HISTORY OF ISRAEL LIBRARY

THE PERSIAN SUPREMACY.

D.

THE ISSUE OF THE PERSIAN EPOCH.

About this time of transition, it is true, we only possess very scanty and obscure information; and, indeed, at this point we come upon an interval of nearly two hundred years of which our knowledge is very slender and disconnected. The age of Ezra and Nehemiah fills between the antiquity proper of the nation and the fully-developed Hagiocracy in which the sun of its long course was finally to sink forever, but it has preserved for us the last records which give us the most trustworthy insight into the activity of these noble individuals and the condition of their time; and they supply the last proof that great epochs always produce and preserve testimonies to their own glory as splendid as themselves.

This much, however, we know with certainly, that in Judea the peaceful and prosperous cooperation with the Persian supremacy which had become the true basis of the external rise and progress of the new kingdom of Jahveh at Jerusalem, was at last most profoundly disturbed. The indications above mentioned in the book of Koheleth have already prepared us to expect that all the accumulated dissatisfaction with the Persian supremacy would at last break out under various forms; and certain obscure traditions, here and there preserved, imply that this really took place. These considerations bring us unavoidably to the closer examination of an institution which now rises into fresh relations and is henceforth of the utmost importance for all the remaining course of the history, almost down to its very end.

I.

THE RISE AND CHARACTER OF THE HIGH-PRIESTLY POWER
UNDER THE HAGIOCRACY.

The high-priestly power in Israel was perfectly legitimate and indispensable. It was rendered so by its remote origin, and also, in accordance with the spirit of the age, by the support conferred on it, in common with everything relating to the priesthood, the sanctuary, and religion, by the sacred book of law and the inferences now drawn from it. Intended originally simply to knit the priestly tribe firmly together and to provide for the performance of certain high offices in the sacred ceremonial, the high-priesthood, in virtue of its inheritance by the right of primogeniture, had in early times become a powerful support and pillar at first of the lofty edifice of the sacred objects, and then, by its means, of the whole community of the people of the true religion.

In the premonarchical times of Israel, when the other supreme powers were relaxed, it stepped into their place from time to time as the leader of the whole nation; and then in the separate kingdom of Judah, after the disruption of the old kingdom, it was most eminently favorable to the unbroken maintenance at least of the sacred objects of the people and the priestly life of the old religion through every change in kingly government. The glory of ancient sanctity and high deserts from a hoary antiquity downwards, intensified by a great book of sacred law, cast a glow upon the whole Levitic priesthood, but especially upon the office of the high-priest, at the time of the destruction of the Davidic kingdom. From the position which it then occupied, the true religion could not yet quite free itself from the tutelage of the Levitical priesthood, although, with the support it had derived front it for a thousand years, it had learned long before to move with growing freedom.

True prophecy, however, had then looked forward to its complete release, and only lamented the profound indignities winch the chief-priests experienced at the hands of the heathen, as though for a sign that they too knew how to suffer for the true religion. And, indeed, we have already noticed what benefits resulted from the fact that so many priests felt themselves moved by their birth and their ancient privileges to contribute everything they could to the foundation of the new Jerusalem, so that it is at least doubtful whether it could have risen again from its ruins at all without their burn­ing zeal. But in the high-priest and in the firm establishment of his supremacy over every visible expression of the holy, this new Jerusalem now found its firmest and most inalienable support against the heathen power. This fact could not fail to be soon demonstrated by experience, and remained henceforth unshaken, as we have already observed, through all the subsequent changes of heathen supremacy. But the necessity which compelled the hagiocracy to rest on the ancient priesthood, and the readiness with which the priesthood recognised in it a powerful means of exalting its own strength, which, at the beginning of this period, had been so miserably impaired, tended to unite the high-priestly power more closely with the hagiocracy, till it became one of its most powerful instruments, and then learned in its turn to make the hagiocracy a source of prestige and power to itself not easily to be exhausted.

