the recovery of successive historical nuclei does not furnish a
  continuous thread, and if one is to be guided by the historical
  context of events the true background to each nucleus must be sought.
  The northern kingdom cherished the institution of a monarchy, and in
  this, as in all great political events, the prophets took part. The
  precise part these figures play is often idealized and expresses the
  later views of their prominence. It was only after a bitter experience
  that the kingship was no longer regarded as a divine gift, and
  traditions have been revised in order to illustrate the opposition to
  secular authority. In this and in many other respects the records of
  the first monarchy have been elaborated and now reveal traces of
  differing conceptions of the events (see DAN; DAVID; ELI; SAMUEL;
  SAUL; SOLOMON). The oldest narratives are not in their original
  contexts, and they contain features which render it questionable
  whether a very trustworthy recollection of the period was retained.
  Although the rise of the Hebrew state, at an age when the great powers
  were quiescent and when such a people as the Philistines is known to
  have appeared upon the scene, is entirely intelligible, it is not
  improbable that legends of Saul and David, the heroic founders of the
  two kingdoms, have been put in a historical setting with the help of
  later historical tradition. It is at least necessary to distinguish
  provisionally between a possibly historical framework and narratives
  which may be of later growth--between the general outlines which only
  external evidence can test and details which cannot be tested and
  appear isolated without any cause or devoid of any effect.

  Many attempts have been made to present a satisfactory sketch of the
  early history and to do justice to (a) the patriarchal narratives,
  (b) the exodus from Egypt and the Israelite invasion, and (c) the
  rise of the monarchy. As regards (b), external evidence has already
  suggested to scholars that there were Israelites in Palestine before
  the invasion; internal historical criticism is against the view that
  all the tribes entered under Joshua; and in (a) there are traces of an
  actual settlement in the land, entirely distinct from the cycle of
  narratives which prepare the way for (b). The various reconstructions
  and compromises by modern apologetic and critical writers alike
  involve without exception an extremely free treatment of the biblical
  sources and the rejection of many important and circumstantial
  data.[11] On the one hand, a sweeping invasion of all the tribes of
  Israel moved by a common zeal may, like the conquests of Islam, have
  produced permanent results. According to this view the enervating
  luxury of Palestinian culture almost destroyed the lofty ideal
  monotheism inculcated in the desert, and after the fall of the
  northern tribes (latter part of the 8th cent.) Judah is naturally
  regarded as the sole heir. But such a conquest, and all that it
  signifies, conflict both with external evidence (e.g. the results of
  excavation), and with any careful inspection of the narratives
  themselves. On the other hand, the reconstructions which allow a
  gradual settlement (perhaps of distinct groups), and an intermingling
  with the earlier inhabitants, certainly find support in biblical
  evidence, and they have been ingeniously built up with the help of
  tribal and other data (e.g. Gen. xxxiv., xxxviii.; Judg. i. ix.). But
  they imply political, sociological and religious developments which do
  not do justice either to the biblical evidence as a whole or to a
  comprehensive survey of contemporary conditions.[12] Thus, one of the
  important questions is the relation between those who had taken part
  in the exodus and the invasion and those who had not. This inquiry is
  further complicated by (c), where the history of Israel and Judah, as
  related in Judges and 1 Samuel, has caused endless perplexity. The
  traditions of the Ephraimite Joshua and of Saul the first king of
  (north) Israel virtually treat Judah as part of Israel and are related
  to the underlying representations in (a). But the specific independent
  Judaean standpoint treats the unification of the two divisions as the
  work of David who leaves the heritage to Solomon. The varied
  narratives, now due to Judaean editors, preserve distinct points of
  view, and it is extremely difficult to unravel the threads and to
  determine their relative position in the history. Finally, the
  consciousness that the people as a religious body owed everything to
  the desert clans (b) (see § 5) subsequently leaves its mark upon
  (north) Israelite history (§ 14), but has not the profound
  significance which it has in the records of Judah and Jerusalem.
  Without sufficient external and independent evidence wherewith to
  interpret in the light of history the internal features of the
  intricate narratives, any reconstruction would naturally be hazardous,
  and all attempts must invariably be considered in the light of the
  biblical evidence itself, the date of the Israelite exodus, and the
  external conditions. Biblical criticism is concerned with a composite
  (Judaean) history based upon other histories (partly of non-Judaean
  origin), and the relation between native written sources and external
  contemporary evidence (monumental and archaeological) distinctly
  forbids any haphazard selection from accessible sources. The true
  nature of this relation can be readily observed in other fields
  (ancient Britain, Greece, Egypt, &c.), where, however, the native
  documents and sources have not that complexity which characterizes the
  composite biblical history. (For the period under review, as it
  appears in the light of existing external evidence, see PALESTINE:
  _History_.)

