Zerubbabel (Hastings' Dictionary)

The etymology and the meaning of the name are doubtfuL It is often taken aB= Heb. '755 Sfn] ' begotten of (i.«. in) Babylon '; but proper names with a passive participle as one efement are scarcely, if at all, fuund In Hebrew, though frequent enough in Assyrian (Gray, ii/'jV 2111, n. 1; Driver, Text 0/ Sam, 14; i<estie', Mar(jinaiie)i, 7f.) The same objection applies to the explanation ^33 >n] 'dispersed of Babylon;'while philology and the Btness of' things are both opposed to van Uoonacker's (.

ZoroOabel, 44 f.) explanation ^33 3ni 'crush Babylon." Upon the whole, we should perhaps accept the view of Ed. Meyer {Entatehnnff des Judpnthuws, p. v) who makes it a Rah..Assyr. name and punctuates 2ir«-/)ii'jrf=' seed or off siiring of Babyloii.' The name is said to occur in Bab. documents as Zer Babili fStrassmaier, In.^chr. von Nabonid. 113, L 13, Insckr. von Darius, 138, L 2, 297, L 2)l Zerubbabel played an important part in connexion with the return of the Jews from exile.

Of Uavidic descent, he is generally called the son of Shealtiel or Salathiel (Ezr 3, », Hag I', Mt I'^etc), who was one of the sons of Jehoiachin, the captive king of Judah (1 Ch 3"). In one passage, 1 Ch 3", the iMT (perhaps by a textual error ; the LXX has SaXaffujX) makes him the son of Pedaiah, who was Shealtiel's brother. He probably came to Jerusalem along with the first band of exiles, under the leadership of Sheshba??

ar, who is not to be identihed with him, and who may have been his uncle, the Shen- az?ar of 1 Ch 3'*. See article Sheshbazzar, p. 493. In direct opposition to Ezr 3' and 48 (the latter of which has, without any warrant, been set down as an interpolation)" it is contended by de daulcy and others that Zerub. came to Jerusalem not under Cyrus, but in the second year of Darius Hvstaspis; and appeal is made, in support of this opinion, to 1 Es 3-68 and Jos. Ant. w.

iiL These last two authorities are indeed but one, for the Jewish historian simply follows, with modifications of his own, the narrative of 1 Esiiras. \s to 1 Esdras itself, it is possible that it has sometiuies presen-ed a true reading where this has been lost by the MT (see Esdras, vol. i. p. 759''), and hence where the narrative is parallel with the Heb.

Ezra we may occasionally get help from it, but it is more than questionable whether we ouglit to attach weight to its testimony as to facts where it contradicts the canonical book. As a specimen of the hopeless confusion that reigns in I ICsdras, we may adduce the position occupied by 215 25 (, Ezr 4*-^='). which is more out uf place than even ui the Heb.

edition, while the independent narrative in 3-5" introduces Darius ilystaapis as if he f^or the first time gave the exiles permission lu return, although this has already in 2"i been tra(^cd to Cyrus. This section (3-5'"') is not translated from the Hebrew, but is either a free composition of the author or borrowed by him from a Greek source. Its hero Zerub.

is introduced as one of the bodyguard of Darius Hystaspis, vsho as a recompense for the skin with which he had cotuiucted an argument (about the relative power of Wine, the King, Woman, and Truth) received permission from the king to return to Jerusalem and to build the temple. The details of this st^»ry are no doubt apocryphal, but it is possible that a substratum of truth underlies it, — Zerub.

may have headed an embassy to Darius to invoke his aid au'sinst the Samaritans and other opponents of the Jews (cf. Jos. Inf. XI. iv. 'J). According to Ezr 3-4° (narrative of the Chroni- cler), Zerubbc.bel, along with Jeshua the high priest " Howorth (Academy, 1893, p. 174 f.) is wrong in asserting that the first four verses of Ezr 4 are not found in the parallel tiassage in 1 Esdras. Strangely enough, Sayce {IlCil 543) falls into the same mistake. As a matter of fact, Ezr 4^-^ = 1 Es 6B;t.8S.

and others, soon after their arrival in Jerusalem (in the seventh month) set tip an altar for burnt- offerings, kept the Feast of Tabernacles, and took steps for the rebuilding of the temple, whose foun- dations were laid in the second month of the second year of their arrival, amidst ceremonies which the Chronicler describes in his characteristic fashion (3'"").

