According to Ezr 3-4° (narrative of the Chroni- cler), Zerubbc.bel, along with Jeshua the high priest
" Howorth (Academy, 1893, p. 174 f.) is wrong in asserting that the first four verses of Ezr 4 are not found in the parallel tiassage in 1 Esdras. Strangely enough, Sayce {IlCil 543) falls into the same mistake. As a matter of fact, Ezr 4^-^ = 1 Es
6B;t.8S.
and others, soon after their arrival in Jerusalem (in the seventh month) set tip an altar for burnt- offerings, kept the Feast of Tabernacles, and took steps for the rebuilding of the temple, whose foun- dations were laid in the second month of the second year of their arrival, amidst ceremonies which the Chronicler describes in his characteristic fashion (3'""). Owing, however, to the opposition of ' the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin,' this act was followed by seventeen years of inactivity, until, in the second year of Darius (B.C. 520), and largely owing to the stimulus supplied by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, the work was resumed in earnest (Ezr 5'). A new delay, occa- sioned by the suspicions of Tattenai, ' governor on this side the river,' and others, was ended by an appeal to Darius himself, who ordered that the work should be allowed to proceed (6'"). The temple was finished and dedicated four years later (6'").
(a) There has been much discussion as to the date when the foundation of the temple was really laid. In Ezr 3^'. this is distinctly asserted to have been done by Zerub. and Jeshua in the second year after their arrival in Palestine (i.«. 637X On the other hand, it certainly appears from Ezr 62, Hag li«. 215-18^ Zee 89, that the foundation was not laid till seventeen years later (520). • The discrepancy may be removed by the suggestion of Driver (LOTS 647) that tlie ceremony of Ezr 3' was of so purely /on/mi a character that Haggai could afford to ignore it. It is quite conceivable that the fulfilment of the project formed in 537 haii to be postponed till 520, for, not to speak of the opposition of the Samaritans (Ezr 41f), the character of Cambyses (529-522), the successor of Cyrus, and notably his expedition to Egj-pt (627), would be unfavourable to the prosecution of the building. Others (see Literature below) prefer to suppose that the Chronicler, for obvious reasons, ante- dated the lajing of the foundation by over fifteen years, while on the other hand he did substantial justice to the real course of events by representing the work of building as not seriously taken in hand till the second year of Diirius.
(b) A more serious question is raised by Havet (' La modernity des proph^tes' in lieime des deux mondes, 1889, p. 799fl.), Inibert (Ae tevipU reconstruit par Zorobabel, 1888), and Howorth {^Acad<inij, ISO:!), who contend that the Darius of Kzr 45-'^ is not Darius Hystaspis (622-485), as we have hitherto taken for granted, but Darius Nothus (424-404). The rebuilding of the temple is thus brought down a whole century (422 instead of 620). The strongest argument in support of this theory is the mention in Ezr46 7 of Ahasueru8(r.e. Aerxes)and Artaxerxes ( I.nngiinanns) in such a way as apparently to imply that Darius of i" is Nothus. But it has long been suspected (cf. Driver. iOr6 647f. ; Comill, i'infeit.'^ 268) that the section Ezr 4«-23 i* out of place and should follow ch. 6. It really refers to event* that happened in the time of Nehemiah, and describes opposition to the rebuilding, not of the temple but of the city and ualU. How the Chronicler came to insert this section where he did, ie a question we will not undertake to answer ; but that even he was capable of supposing that a century elapsed between 41, when Zerub. and Jeshua stand at the head of the community, and 61, when under their ilirections the building of the temple i* pushed on, is inconceivable.
The only other reason for identifying Darius with Nothus i» found in Ezr el-" 'according to the decree of Cyrus and Darius and Artazerxes king of I'ersia.' But it is abundantly evident from the context that Artaxerxes is here an interpolation due to prolep/iis on the part of a scribe who had in his mind the services rendered to the Jews by that monarch in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. The identity of the Darius of Ezr 4'." with Hystaspis is further evident from Zee 17- 12, where the 70 years must date from either 697 or 580, and in either case 70 (a round number) will bring us to the reign of this king. Apart from anv other consideration, is it credible that a whole century wo'uld have been suffered to elapse between the Return and the rebuilding of the temple, seeing that the latter institution had since Josiah's reforms assumed such importance ? The Chronicler could not in his narrative allow seventeen years, not to speak of a century, to pass before steps were taken to restore the building, hence perhaps his statement that the foundations were laid shortly after the Return, and about the same time as the altar was re-erected. So clearly does Imbert perceive the force of these considerations, that he admits that shortly after the Return a temple was built hi/ Sheshbazzar, which was afterwards destroyed, when or by whom we are not told, and then finally came Zerub., a contemporary of Darius Nothus, and restored it* Imbert most arbitrarily alters the text of Ezr 6" so as to read •Darius the son 0/ Artaxerxcs' instead of 'Darius aTut Arta- xerxes.' The latter, as in Ezr 4, is held to be Longimanus, who, according to Imbert, is distinguished from Mnemon (under whom he places the activity of Ezra and Nehemiah) by haring his name written Nn^pnci^b!, while the latter monarch appears