9. _The Rival Kingdoms._--The Palestine of the Hebrews was but part of a
great area breathing the same atmosphere, and there was little to
distinguish Judah from Israel except when they were distinct political
entities. The history of the two kingdoms is contained in Kings and the
later and relatively less trustworthy Chronicles, which deals with Judah
alone. In the former a separate history of the northern kingdom has been
combined with Judaean history by means of synchronisms in accordance
with a definite scheme. The 480 years from the foundation of the temple
of Jerusalem back to the date of the exodus (1 Kings vi. 1) corresponds
to the period forward to the return from the exile (§ 20). This falls
into three equal divisions, of which the first ends with Jehoash's
temple-reforms and the second with Hezekiah's death. The kingdom of
Israel lasts exactly half the time. Of the 240 years from Jeroboam I.,
80 elapse before the Syrian wars in Ahab's reign, these cover another
80; the famous king Jeroboam II. reigns 40 years, and 40 years of
decline bring the kingdom to an end. These figures speak for themselves,
and the present chronology can be accepted only where it is
independently proved to be trustworthy (see further W. R. Smith,
_Prophets of Israel_, pp. 144-149). Next, the Judaean compiler regularly
finds in Israel's troubles the punishment for its schismatic idolatry;
nor does he spare Judah, but judges its kings by a standard which agrees
with the standpoint of Deuteronomy and is scarcely earlier than the end
of the 7th century B.C. (§§ 16, 20). But the history of (north) Israel
had naturally its own independent political backgrounds and the literary
sources contain the same internal features as the annals and prophetic
narratives which are already met with in 1 Samuel. Similarly the thread
of the Judaean annals in Kings is also found in 2 Samuel, although the
supplementary narratives in Kings are not so rich or varied as the more
popular records in the preceding books. The striking differences between
Samuel and Kings are due to differences in the writing of the history;
independent Israelite records having been incorporated with those of
Judah and supplemented (with revision) from the Judaean standpoint (see
CHRONICLES; KINGS; SAMUEL).

The Judaean compiler, with his history of the two kingdoms, looks back
upon the time when each laid the foundation of its subsequent fortunes.
His small kingdom of Judah enjoyed an unbroken dynasty which survived
the most serious crises, a temple which grew in splendour and wealth
under royal patronage, and a legitimate priesthood which owed its origin
to Zadok, the successful rival of David's priest Abiathar. Israel, on
the other hand, had signed its death-warrant by the institution of
calf-cult, a cult which, however, was scarcely recognized as contrary to
the worship of Yahweh before the denunciations of Hosea. The scantiness
of political information and the distinctive arrangement of material
preclude the attempt to trace the relative position of the two rivals.
Judah had natural connexions with Edom and southern Palestine; Israel
was more closely associated with Gilead and the Aramaeans of the north.
That Israel was the stronger may be suggested by the acquiescence of
Judah in the new situation. A diversion was caused by Shishak's
invasion, but of this reappearance of Egypt after nearly three centuries
of inactivity little is preserved in biblical history. Only the Temple
records recall the spoliation of the sanctuary of Jerusalem, and
traditions of Jeroboam I. show that Shishak's prominence was well
known.[13] Although both kingdoms suffered, common misfortune did not
throw them together. On the contrary, the statement that there was
continual warfare is supplemented in Chronicles by the story of a
victory over Israel by Abijah the son of Rehoboam. Jeroboam's son Nadab
perished in a conspiracy whilst besieging the Philistine city of
Gibbethon, and Baasha of (north) Israel seized the throne. His reign is
noteworthy for the entrance of Damascus into Palestinian politics. Its
natural fertility and its commanding position at the meeting-place of
trade-routes from every quarter made it a dominant factor until its
overthrow. In the absence of its native records its relations with
Palestine are not always clear, but it may be supposed that amid varying
political changes it was able to play a double game. According to the
annals, incessant war prevailed between Baasha and Abijah's successor,
Asa. It is understood that the former was in league with Damascus, which
had once been hostile to Solomon (1 Kings xi. 24 seq.)--it is not stated
upon whom Asa could rely. However, Baasha at length seized Ramah about
five miles north of Jerusalem, and the very existence of Judah was
threatened. Asa utilized the treasure of the Temple and palace to induce
the Syrians to break off their relations with Baasha. These sent troops
to harry north Israel, and Baasha was compelled to retire. Asa, it is
evident, was too weak to achieve the remarkable victory ascribed to him
in 2 Chron. xiv. (see ASA). As for Baasha, his short-lived dynasty
resembles that of his predecessors. His son Elah had reigned only two
years (like Ishbaal and Nadab) when he was slain in the midst of a
drunken carousal by his captain Zimri. Meanwhile the Israelite army was
again besieging the Philistines at Gibbethon, and the recurrence of
these conflicts points to a critical situation in a Danite locality in
which Judah itself (although ignored by the writers), must have been
vitally concerned. The army preferred their general Omri, and marching
upon Zimri at Tirzah burnt the palace over his head. A fresh rival
immediately appeared, the otherwise unknown Tibni, son of Ginath. Israel
was divided into two camps, until, on the death of Tibni and his brother
Joram, Omri became sole king (c. 887 B.C.). The scanty details of these
important events must naturally be contrasted with the comparatively
full accounts of earlier Philistine wars and internal conflicts in
narratives which date from this or even a later age.

