Page:Apocrypha-and-Pseudepigrapha-Charles-A.djvu/30

 equally prominent in his own story (especially v., xiii.). N was not the only governor in post-exilic Jerusalem (N v. 15, Mal. i. 8), but it is noteworthy that the E-story, especially in the narrative-portions, shows no interest in either the governor or the high-priest; the story seems to be written from an independent standpoint, and is focussed upon the austere figure of E alone. The story represents a period of divine favour and royal clemency after the sufferings of Israel (Dan. ix., N i. presuppose an earlier situation); it obviously comes after the disappearance of Zerubbabel, but it cannot be placed before the introduction of N. There are independent arguments for the tradition of a return under N and religious reorganization (see § 5 b, d), and this appears to be supplemented by the account of E. The latter describes the return of E and a representative community to a temple, but one sorely in need of replenishing (E vii. 15–27, viii. 36); to an ecclesiastical body (note E viii. 17), but a negligent one (N x. 32 seqq.); to a community that worshipped Yahweh, but had fallen from the ideal. It can hardly be called an Autobiography (Meyer, 205) or a Memoir, and there is no evidence to prove it to be a mere invention or fiction. Rather is it based upon facts which link the energy of N with the subsequent appearance of an established orthodox Jewish Church. It may be regarded as an ideal description of the inauguration of Judaism, and the introduction of the 'Book of the Law of Moses' (the Pentateuch is probably meant) is a later parallel to the story of the (re-)discovery of the 'Book of the Law' (Deuteronomy) in the reign of Josiah; cf. also the chronicler's accounts of Asa, Jehoshaphat and Hezekiah (2 Chron. xiv. 4, xv. 3, 10–13, xvii. 7, 9, xxix. 10). It does not seem to have been written by the compiler of the series Chron.-E-N; it appears rather as a tradition of independent origin, written around the age of N, combined with the story of N and ultimately with the great post-exilic history of Jerusalem and the Temple.

(a) Intricacy of parallels. The intricacy of the list E ii. N vii. for the history of Cyrus, Darius (E) and Artaxerxes does not stand alone. The close connexion in the narratives relating to Cyrus and Darius appears in E iii. 7 compared with E iv. 48, in iii. 1 with E v. 6, and in E iii. 2 with E v. 4–6. The Temple, according to Hag. and Zech., was not commenced before the time of Darius, in contrast to E iii.; but the laments in E iii. 12 in the time of Cyrus curiously recall Hag. ii. 3 seqq. The social and religious reorganization implied in E ii. 59, 62, vi. 21 finds a parallel in the reforms of E, and while E ii. 70, iii. 1, introduce the erection of the altar, the text in E v. 46 seq. presupposes a later period, and in fact these verses in N vii. 73, viii. 1, form the prelude to the Reading of the Law. The latter event is the sequel to the record of a return (N vii.) which in E ix. is that of E himself. E iii. is unhistorical, and has probably been influenced by material relating to the time of N; thus Meyer (73, 99) points to N viii. 17 seq., and Jahn compares iii. 10–13 with N xii. 40–3. The account of the opposition in E iv. is untrustworthy, and there is a marked resemblance between the details and N iv., vi., enhanced by the insertion in E iv. 7–24 of a record of the time of Artaxerxes. This record attests a return of some importance, which, however, has yet to be identified, and while the decrees of Cyrus and Darius agree (cf. also Artaxerxes and E) in presenting several very similar features (Torrey, 125 seqq., 158; Bayer, 117 seqq.), the historical basis for any decree on the lines they take cannot be found in their reigns. For parallels in the stories of E and N see above, p. 9 (d). Such is the interrelation of the contents that it is hardly surprising that later sources should not infrequently combine Zerubbabel and Ezra (Lag. 18; Torrey, 49 n. 17) and that both should be united with Jeshua in a return in the time of Darius (Lag. 84). Even N xii. 47 looks back and mentions together Zerubbabel and N (see Berth.); and if Hashabiah and Sherebiah in N xii. 24 may be identified with the names in E viii. 18 seq., Joiakim (son of Jeshua) and E appear to be correlated much in the same way that N xii. 12–26 seem to confuse the times of Joiakim, N and E (see also the view of Kosters, 91 seq.).

(b) Some modern views. The endeavour to recover the historical facts has led to very divergent conclusions among modern scholars. One favourite view has retained Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes in E iv., between Cyrus and Darius, by the simple device of changing the names or of assuming an alternative nomenclature. Equally popular has been the theory that Artaxerxes and Darius are to be identified with the second bearer of each name, and, indeed, this may have been the view of the compiler or writer (see Torrey, 38 seq., 178 seq.). Although this leaves an astonishing gap between Cyrus and Darius II, the belief that the Artaxerxes of the stories of N and E was the later king (404–359 B.C.) has found very weighty support (de Saulcy, Maspero, Hoonacker, and Howorth [partly], Marq., H. P. Smith [382], &c, see further Berth., 30; and PSBA, xxiii. 319 seqq.). It has also been proposed to identify the Cyrus of the narratives with Darius and Darius with Art. I, and so close is the interconnexion of events that N viii.–x. has been placed in the time of Zerubbabel, and the whole of E-N (extending from 537 to 432) has been compressed within a few years (see H. Winckler, Helmholt's World's Hist. iii. 216 seq., and the summaries in Jampel, ii. r seq.). Others hold that Zer. first returned in the time of Darius, and that E iii. 8 seqq. properly belongs to that later period. Moreover, the historical and prophetical writings are necessarily co-ordinated, and thus Hag. and Zech. have appeared to some to be of or about the time of Cyrus, although if Darius be D. II they are brought down to (about) 423–404 (see Howorth, PSBA, xxiii. 324). So, also, the prophecies in Is. xl.–lxvi., are subdivided and connected with the history of the times of Cyrus and Artaxerxes, although, under the influence of