Owing, however, to the opposition of ' the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin,' this act was followed by seventeen years of inactivity, until, in the second year of Darius (B.C. 520), and largely owing to the stimulus supplied by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, the work was resumed in earnest (Ezr 5').

A new delay, occa- sioned by the suspicions of Tattenai, ' governor on this side the river,' and others, was ended by an appeal to Darius himself, who ordered that the work should be allowed to proceed (6'"). The temple was finished and dedicated four years later (6'"). (a) There has been much discussion as to the date when the foundation of the temple was really laid. In Ezr 3^'. this is distinctly asserted to have been done by Zerub.

and Jeshua in the second year after their arrival in Palestine (i.«. 637X On the other hand, it certainly appears from Ezr 62, Hag li«. 215-18^ Zee 89, that the foundation was not laid till seventeen years later (520). • The discrepancy may be removed by the suggestion of Driver (LOTS 647) that tlie ceremony of Ezr 3' was of so purely /on/mi a character that Haggai could afford to ignore it.

It is quite conceivable that the fulfilment of the project formed in 537 haii to be postponed till 520, for, not to speak of the opposition of the Samaritans (Ezr 41f), the character of Cambyses (529-522), the successor of Cyrus, and notably his expedition to Egj-pt (627), would be unfavourable to the prosecution of the building.

Others (see Literature below) prefer to suppose that the Chronicler, for obvious reasons, ante- dated the lajing of the foundation by over fifteen years, while on the other hand he did substantial justice to the real course of events by representing the work of building as not seriously taken in hand till the second year of Diirius. (b) A more serious question is raised by Havet (' La modernity des proph^tes' in lieime des deux mondes, 1889, p. 799fl.)

, Inibert (Ae tevipU reconstruit par Zorobabel, 1888), and Howorth {^Acad<inij, ISO:!), who contend that the Darius of Kzr 45-'^ is not Darius Hystaspis (622-485), as we have hitherto taken for granted, but Darius Nothus (424-404). The rebuilding of the temple is thus brought down a whole century (422 instead of 620). The strongest argument in support of this theory is the mention in Ezr46 7 of Ahasueru8(r.e. Aerxes)and Artaxerxes ( I.

nngiinanns) in such a way as apparently to imply that Darius of i" is Nothus. But it has long been suspected (cf. Driver. iOr6 647f. ; Comill, i'infeit.'^ 268) that the section Ezr 4«-23 i out of place and should follow ch. 6. It really refers to event that happened in the time of Nehemiah, and describes opposition to the rebuilding, not of the temple but of the city and ualU.

How the Chronicler came to insert this section where he did, ie a question we will not undertake to answer ; but that even he was capable of supposing that a century elapsed between 41, when Zerub. and Jeshua stand at the head of the community, and 61, when under their ilirections the building of the temple i* pushed on, is inconceivable. The only other reason for identifying Darius with Nothus i» found in Ezr el-" 'according to the decree of Cyrus and Darius and Artazerxes king of I'ersia.'

But it is abundantly evident from the context that Artaxerxes is here an interpolation due to prolep/iis on the part of a scribe who had in his mind the services rendered to the Jews by that monarch in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. The identity of the Darius of Ezr 4'." with Hystaspis is further evident from Zee 17- 12, where the 70 years must date from either 697 or 580, and in either case 70 (a round number) will bring us to the reign of this king.

Apart from anv other consideration, is it credible that a whole century wo'uld have been suffered to elapse between the Return and the rebuilding of the temple, seeing that the latter institution had since Josiah's reforms assumed such importance ?

The Chronicler could not in his narrative allow seventeen years, not to speak of a century, to pass before steps were taken to restore the building, hence perhaps his statement that the foundations were laid shortly after the Return, and about the same time as the altar was re-erected.