10. _The Dynasty of Omri._--Omri (q.v.), the founder of one of the
greatest dynasties of Israel, was contemporary with the revival of Tyre
under Ithobaal, and the relationship between the states is seen in the
marriage of Omri's son Ahab to Jezebel, the priest-king's daughter. His
most notable recorded achievement was the subjugation of Moab and the
seizure of part of its territory. The discovery of the inscription of a
later king of Moab (q.v.) has proved that the east-Jordanic tribes were
no uncivilized or barbaric folk; material wealth, a considerable
religious and political organization, and the cultivation of letters (as
exemplified in the style of the inscription) portray conditions which
allow us to form some conception of life in Israel itself. Moreover,
Judah (now under Jehoshaphat) enjoyed intimate relations with Israel
during Omri's dynasty, and the traditions of intermarriage, and of
co-operation in commerce and war, imply what was practically a united
Palestine. Alliance with Phoenicia gave the impulse to extended
intercourse; trading expeditions were undertaken from the Gulf of Akaba,
and Ahab built himself a palace decorated with ivory. The cult of the
Baal of Tyre followed Jezebel to the royal city Samaria and even found
its way into Jerusalem. This, the natural result of matrimonial and
political alliance, already met with under Solomon, receives the usual
denunciation. The conflict between Yahweh and Baal and the defeat of the
latter are the characteristic notes of the religious history of the
period, and they leave their impression upon the records, which are now
more abundant. Although little is preserved of Omri's history, the fact
that the northern kingdom long continued to be called by the Assyrians
after his name is a significant indication of his great reputation.
Assyria[14] was now making itself felt in the west for the first time
since the days of Tiglath-Pileser I. (c. 1100 B.C.), and external
sources come to our aid. Assur-nazir-pal III. had exacted tribute from
north Syria (c. 870 B.C.), and his successor Shalmaneser II., in the
course of a series of expeditions, succeeded in gaining the greater part
of that land. A defensive coalition was formed in which the kings of
Cilicia, Hamath, the Phoenician coast, Damascus and Ammon, the Arabs of
the Syrian desert, and "Ahabbu Sirlai" were concerned. In the last, we
must recognize the Israelite Ahab. His own contribution of 10,000 men
and 12,000 chariots perhaps included levies from Judah and Moab (cf. for
the number 1 Kings x. 26). In 854 the allies at least maintained
themselves at the battle of Karkar (perhaps Apamea to the north of
Hamath). In 849 and 846 other indecisive battles were fought, but the
precise constitution of the coalition is not recorded. In 842
Shalmaneser records a campaign against Hazael of Damascus; no coalition
is mentioned, although a battle was fought at Sanir (Hermon, Deut. iii.
9), and the cities of Hauran to the south of Damascus were spoiled.
Tribute was received from Tyre and Sidon; and Jehu, who was now king of
Israel, sent his gifts of gold, silver, &c., to the conqueror. The
Assyrian inscription (the so-called "Black Obelisk" now in the British
Museum), which records the submission of the petty kings, gives an
interesting representation of the humble Israelite emissaries with their
long fringed robes and strongly marked physiognomy (see COSTUME, fig.
9). Yet another expedition in 839 would seem to show that Damascus was
neither crushed nor helpless, but thenceforth for a number of years
Assyria was fully occupied elsewhere and the west was left to itself.
The value of this external evidence for the history of Israel is
enhanced by the fact that biblical tradition associates the changes in
the thrones of Israel and Damascus with the work of the prophets Elijah
and Elisha, but handles the period without a single reference to the
Assyrian Empire. Ahab, it seems, had aroused popular resentment by
encroaching upon the rights of the people to their landed possessions;
had it not been for Jezebel (q.v.) the tragedy of Naboth would not have
occurred. The worship of Baal of Tyre roused a small circle of zealots,
and again the Phoenician marriage was the cause of the evil. We read the
history from the point of view of prophets. Elijah of Gilead led the
revolt. To one who favoured simplicity of cult the new worship was a
desecration of Yahweh, and, braving the anger of the king and queen, he
foreshadowed their fate. Hostility towards the dynasty culminated a few
years later in a conspiracy which placed on the throne the general Jehu,
the son of one Jehoshaphat (or, otherwise, of Nimshi). The work which
Elijah began was completed by Elisha, who supported Jehu and the new
dynasty. A massacre ensued in which the royal families of Israel and
Judah perished. While the extirpation of the cult of Baal was furthered
in Israel by Jonadab the Rechabite, it was the "people of the land" who
undertook a similar reform in Judah. Jehu (q.v.) became king as the
champion of the purer worship of Yahweh. The descendants of the detested
Phoenician marriage were rooted out, and unless the close intercourse
between Israel and Judah had been suddenly broken, it would be supposed
that the new king at least laid claim to the south. The events form one
of the fundamental problems of biblical history.

