Page:Apocrypha-and-Pseudepigrapha-Charles-A.djvu/28

 be contrary; hence one can hardly assume that the deliverance of Jeshua (Zech. iii. 2) necessarily refers to his return seventeen years previously, or that the name Zerubbabel suggests that other Jews with him were necesssarily 'begotten in Babylo '. Nor can decisive objections be based upon references in E vii.–x., N i. seqq. to an earlier return. That men (? exiles) should come and assist in the rebuilding of the Temple is a promise for the future in Zech. vi. 15. The references in E ix. 4, x. 6 seq. present their own peculiar difficulties on any view, and in all probability the story of E should come after N i.–vi. (see III. a). N i. 2 seq. are inconclusive: they may be used to support a theory (Rosters. 45, Berth., 47, Torrey, 301 n. 27, Davies, 161), although Ryle (149), who maintains an independent, though strictly conservative position, refers the passage to the people who had escaped the exile—the passage, in any case, must be considered in the light of evidence for some disaster between the age of Zerubbabel and the return of N (see further, § 5 f). It is to be remembered, also, that the belief in a great return under Cyrus (or Darius) might influence the description of subsequent events even as the complete Mosaic legislation appears at first sight to be confirmed by the form which the revised and redacted history has taken in the books that follow the Pentateuch.

(d) Summary. The account of a large return to rebuild the Temple, whether in the time of Cyrus or Darius, must be tested by the independent Hag. and Zech. Great weight is often laid upon the circumstantial list in E ii., and its genuineness has been upheld, particularly by Meyer (73, 98 seqq., 191 seqq.; note the criticisms of Kosters, Th. T. xxxi. 530–41); see below, p. 35. He, however, rejects in the main the rest of the Cyrus-history (49, 73, 99, 191, 193; Driver, Lit., 552), although the decree of Cyrus is in itself entirely plausible (Nikel, 31–7; Torrey, 144 n. 12), and the list is closely bound up with the whole series E i.–vi. His position appears inconsistent from any traditional standpoint (see Nikel, 42 seq., Davies, 14, 80 seq.), as well as from one more consistently critical, although his recognition that the list (which contains names recurring throughout E-N) is fundamental for the criticism of the post-exilic history is thoroughly sound. But the list stands or falls with its context, and when it is admitted that the success of the opposition in E iv. proves that the return has been exaggerated (see Sellin, Stud. 1; O. C. Whitehouse, Isaiah, ii. 228; G. A. Smith, Jerus. ii. 298 seq.), or that the list has been re-edited (Holzhey, 15; Davies, 51), it is necessary to determine what details in E i.–vi. may be regarded as even essentially accurate. The tolerance and kindness of Amil-Marduk (to Jehoiachin), Nabunaid (who sent back Merbaal to be king of Tyre), Cyrus, Cambyses, and Darius certainly allow the probability of the return of bands of exiles, even as the Sachau-papyri show how Cambyses might favour native Jewish communities. But E i.–vi. are so closely interconnected as a piece of history that if we accept—as we must—the testimony of Hag. and Zech., it is difficult, if not impossible, to reconstruct from E the course of events. On the one hand, we gain new presuppositions regarding the internal conditions of the age. On the other, there is remarkable confusion in the traditions of Cyrus and Darius in E and E, E ii. is repeated in the history of the time of Artaxerxes, and a narrative of this later period is actually inserted in E i.–vi.; these combine with other features to extend the problems of E i.–vi. to those connected with the work of E and N.

(a) Esra. In the story of E there is considerable intricacy in the description of the separation from the heathen on the part of the 'children of the captivity' (i.e. E's small band of exiles, or the congregation presumably formed in 536–516), and the inauguration of the new community, consisting of these and the elect of the 'seed of Israel'. The whole story is closely interconnected, and much difficulty is caused by N i.–vii. which sever E vii.–x. from N viii. seqq. by twelve years. There is, moreover, a very strong presumption that the Reading of the Law was originally described shortly after E's arrival (cf. E ix.), and not (as in N viii.) after this lengthy interval, during which we hear nothing of him. Finally, on independent grounds there seems to be no place for E before the first visit, at all events, of N. It is indeed allowed that 'it is impossible to decide upon the evidence at our disposal' (G. A. Smith, Expositor, July, 1906, p. 16), or that this later position of E is only a possibility (Wellhausen); but it seems very doubtful whether the story is trustworthy (H. P. Smith, Torrey, Jahn), and, even if it be historical, many agree that it cannot be placed before N i.–vi. (Berth., Buhl, Cheyne, Guthe, Hoonacker [esp. Rev. Bibl., x. 15 seqq.], Kennett, Kent, Kosters, Marq., Sellin, Wildeboer). See further the notes on E viii–x.

(b) Nehemiah. N was governor from the 20th year of Artaxerxes (Jos. xi. 57, 25th of Xerxes) to the 32nd (N v. 14), i.e. 444–432, and we hear of a return to the king and a second visit (xiii. 4–6). But N xiii. is joined to xii. so closely as to imply that only on the occasion of the later visit were the walls dedicated, although the ceremony is ostensibly the immediate sequel of their completion, two months after his first visit (vi.). This must be due to defective compilation (cf. Nikel, 196 n. 1),