. purified the sacrifices with the water taken from the pit where the priests had hid the sacred fire. His ἐπόνει activity was also known: ‘The same things were related both in the public archives and in the records that concern Neh.

, and how he, found- ing alibrary, gathered together the books about the kings and prophets, and the books of David and letters of kings about sacred gifts’ (2 Mac 23. See Ryle, Cam. 102; W. R. Smit 1, OTJC? 170f. On the character of the letters in which this passage occurs see ZA W, 1890, i. 110 ff.) Neh. rendered a great service to his eople, and its effect was more enduring than that of Ezra. He was magnanimous in his generosity towards his subjects.

He even purchased the li erty of many Jews held as slaves in strange lands (5%); he had refused the remuneration which belonged to his office ; and he entertained at his own expense 150 of the chief Jews (617). But he was ἢ no means unconscious of his virtue, nor unhopeful of receiy- ing a suitable reward from God ; in 5" (ef. 1314. 31) he records a favourite prayer: ‘Remember unto me, O my God, for good, all that I have done for this people’ (see Montefiore, Hib. Lect. 211).

He shows also the vindictive spirit found in some of the psalmists (3%, Eng, 44t 13% ; see also Cheyne, Bamp. Lect. 78). But a frank acknowledgment of such weaknesses does not obscure the real greatness of the man. It has been truly said of him that he was ‘the only man who had at once the spirit to awaken the old fire of national enthusiasm, and the power both to heal dissensions within and to repel attacks from without’ (The Psalms Chronologically arranged, by Four Friends, 311). On Neh.

’s char- acter and work, see further Wellh. Gesch,2 173; Rawlinson, Ezr. and Neh, ch. xi. ; Renan, Hist, of the People of Isr. bk. vii. 82 ff. Jose hus says of Neh. : ‘He wasa man of good and righteous char- acter, and very ambitious to make his own nation happy; and he hath left the walls of Jerus. as an eternal monument of himself’ (Ant. ΧΙ. ν. 8). For other literature, beyond that quoted in the above article, see Ezra-NEHEMIAH, ΒΟΟΚ ΟΡ. L. W. BATTEN.