11. _Damascus, Israel and Judah._--The appearance of Assyria in the
Mediterranean coast-lands had produced the results which inevitably
follow when a great empire comes into contact with minor states. It
awakened fresh possibilities--successful combination against a common
foe, the sinking of petty rivalries, the chance of gaining favour by a
neutrality which was scarcely benevolent. The alliances,
counter-alliances and far-reaching political combinations which spring
up at every advance of the greater powers are often perplexing in the
absence of records of the states concerned. Even the biblical traditions
alone do not always represent the same attitude, and our present sources
preserve the work of several hands. Hazael of Damascus, Jehu of Israel
and Elisha the prophet are the three men of the new age linked together
in the words of one writer as though commissioned for like ends (1 Kings
xix. 15-17). Hostility to Phoenicia (i.e. the Baal of Tyre) is as
intelligible as a tendency to look to Aramaean neighbours. Though Elisha
sent to anoint Jehu as king, he was none the less on most intimate terms
with Bar-hadad (Old. Test. Ben-hadad) of Damascus and recognized Hazael
as its future ruler. It is a natural assumption that Damascus could
still count upon Israel as an ally in 842; not until the withdrawal of
Assyria and the accession of Jehu did the situation change. "In those
days Yahweh began to cut short" (or, altering the text, "to be angry
with") "Israel." This brief notice heralds the commencement of Hazael's
attack upon Israelite territory east of the Jordan (2 Kings x. 32). The
origin of the outbreak is uncertain. It has been assumed that Israel had
withdrawn from the great coalition, that Jehu sent tribute to
Shalmaneser to obtain that monarch's recognition, and that Hazael
consequently seized the first opportunity to retaliate. Certain
traditions, it is true, indicate that Israel had been at war with the
Aramaeans from before 854 to 842, and that Hazael was attacking Gilead
at the time when Jehu revolted; but in the midst of these are other
traditions of the close and friendly relations between Israel and
Damascus! With these perplexing data the position of Judah is
inextricably involved.

