versaries.' The time, as the Jews said even six- teen years later (Hag 1-), was not yet come for so important an undertaking as the rebuilding of the temple. Some critics, indeed, smile altogether at the story of this ' First Return,' and reduce it to a conciliatorj' appointment by Cyrus of a prince of the house of David (Sanabassar) to be governor in Judiua (cf. Clieyne, Jewish lielirjions Li/r, pp. 5-7).
At the beginning of the reign of Darius llystaspia (c. 522 B.C.), however, the Jewish exiles were pre- pared for a great movement, and there was, it seems, a Second Return under Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, a descendant of David, and Jeshua the son of Joz.adak the priest (Ezr 2-). Tlie whole 'congregation ' numbered 42,360, exclusive of ser- vants and handmaids {ib. 2!'^'-). Of this great immi- gration, and of Zerubbabel and Jeshua who led it, much was expected, imprimis the rebuilding of the temple (Zee 6"), but the realization of the hope was delayed. The people went up ' unto Jerusalem and Judah, evert/ une to his own city' (Ezr 2'), and, after the heads h.ad relieved their consciences by making a mone3'-oft'ering for the work of rebuild- ing, all the exiles 'dwelt in their cities' {ib. v.""], or, as llaggai complained, they ran 'every man to his own house,' and allowed God's House to lie waste (Hag 1"). In the autunn (Ezr 3'"-) they did iudi'(^d gather themselves as one man to Jerus.alem for the erection of an altar of burnt-oU'ering, ' but the foundation of the temple of the Lord was not yet laid' (ib. v.'}.
How did the work of the temple begin at last in earnest? We have two answers, one in a 'pro- phetical ' passage of Ezra (4-^ 5"), written in the Aramaic tongue, and anotlier in a 'priestly' pas- sage, written in Hebrew by the compiler of the same book (.S''""). The former treats the foundation as already laid (cf. 5"), and reckons the date by the year of Darius eharaiteristicallij, for the pro- phet's eye always noted political changes; the second, on the contrarj', describes in touching detail the laj'ing of the foundation, and mentions as the date ' the second year of their coming to the House of Cod,' again characteristically, for the priest's eye was all for the holy place. The dis- crepancy between the two passages is one of words only — (1) as regards rfaie, if the Return of Zerub- babel and Jeshua took place, as suggested above, at the beginning of the reign of Darius ; and (2) as regards the nature of the work, if we assume that after sixteen years of malice, neglect, and weather, the foundations needed some attention, which might be popularly described as relaj^ing.
Ezr 3*"' , however, has a great omission, it says nothing of the activity of Haggai and Zechariah. Yet there can be no doubt that the voice of these two prophets was the deciding factor in the work ; words such as Hag 1* 2°, Zee 4""'° were not uttered in vain. In the second year of Darius, the second year of their return to Palestine, the exiles began to build, and in spite of an interruption by Tattenai, governor of Syria (Ezr 5**-), the house was finished in the 6th year of Darius (6'°).
This account is traversed and disputed by some modem critics. It is urged that Haggai and Zechariah never mention the Great Return of 42,000 persons, and consequently it is maintained that no considerable body of exiles (the GOla) did return till the mission of Ezra, c.432 B.C. (soCheyne, Introd. to Is. p. xxxix). From this it follows that the temple which was completed c. 516 B.C. was built, not bj' the returned exiles, but by ' the peo|)le of the land,' the descendants of those left by Nebuzar-adan. But what if Haggai and Zecharian do not dwell upon the Return because they took part in it, and spoke to those who took part in it ? W hat if they do speak, at least once (Zee 6"), as the fore- runners of a mighty host advancing from Babylon 5
ISRAEL, IIISTOllY OF
ISRAEL, HISTORY OF
516
One subject remains to be noticed, viz. the attitude of the builders of the temple towards the Samaritans. According to Ezr 4-'- (a passage due to the compiler of the book) Zerubbabel and Jeshua peremptorily rejected the ofl'er of the 'adversaries (D'-iii zartm, 'rivals') of Judah and Benjamin' to co-operate in the rebuilding. Clieyne, on the contrary, characterizes the story of rejection as 'pure imagination,' and asserts that the Samari- tans maintained their connexion with the holy place ■ till Nehemiah, armed with a Persian lir- man, interpo.sed' {JRL p. 20).
After the completion of the temple a break of nearly sixty years occurs in our records, and when they speak again the Davidic line which Zerub- babel nad represented has disappeared. Some critics (e.g. Cheyne and Sellin) partly lill the gap with a reconstniction which represents Zerubbabel as the accepted Messiah of the Jews, a rebel against Persian authority, and a martyr whose martyrdom ruined all the political prospects of the house of David. Cheyne refers Zee 6"'" (in a revised text) to the coronation and reign of Zerub- babel (JRL p. 14 f.), and Sellin thinks that he is meant by the Sutl'ering Servant of Is 52"-53'^. The ruin of the walls of Jerusalem, which Nehe- miah deplored (Neh P), may have been part of the vengeance taken by the Persians (or their deputies) on the Messianic kmgdom of Zerubbabel.