instead of resting his case at this point, to make sure that his exhortation will be heeded he repeats the second of his arguments (vv.9–11), giving it a form so direct and positive that it cannot be misunderstood, and so forcible that he who ignores it must take the attitude of defying the Almighty.
1. All the prophecies of Haggai were delivered in the second year of Darius. There are two, possibly three, persons, real or imaginary, mentioned by this name (Heb. Dārěyāwesh; Per. Dârayaya'ush) in the Old Testament. The first is "Darius the Mede," the mythical conqueror who, according to Dn. 61/531, "received the kingdom" of Babylon after the death of Belshazzar. The third is "Darius the Persian" (Ne. 1222).
In Dn. 91 Darius is called "the son of Ahasuerus," that is, Xerxes; but, since Xerxes belongs to a period (485–465 B.C.) considerably later than that of the Persian invasion (539 B.C.), it is impossible that his son, who, moreover, bore the name Artaxerxes, had anything to do with that event. It is probable that the author of Daniel, having but a confused traditional knowledge of the history of the East, and being influenced by earlier predictions (Is. 1317 ff. 212 ff. Je. 5111 ff. 27 ff.) to the effect that the Medes would overthrow Babylon, like the author of Tobit 1415 identified the best-known of the Medo-Persian kings with Cyaxares, the destroyer of Nineveh, and then made Darius, who actually took Babylon twice during his reign, a son of this Median ruler and gave him the credit of overthrowing the Babylonian empire. Cf. EB., arts. Darius; Persia, 13; Prince, Daniel, 53 ff. Winckler (KAT.3, 288) thinks that Cambyses is meant. On the older views, see DB., art. Darius; Prince, 45.
Winckler (KAT.3, 288) identifies Darius the Persian with Darius Hystaspes. The more common opinion is that Darius Codomannus, the last of the Persian kings, is the one so designated. So Meyer, EJ., 104; et al.
The author of Ne. 1210 ff. begins with a genealogy of the high priests of the Persian period (vv. 10 f.), which is followed by a list of the names of the heads of the priestly houses for "the days of Joiakim." Cf. vv. 12–21. Finally he asserts, v. 22, where all reference to the Levites should be omitted, that, in the source from which he drew, there were similar lists for the period of each of the high priests mentioned "until (ער for על) the reign of Darius the Persian." In other words, he makes Nehemiah a contemporary of Eliashib and the king he has in mind a contemporary of Jaddua, three generations later, the date of Darius Codomannus. This conclusion is not affected however one may interpret Ne. 1328, that passage being by a different author. Cf. JBL., xxii, 97 ff.
The king to whom reference is here made is Darius Hystaspes. This is clear from Zc. 75, where the prophet, who was a contemporary of Haggai, in a message delivered in the fourth year of Darius,