  The special points which have to be noticed in the records for this
  brief period (1 Kings xvii.-2 Kings xi.) concern both literary and
  historical criticism.[15] A number of narratives illustrate the work
  of the prophets, and sometimes purely political records appear to have
  been used for the purpose (see ELIJAH; ELISHA). If Elijah is the
  prophet of the fall of Omri's dynasty, Elisha is no less the prophet
  of Jehu and his successors; and it is extremely probable that his
  lifework was confined to the dynasty which he inaugurated.[16] In the
  present narratives, however, the stories in which he possesses
  influence with king and court are placed before the rise of Jehu, and
  some of them point to a state of hostility with Damascus before he
  foresees the atrocities which Hazael will perpetrate. But Ahab's wars
  with Syria can with difficulty be reconciled with the Assyrian
  evidence (see AHAB), and the narratives, largely anonymous, agree in a
  singular manner with what is known of the serious conflicts which, it
  is said, began in Jehu's time. Moreover, the account of the joint
  undertaking by Judah (under Jehoshaphat) and Israel against Syria at
  Ramoth-Gilead at the time of Ahab's death, and again (under Ahaziah)
  when Jehoram was wounded, shortly before the accession of Jehu, are
  historical doublets, and they can hardly be harmonized either with the
  known events of 854 and 842 or with the course of the intervening
  years. Further, all the traditions point clearly to the very close
  union of Israel and Judah at this period, a union which is apt to be
  obscured by the fact that the annalistic summaries of each kingdom are
  mainly independent. Thus we may contrast the favourable Judaean view
  of Jehoshaphat with the condemnation passed upon Ahab and Jezebel,
  whose daughter Athaliah married Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat. It is
  noteworthy, also, that an Ahaziah and a Jehoram appear as kings of
  Israel, and (in the reverse order) of Judah, and somewhat similar
  incidents recur in the now separate histories of the two kingdoms. The
  most striking is a great revolt in south Palestine. The alliance
  between Jehoshaphat and Ahab doubtless continued when the latter was
  succeeded by his son Ahaziah, and some disaster befell their trading
  fleet in the Gulf of Akaba (1 Kings xxii. 48 seq.; 2 Chron. xx.
  35-37). Next came the revolt of Moab (2 Kings i. 1), and Ahaziah,
  after the briefest of reigns, was followed by Jehoram, whose Judaean
  contemporary was Jehoshaphat (ch. iii.), or perhaps rather his own
  namesake (i. 17). The popular story of Jehoram's campaign against
  Moab, with which Edom was probably allied (see MOAB), hints at a
  disastrous ending, and the Judaean annals, in their turn, record the
  revolt of Edom and the Philistine Libnah (see PHILISTINES), and allude
  obscurely to a defeat of the Judaean Jehoram (2 Kings viii. 20-22).
  Further details in 2 Chron. xxi.-xxii. 1 even record an invasion of
  Philistines and Arabians (? Edomites), an attack upon Jerusalem, the
  removal of the palace treasures and of all the royal sons with the
  sole exception of Jehoahaz, i.e. Ahaziah (see JEHORAM; JEHOSHAPHAT).
  Had the two kingdoms been under a single head, these features might
  find an explanation, but it must be allowed that it is extremely
  difficult to fit the general situation into our present history, and
  to determine where the line is to be drawn between trustworthy and
  untrustworthy details. Moreover, of the various accounts of the
  massacre of the princes of Judah, the Judaean ascribes it not to Jehu
  and the reforming party (2 Kings x. 13 seq.) but to Athaliah (q.v.).
  Only the babe Jehoash was saved, and he remained hidden in the Temple
  adjoining the palace itself. The queen, Athaliah, despite the weak
  state of Judah after the revolt in Philistia and Edom, actually
  appears to have maintained herself for six years, until the priests
  slew her in a conspiracy, overthrew the cult of Baal, and crowned the
  young child. It is a new source which is here suddenly introduced,
  belonging apparently to a history of the Temple; it throws no light
  upon the relations between Judah with its priests and Israel with its
  prophets, the circumstances of the regency under the priest Jehoiada
  are ignored, and the Temple reforms occupy the first place in the
  compiler's interest. The Judaean annals then relate Hazael's advance
  to Gath; the city was captured and Jerusalem was saved only by using
  the Temple and palace treasure as a bribe. On the other hand,
  Chronicles has a different story with a novel prelude. Jehoash, it is
  said, turned away from Yahweh after the death of Jehoiada and gave
  heed to the Judaean nobles, "wrath came upon Judah and Jerusalem for
  their guilt," prophets were sent to bring them back but they turned a
  deaf ear. The climax of iniquity was the murder of Jehoiada's son
  Zechariah. Soon after, a small band of Syrians entered Judah,
  destroyed its princes, and sent the spoil to the king of Damascus; the
  disaster is regarded as a prompt retribution (2 Chron. xxiv.). The
  inferiority of Chronicles as a historical source and its varied
  examples of "tendency-writing" must be set against its possible access
  to traditions as trustworthy as those in Kings.[17] In the present
  instance the novel details cannot be lightly brushed aside. The
  position of Judah at this period must be estimated (a) from the
  preceding years of intimate relationship with Israel to the accession
  of Jehu, and (b) from the calamity about half a century later when
  Jerusalem was sacked by Israel. The Judaean narratives do not allow us
  to fill the gap or to determine whether Judaean policy under the
  regent Jehoiada would be friendly or hostile to Israel, or whether
  Judaean nobles may have severed the earlier bond of union. If the
  latter actually occurred, the hostility of the Israelite prophets is
  only to be expected. But it is to be presumed that the punishment came
  from Israel--the use of Syrian mercenaries not excluded--and if,
  instead of using his treasure to ward off the invasion of Syria,
  Jehoash bribed Damascus to break off relations with Israel, an
  alternative explanation of the origin of the Aramaean wars may be
  found.[18]