When once, however, the hagiocracy is firmly established, as it was now among the people of Israel, it may succeed in maintaining in the lower classes for a considerable time a certain uniform culture of religion and morals; but its intrinsic hollowness will speedily be disclosed in the higher ranks, and its influence may be most prejudicial where its life has taken its deepest root. We have already seen what vexation Nehemiah had to endure in his strife with the selfishness and stupidity of many of the nobles of his day in Jerusalem; and, by the time of Malachi, the avarice of many of the priests had developed to a most culpable extent. On the high-priest of his later years Nehemiah was compelled to inflict a rebuke for a grave transgression, and it can surprise no one that during the growing dissolution of the Persian empire the high-priestly house rapidly rose in power, but at the same time fell into the danger of the deepest moral degeneration.

Josephus relates that the high-priest John, grandson of Eliashib, who lived under Nehemiah, murdered his own brother Jesus (Joshua) during a ceremony in the Temple, in consequence of a promise made to the latter, in mere friendship, by a Persian general, named Bagoses, to promote him to the high-priesthood. In reliance upon this, so he alleged, his brother had provoked him to a quarrel. The result was that Bagoses zealously took up the cause of his murdered friend, bitterly reproached the Judeans with the enormity of such a murder, committed in the very sanctuary, made his way in spite of every dissuasion into the sanctuary, affirming that he was at any rate cleaner than a murdered corpse, and laid on the country for seven years the burden of paying fifty drachmae for every lamb offered as the law directed in the daily sacrifice. This case presents us with the first clear indication of the ruinous discord of the high-priestly house. Like a worm, it ate its way into the whole institution, and we shall find it spreading further and further during the Greek supremacy towards its destruction. The succession by primogeniture brought to the high-priesthood the same advantages of a continuous development which it secures to every princely dignity, but it also tended to make those who were called to the office, whether by near or distant ties, far too lax. We have already seen that Eliashib was by no means a pattern for his age; and the same cause provoked a state of dissension between the actual occupant and his expectant successor, which readily led under a foreign despotism to the most frightful crimes.

Whether this event took place under Artaxerxes II (Mnemon), or Artaxerxes III (Ochus), cannot be determined with certainty from the words of Josephus as they stand. We shall, however, find the son of John, Jaddua, high-priest and advanced in years at the conquest of Alexander, and this might warrant us in fixing on Artaxerxes II, especially if John himself was (as is probable) still young at the time of the murder. So far as our present knowledge goes, at any rate, we may affirm that this event must not be confounded with the dangerous insurrection against Ochus, which terminated with the destruction of Jericho, and the deportation of a number of Judeans to Hyrcania. Of this Josephus says not one word; and the accounts of it preserved elsewhere are extremely scanty, a deficiency which is fully explained by its disastrous consequences. This probably led to the union of a strong party of Judeans with the Phoenicians and Cyprians, who, about the years 358-356, in alliance with Egypt and King Nectanebus, endeavored permanently to shake off the Persian yoke.—Soon afterwards Ochus once more subdued Egypt; and quite possibly it was at this time that the numerous captive Judeans were compulsorily removed to Egypt, of whom, however, nothing but obscure traditions remain.

II.

THE BOOKS OF BARUCH AND TOBIT.

The new government of the hagiocracy in Jerusalem was, then, seriously tottering already, after an existence of little more titan a century and a half, during which it had had the opportunity of establishing itself more firmly. But, even in its wide dispersion, the nation still retained too much of the healthy spirit which had come down from the grand old times of the great prophets to allow the secret corruption which the hagiocracy carried in its core to develop itself so soon in full. Nay, the dispersion of the people of the true religion now proved even salutary to it. The hagiocracy in Jerusalem might tend to dangerous disturbances, but it was by no means so rigidly organized, or so supreme over all other forces, as to prevent healthier endeavors and simple reverence from main­taining themselves in more distant circles, and even reacting with moderating influences on the central locality. This is most clearly shown by a work belonp.ing to this period.

