The reasons alleged on the other side may be thus stated. 1. In Ezra iv., between the edict of Cyrus for the return of the exiles and rebuilding of the temple, and that of Darius for the completion of the work after its discontinuance, two Persian kings are named, 'Hhashwerosh and Artahh shashta : which the names on the Zendic monu ments will not permit us to apply to other kings than Xerxes and his son' (Dr. Mill, a. s. 153, note). The Persian history, as related by the Greeks, and the Astronomical Canon, give three names in succession, Xerxes, Artaxerxes I., Darius II. ; Ezra, in like manner, three, 'Hhashwerosh, Artahhshashta, and Daryawesh. By those who hold this last to be Darius, son of Hystaspes, the two first are commonly supposed to be Cam byses and the impostor Smerdis, whom Justin (i. 9) calls Oropasta, Ctesias (de reb. Pers. to) Sphendadates, who reigned under the name of Cambyses's younger brother Tany-oxarces. See Ewald, Gesch. des V I. iv. St and 118. But nowhere on monuments is Cambyses called Khsh yarsha, or Smerdis Artakashasha : the former is constantly Kabujiya (Pers.), Kambudsiya (Bab.), Kembath (hierogl.) ; the latter Bart'iya (Pers.), Bardsija (Bab.) Moreover, as Artahhshashta (or — shasht) elsewhere in Ezra and Neh. is con stantly Artaxerxes, and it scarcely admits of a doubt that 'Hhashwerosh in Esther is Xerxes, it would be strange if these two names were here ap plied to other quite different kings.
The true explanation of this difficulty, proposed long ago by a writer of our own (Mr. Howes), and adopted by Dr. Hales, has been recently put forward by Bertheau in the kg1: exeget. Hdb. on Ezra, Neh., and Esth., 1862, p. 69-73. This writer had for merly upheld the more usual view, Beitrdge zu der Gesch. der fsr. p. 396 ; so had Vaihinger in Studien a. Kritiken 1854, p. 124, who ibid. 1857, P. 87, abandons it for the other. See also Schultz, Cyrus der Grosse in the Stud. a. Krit. 1853, P. 624, and Bunsen, Bibelwerk. It is clear that, as in iv. 24, the narrative returns to the point at which it stood in verse 5, in the interposed portion it either goes back to times before Darius, for the purpose of supplying omitted matter, or goes forward to record the successful machinations of the people of the land under subsequent kings, Xerxes and Artax erxes I. But nothing in the contents of v. 6-23 intimates a reverting to an earlier time. After reading of Darius we naturally take for granted that Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes are later than he. It appears that the adversaries had succeeded in hindering the building of the Temple till the second year of Darius. In the beginning of the next reign (Xerxes) they `wrote an accusation,' the purport and issue of which arc not recorded. In the follow ing reign mention is made of another letter ad dressed to Artaxerxes, its contents not specified ; hut a second letter to the same king is given in extenso, together with the royal rescript. It is re presented to the king that the Jews are building the city, and have set up the walls thereof, and joined (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' arc 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 re
presentations given by Hag. and Zech. from their own observation, nothing implies that quite re cently the people had been actively engaged in the work of rebuilding either city walls or Temple, as according to these documents they had been, if Artahhshashta 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, Since that time even until now (2 Darius) hath it (the Temple) been in building, and yet it is not fin ished,' with the assumption that the work had been peremptorily stopt by command of Smerdis. But it is certain that at some time between the 7th and the loth year of Artaxerxes some great reverse befel the colonists, in consequence of which 'the wall of Jeru salem was broken down, and the gate thereof burned with fire,' Neh. i. 3 (for it is absurd to imagine that this can relate to the desolation effected by Nebu chadnezzar a hundred and forty years before); and the documents under consideration shew what that reverse was. It was the result of that rescript of Artaxerxes, in virtue of which Rehum and Shim shai and their companions went up to Jerusalem to the Jews,' and made them to cease by force and power' (Ezr. iv. 23); to cease from walling the city (ver. 21) not from building the Temple, which was finished long before. So far, all is plain and con sistent. But at verse 24, with the word int.t; at that time,' prop. at the same time,' arises the diffi culty. Were the last clause of verse 5, until the reign of Darius,' absent, the obvious import would be, that at the time when the order from Artaxerxes caused the building of cite wall to cease, the work of rebuilding the Temple ceased also, and consequently that Darius (ver. 24) reigned after Aha suerus and Artaxerxes. But as this view is beset with insuperable difficulties, in whichever way it is taken, i.e., alike whether Darius be supposed the first or the second of that name, we are forced by the necessity of the case to conclude that ver. 24 refers not to what immediately precedes, but to the time spoken of above, vers. 4, 5, and that the whole passage from vers. 6 to 23 is digression. Having shewn how the machinations of the peo ple of the land' prevailed for a time to delay the rebuilding of the Temple, the narrative breaks off at that point to notice their subsequent, also for a while successful, plottings against the building of the city and its walls. If the irtN; can only refer to the matter immediately preceding, we must either accept the consequences, part incredible and absurd, part directly opposed to statements of the contemporary prophets, or charge it as an error upon the redactor of this book, that he inserted vers. 6-23 in the wrong place (so Kleinert in the Dorpat Beitrage zu den Meal. fr/issensch. 1832). Considered as a prolepsis, it is, as Bertheau remarks, less striking than that which occurs in vi. 14: 'and they budded and finished (the Temple, viz, in 6 Darius) . . according to the commandment of Cyrus and Darius, and Artaxerxes, king of Persia.' 2. A second reason alleged by Dr. Mill (it. s. p. 165, note) is the circumstance, that in the next ascent from Babylon, that of Ezra himself, . .