239 describes in more exact terms the same period that is described in verse 15. In verse 15 the end of the period is the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month, its beginning is some point in the past when the building was not going on, as it was at the time when the prophet was speaking; verse 18 fixes this point in the past as the day when the foundation of the Lord's temple was laid. Kosters, it is true, urges that, even if this interpretation is adopted, the date of the foundation of the temple cannot be placed back of the sixth month of the second year of Darius; but this is pure assumption, and, in the presence of the direct statement of Ezra iii. 8-13, is without any weight. This much at least is certain; Haggai does not assert that the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month was the date of the foundation of the temple. And furthermore, instead of contradicting, he most probably actually refers to this earlier founding.

We conclude, therefore, that, unless better proof can be brought forward than is at hand, there seems to be no need to doubt the essential accuracy of Ezra iii. 8-13. Unfortunately there exists at present no corroborative evidence from the Persian records, which give very little information in regard to the latter years of the reign of Cyrus. But it is not impossible that coming years will furnish the needed corrob

oration.

THE TEMPLE BUILT BY RETURNED EXILES.

We are now prepared to consider the question raised by Professor Kosters, as to who the builders of the temple actually were. In Ezra i. 5 we read, "Then rose up the chief of the fathers of Judah and Benjamin, and the priests, and the Levites, with all those whose spirit God had raised, to go up to build the house of the Lord which is in Jerusalem." This statement is confirmed by i. 11; ii. 8; iv. 1; vi. 16, 19, 21. All these passages assert that the initiative was taken, 1 See Van Hoonacker, ut supra, pp. 77 ff.

and the leading part of the work was done, by the returned exiles, with whom were associated those of the people "who had separated themselves unto them from the filthiness of the heathen of the land." As might be expected, manyhow many it is impossible to say-of the descendants of those who had not been carried away to Babylon joined in the great work of restoration, but it is distinctly stated that returned exiles formed the nucleus of the new community. and the rallying-point for the new movement. In addition to this, the fact of such an early return is confirmed by the references in the book of Nehemiah to those "who went up at the first" or to those "who went up with Zerubbabel."1

The Testimony of the Lists in Ezra ii.; Neh. vii. 7–73. Apparently the strongest argument in favor of the early. return of the exiles is to be found in the list in Ezra ii., which is usually supposed to be a list of those who returned from Babylon to Jerusalem under the leadership of Zerubbabel, in accordance with the decree of Cyrus contained in Ezra i. In spite of the somewhat numerous variations in the two lists, it probably is not seriously questioned by any scholar of the present day, that we have two copies of the same list in Ezra ii. and Nehemiah vii. 7-73. This identity has been satisfactorily proved by various scholars, among whom may be mentioned Bishop Hervey. If this were really a list of exiles who returned with Zerubbabel, further argument would be unnecessary. But many competent scholars deny that this is such a list. Bishop Hervey has argued at considerable length that it contains a list, not of the captives who returned with Zerubbabel, but of the residents of the province of Judæa, in accordance with the results of the census taken by Nehemiah. Hervey's arguments are, it seems to me, conclu

1 Neh. vii. 5; xii. 1.

2 See his art. "Nehemiah," Smith's Dict. of the Bible (Am. ed.), Vol. iii. p. 2094.

sive, and it might perhaps be sufficient to refer to his discussion, and accept his conclusions without further investigation. But, inasmuch as a correct conception of the first stage of the post-exilic history is impossible without an accurate idea of the significance of this list, it seems best to consider the question somewhat in detail. The first point that attracts attention is the title or superscription of the list. According to the heading, this is a list of the "children of the province, that went up out of the captivity, of those which had been carried away [i. e., "the Gola"], whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away, and came again unto Judah and Jerusalem, every one unto his own city." The interpretation adopted by Ryle1 and many other commentators is, that the reference is here to "the Jews inhabiting Jerusalem and its vicinity as distinct from the Jews left in Babylon." The phrase "every one unto his own city," and particularly the statement in Nehemiah vii. 73 (Ezra ii. 70), “all Israel dwelt in their own cities," occasions difficulty on this theory. These words imply that, at the time of the formation of the list, the people had actually come into possession of settled abodes in the land of Judah. Furthermore, while not impossible, yet the interpretation first given is scarcely the natural interpretation of the superscription of the list. Had the author intended to convey that idea, he could have done it more simply by saying, “These are the children of the captivity who went up to the province," etc. The more natural interpretation is unquestionably as follows: these are the inhabitants of the province of Judæa in so far as these inhabitants consisted of returned exiles, in distinction from the other inhabitants of the province who had not been in banishment. In other words, the list does not claim to be a list. of exiles who returned at any one time, but rather of the inhabitants of Judæa and Jerusalem who were returned exiles

