The Expositor's Bible: The Book of the Twelve Prophets, Vol. 2: Commonly Called the MinorSmith, George Adam
Religion
The Expositor's Bible: The Book of the Twelve Prophets, Vol. 2: Commonly Called the Minor
Smith, George Adam
Bible. Minor Prophets -- Commentaries
We may at once concede that in Haggai and Zechariah there is nothing
which necessarily implies that the Jews had made any beginning to build
the Temple before the start recorded by Haggai in the year 520. The one
passage, Haggai ii. 18, which is cited to prove this[598] is at the
best ambiguous, and many scholars claim it as a fixture of that date
for the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month of 520.[599] At the same
time, and even granting that the latter interpretation of Haggai ii. 18
is correct, there is nothing in either Haggai or Zechariah to make it
impossible that a foundation-stone had been laid some years before, but
abandoned in consequence of the Samaritan obstruction, as alleged in
Ezra iii. 8-11. If we keep in mind Haggai’s and Zechariah’s silence
about the Return from Babylon, and their very natural concentration
upon their own circumstances,[600] we shall not be able to reckon their
silence about previous attempts to build the Temple as a conclusive
proof that these attempts never took place. Moreover the Aramaic
document, which agrees with our two prophets in assigning the only
effective start of the work on the Temple to 520,[601] does not deem it
inconsistent with this to record that the Persian Satrap of the West of
the Euphrates[602] reported to Darius that, when he asked the Jews why
they were rebuilding the Temple, they replied not only that a decree of
Cyrus had granted them permission,[603] but that his legate Sheshbazzar
had actually laid the foundation-stone upon his arrival at Jerusalem,
and that the building had gone on without interruption from that time
to 520.[604] This last assertion, which of course was false, may have
been due either to a misunderstanding of the Jewish elders by the
reporting Satrap, or else to the Jews themselves, anxious to make their
case as strong as possible. The latter is the more probable
alternative. As even Stade admits, it was a very natural assertion for
the Jews to make, and so conceal that their effort of 520 was due to
the instigation of their own prophets. But in any case the Aramaic
document corroborates the statement of the Compiler that there was a
foundation-stone laid in the early years of Cyrus, and does not
conceive this to be inconsistent with its own narrative of a stone
being laid in 520, and an effective start at last made upon the Temple
works. So much does Stade feel the force of this, that he concedes not
only that Sheshbazzar may have started some preparation for building
the Temple, but that he may even have laid the stone with
ceremony.[605]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account