So clearly does Imbert perceive the force of these considerations, that he admits that shortly after the Return a temple was built hi/ Sheshbazzar, which was afterwards destroyed, when or by whom we are not told, and then finally came Zerub., a contemporary of Darius Nothus, and restored it* Imbert most arbitrarily alters the text of Ezr 6" so as to read •Darius the son 0/ Artaxerxcs' instead of 'Darius aTut Arta- xerxes.'

The latter, as in Ezr 4, is held to be Longimanus, who, according to Imbert, is distinguished from Mnemon (under whom he places the activity of Ezra and Nehemiah) by haring his name written Nn^pnci^b!, while the latter monarch appears • Van Hoonacker (Zorobabel, 63 ff., Xouvelles Etudes, 106 ft.) labours hard, but it seems to us unsuccessfully, to put a differ ent interpretation on the language of Haggai and Zechariah. i ZERUBBABEL ZIBA 979 as HnOST""!"^?'

(This is pure tkncy ; the Interchange of '.T and D to so comiooD as to be a very precarious foundation for an arpument of any weipht), Inil'»ert is even able to tell us that ihe Honk of Ezra orlpinaily contained an account of ibe building and the destruction of Sheshbaz/ar's temple, but that a later genemtion .■^uppre^sed this, supiilyin^ its [ilaee by the li>t of names in Kzr2. which was borrowed from Neh 7.

it Is needless tn say that fur all this there is not the slightest historical evidence. The Darius, then, with whom Zerub. was contemporary, was beyond ail reasonable doubt Darius llystaspis. How long Zerub. occupied a position subordinate to Slie.shbazzar we do not know, but in the begin- ning of the reign of Darius he was peJiah or governor of Judah (liag 1 '"etc.) His history suh.sequeiit to the liuilding of the temple is involved in hoixlo.ss ob.scurity.

He is not named even in connixion with the dedication (Kzr U'^"). A Jewi.sh tradition relates that he leturned to IJabylon and died there. It is possible that Darhis. after the troubles that broke out during his reign, may have preferred to have a scion of the ancient dj-nasty of Israel under his eye rather than run the risk of his pre.sence in .Ju<l<ea .stimulating projects for the restoration of the Davidic moii.archy. Of the sons of Zerub. (1 Ch o''-"') we know absolutely nothing. Zerub.

is mentioned in Sir 48'' in ' the praise of famous men.' In recent years new interest has been given to the personality of Zerubbabel by the extremely able and ingenious work of Sellin, Serubhahel : ein lieitnifj zur Gesch. der mi.isinn. Erwartiini/ mid der Entstehunrj /Ips Jiidenthums. \iiUS. Sellin seeks to make out that, at the instigation of the prophets Haggai and Zechariali (cf. Hag '2'-", Zech 4'8"''), Zerub. was actually raised to the throne of Judah, and the Mes.sianic kingdom thus .

set up, but that he was soon overthrown by the Persians and put to death. The martyr king was even sup- posed by Sellin to be the suffering Servant of Is H:). The evidence in support of these conclusions is very skilfully mar.shalled, but one has a feeling that fancy plays too large a part in Sellin's recon- struction of the post-exilic historj', and. so far as the argument rests upon Is oSand kindred pa.ssages, it will have no weight with tho.

se (and their number is increasing) who refuse to see in the Servant an individual instead of a rollertive sense (cf. esp. Kd. Kiinig, The Ej-Hi-s' Rnnk af Consolation, 18!l!t, and I5ud(le. Die noiiftiannlen Ehi-d-Jalaci'-Lirdrr, 1!)00). [The identitication of the Servant with Zerubbabel is abandoned by Sellin in liis Stndien zur Entsleh- ■unqnyisch. der jud. Gemeinde nach dcm Bab. Exil, 1!K)1]. The investigations of Profe.

ssor Kosters led him to conclusions which, if accepted, involve a complete recasting of the traditional opinions about the Helurn from exile, and the influence of that event upon Israel's sulwcquent history. Founding partly on tlie undoubted fact that a great many .ludahitcs were never carried into exile at all, Kosters contended that the temple was rebuilt, not by the returned exiles, but by the peojile of the land (at the generally accepted date ')20-'>IG).

