The true explanation of this difficulty, proposed long ago by Mr. Howes, and adopted by Dr. Hales, has been recently put forward by Bertheau (in the Kurzgefoit, exegeU Hdb. on Ezra, Neh., and Esther, 1862, p. 69-78). This writer had formerly upheld the more usual view {BeUrdge gu der Guch. dor Itr, p. 896) ; so had Vaihinger Qn the Studien u, Kritikeity 1854, p. 124), who (ib, 1857, p. 87) abandons it for the other. (See also Schultz, CyrutderGrotie, in the Stud, u, KrU, 1853, p. 624, and Bunsen, Bibehoerk), It is clear that, as in iv, 24, the narhttive returns to the point at which it stood in Terse 5 ; in the interposed portion it either goes .back to times before Darius, for the purpose of supplying omitted matter, or ffoet forwixrd to record the successful machinations of the people of the land under subsequent kings, Xerxes and Artaxerxes I. But nothing in the contents of ver. 6-28 intim&tes a reverting to an earlier time. After reading of Darius we naturally take for granted that Ahasuerus and Ar- taxerxes are later than he. It appears that the ad- versaries had succeeded in hindering the building of the Temple till the second year of Darius. In the be- ginning of the next reign (Xerxes) they ** wrote an accusation," the purport and issue of which are not re- corded. In the following reign mention is made of another letter addressed to Artaxerxes, its contents not specified ; but a second letter to the same king is given m extemo^ together with the royal rescript. It is represented to the king that the Jews are building the city, and have ** set up the walls thereof, and join- ed (excavated) the foundations." The rescript orders that this work be made to cease. Not a word is said of the Temple. It may indeed be alleged that the ** walls" are part of it, intended for its defence; but with their straitened resources the builders would hardly attempt more than was essential to the fabric itself. Besides, in the representations given by Hag. and Zech. from their own observation, nothing implies that quite recentiy the people had been actively en- gaged in the work of rebuilding either city walls or Temple, as according to these documents they had been, if Artachshashta be the impostor Smerdis with his brief reign of a few months ; nor, again, is it pos- sible to reconcile the statement in Ezra v, 16, '* Shice that time even until now (2 Darius) hath it (the Tem- ple) been in building, and yet it is not finished," with the assumption that the work had been peremptorily stopped by command of Smerdis. But it is certain that at some time between the 7th and the 20th year of Artaxerxes some great reverse befel the colonists, in consequence of which ** the wall of Jerusalem was broken down, and the gate thereof burned with fire," Keh. i, 3 (for it is absurd to imagine that this can relate to the desolation effected by Nebuchadnezzar a hun- dred and forty 3rear8 before), and the documents under consideration show what that reverse was. It was the result of that rescript of Artaxerxes, in virtue of which '*Rehum and Shimshai and their companions went up to Jerusalem to the Jews,'* and made them to cease by force and power" (Ezra iv, 28) ; to cease from walling the city (ver. 21), not fit>m building the Tem- ple, which was finished long before. So far, all is plain and consistent. But at ver. 24, with the word
I^^K^, "at that time," prop. «'at On taw in. arises the difficulty. Were the last danse of tbkI '* until the reign of Darius," absent, the obvioB » port would be, that at the time when the <ndv fac Artaxerxes caused the building of the wall Xm one the work of rebuilding the Temple cettsed ake. o. oonsequentiy that Darius (ver. 24) reigned after li»- uerus and .Ajtaxerxes. But as this view is beeeirr insuperable difficulties, in wliichever way k is aka i. e. alike whether Darius l>e supposed to be tb ^ or the second of that name, we are forced by theBtes- sity of the case to conclude that ver. 24 refcn loct what immediately precedes, but to the time spokn d above ver. 4, 5, and that the whole paaesiee fits vf 6 to 23 is digression. Having shown bow Uie BXfr nations of **the people of the land" prevailed fir tea to delay the rebuilding of the Temple, the osmN" breaks off at that point to notice their sobsequpet A for a while successful, plottings against the biSfift of the city and its wiUs. If the 'i^'^K^ cob cnljirfi to the matter immediately preceding we must c£r accept the consequences, part incredible and sIp^. part direcUy opposed to statements of the eosteo^ rary prophets, or charge it as an error upon the Rec- tor of this book, that he inserted ver. 6-28 in tht vna: place (so Kleinert in the DoTi>at Beitrage xndm^tti Wiuentek, 1832). Considered as a prolepsis, it a. a Berthean remarks, less striking tlmn ttiat vlsck <k- curs in vi, 14: "and they bnilded and finkbed (a* Temple, viz. in 6 Darius) . . . acctnding to ths om- mandment of CjrmB and Darius, amd Artaxena^is:^ of Persia."