The interpretation timeline

Neh 1:3

How this passage has been read — the sources, oldest to newest.

From the early Church Fathers to now.

1 Jewish · 1 Reformed · 1 Methodist · 1 Catholic

Neh 1:3 · Douay-Rheims
“And they said to me: They that have remained, and are left of the captivity there in the province, are in great affliction, and reproach: and the wall of Jerusalem is broken down, and the gates thereof are burnt with fire.”
Scholastic c. 1100 – 1500
1105
A.D.
Rashi Jewish
1040–1105
“And they said to me They answered my first question first and my latter question last; first, concerning the Jews and afterwards, concerning the wall and the gates. who remained Those Jews who remained in the province of Jerusalem are in great trouble and reproach because the gentiles plunder and pillage them. and the wall of Jerusalem is breached And the wall of the city is breached, and the gates are burned with fire as they were before, for Israel had not built the wall of the city or its gates, only the Temple. were burned Heb. נִצְתוּ, like נֻצְתוּ.”
Source
666 years pass — nothing from this stretch is hosted yet
Post-Reformation c. 1650 – 1900
1771
A.D.
John Gill Reformed
1697–1771
“And they said unto me, the remnant that are left of the captivity there in the province,.... In Judea, now reduced to a province of the Persian empire: are in great affliction and reproach; harassed and distressed, calumniated and vilified, by their enemies the Samaritans: the wall of Jerusalem also is broken down, and the gates thereof are burnt with fire; that is, its wall and gates were in the same condition in which Nebuchadnezzar had left them, for since his times as yet they had never been set up; for this is not to be understood of what was lately done by their adversaries, which is not at all probable.”
Source
1832
A.D.
Adam Clarke Methodist
1762–1832
“The wall of Jerusalem also is broken down - This must refer to the walls, which had been rebuilt after the people returned from their captivity: for it could not refer to the walls which were broken down and levelled with the dust by Nebuchadnezzar; for to hear of this could be no news to Nehemiah.”
1849
A.D.
1774–1849
“Province of Judea, subject to the Persians, as it was afterwards to the Romans; though, at present, they were allowed to have governors of their own nation. (Menochius) — Reproach, on account of the surrounding enemies. (Haydock) — Fire, recently; (Menochius. See 1 Esdras iv. 12., and ix. 9.) or rather by Nabuchodonosor; as the kings of Persia would not suffer the city to be fortified, for fear of a fresh rebellion. (Lyranus) (Tirinus) — We find that little progress (chap. iii., and iv.; Calmet) had at least been made in the work, though the blame must rather be laid on the enemies of Israel, than on several of the kings of Persia, who seem to have authorized the undertaking, which Cambyses, or Smerdis, had for a time interrupted. They only specify, indeed, that leave was granted to build the temple. But they allowed them to erect houses for themselves, which could not have been done to any purpose, among so many enemies, unless they had been defended by some sort of fortifications. (Haydock)”
Source
Modern · 1953 →

The in-app commentary runs from the Fathers to the early-modern record, then stops — that's where the public-domain sources end, not where the reading does. For the modern reading, follow the sources directly.