[562] Ezra iii. 3–7.
[563] Ib. 8–13.
[564] Ezra iv. 7.
[566] iv. 24.
[567] Ezra iv. 24—vi. 15.
[568] There are in the main two classes of such attempts. (a) Some have suggested that the Ahasuerus (Xerxes) and Artaxerxes mentioned in Ezra iv. 6 and 7 ff. are not the successors of Darius I. who bore these names, but titles of his predecessors Cambyses and the Pseudo-Smerdis (see above, p. [190]). This view has been disposed of by Kuenen, Ges. Abhandl., pp. 224 ff., and by Ryle, pp. 65 ff. (b) The attempt to prove that the Darius under whom the Temple was built was not Darius I. (521—485), the predecessor of Xerxes I. and Artaxerxes I. (485—424), but their successor once removed, Darius II., Nothus (423—404). So, in defence of the Book of Ezra, Imbert. For his theory and the answer to it see above, pp. [191] f.
[569] See above, pp. [192] ff.
[570] For his work see above, p. 192, n. [531]. I regret that neither Wellhausen’s answer to it, nor Kosters’ reply to Wellhausen, was accessible to me in preparing this chapter. Nor did I read Mr. Torrey’s resume of Wellhausen’s answer, or Wellhausen’s notes to the second edition of his Isr. u. Jüd. Geschichte, till the chapter was written. Previous to Kosters, the Return under Cyrus had been called in question only by the very arbitrary French scholar M. Vernes in 1889–90.
[571] ii. 6 ff. Eng., 10 ff. Heb.