1 sn The chronological problems of Ezra 4:6-24 are well known and have been the subject of extensive discussion since ancient times. Both v. 5 and v. 24 describe the reign of Darius I Hystaspes, who ruled Persia ca. 5228211;486 <sc>b.c.sc> and in whose time the rebuilt temple was finished. The material in between is from later times (v. 16 describes the rebuilding of the walls, not the temple), and so appear to be a digression. Even recognizing this, there are still questions, such as why Cambyses (530-522 <sc>b.c.sc>) is not mentioned at all, and why events from the time of Xerxes (486-465 <sc>b.c.sc>) and Artaxerxes (464-423 <sc>b.c.sc>) are included here if the author was discussing opposition to the building of the temple, which was finished in 516 <sc>b.c.sc> Theories to explain these difficulties are too numerous to mention here, but have existed since ancient times: Josephus, the first century Jewish historian, rearranged the account to put Cambyses before Xerxes and replacing Artaxerxes with Xerxes (for further discussion of Josephus8217; rearrangement see L. L. Grabbe, 8220;Josephus and the Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration8221; <i>JBLi> 106 : 231-46). In brief, it seems best to view the author8217;s primary concern here as thematic (the theme of opposition to the Jewish resettlement in Jerusalem, including the rebuilding of the temple and restoration of Jerusalem8217;s walls) rather than purely chronological. In the previous verses the author had shown how the Jews had rejected an offer of assistance from surrounding peoples and how these people in turn harassed them. The inserted account shows how, in light of the unremitting opposition the Jews experienced (even extending down to more recent times), this refusal of help had been fully justified. Some of the documents the author employed show how this opposition continued even after the temple was rebuilt. (The failure to mention Cambyses may simply mean the author had no documents available from that period.) For detailed discussion of the difficulties presented by the passage and the various theories advanced to explain them, see H. G. M. Williamson, <i>Ezra, Nehemiahi> (WBC), 56-60.