The little book of Baruch, which is now found in the Greek Bibles associated with the great book of Jeremiah, was probably written at the time of dangerous risings against the Persians. The Judeans in Babylon certainly held aloof from the disturbances of their fellow-countrymen in the holy land; and the book of Baruch is just the kind of work which would have proceeded from men who, while filled with the most lively Messianic hopes, and zealously desiring a divine deliverance of Jerusalem (i.e. the community of Israel) from the yoke of foreign nations, nevertheless severely condemned self-willed and inconsiderate revolts. It was known that Jeremiah had formerly required similar prudence from the Babylonian Judeans; and it accordingly seemed expedient to the author to introduce his assistant Baruch, who was supposed to have been in Babylon on a commission from his master, as dispatching to the community in the holy land a letter, which, though drawn up by him, had been approved by the whole Babylonian community. This communication carries out further the view which Jeremiah himself might have entertained on the matter in question. For the sake of outward keeping it refers exclusively to similar circumstances under the Chaldeans, but in its true application and its main portion it is perfectly suitable to the existing relations with Persia. Loyal to the king and his house, the community in the holy land should freely confess its deep repentance in prayer to God. Not till then can it again understand with edification the sermon of life, and grasp the fact that as the people of God it already possesses all true wisdom, and with this, if it will only use it aright, all true salvation; now, what lamentation rises from Jerusalem (i.e. the rue community of God) for the present misery of its separate members,—Jerusalem, whose Messianic salvation will nevertheless be assuredly complete at last. This little book, thus compact in itself, is no unworthy echo of the old prophetic voices. It contains many thoughts powerfully conceived in the spirit of the past; but the special feature in which it shows itself worthy of the age immediately succeeding Ezra’s lofty labors, is the view which it expresses of the sacred law. This wears the appearance of full creative originality. The law is the final manifestation on earth of the wisdom of God himself, which has taken a sort of bodily form, bestowing life and salvation on all who keep it. This constitutes a totally new combination of the older representation of wisdom as the revelation of God in the world. with the deep veneration for the law which had recently arisen, and provides us with one of the principal reasons for not placing the composition of the book at an earlier date. But, on the other hand, there are many clear marks that it cannot be later. That the purport of the whole composition was directed far more to the country communities in Palestine comes out quite prominently towards its close.

Considerably later, an unknown writer, apparently desirous to supplement this address to Judeans, composed an epistle of Baruch to the Ten Tribes. In a style of rhetorical prolixity, and with little depth of meaning, it exhorts them with special fervor to patience and repentance; and its language about the transitory nature of the world sounds quite Christian. Although it nowhere clearly alludes to Christianity in any way, it was certainly composed by a Christian.

