[582] It is used in Hag. i. 12, 14, ii. 2, only after the mention of the leaders; see, however, Pusey’s note 9 to Hag. i. 12; while in Zech. viii. 6, 11, 18, it might be argued that it was employed in such a way as to cover not only Jews who had never left their land, but all Jews as well who were left of ancient Israel. [583] Compare Cheyne, _Introduction to the Book of Isaiah_, 1895, xxxv. ff., who says that in the main points Kosters’ conclusions “appear so inevitable” that he has “constantly presupposed them” in dealing with chaps. lvi.—lxvi. of Isaiah; and Torrey, _op. cit._, 1896, p. 53: “Kosters has demonstrated, from the testimony of Haggai and Zechariah, that Zerubbabel and Jeshua were not returned exiles; and furthermore, that the prophets Haggai and Zechariah knew nothing of an important return of exiles from Babylonia.” Cf. also Wildeboer, _Litteratur des A. T._, pp. 291 ff. [584] iv. 4. [585] Of course it is always possible that, if there had been no great Return from Babylon under Cyrus, the community at Jerusalem in 520 had not heard of the prophecies of the Second Isaiah. [586] This argument, it is true, does not fully account for the curious fact that Haggai and Zechariah never call the Jewish community at Jerusalem by a name significant of their return from exile. But in reference to this it ought to be noted that even the Aramaic document in the Book of Ezra which records the Return under Cyrus does not call the builders of the Temple by any name which implies that they have come up from exile, but styles them simply _the Jews who were in Judah and Jerusalem_ (Ezra v. 1), in contrast to the Jews who were in foreign lands. [587] Indeed, why does he ignore the whole Exile itself if no return from it has taken place? [588] Zech. ii. 10-17 Heb., 6-13 Eng. [589] _E.g._ Stade, Kuenen (_op. cit._, p. 216). So, too, Klostermann, _Gesch. des Volkes Israel_, München, 1896. Wellhausen, in the second edition of his _Gesch._, does not admit that the List is one of exiles returned under Cyrus (p. 155, n.). [590] ix. 4; x. 6, 7. [591] _Op. cit._, p. 216, where he also quotes the testimony of the Book of Daniel (ix. 25). [592] Since writing the above I have seen the relevant notes to the second edition of Wellhausen’s _Gesch._, pp. 155 and 160. “The refounding of Jerusalem and the Temple cannot have started from the Jews left behind in Palestine.” “The remnant left in the land would have restored the old popular cultus of the high places. Instead of that we find even before Ezra the legitimate cultus and the hierocracy in Jerusalem: in the Temple-service proper Ezra discovers nothing to reform. Without the leaven of the Gôlah the Judaism of Palestine is in its origin incomprehensible.”