1 The Cambridge Bible. Ezra and Nehemiah, edited by H. E. Ryle,

P. 38.

or descendants of returned exiles, and so competent to become members of the new community. This interpretation not only avoids the difficulty occasioned by the statements quoted above, but also agrees admirably with the state of affairs presupposed by them, for it is undoubtedly true that these statements indicate that the settlement in the cities of Judah was an accomplished fact.

Again, the list and the purpose of the offerings as related in Nehemiah vii. 70 furnish a further argument in support of our theory. It is here stated that the chief of the fathers, the Tirshatha, and the rest of the people gave for "the work," or to "the treasury of the work," and among these gifts are included in Ezra ii. 69 one hundred priests' garments. The reference to the priests' garments raises the question as to whether these gifts could have been intended for the rebuilding of the temple, as is ordinarily supposed, and the use of the word "work" leads to the conclusion that the reference here is to gifts for the support of the temple service, to which this word () often refers, especially in the post-exilic literature. The parallel passage in Ezra ii. 68 has a different reading, and says that the people gave "to set up the house of God in its place." But that this does not necessarily mean rebuilding has been conclusively shown by Hervey in the article already mentioned. Almost the same phrase is used in 2 Chron. ix. 8; xxiv. 13, where the reference is certainly not to rebuilding, but to restoration and renovation. The mention of these offerings is incompatible with the idea that the temple is in ruins. The existence of the temple is presupposed. The situation is one that reminds us of the ordinances which the people imposed upon themselves in the time of Nehemiah, in which they pledged themselves not to forsake the house of their God.

1 See Smend, Die Listen der Bücher Ezra und Nehemiah, p. 17.

2 See Neh. x. 34; xi. 12, 16, 22; xiii. 34; 1 Chron. vi. 34; ix. 13, 19, 33; xxii. 4, 24; xxvi. 30; xxviii. 13, 21; 2 Chron. xiii. 10.

8 x. 29-40.

The use of the title Tirshatha in Ezra ii. 63; Neh. vii. 65, 70, while not conclusive, is still not without weight. So far as we know, Nehemiah was the only governor of Judæa who bore this title, and, in close connection with this section, in the book of Nehemiah,1 Nehemiah is expressly called the Tirshatha. Again, the incident referred to in Ezra ii. 59– 63; Neh. vii. 61-65, is better suited to the time of Nehemiah than the time of Zerubbabel. It seems scarcely probable that immediately after the return, and before any work had been done, the people should set themselves about excluding certain of their number from their ranks. But at the time of Nehemiah in connection with the formation of the new community there was great need for such an act.

On this theory the occurrence of the names of Nehemiah and of Azariah,2 who is perhaps the same as Ezra, in the list of the twelve leaders of the return, finds a satisfactory explanation. At the time of the formation of the list in the later period, Nehemiah and Ezra had proved their right to stand next to Zerubbabel and Jeshua among the leaders of the Jewish restoration.

Against this conclusion the only argument of any weight which can be urged is that Nehemiah seems to state that he gives the list as he found it. Hervey avoids the difficulty by urging that Nehemiah quotes merely the title of the older list which he found,3 while with vii. 7 he begins his own list. The difficulty is not so great when one realizes that we see here traces of the compiler's work, and further, it seems incredible that Nehemiah should have stated that he called the people together to make the census, and then simply have given the old list which he found. The position of the list in the book of Ezra is also urged as an argument against this view which we have adopted, but it cannot be regarded as of much weight. The composite character of Ezra i.-vi. must probably be accepted as a well-established fact, and it ought not to occa