To this period we may appropriately affix the book of Tobit also, which appears to have arisen, like the book of Baruch, among the Judeans in the East, and is probably not much later. Its origin in the remote East is indicated not merely by the accurate knowledge of the scene of its story, and the use of proper names that were only native there, but also by the ultimate object of the work itself. This is nothing else than to recommend to the confessors of the true religion scattered in foreign countries and at vast distances from Jerusalem, not only the performance of their religious duties, but also in particular the maintenance of the closest connection with Jerusalem and its temple as a sacred obligation. In brief, the little book contains an energetic summons to glorify the true God among and before the Heathen. For the vivid portrayal of this truth, the author chooses suitable representatives from the past. In the general design and execution, the book of Job floated before his mind as his model; but he shapes the forms which seemed necessary for his purpose with far greater freedom, and avails himself fully of the new-born possibility of perfect epic art. Accordingly he sets up a great hero of this truth in Tobit, a man whose very name, Goodness, immediately betrays his real nature. It is the peculiarity of the conception of the true religion entertained by this writer that, so far as its intrinsic human character is concerned, he places it in goodness of thought and conduct, and represents it as only perfected in unwearied beneficence. In particular, he regards prayer, fasting, almsgiving, and justice, as the four great virtues, but the foundation of them all is love and goodness. Tobit, however, was compelled to look for some securely-established place on earth as the divine shelter and protection of the true religion. For this end, although an inhabitant of the disloyal kingdom of the Ten Tribes, belonging to the northern tribe of Naphtali, he nevertheless continually directed (so it is related) all his affections towards the sanctuary in Jerusalem. With the utmost readiness he observed all the duties there required, and even when he was carried away captive by Shalmaneser to Nineveh, together with many of his countrymen, under the most depressing sufferings and the changes of a series of rulers of most various characters down to the times of Esarhaddon, he never ceased through every vicissitude to maintain the most spotless goodness. But though this goodness never allows itself to be bent by the most diverse trials, the despair of his wife almost reduces him to despair as well, and he finds relief only in fervent prayer. As in the book of Job, the wife of Tobit plays much the same part of contrast, but only so far as is compatible with the limits of the tender and truly child-like spirit which breathes through this poetic composition. In the meantime, by the side of this man of tried fidelity there rise two younger figures, into which his greatness and glory may pass if they strive to become like him. One is his son, named Tobias (Tobijah, i.e. the good one of God); the other, at a far distant place, is a maiden named Sara, who, like Tobit, innocently suffers the bitterest persecutions at the hands of men, and from the depths of her distress calls aloud to God.

At the same moment, however, that they are both endeavoring, to strengthen their panting souls in prayer, their requests are already granted. Raphael is sent in human form as the genial companion of Tobias; he arranges a marriage between the two young people, and proves at the same time the great deliverer of all out of every trouble; until at length he is obliged to make himself known, and then he disappears amid their united blessings. This is the framework of the elevated (i.e. divine) representation. The description of the circumstances, though in many cases only sketched in slight outlines, is nevertheless everywhere animated by the true breath of poesy. The delineation of Raphael, in particular, is of great beauty, in so far as he, having once assumed human form, behaves exactly like a noble-minded man, and achieves the highest and divinest purposes with human means, as though he were really nothing more than man. It is impossible to form any conception of the religion of the Old Testament and its effect on life more gentle and genial, more child-like and domestic, than that presented in this little work.  It exhibits a final glorification of many of the most beautiful and profound elements in the Old Testament, and as an instance of poetic art it shows us for the first time the perfect Epos, though some of its details are worked up no higher than the Idyllic form. For sublimity and power of pure thought, as well as for the satisfactory and complete working out of its ideas, it is certainly separated from the book of Job by an interval as wide as that which parts the ages in which they were respectively produced. It only displays a pleasing neatness and gratifying warmth in the carrying out of minor thoughts and purposes. In this it resembles the book of Ruth, but it serves in the same way to prove how triumphantly and nobly the religion of the Old Testament, when compelled to retire more and more from a position of great public influence on the people and the state, still maintained itself in the private tranquility and the indestructible sanctuary of the home, and rose here to its purest glory as the cherished religion of the heart. Moreover the complete suppression of all mention and praise of the law is as great a departure from the prevailing usage of the time as it is gratifying and instructive; it proves that the true religion can live without boasting of the sacred letter. But the outlook to Jerusalem as the great eternal sanctuary far away reappears as a last sublime prospect. This forms in fact the proper conclusion to the book; and as the poet keeps up with a firm hand the description of his hero as living in the Assyrian captivity before the first destruction of Jerusalem, he is able, in the prophecy of the dying Tobit about the glorification which is to be expected after its fall, to quicken at the same time many of the Messianic hopes of his own day.

