48_Qi8 This passage is written in the Aram, language, and is a portion of a more or less com- plete history of these times written originally in Araraaic-t The compiler, linding his best sources for this period in Aramaic, incorporated consider- able portions without translation. In its present arrangement, however, the course of the history is very much obscured, as will be more fully pointed out below. The section falls into two parts, both of which present critical problems of considerable intricacy. For convenience these problems will be discussed in this connexion.
48-W. According to the present arrangement of our book, this part describes tbe uecuring of a decree from Artaxerxcs to stop the rebuilding of the temple. But, as a matter of fact, the passage ha« nothing to do with tlio t-cmple, and is evidently iiiisplace<l. According to 4" BiMhlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the re»t of his companions ' wrote a letter to king Arta- xerxe* In Aramaic' This letter is not the one found in tbe verses following, for that was written by Kehum the chancellor fcnd Shimshal the scribe; moreover| tbe letter which btgitiH with V." is overloaded with introductions in the Aram, passage vv.'*-!'*. Since Art&xerxc^ reigned from 405 to 4'Zr>, this paasjige can have nothing to do with the time.i of Zerubbabel. The correction of Xerxes v.8 to Cambyses (reigiiing r»20-5'.i2), and ArtaxerxeH to Ooniates (p8eudo-.SmL'rdiH),S is out of the qvies- tiou, since tbe contents agree with tbe date assigned in tlie text. Tbe letter says that the Jews are rebiiilriuig tbe re- bellious and bod city, and have finished tbe walls, and repaired the foundations. It further declarer that if this city is rebuilt and the walls finished, the Jews will rebel and refuse to pay tribute, 'and in the end it will endamage the king.' The builil- ing of tbe temple cannot be the jwint of attack, for that would not signify rebellion. If the temple were tbe matter at issue, tbe Jews would have appealed to the decree of Cyrus as they did later. The king's answer affrees with this view. He orders
• See RP, new ser. v. 144 IT.
t Tlie sum-total In ea<:b case is the same, hut varies by 12,000 from the wimi of the ditailed nunibem. (See further Kucnen, Jiet. Jgr. ii. 178).
I On Kenan's view that the Aram, section is from the Targums, we Ex}**ni. T\inf4, iv. hM\.
% Lwald advocated this position, liUl.^ Eng. tr. Iv. 100.
that this city be not built, until a decree shall be made bj him, but makes no allusion to the temple. If a royal decree hod been issued forbidding tbe rebuilding of the temple, tiie peopU would liave hod ample excuse for their neglect when Uaggoi reproaches them so sharply. . . Zerubbabel and Joshua would scarcely have ventured to renew the work on the temple with such a decree in force. Finally, Tattenai would not have failed to make use of such a good weapon if it bad been at hand.
Tlie passage refers to an attempt to rebuild the walls of ttie city, which must have occurred in tbe first part of the reign of Artaxerxes before the coming of Nehemiah. 'The Jews which have come up from thee' (^2) refers eitiier to Ezra and hie com- pany, or to some other band concerning which the history is silent. V.24 does refer to the building of the temple, and is the effort of tbe compiler to hannonize the passage with the history with which he has erroneously connected it.*
5, 6. This section gives a consistent account of the rebuilding of the temple, but ditliculties arise in its relation to ch. 3, and to Hag and Zee. In 31" w^e are told that Joshua and Zerub. set up the altar soon after the arri\al of the first pilgrims. Tbe required sacrifices were at once started. Then the actual work 01 rebuilding the temple was begun (3'»5'f-). The text is some- what confused, but it is clear that the writer says that the foundations ot the temple were laid at this time ; see esp. vio * and the builders laid the foundation of the temple of i".' The work thus begun was stopped by the adversaries, wlio 'weak- ened the liands of the people of Judah, and troubled them in builduig, and hired counsellors against them, to frustrate their purpose, all tbe days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius king of Persia ' (4'*- 5).
Hag. and Zech,, contemporary prophets under whose inspira- tion the work of rebuilding was t-aken up and carried to com- pletion, give no hint anywhere that the temple building waa but the resumption of a task already begim and laid aside with good reason, llag. speaks of * the bouse that lieth waste ' (l-i- 9) ; he attributes the unprosperous condition to the neglect of the temple ; he denies tlie validity of the excuse that the time waa not suitable. The u nsui table n ess of tbe time pleaded by the people does not refer to the hostility of their neighbours, but to their poverty. But some of this prophet's utterances go further. He says : * Lay to heart from this day back to tlie time before one laid stone upon a stone in the temple of J" ' (p^) — a time evidently within his recent experience. He gives tbe date upon wiiich the foundation was laid in a prophecy de- livered that very day; 'from this day forwani, from the twenty-fovirtb day of tbe ninth month, from the day that the foundation of J"'s temple is laid ' (21**).