Ezra 6:1

THE SECOND TEMPLE WAS COMPLETED AND DEDICATED

"Then Darius the king made a decree, and search was made in the house of the archives, where the treasures were laid up in Babylon. And there was found at Achmetha, in the palace that is in the province of Media, a roll, and therein was thus written for a record: in the first year of Cyrus the king, Cyrus the king made a decree: Concerning the house of God at Jerusalem, let the house be builded, the place where they offer sacrifices, and let the foundations thereof be strongly laid; the height thereof threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof threescore cubits; with three courses of great stones, a course of new timber: and let the expenses be given out of the king's house. And also let the gold and silver vessels of the house of God, which Nebuchadnezzar took forth out of the temple which is at Jerusalem, and brought unto Babylon, be restored, and brought again unto the temple which is at Jerusalem, every one to its place; and thou shalt put them in the house of God."

"In the house of the archives where the treasures were stored up" (Ezra 6:1). This verse is another example of scholarly tampering with the sacred text in order to make it say what the scholars suppose it SHOULD have said. The RSV renders this line, "in the house of the archives where the documents were stored"; but Bowman rejects this as "unnecessary,"[1] because archaeological discoveries have proved that such decrees were kept in the same vaults where the treasures were also kept.

It is to Darius' great credit that when Cyrus' decree was not found in Babylon, he did not abandon the search, which he might well have done unless he had been motivated by a favorable inclination toward the Jews. Also, he might well have heard about that decree and thus had personal knowledge that it certainly existed.

"And there (it) was found at Achmetha (Echbatana)" (Ezra 6:2). "This was in Media, the summer residence of Persian kings."[2] "Echbatana is the Persian name for this place, as it came to light in the discovery of the Behistun Inscription."[3]

"The Behistun Inscription was discovered in 1835 by Sir Henry Rawlinson, a British army officer. On Behistun mountain, 200 miles northeast of Babylon, there was a great isolated rock rising 1700 feet out of the plain; and on the face of that rock, on a perpendicular cliff, 400 feet above the road, Rawlinson noticed a large smoothed surface upon which there were carvings and inscriptions. These had been inscribed there by Darius I (Hystaspes) in the yearr 516 B.C., the very year that the Second Temple was finished in Jerusalem. These inscriptions were written in the Persian, Elamitc, and Babylonian languages; and Rawlinson, standing on a narrow 1-foot ledge at the base of these writings, made squeezes of them. The inscriptions were an account, the same account, of the conquests of Darius, written in three languages; and Sir Henry Rawlinson had found the key to the ancient Babylonian language, which unlocked for the world the vast treasures of the ancient Babylonian literature."[4]

Regarding this edict of Cyrus, "The old (critical) objections against the authenticity of this edict, on the supposition that Cyrus would not have concerned himself with the details and size of the temple, can no longer be sustained."[5]

"The variations between this decree of Cyrus and that report of it in Ezra 1 is due to the fact that this one was an official document relating to the expenditure of public money, and that one was an oral, public proclamation."[6]

There is no disharmony whatever between them!

The dimensions for the temple listed by Cyrus area problem. There are different accounts of the size of Solomon's temple, in 2 Chronicles 3 and in 1 Kings 6; and, "It it is difficult to reconcile the dimensions given here with the statements made in Zechariah 4:10 and Haggai 2:3, implying that the second temple was smaller than the first. Perhaps the dimensions here are those which Cyrus required the Jews not to exceed."[7] Keil solved the problem with the suggestion that Cyrus' dimensions included the external structures,[8] and others have suggested that the smaller size of the second temple was due to the fact that it was the largest the returnees could afford, due to their impoverished condition.