This book, then, together with that already analyzed, constitutes the fairest monument of the spirit of the Judeans in the distant east during those centuries, and, as a picture of the life and activity of many of the better-minded among them, possesses a peculiar importance. Produced somewhere in those remote countries, it certainly remained there a considerable time without becoming much known in the west, until, in the course of the last century BC, or even later still, it was translated from the semi-Hebrew in which it was written into Greek. No sooner was this done than it found many readers, and, like all popular books, was speedily diffused in very different forms. In particular it was, in numerous manuscripts, more or less abridged, until at length, after the original text had been lost, it was translated back again into Hebrew as into other languages. That a work produced at that period among the Judeans of the east blossomed into many not dissimilar compositions may be concluded with certainty from its own words; but how much of his materials our poet may have drawn from the domestic histories of the Israelite families, we can no longer determine in detail, and where the leading personages are pure creations of the imagination it is a matter of comparative indifference.

Both books, however, are memorable in so far as they supply us with the latest testimonies to the spirit of the true religion in those regions of the east where Nahum, Ezekiel, mid many another real prophet, had once labored.

III

THE TEMPLE ON GERIZIM—THE EXPEDITION OF ALEXANDER.

There were now in Jerusalem itself, and probably also in Samaria, which was always closely dependent on the destinies of Phoenicia, two parties formed, corresponding to the division which, as we have already seen, had already taken place in Phoenicia. One of these, although for the moment cast violently on the ground by the Persian supremacy, never surrendered its secret aversion towards it, and hoped for fresh and more prosperous times; the other, after the last great Persian victory, was all the more scrupulous in its obedience. Before, however, investigating this state of things more closely, at the time of the conquest of Alexander, we must not fail to notice another important occurrence, viz. the building of the Temple of the Samaritans.

These two events are connected together by the narrative in Josephus, the age of which has been already discussed, in the following manner. The son of the high-priest John, Jaddua, who died at an advanced age soon after the victorious expedition of Alexander, had had a brother named Manasseh, to whom the Persian governor of Samaria Sanballat, had given his daughter Nicaso in marriage. The elders of Jerusalem, however, faithfully representing the views of their fellow-citizens, demanded the dissolution of this mixed marriage. Jaddua, as high-priest, declared against his brother, who in consequence fled to Samaria to his father-in-law. He was accompanied by many other priests and citizens of Judea who were involved in similar marriages and did not wish to renounce then. All these fugitives were well received by Sanballat. He supported them by assignments of land in Samaria and by other means, and from love for Manasseh and his offspring, as well as at the zealous instigation of this apostate priest, resolved to ask Darius Codomannus for permission to build a temple for the Samaritans alone on Mount Gerizim, near Shechein. At the same time Darius III marched against Alexander at the passes of the Taurus. Sanballat, accordingly, resolved to lay his request before him when he should return, as it was hoped, victorious over Alexander. But when, on the other hand, Alexander proved the conqueror, and advanced against Syria, laid siege to Tyre, and, while this was going on, in vain summoned the high-priest in Jerusalem to revolt from Darius, Sanballat met him with submission and an auxiliary force of 8000 Samaritans, secured from him the concession of the separate temple on Gerizim, and maintained that “it would be also advantageous to the king for the whole of the ancient people not to be united and of one accord”. Not long afterwards the crafty Sanballat died.

After Tyre and Gaza had been reduced, Alexander followed up his former threat, and advanced against Jerusalem to punish it for its previous refusal. The high-priest, however, encouraged and instructed by a vision in the temple, arrayed himself in all his splendor, and calmly took up his post, accompanied by the priests in their white linen robes and the rest of the people in white garments, on the heights of Sapha. This extraordinary reception, its sacred aspect, and in particular the figure of the high-priest, which seemed to him like a heavenly vision of strange memory, so moved Alexander to adoration, in spite of the dissuasions of Parmenio and others of his nobles, that he sacrificed in the temple in accordance with the instructions of the high-priest, accepted the application of the prophecy out of the book of Daniel to himself, and conceded all the ancient immunities of the Judeans (especially the exemption from taxes in the sabbatical year), allowing them to extend even to those who were dispersed in the east, upon which many offered to serve in his army. The Samaritans, whose numbers had constantly been increased by deserters who were unwilling to accommodate themselves to the more rigid laws enforced in Jerusalem about the Sabbath and other practices, and who were in the habit of giving themselves out either as Hebrews or Sidonians (i.e. heathen) as best served their immediate interests, were now desirous, on the arrival of Alexander, of being included among the Judeans, in order to obtain the same liberties. By his pointed questions, however, the Macedonian saw through their deception; but he could not withdraw the permission which he had already given them for the erection of the temple.