12. _The Aramaean Wars._--If the records leave it uncertain (a) whether
Jehu (like Tyre and Sidon) sent tribute to Shalmaneser as a sign of
submission or, while severing relations with Hazael, sought the favour
of Assyria, and (b) whether Judah only escaped Hazael's vengeance by a
timely bribe or, in freeing itself from Israel, had bribed Hazael to
create a diversion, it appears that the southern kingdom suffered little
in the disastrous wars between Damascus and Israel. There were, indeed,
internal troubles, and Jehoash perished in a conspiracy. His son Amaziah
had some difficulty in gaining the kingdom and showed unwonted leniency
in sparing the children of his father's murderers. This was a departure
from the customs of the age, and was perhaps influenced less by
generosity than by expediency. Israel, on the other hand, was almost
annihilated. The Syrians seized Gilead, crossed over into Palestine, and
occupied the land. Jehu's son Jehoahaz saw his army made "like the dust
in threshing," and the desperate condition of the country recalls the
straits in the time of Saul (1 Sam. xiii. 6, 7, 19-22), and the days
before the great overthrow of the northern power as described in Judges
v. 6-8. The impression left by the horrors of the age is clear from the
allusions to the barbarities committed by Damascus and its Ammonite
allies upon Gilead (Amos i. 3, 13), and in the account of the interview
between Elisha and Hazael (2 Kings viii. 12). Several of the situations
can be more vividly realized from the narratives of Syrian wars ascribed
to the time of Omri's dynasty, even if these did not originally refer to
the later period. Under Joash, son of Jehoahaz, the tide turned. Elisha
was apparently the champion, and posterity told of his exploits when
Samaria was visited with the sword. Thrice Joash smote the Syrians--in
accordance with the last words of the dying prophet--and Aphek in the
Sharon plain, famous in history for Israel's disasters, now witnessed
three victories. The enemy under Hazael's son Ben-hadad (properly
Bar-hadad) was driven out and Joash regained the territory which his
father had lost (2 Kings xiii. 25); it may reasonably be supposed that a
treaty was concluded (cf. 1 Kings xx. 34). But the peace does not seem
to have been popular. The story of the last scene in Elisha's life
implies in Joash an easily contented disposition which hindered him from
completing his successes. Syria had not been crushed, and the failure to
utilize the opportunity was an act of impolitic leniency for which
Israel was bound to suffer (2 Kings xiii. 19). Elisha's indignation can
be illustrated by the denunciation passed upon an anonymous king by the
prophetic party on a similar occasion (1 Kings xx. 35-43).