While Driver and Hyle are satis- fied that the Chronicler gives in Ezr ;!"-'■' a sub- stantially correct account of what transpircil, Cheyne accepts Kosters' results. He agrees, in- deed, with Wildeboer, that Kosters went too far in denying that any exiles at all returned at the acces.sion of Cyrus, but is of opinion th.at the real Kiturn was not till that headed by Ezra at Xehe- miah's second visit (t'W).

The story of the Return and the building of the temple a-s told by the Chronicler is, upon Kosters' theory, constructed with a view to glorifying the ijofa (exiles) at the expense of the ^am-hd'dnz (people of the land). Zerubbabel and .leshua may have tlone all that is recorded of them, but they need never have been in Babylon at all. Kosters' conclusions have been combated, especially by Wellh., Ed.

Meyer, and van Hoonacker (see Literature below), from different points of view, and it may be safely asserted that, if it has been the fjushion to attribute too much to the gola and too little to the remnant of Judah, the brilliant Leyden professor went to the opposite extreme. LiTEBATUEE. — KueueD, Z>e dtronologie ran het PerziHche tiidcuk. IMio [<;fMim. Abhani/I. Slair.J; de Saulcv. J?/»</« chronot. (Ux livrtfi <t'K«d. et Xefi. IsiIn; lnii>ert. /.e tentjjle recoiiil. pur Zorob.

18SS ; Stadc, OVJ (1SS). ii. 9b (T. ; Driver, LOT' USS^), p. M5ff. ; Uvle, izru and Sehemiah (Camb. Bible). 1S93 ; Iloworth, ' keal character and importance of 1 K.sdras' in Academij. 189.3, pp. 18, Cll. lOli, 174, 826. bii. see also I'SBA x.\iii. 147. 305; A. van Hoonacker. Zvrobabei et le Heeond tem/.U, lv.12; Wellhausen, UW (1S'.I7), p. 157 (T. ; Schurer, (i.lV' (1S9S), ii. 827 ff. (IIJP II. 111. 177 IT.): P. Ilav Hunter, After tlit Exile (1890). i. 'lO f., 1,% f., 219 f. ; C. 0.

Torrey, The ComjwHitiotl and I/int. Vattte of Ezr.-Seh. s90; t-avce, IlCil .WJtr.; Schrader. 'Die Dauer dcs zweiten Tempelbiiues,' in .S'A', 1867, pp. 460-.')U4 (the first notable attack on the historicity of Ezr 3 ; Schrader's view has been adojited by Kuenen, J>tade, Marti, Ryssel, Konifr.

and many others), twosters' epoch-makinir work, Ilet fiernttt ran Inratl in fitt PerziHche tijdralc, lsy4, was criticised by Wellhausen upon the whole adversely (tlioui;h he concedes a pood deal to him), in '/'/-\'( l^y.^. No'. 2, ' Die liuckkehr der .Juden aus dem bab. E.\il ' [to which Ko.^lers replied in TliT. 1895. p. 549 ft'.]), and has met with much no)re uncompromising opposition from van Hoonacker (XotlvelleH Ettiilftt unr /a rextauratiiin juive, 1S96, cf. also his art.

' The lleturn of llie Jews underCyrus,* in Kjrpos. TimeK,\u\, [ls97] .351 IT,), and Kil. Meyer {FInMrliitn{t den Judenthunm, Is'Jtl; Meyer was severely criticise«i by Wellh. in GGA, 1-S97, p. S9 if., and rejilied in a pamphlet, '.lulius Wellhausen und meine Sohrift hie Kntntefi luiij de>i Judenthumn,^ the controversy turn- Inj; especially iijion the genuineness of the documents professedly <juoted by the Chronicler, which is alTirmed by Meyer apainst Kosters and Wellhausen).

As was noted above, Kosters' con- clusions have been largely accepted by Wildeboer, Lit. d. AT. 411 f., 419 f., ancl Chevne, Inirod. to /miah. \.\.\iii-.\.\.xix, J/iL 5 ft. ' J, A. Selbie.