[572] His chief grounds for this analysis are (1) that in v. 1–5 the Jews are said to have begun to build the Temple in the second year of Darius, while in v. 16 the foundation-stone is said to have been laid under Cyrus; (2) the frequent want of connection throughout the passage; (3) an alleged doublet: in v. 17—vi. 1 search is said to have been made for the edict of Cyrus in Babylon, while in vi. 2 the edict is said to have been found in Ecbatana. But (1) and (3) are capable of very obvious explanations, and (2) is far from conclusive.—The remainder of the Aramaic text, iv. 8–24, Kosters seeks to prove is by the Chronicler or Compiler himself. As Torrey (op. cit., p. 11) has shown, this “is as unlikely as possible.” At the most he may have made additions to the Aramaic document.
[573] Ezra v. 16.
[575] Isa. xliv. 28, xlv. 1. According to Kosters, the statement of the Aramaic document about the rebuilding of the Temple is therefore a pious invention of a literal fulfilment of prophecy. To this opinion Cheyne adheres (Introd. to the Book of Isaiah, 1895, p. xxxviii), and adds the further assumption that the Chronicler, being “shocked at the ascription to Cyrus (for the Judæan builders have no credit given them) of what must, he thought, have been at least equally due to the zeal of the exiles,” invented his story in the earlier chapters of Ezra as to the part the exiles themselves took in the rebuilding. It will be noticed that these assumptions have precisely the value of such. They are merely the imputation of motives, more or less probable to the writers of certain statements, and may therefore be fairly met by probabilities from the other side. But of this more later on.
[576] This is the usual opinion of critics, who yet hold it to be genuine—e.g. Ryle.
[577] He seeks to argue that a List of Exiles returned under Cyrus in 536 could be of no use for Nehemiah’s purpose to obtain in 445 a census of the inhabitants of Jerusalem; but surely, if in his efforts to make a census Nehemiah discovered the existence of such a List, it was natural for him to give it as the basis of his inquiry, or (because the List—see above, p. [203]—contains elements from Nehemiah’s own time) to enlarge it and bring it down to date. But Dr. Kosters thinks also that, as Nehemiah would never have broken the connection of his memoirs with such a List, the latter must have been inserted by the Compiler, who at this point grew weary of the discursiveness of the memoirs, broke from them, and then—inserted this lengthy List! This is simply incredible—that he should seek to atone for the diffuseness of Nehemiah’s memoirs by the intrusion of a very long catalogue which had no relevance to the point at which he broke them off.
[578] Hag. i. 2, 12; ii. 14.
[579] Hag. i. 12, 14; ii. 2; Zech. viii. 6, 11, 12.
[580] Hag. ii. 4; Zech. vii. 5.
[581] Zech. ii. 16; viii. 13, 15.