The whole tone of this narrative is obviously highly unhistorical. Moreover, it is easy to detect the two constituents, originally totally distinct, by the combination of which it was finally molded into its present form.

The Persian governor in Samaria is unquestionably the same Samballat whom we have already seen in the full historical light of the days of Nehemiali. Nehemiah, moreover, mentions quite cursorily in his memoir that he had expelled a grandson of the high-priest Eliashib, then in office, on account of his relationship with Sanballat, and this great movement, by which a person in the position of Eliashib’s grandson and many others who resisted the strictness just introduced were expelled, and the new Jerusalem fully cleansed from all the elements which would not combine with it, could not have found a place in the general historical development, except in the age of Ezra and Nehemiah. As Nehemiah does not mention the circumstance till just at the last, it probably did not occur till the reign of Darius II (Nothus), for whom, therefore, it was all the more easy at a subsequent date to substitute Darius III.

In other respects, however, these later traditions are in sufficient harmony with the brief record of Nehemiah to give us, in combination with other facts, a clear picture of the origin of the peculiar state of things in Samaria. From the time when the mixed inhabitants of Samaria were forbidden to cooperate in the establishment of the new temple at Jerusalem, it was inevitable that their wish to take a closer part in the religion of Jahveh should either disappear altogether or should grow in intensity until they could rival the proud Judeans. It is, indeed, a remarkable sign of the inward truth and power of this religion, which was by this time so old, that the love of it even among this hybrid population, in spite of the bitter unfriendliness displayed by Jerusalem, became stronger and stronger as time advanced, and obliterated the traces of heathenism more and more completely. The only way in which this was practically possible was through the settlement among the Samaritans of a number of respectable Judeans, carrying over with them their own higher culture. Were this to take place, an extremely active rivalry might be gradually kindled between New-Samaria and New-Jerusalem, which might lead to important results. The central district of the holy land had always in earlier days been proud of its own superiority, and, after the time of David, had been particularly envious of the rising prosperity of Jerusalem, and one of the first consequences of the rigidness which marked the new Jerusalem was that by the repulsion of the Samaritans the old jealousies and claims were awakened from their sleep, and continually goaded on. In this way the further developments of this tendency to extreme scrupulousness which continued to gain ground in Jerusalem soon proved more and more favorable to those who had been repudiated, and the community of the Samaritans was gradually enabled to supply the deficiencies which made themselves felt the soonest and the most keenly by means of those who entertained for it the greatest contempt.

Freedom from the narrow spirit which reigned in Jerusalem was now rendered possible in Samaria, both by its ancient history and by the power of opposition, and under this banner it became the rendezvous of all who were driven from Jerusalem more or less against their will. Among these refugees were men of position and culture like Manasseh, son of the high-priest. These were able to transplant to Samaria, the fully-developed science and art of holy things which were then flourishing in Jerusalem, and thus supplied the main want on account of which the Samaritans had previously desired to have their part in the sacred institutions at Jerusalem. This was actually accomplished, and an eminent proof of it is afforded us by the Samaritan, or, in its shorter and corrected form, the Samarian, Pentateuch. There cannot be the smallest doubt that this was brought to the Samaritans from Jerusalem.