At this stage it is necessary to notice the fresh invasion of Syria by
Hadad (Adad)-nirari, who besieged Mari, king of Damascus, and exacted a
heavy tribute (c. 800 B.C.). A diversion of this kind may explain the
Israelite victories; the subsequent withdrawal of Assyria may have
afforded the occasion for retaliation. Those in Israel who remembered
the previous war between Assyria and Damascus would realize the
recuperative power of the latter, and would perceive the danger of the
short-sighted policy of Joash. It is interesting to find that
Hadad-nirari claims tribute from Tyre, Sidon and Beth-Omri (Israel),
also from Edom and Palastu (Philistia). There are no signs of an
extensive coalition as in the days of Shalmaneser; Ammon is probably
included under Damascus; the position of Moab--which had freed itself
from Jehoram of Israel--can hardly be calculated. But the absence of
Judah is surprising. Both Jehoash (of Judah) and his son Amaziah left
behind them a great name; and the latter was comparable only to David (2
Kings xiv. 3). He defeated Edom in the Valley of Salt, and hence it is
conceivable that Amaziah's kingdom extended over both Edom and
Philistia. A vaunting challenge to Joash (of Israel) gave rise to one of
the two fables that are preserved in the Old Testament (Judg. ix. 8
sqq.; see ABIMELECH). It was followed by a battle at Beth-shemesh; the
scene would suggest that Philistia also was involved. The result was the
route of Judah, the capture of Amaziah, the destruction of the northern
wall of Jerusalem, the sacking of the temple and palace, and the removal
of hostages to Samaria (2 Kings xiv. 12 sqq.). Only a few words are
preserved, but the details, when carefully weighed, are extremely
significant. This momentous event for the southern kingdom was scarcely
the outcome of a challenge to a trial of strength; it was rather the
sequel to a period of smouldering jealousy and hostility.

  The Judaean records have obscured the history since the days of Omri's
  dynasty, when Israel and Judah were as one, when they were moved by
  common aims and by a single reforming zeal, and only Israel's
  vengeance gives the measure of the injuries she had received. That the
  Judaean compiler has not given fuller information is not surprising;
  the wonder is that he should have given so much. It is one of those
  epoch-making facts in the light of which the course of the history of
  the preceding and following years must be estimated. It is taken,
  strangely enough, from an Israelite source, but the tone of the whole
  is quite dispassionate and objective. It needs little reflection to
  perceive that the position of Jerusalem and Judah was now hardly one
  of independence, and the conflicting chronological notices betray the
  attempt to maintain intact the thread of Judaean history. So, on the
  one hand, the year of the disaster sees the death of the Israelite
  king, and Amaziah survives for fifteen years, while, on the other,
  twenty-seven years elapse between the battle and the accession of
  Uzziah, the next king of Judah.[19]

  The importance of the historical questions regarding relations between
  Damascus, Israel and Judah is clear. The defeat of Syria by Joash (of
  Israel) was not final. The decisive victories were gained by Jeroboam
  II. He saved Israel from being blotted out, and through his successes
  "the children of Israel dwelt in their tents as of old" (2 Kings xiii.
  5, xiv. 26 seq.). Syria must have resumed warfare with redoubled
  energy, and a state of affairs is presupposed which can be pictured
  with the help of narratives that deal with similar historical
  situations. In particular, the overthrow of Israel as foreshadowed in
  1 Kings xxii. implies an Aramaean invasion (cf. vv. 17, 25), after a
  treaty (xx. 35 sqq.), although this can scarcely be justified by the
  events which followed the death of Ahab, in whose time they are now
  placed.

  For the understanding of these great wars between Syria and Israel
  (which the traditional chronology spreads over eighty years), for the
  significance of the crushing defeats and inspiring victories, and for
  the alternations of despair and hope, a careful study of all the
  records of relations between Israel and the north is at least
  instructive, and it is important to remember that, although the
  present historical outlines are scanty and incomplete, some--if not
  all--of the analogous descriptions in their present form are certainly
  later than the second half of the 9th century B.C., the period in
  which these great events fall.[20]

13. _Political Development._--Under Jeroboam II. the borders of Israel
were restored, and in this political revival the prophets again took
part.[21] The defeat of Ben-hadad by the king of Hamath and the
quiescence of Assyria may have encouraged Israelite ambitions, but until
more is known of the campaigns of Hadad-nirari and of Shalmaneser III.
(against Damascus, 773 B.C.) the situation cannot be safely gauged. Moab
was probably tributary; the position of Judah and Edom is involved with
the chronological problems. According to the Judaean annals, the "people
of Judah" set Azariah (Uzziah) upon his father's throne; and to his long
reign of fifty-two years are ascribed conquests over Philistia and Edom,
the fortification of Jerusalem and the reorganization of the army. As
the relations with Israel are not specified, the sequel to Amaziah's
defeat is a matter for conjecture; although, when at the death of
Jeroboam Israel hastened to its end amid anarchy and dissension, it is
hardly likely that the southern kingdom was unmoved. All that can be
recognized from the biblical records, however, is the period of internal
prosperity which Israel and Judah enjoyed under Jeroboam and Uzziah
(qq.v.) respectively.

