INTRODUCTION
40,000 of E ii., but those who had escaped deportation (cf. Zeph. ii. 7, 9, Jer. xlii. 2, 15, &c, see Jahn, p. xxxviii.). Zerubbabel is the one to rebuild and complete the undertaking (Zech. iv. 8–10, vi. 12 seqq.). The people fetch wood and the work is begun on the twenty-fourth of the sixth month (Hag. i. 14 seq.); as yet one stone had not been set upon another (ii. 15). The foundations are laid on the twenty-fourth of the ninth month (ii. 10–19), an d two years later, in 518, Zech. viii. 9 seqq. look back upon the happier period which had thus been inaugurated. But the exilic fasts were still being celebrated (vii. 3–5), the return of the dispersed was still an event to be anticipated. From these data it is reasonable to infer—with an influential number of scholars—that 'no considerable band of exiles can have returned—none that was able materially to influence the Jewish community' (Cheyne, Ency. Bib., 1481 n. 4).
(c) Objections. Various counter-arguments, influenced by the chronicler's history in E-N, have been brought forward (see p. 6 n. 1). Those based upon a representation of events which has perplexed a generation of scholars naturally tend to beg the question. For example, it is urged that the prophets address returned exiles and it was unnecessary to describe the people as such; that they do not say that the builders were not returned exiles; that only E i.–iii. explain the events of 520-516 and subsequent history; that the Temple could not have been built by the native 'heathen' Judaeans; that the main stream of Jewish life had been diverted to Babylon and only the presence of a Babylonian 'leaven' explains the prophecies of Hag. and Zech. While some scholars recognize and seek to explain the silence of the prophets touching a return and rebuilding before 520, others contend that there are indeed references to these events. Some, observing the profound difference between the promises of the 'Deutero-Isaiah' (xl.–lv.) and the history in E iii. seq., are of opinion that, since 'the reality was a bitter disenchantment,' the disillusionment so great, the prophets naturally do not refer to the events. But others argue that unless these promises had been essentially fulfilled there would have been so fatal a falsification of popular expectation that the oracles of Is. xl. seqq. would scarcely have survived. It is obvious that the preservation of prophecies is hardly conditioned by their fulfilment, however partial, and the difference between the anticipations and the reality was surely sufficient, on the most conservative view, to throw Is. xl. seqq. into oblivion. Haggai, it is objected, ignores a future return and may well have ignored previous events—but his contemporary Zech. excludes a previous return, testifies to the continuation of the exile, and looks forward to a return. The argumentum e silentio is undoubtedly valid. Zech. (i. 2–6), in appealing to the people to repent, alludes to past experience, but does not refer to the return—which would have been the most immediate proof of the might of Yahweh. Was there a wish to put courage into the poor hearts of the returned exiles? There was one practical illustration of divine grace, but there is no allusion to it. In fact, the urgent supplication to Yahweh (i. 12) is unintelligible had a new era dawned as in E i.–iii.; one may note Daniel's prayer for divine intervention (Dan. ix., cf. also N i.) and the prayers of E after his return (E ix. 8, N ix. 30 seq.). In point of fact, Zech. sees the punishment and misery of the past (vii.), and the 'decalogue of promises' belong to the future (viii.). Did the prophets intentionally refrain from mentioning the material help the exiles had received in the time of Cyrus, in order to emphasize the necessity of relying upon spiritual help? The very passage which has been quoted in support of this view refers to the small beginnings recently inaugurated by Zerubbabel (iv. 6, 9 seq.), and ignores E i.–iv.
There is no explanation of the gap between 537 and 520; there is no hint of any hindrance, cessation, or of any more or less continuous rebuilding (see § 6 a): the people are negligent and remiss, and according to Haggai the distress caused by the failure of the rains was a punishment for not rebuilding the Temple (i., cf. 2 Sam. xxi. 1–10, Zech. xiv. 17). It hardly required a Babylonian exile to teach this. Haggai certainly refers to an altar (ii. 14, 'there'), but this does not prove the accuracy of E iii. 3 or its context. A holy place is not necessarily deserted when the sanctuary is ruined, and Jer. xli. 5 already presupposes an altar; to contend that the existence of this altar throughout the exile ought to have been mentioned in the O.T. is unreasonable. Indeed, the references to priests and sacrifices (Hag. ii. 10-14, cf. Zech. vii. 3 seqq.) go further and suggest that the cult of Yahweh was independent even of the existence of a Temple (cf. Sellin, Stud. 53 seq.; Torrey, 305). There is, moreover, no good reason for believing that native Judaeans would be 'heathenish', and that if they had rebuilt the Temple they would have been treated otherwise by the reformers E and N. If Jer. and Ezek. bear witness to low religious conditions, Hag., Mal., and Is. lvi.—lxvi. indicate no great improvement after the return; and the degenerate community which all scholars recognize in the latter sources and which needed the reforms of E and N include—on the traditional view—the Babylonian 'leaven.' Yet the Judaeans and Samaritans felt themselves to be heirs of Israel and the latter could claim to worship Yahweh (2 Kings xvii. 32 seq., 41, Jer. xli. 5, Ezek. xxxiii. 24, E iv. 2). The fall of Jerusalem and the Exile do not exclude the presence—even among 'the poorest of the land'—of men who might follow in the footsteps of the Rechabites (Jer. xxxv.), or of such seers as Amos, Hosea, Micah or Jeremiah; and considering the piety of the Jews in distant Elephantine (Sachau-papyri), there is clearly no necessity to deny the possibility of the continuous worship of Yahweh during the exile, or to demand after 538 the presence of a 'leaven' which nevertheless did not preclude the abuses confronting E, N, Mal., and the writers in Is. lvi. seqq. It is obviously impossible to start with presuppositions of what was orthodox Yahwism and what was heathenism whether in Elephantine or in Palestine (before or after 536). If, too, Meyer's argument (177) is valid, that the Levitical family of Henadad (E iii. 9, wanting in E ii.) was indigenous, indigenous also was the family of Iddo to which Zech. belonged (see E vi. 1); and this scholar's recognition of the prominence in and around Jerusalem of Calebite and other families who had never tasted exile (see § 5 c) is extremely important for any estimate of the internal conditions. The evidence of Hag. and Zech. outweighs other evidence which might appear to
7
