Page:Apocrypha-and-Pseudepigrapha-Charles-A.djvu/33

 the exiles were assembled in Jerusalem after their return and settlement in the Zerubbabel-story (E ii. 70, iii. 1). Thus, the difficult and much revised narratives of N's work, between vi. and xiii., are connected with the list of the return in vii., with the return of E (see p. 9 c), and with some return associated with the figure of N himself. G. A. Smith observes that the reforms of N 'are best explained through his reinforcement by just so large a number of Babylonian Jews under just such a leader as E' (Expos., July, 1906, p. 7 seq.). On the other hand, there is insufficient historical evidence for the presence of E and his band, and the above details strongly suggest that there was an account of some other return in connexion with the activity of N, although it is still impossible to reconstruct the course of N's work (see § 4, lll.b).

(e) The Temple. The history after the rise of the Davidic Zerubbabel is a blank which can be filled only by conjecture (see e.g. Ewald; Sellin, Ser.; Nikel, 142–6, and others). The situation in Jerusalem at the return of N cannot be explained by the disasters at the fall of Jerusalem about 140 years previously. The city was in great affliction and reproach, and N's grief, confession, and prayer recall E's behaviour at the tidings of the heathen marriages. The ruins of Jerusalem were extensive (N i. 3, ii. 3, 8, 13, iii., cf. Ecclus. xlix. 13), and it is disputed whether the bīrāh (ii. 8) refers to the fortress on the north side of the Temple (G. A. Smith, Jerus., ii. 347 seq., 461), of the Temple itself (cf. 1 Chron. xxix. 1 and see Jahn, pp. iv, 93). According to 2 Macc. i. 18, N built both the Temple and the Altar, and Jos. (independently) asserts that he received permission to build the walls of the city and to finish the Temple. An old Latin synopsis (Lag. 18 seq.) states that E restored the foundations of Zerubbabel's temple, and an old Greek summary of 'Second Esdras' refers to N as a builder of the Temple (Lag. 84, l. 27: ). These can scarcely all be based upon the references to the Temple in the Artaxerxes-record in E ii. 18, 20. It is at least noteworthy that, both in E and E, compilers have placed this episode in the history of the Temple, and the different readings in E iv. 12, 14, might be due to the alternative position of the story (see below, § 6 (c)) after the account of the opposition in the time of Cyrus. Moreover, the mention of the &apos;decree of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia&apos; (E vi. 14, see E vii. 4) is unintelligible—for even a gloss or interpolation must express some plausible belief—unless there was a tradition associating Artaxerxes with the building of the Temple. Again, in view of the parallels between E iv. and N ii. iv., vi., in the account of the Samaritan opposition, it is surely significant that the abrupt allusion in N ii. 20 to the repudiation of the Samaritans can only be explained in the light of E iv. 3, where the building of the Temple is concerned. Finally, the E-story represents a period of favour during which the Temple had been restored or repaired through God's mercy and the clemency of Persia (E ix. 8 seq.). This brief 'moment' (v. 8) cannot date back from the decree of Cyrus and the work of Zerubbabel, rather must one read the whole situation—the strengthening of a neglectful community, the furthering of a poor temple—as a supplement to the disorganization and confusion in the story of N's measures. Hence, it may be concluded that there is sufficient evidence for some tradition of a rebuilding of the Temple and of a return in the time of N.

(f) The recent disaster. The disaster which explains N's grief, anxiety, and energetic labours may probably be ascribed in part at least to Edom. Friendly or neutral relations between Judah (and its semi-Edomite population, see c) and the 'brother' Edom appear to have continued at a relatively late period, until for some reason Edom is denounced for its unbrotherly conduct. The origin of the enmity is generally connected with the fall of Jerusalem in 586. But it cannot be found in the time of Jehoiakim (the conjecture 'Edom' for 'Aram' in 2 Kings xxiv. 2 is against Jer. xxxv. 11), or of Zedekiah (when Edom was among the allies of Judah; Jer. xxvii., Ezek. xvii. 11 seqq.); the Chaldeans alone destroyed the Temple, and Jews had even taken refuge in Edom and elsewhere (Jer. xl. 11). The very explicit statement that the Edomites burned the Temple 'when Judaea was made desolate by the Chaldeans', and occupied Judaean territory (E iv. 45, 50), points to the reality of a tradition which, however, has been connected with the events of 586. The various allusions to Edom (Obad., Ezek. xxv. 12, xxxv. 10, 12, xxxvi. 5, Lam. iv., Ps. cxxxvii. 7), though possibly referring to different periods, cannot be based upon the history of the Chaldean invasion. The very circumstantial references to Edomite aggression (E iv. 50, Ezek. xxxv. 10, xxxvi. 3, 5) have led to the view that the Jewish exiles recovered their land through Persian aid. This, however, finds no support in the history of either Cyrus or Darius. But may it not be later (Nikel, 57 n. 1), before