It was for Judah alone that Deuteronomy had been intended; it was there alone that it had been generally received before the destruction of Jerusalem; it was among Judeans alone that the Pentateuch had been first circulated in its final shape, and it was only in the new Jerusalem, and particularly after the labors of Ezra, that its very letter had become a strict foundation for all conduct. But it is equally certain that it must have attained a similar position among the Samaritans not later than the concluding years of Nehemiah's administration. From this era onwards we find it regarded as the great and unique sacred book, as the subsequent history will prove; and at the period of Ezra and Nehemiah it was so generally regarded as the work of Moses that even those who disapproved of their proceedings could only seek to expound and apply it differently.

When, with this book in their hands, the Samaritans sought to gain from the Levitical priests who had gone over to them the higher knowledge and art of performing the sacred ceremonials with all the requisite exactitude and solemnity, we are at no loss for an explanation why their thoughts should soon fix themselves on a great temple of their own, so as to enable them to rival Jerusalem and its sanctity in every respect.

The design entertained by the Samaritans, therefore, of erecting a great sanctuary of their own, in which divine worship might be continually solemnized in accordance with all the details prescribed in the Pentateuch, was a perfectly natural one, and when they proceeded to carry it out, they readily found many narratives and passages in the sacred book which sounded extremely favorable to their pretensions, and clear indications of places where a great sanctuary might be very properly erected, with a claim to be regarded as the true one for all Israel. It was here in central Canaan that Jacob’s sanctuary had been set up; here lay many a spot of primeval sanctity which was clearly referred to in the Pentateuch, and was designated as still sacred for later times. As, however, the exact interpretation of ancient books was at that time by no means common, and plenty of room was left for arbitrary fancy, the learned Judean refugees among the Samaritans applied a passage on which they lighted in the Pentateuch in a manner very far from correct. This was the passage of the Deuteronomist in which Moses commands Israel after the conquest of the country to put the blessing on Mount Gerizim. This mountain lies south of Shechem, the ancient capital of Ephraim, where the ark may have stood in forme days, though only for a brief period. Opposite to it on the north is Mount Ebal, where there had certainly been an ancient sanctuary, to which the Deuteronomist refers. He represents Moses as ordaining that when the people mutually pledged themselves to keep the law, which was to be clone at every high festival, the first division of them was to stand on the northern slope of Gerizim and proclaim the blessing, as it were over the whole city, to the other division posted on the southern declivity of Ebal, and they in their turn were to send back the curse. In this proceeding Gerizim only gained the advantage of the first place from the fact that the division which appropriately began the whole ceremony with the blessing occupied the best position opposite the sanctuary, while the counter utterance resounded from the side on which the sanctuary stood. But in the violent dispute which then arose for the pre-eminence of the holy place in Canaan, the Samaritans did not trouble themselves about an exact interpretation which should be faithful to the history. They plainly found in the expression “thou shalt put the blessing on Gerizim”, torn as it was from the context, a sign that of the two mountains which stood on either side of the ancient sanctuary of Shechem, this was marked out before all the other mountains of the holy land as sacred and worthy of a great temple, and this increased their confidence in selecting it to be the seat of a great sanctuary which might rival that at Jerusalem. The next step was but a little one and was soon taken, and in the passage of the Deuteronomist where Ebal is specified as the place of the altar, the name was changed into Gerizim. Thus easy and rapid was the degeneration of the larger freedom of which the Samaritans boasted. Even the Pentateuch was not on the whole maintained among them in its antique form so conscientiously as among the Judeans; and a community which grows up outside an ever-progressive culture, and then suddenly turns towards it, can only with difficulty guard against violent ideas and changes.

