• Van Hoonacker (Zorobabel, 63 ff., Xouvelles Etudes, 106 ft.) labours hard, but it seems to us unsuccessfully, to put a differ ent interpretation on the language of Haggai and Zechariah.
i
ZERUBBABEL
ZIBA
979
as HnOST"*"!"^*?' (This is pure tkncy ; the Interchange of '.T and D to so comiooD as to be a very precarious foundation for an arpument of any weipht), Inil'»ert is even able to tell us that ihe Honk of Ezra orlpinaily contained an account of ibe building and the destruction of Sheshbaz/ar's temple, but that a later genemtion .■^uppre^sed this, supiilyin^ its [ilaee by the li>t of names in Kzr2. which was borrowed from Neh 7. it Is needless tn say that fur all this there is not the slightest historical evidence.
The Darius, then, with whom Zerub. was contemporary, was beyond ail reasonable doubt Darius llystaspis.
How long Zerub. occupied a position subordinate to Slie.shbazzar we do not know, but in the begin- ning of the reign of Darius he was peJiah or governor of Judah (liag 1 '"etc.). His history suh.sequeiit to the liuilding of the temple is involved in hoixlo.ss ob.scurity. He is not named even in connixion with the dedication (Kzr U'^"). A Jewi.sh tradition relates that he leturned to IJabylon and died there. It is possible that Darhis. after the troubles that broke out during his reign, may have preferred to have a scion of the ancient dj-nasty of Israel under his eye rather than run the risk of his pre.sence in .Ju<l<ea .stimulating projects for the restoration of the Davidic moii.archy. Of the sons of Zerub. (1 Ch o''-"') we know absolutely nothing. Zerub. is mentioned in Sir 48'' in ' the praise of famous men.'
In recent years new interest has been given to the personality of Zerubbabel by the extremely able and ingenious work of Sellin, Serubhahel : ein lieitnifj zur Gesch. der mi.isinn. Erwartiini/ mid der Entstehunrj /Ips Jiidenthums. \iiUS. Sellin seeks to make out that, at the instigation of the prophets Haggai and Zechariali (cf. Hag '2'-", Zech 4'8"''), Zerub. was actually raised to the throne of Judah, and the Mes.sianic kingdom thus .set up, but that he was soon overthrown by the Persians and put to death. The martyr king was even sup- posed by Sellin to be the suffering Servant of Is H:). The evidence in support of these conclusions is very skilfully mar.shalled, but one has a feeling that fancy plays too large a part in Sellin's recon- struction of the post-exilic historj', and. so far as the argument rests upon Is oSand kindred pa.ssages, it will have no weight with tho.se (and their number is increasing) who refuse to see in the Servant an individual instead of a rollertive sense (cf. esp. Kd. Kiinig, The Ej-Hi-s' Rnnk af Consolation, 18!l!t, and I5ud(le. Die noiiftiannlen Ehi-d-Jalaci'-Lirdrr, 1!)00). [The identitication of the Servant with Zerubbabel is abandoned by Sellin in liis Stndien zur Entsleh- ■unqnyisch. der jud. Gemeinde nach dcm Bab. Exil, 1!K)1].
The investigations of Profe.ssor Kosters led him to conclusions which, if accepted, involve a complete recasting of the traditional opinions about the Helurn from exile, and the influence of that event upon Israel's sulwcquent history. Founding partly on tlie undoubted fact that a great many .ludahitcs were never carried into exile at all, Kosters contended that the temple was rebuilt, not by the returned exiles, but by the peojile of the land (at the generally accepted date ')20-'>IG). While Driver and Hyle are satis- fied that the Chronicler gives in Ezr ;!"-'■' a sub- stantially correct account of what transpircil, Cheyne accepts Kosters' results. He agrees, in- deed, with Wildeboer, that Kosters went too far in denying that any exiles at all returned at the acces.sion of Cyrus, but is of opinion th.at the real Kiturn was not till that headed by Ezra at Xehe- miah's second visit (t'W). The story of the Return and the building of the temple a-s told by the Chronicler is, upon Kosters' theory, constructed with a view to glorifying the ijofa (exiles) at the expense of the ^am-hd'dnz (people of the land). Zerubbabel and .leshua may have tlone all that is recorded of them, but they need never have been
in Babylon at all. Kosters' conclusions have been combated, especially by Wellh., Ed. Meyer, and van Hoonacker (see Literature below), from different points of view, and it may be safely asserted that, if it has been the fjushion to attribute too much to the gola and too little to the remnant of Judah, the brilliant Leyden professor went to the opposite extreme.
LiTEBATUEE. — KueueD, Z>e dtronologie ran het PerziHche tiidcuk. IMio [<;fMim. Abhani/I. Slair.J; de Saulcv. J?/»</« chronot. (Ux livrtfi <t'K«d. et Xefi. IsiIn; lnii>ert. /.e tentjjle recoiiil. pur Zorob. 18SS ; Stadc, OVJ (1*SS). ii. 9b (T. ; Driver, LOT' USS*^), p. M5ff. ; Uvle, izru and Sehemiah (Camb. Bible). 1S93 ; Iloworth, ' keal character and importance of 1 K.sdras' in Academij. 189.3, pp. 18, Cll. lOli, 174, 826. bii. see also I'SBA x.\iii. 147. 305; A. van Hoonacker. Zvrobabei et le Heeond tem/.U, lv.12; Wellhausen, UW (1S'.I7), p. 157 (T. ; Schurer, (i.lV' (1S9S), ii. 827 ff. (IIJP II. 111. 177 IT.): P. Ilav Hunter, After tlit Exile (1890). i. .'lO f., 1,% f., 219 f. ; C. 0. Torrey, The ComjwHitiotl and I/int. Vattte of Ezr.-Seh. !s90; t-avce, IlCil .WJtr.; Schrader. 'Die Dauer dcs zweiten Tempelbiiues,' in .S'A', 1867, pp. 460-.')U4 (the first notable attack on the historicity of Ezr 3 ; Schrader's view has been adojited by Kuenen, J>tade, Marti, Ryssel, Konifr. and many others), twosters' epoch-makinir work, Ilet fiernttt ran Inratl in fitt PerziHche tijdralc, lsy4, was criticised by Wellhausen upon the whole adversely (tlioui;h he concedes a pood deal to him), in '/'/-\'( l^y.^. No'. 2, ' Die liuckkehr der .Juden aus dem bab. E.\il ' [to which Ko.^lers replied in TliT. 1895. p. 549 ft'.]), and has met with much no)re uncompromising opposition from van Hoonacker (XotlvelleH Ettiilftt unr /a rextauratiiin juive, 1S96, cf. also his art. ' The lleturn of llie Jews underCyrus,* in Kjrpos. TimeK,\u\, [ls97] .351 IT,), and Kil. Meyer {FInMrliitn{t den Judenthunm, Is'Jtl; Meyer was severely criticise«i by Wellh. in GGA, 1-S97, p. S9 if., and rejilied in a pamphlet, '.lulius Wellhausen und meine Sohrift hie Kntntefi luiij de>i Judenthumn,^ the controversy turn- Inj; especially iijion the genuineness of the documents professedly <juoted by the Chronicler, which is alTirmed by Meyer apainst Kosters and Wellhausen). As was noted above, Kosters' con- clusions have been largely accepted by Wildeboer, Lit. d. AT. 411 f., 419 f., ancl Chevne, Inirod. to /miah. .\.\.\iii-.\.\.xix, J/iL 5 ft. ' J, A. Selbie.