[546] 42,360, _besides their servants_, is the total sum given in Ezra ii. 64; but the detailed figures in Ezra amount only to 29,818, those in Nehemiah to 31,089, and those in 1 Esdras to 30,143 (other MSS. 30,678). See Ryle on Ezra ii. 64. [547] Ezra i. 8. [548] Ezra v. 14. [549] _Ib._ 16. [550] Ezra ii. 63. [551]‎ יֵשׁוּעַ בֶּן־יוֹצָדק: Ezra iii. 2, like Ezra i. 1-8, from the Compiler of Ezra-Nehemiah. [552]‎ זְרֻבָּבֶל בֶּן־שְׁאַלְתִּיאֵל. [553] Ezra ii. 2. [554] Hag. i. 14, ii. 2, 21, and perhaps by Nehemiah (vii. 65-70). Nehemiah himself is styled both Peḥah (xiv. 20) and Tirshatha (viii. 9, x. 1). [555] As Daniel and his three friends had also Babylonian names. [556] Ezra ii. 63. [557] Cf. Ryle, xxxi ff.; and on Ezra i. 8, ii. 63. [558] Stade, _Gesch. des Volkes Israel_, II. 98 ff.: cf. Kuenen, _Gesammelte Abhandl._, 220. [559] Ezra i. 8. [560] Ezra i. compared with ii. 1. [561] Some think to find this in 1 Esdras v. 1-6, where it is said that Darius, a name they take to be an error for that of Cyrus, brought up the exiles with an escort of a thousand cavalry, starting in the first month of the second year of the king’s reign. This passage, however, is not beyond suspicion as a gloss (see Ryle on Ezra i. 11), and even if genuine may be intended to describe a second contingent of exiles despatched by Darius I. in his second year, 520. The names given include that of Jesua, son of Josedec, and instead of Zerubbabel’s, that of his son Joacim. [562] Ezra iii. 3-7. [563] _Ib._ 8-13. [564] Ezra iv. 7. [565] See above, p. 193. [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.