The real source of the strength of the Samaritans lay in the mistakes committed by the leaders of the community in Jerusalem, which proceeded from their scrupulousness and their strict tendency towards the hagiocracy. Larger freedom formed the basis of this new disruption in exact antagonism to the spirit which now came to predominate more and more in Jerusalem; and this greater liberty and facility remained amid every subsequent change the prevailing feature of these “enemies of Judah and Benjamin”. Moreover, this new community of the ancient religion of Jahveh had its partial justification in its opposition to the one-sidedness in vogue at Jerusalem, and this for a time secured to it honor and power. The first centuries of its existence were those of its greatest brilliance, when its rivalry with the Judeans was not unattended with success, as we see from many indications, and in particular from the bitter jealousy which was now established in Jerusalem more firmly than ever. But its want of a historical position was the cause of deeper imperfections. In opposition to Jerusalem, it desired to go back right into the primitive age of Israel, and prided itself on being the continuation of the real ancient people. But it broke loose from the continuous culture which had gone on without interruption in Judea and Jerusalem from the time of David, except during the half century of the exile; and while it contended against the Judeans, it nevertheless derived from them alone all its best spiritual possessions. It was not possible for the Samaritans, therefore, to produce any great development of their own. The brilliance of their early period was followed by increasing disorganization and weakness, until step by step they sank into the condition of almost total extinction, in which they at present exist, after more than two thousand two hundred years.

At what time the temple on Gerizim was actually erected, and whether its construction was begun by Manasseh, with the powerful aid of Sanballat, we do not exactly know. It is true that even in the Persian times, and still more in the Greek, the Samaritans, like the Judeans, certainly had their historians. In particular, they possessed trustworthy records of the succession and fortunes of their chief-priests, who, like the high-priests in Jerusalem, constituted the only continuous links in their history. Special mention is made of a chief-priest named Hezekiah, who composed sacred songs, and was still alive at the time of Alexander. But it is much to be regretted that the only works which we now possess from the Samaritans treating of their own ancient history are of very late date and extremely unsatisfactory. So far as we can see from the traces which still survive, a small sanctuary at any rate was in existence on Gerizim before Alexander, chiefly under the zealous interest of Manasseh of Jerusalem, whose name continued to be honored among the Samaritans for a long time afterwards to a quite remarkable extent. A larger sanctuary, for which fresh permission from the supreme government was requisite, in consequence of the necessary cost of building and the continuance of large expenditure, was probably not erected there until the Greek supremacy. It is undeniable that the old city of Samaria was still the capital at the time of Zerubbabel; but the greater fame which Shechem very soon acquired could only have been due to the Temple on Gerizim. When the new Greek period dawned in Canaan, and the relations of the two communities of the people of God which had so long been hostile, were suddenly unchained, they showed their real nature openly for the first time in their respective endeavors to get the start in the favor of the conqueror, and this paltry little drama became from this time more and more frequent. Nor, in general, could anything prove more destructive of any further expansion and invigoration on the part of Israel than the increasing difficulty of reconciling the opposition between the two communities, both of which laid claim to the ancient rights and honors of the people of Israel, while neither of them could completely annihilate the other either by justice or force. With growing susceptibility and hostile feeling each employed every weapon to persecute the other, starting from views so entirely antagonistic that they forgot the elements common to them both. And if on some occasions a great common danger or any other circumstance compelled them unexpectedly to work side by side, their co-operation was speedily dissolved again into still keener enmity. Such was the bitter but also the righteous punishment of the first wrong step into which the new Jerusalem was led immediately after its foundation by the obscure purpose which was lurking in it.

In other respects, however, the narrative in Josephus only supplies us with a picture of the wonderful character of Alexander and his expedition in the vivid form in which it was long after preserved by tradition. It contains also a reminiscence, which is far from obscure, of the fact that no hesitation was displayed in Jerusalem about exchanging the Persian supremacy for another, and no one ventured to strike a blow in its favour, even though an endeavor was made to proceed at first somewhat prudently, which is sufficiently explained by the events which had taken place not long before. Of the subjugation of Jerusalem or Samaria, by the Greek army and the overthrow of the Persian power, we no longer possess any accurate information; but since they were at that time merely dependencies of larger cities and countries, it is a matter of comparative indifference. Our ignorance, however, increases the importance of the consequences which speedily developed themselves, and which we must now examine with more attention.

EZRA AND NEHEMIAH