Ezra 2:43-54

Nethinim. This class is mentioned in the books Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra 2:43; Ezra 2:58; Ezra 2:70; Ezra 7:7; Ezra 7:24; Ezra 8:17; Ezra 8:20; Nehemiah 3:26; Nehemiah 3:31; Nehemiah 7:46; Nehemiah 7:60; Nehemiah 7:73; Nehemiah 10:28; Nehemiah 11:3; Nehemiah 11:21) and only once elsewhere (1 Chronicles 9:2). From these passages it is evident that the Nethinim were a class subordinate to the Levites but ranking before -the servants of Solomon" (Ezra 2:55) in the services of the Temple. Their origin is hid in great obscurity. The name denotes -given". Jewish tradition identified them mainly with the Gibeonites, who had been assigned by Joshua to the Levites to assist them in the discharge of the more menial tasks (Joshua 9:3-27). Their numbers were also, according to this supposition, increased by the captives taken in war, of whom a certain proportion were given over to the priests and Levites as their share in the booty of a campaign (Numbers 31:28 &c.). Thus in Ezra 8:20 we find a mention of certain of this class -whom David and the princes had appointed (lit. -given") for the service of the Levites".

The later Jewish tradition of the Talmud spoke of the Nethinim with great contempt and forbade intermarriage between them and the Jews. It is not improbable that these expressions were employed long after this distinctive class had been lost to view, and merely reflected the tradition which ascribed their origin to the Gibeonites and the Canaanites who fell under the special ban of the Law (Exodus 34:12-16; Deuteronomy 7:1 &c.).

A recent theory, coupling the strong terms of Jewish hatred with the numerous feminine terminations in -aand -ahto be found in the genealogy of the Nethinim, supposes them to be the descendants of those who during the monarchy had led infamous lives in the precincts and vicinity of the Temple as devotees of Astarte and of Ashera (see Babyl. and Orient. Record, Feb., March 1888). But even if it were granted that the very odium of their origin would thus account for the mystery in which it is veiled, it does not seem probable that the strict notions which prevailed at the time of the Return would have admitted such a class to participate in the ministrations, however lowly, of the Temple.

The peculiar termination of the names derives a natural explanation from their foreign extraction.