I ESDRAS
the furtherance of religious conditions, the separation from the Samaritans and other non-Israelite neighbours, and the inauguration of a church under the Mosaic Law. It is the period during which a considerable portion of the O.T., after passing through the hands of Judaean writers and editors, was reaching its present form, and the sole consecutive canonical source for this period, the chronicler's work, cannot be dated before the Greek age (333 B.C.). This source ignores all events between 586 and the decree of Cyrus, and omits other details which also refer to the period (see e.g. 2 Kings xxv. 22–30, Jer. xl.–xliv., lii. 28–34, Daniel, Esther). This feature, like the failure to record the history of (north) Israel after the fall of Samaria, cannot be wholly unintentional. Interest is concentrated upon exiles and reformers from Babylon, and upon their labours in rebuilding the Temple and in purifying religious and social conditions in the face of opposition within and without. A new and reformed Jewish community with its new Temple is linked historically with the old Judah of the Monarchy and the Temple of Solomon. The climax is reached partly in the great Covenant inaugurated by Ezra (N x.), after the Introduction of the Law (444 B.C.), and partly in the Samaritan schism initiated by Nehemiah (N xiii.). But such are the gaps and the one-sided standpoints that the records cannot be said to give us objective history. We have, rather, specific representations of certain events of vast importance for post-exilic Judaism, and, just as the account of the settlement of the old Israelite tribes in the land of their ancestors is found to contain conflicting traditions and the gravest difficulties, so also here, the compilation as a whole is dominated by certain larger views which tend to obscure the contradictions and intricacies that arise in any critical study of the data. In both cases the method of criticism is similar, and unfortunately the evidence is frequently insufficient for any confident recovery of the actual events during that period which is of such profound importance for the study of the O.T.[1]
II. The Age of Cyrus and Darius.
(a) Paucity of trustworthy evidence. It is evident that the fall of Jerusalem could not have had the catastrophic effects that the traditional view assumes. We cannot picture Judah between 586 and 537 as half-empty.[2] Neither the number of deported Judaeans nor that of those who returned points to any depopulation, and even the events under Gedaliah's governorship and the account of the flight of the survivors into Egypt indicate that the disasters ending in 586, when taken by themselves, had no ruinous consequences for the land. Subsequent history is ignored in Chron., but it is known that Jehoiachin in later years received some favour, and that Tyre had once more a king. The thread is resumed in E i.–vi. (E ii.–vii.), in the reigns of Cyrus and Darius, but the narratives contain serious difficulties and conflicting representations (§ 6, a) which are increased by the independent prophecies of Haggai and Zech. i.-viii. (see on E ii. 1 seqq.). Not until we reach the time of Artaxerxes are the sources more extensive, and the light they throw upon preceding years renders the value of E i.–vi. extremely doubtful. That is to say, between 586 and 458 (E's return), or rather 444 (N's first visit to Jerusalem), there is a lengthy period of the greatest significance for the internal history leading up to Judaism and Samaritanism, and the only continuous source is both scanty and untrustworthy (see Marq., 67, Torrey, 156, and, partly, Meyer, 74).
(b) The evidence of the prophets. The prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah, dated in the second year of Darius, 520, mention neither any previous important return nor any earlier attempt to rebuild the Temple. Zerubbabel now resumes dynastic history (Hag. ii. 23, contrast Jehoiachin, Jer. xxii. 24), and the high-priest Jeshua (grandson of Seraiah, 2 Kings xxv. 18–21), whose return in Dan. ix. 24–26 dates an epoch, is now officially installed. Yahweh had been angry seventy years (Zech. i. 12, cf. Jer. xxix. 10 seq., Dan. ix. 2); but is aroused and returns to Jerusalem (i. 16, ii. 10–13; contrast his departure in Ezek. x. 18 seq., xi. 23). He is jealous for Zion and full of wrath against her enemies; they shall be punished and his people shall enjoy increased happiness (i. 15, ii. 9). City and temple shall be rebuilt and the land re-inhabited (i. 16 seq., ii. 4, cf. vii. 7). The dispersed shall be rescued and again dwell in Jerusalem. The community in Babylon is bidden to escape to Zion (ii. 7, cf. Jer. li. 45). Babylon is threatened (vi. 1–8), and a passage which suggests that small bands of exiles might occasionally return heralds the forthcoming building of the temple (vi. 9–15). Haggai declares that the Temple is waste (i. 4, 9, hārēb, cf. the term in N ii. 3, 17) and he stirs the people to the work of rebuilding. The appeal is to the 'remnant' (i. 12, 14, ii. 2, cf. Zech. viii. 6), that is, not the
- ↑ Modern criticism is influenced by the radical conclusions of W. H. Kosters and the forcible defence by E. Meyer (Entstehung) whose own position, however, is in many respects opposed to the purely traditional; see S. R. Driver, Lit. 552 (and on the introductory literary questions, ib. 544 seqq.). A striking advance has recently been made by Torrey (Ezra Studies), to whose work the present writer gratefully records his indebtedness, and since reasons are given in these pages for adopting certain radical conclusions of Kosters, Torrey, and others, it may be well to refer readers to the writings (see § 8) of Davies, Driver, Holzhey, Jampel, Nikel, Ryle, and G. A. Smith, for the arguments adduced in support of a generally consistent traditional position.
- ↑ See Wellhausen, GGN, 1895, p. 185 seq.; Kosters, Th. T. xxix. 560; G. A. Smith, Jerusalem, ii. 268; Torrey, 290 seq., 297 seqq.; Kennett, Journ. Theol. Stud., 1905, pp. 172 seqq.
6