It is difficult to trace the biblical history century by century as it
reaches these last years of bitter conflict and of renewed prosperity.
The northern kingdom at the height of its power included Judah, it
extended its territory east of the Jordan towards the north and the
south, and maintained close relations with Phoenicia and the Aramaean
states. It had a national history which left its impress upon the
popular imagination, and sundry fragments of tradition reveal the pride
which the patriot felt in the past. An original close connexion is felt
with the east of the Jordan and with Gilead; stories of invasion and
conquest express themselves in varied forms. In so far as internal
wealth and luxury presuppose the control of the trade-routes, periodical
alliances are implied in which Judah, willingly or unwillingly, was
included. But the Judaean records do not allow us to trace its
independent history with confidence, and our estimate can scarcely base
itself solely upon the accidental fulness or scantiness of political
details. In the subsequent disasters of Israel (§ 15) we may perceive
the growing supremacy of Judah, and the Assyrian inscriptions clearly
indicate the dependence of Judaean politics upon its relations with Edom
and Arab tribes on the south-east and with Philistia on the west.
Whatever had been the effect of the movement of the Purasati some
centuries previously, the Philistines (i.e. the people of Philistia) are
now found in possession of a mature organization, and the Assyrian
evidence is of considerable value for an estimate of the stories of
conflict and covenant, of hostility and friendship, which were current
in south Palestine. The extension of the term "Judah" (cf. that of
"Israel" and "Samaria") is involved with the incorporation of
non-Judaean elements. The country for ten miles north of Jerusalem was
the exposed and highly debatable district ascribed to the young tribe of
Benjamin (the favourite "brother" of both Judah and Joseph; Gen.
xxxvii., xxxix. sqq.); the border-line between the rival kingdoms
oscillated, and consequently the political position of the smaller and
half-desert Judaean state depended upon the attitude of its neighbours.
It is possible that tradition is right in supposing that "Judah went
down from his brethren" (Gen. xxxviii. 1; cf. Judg. i. 3). Its monarchy
traced its origin to Hebron in the south, and its growth is contemporary
with a decline in Israel (§ 7). It is at least probable that when Israel
was supreme an independent Judah would centre around a more southerly
site than Jerusalem. It is naturally uncertain how far the traditions of
David can be utilized; but they illustrate Judaean situations when they
depict intrigues with Israelite officials, vassalage under Philistia,
and friendly relations with Moab, or when they suggest how enmity
between Israel and Ammon could be turned to useful account. Tradition,
in fact, is concentrated upon the rise of the Judaean dynasty under
David, but there are significant periods before the rise of both Jehoash
and Uzziah upon which the historical records maintain a perplexing
silence.

The Hebrews of Israel and Judah were, political history apart, men of
the same general stamp, with the same cult and custom; for the study of
religion and social usages, therefore, they can be treated as a single
people. The institution of the monarchy was opposed to the simpler
local forms of government, and a military régime had distinct
disadvantages (cf. 1 Sam. viii. 11-18). The king stood at the head, as
the court of final appeal, and upon him and his officers depended the
people's welfare. A more intricate social organization caused internal
weakness, and Eastern history shows with what rapidity peoples who have
become strong by discipline and moderation pass from the height of their
glory into extreme corruption and disintegration.[22] This was Israel's
fate. Opposition to social abuses and enmity towards religious
innovations are regarded as the factors which led to the overthrow of
Omri's dynasty by Jehu, and when Israel seemed to be at the height of
its glory under Jeroboam II. warning voices again made themselves heard.
The two factors are inseparable, for in ancient times no sharp
dividing-line was drawn between religious and civic duties:
righteousness and equity, religious duty and national custom were one.

  Elaborate legal enactments codified in Babylonia by the 20th century
  B.C. find striking parallels in Hebrew, late Jewish (Talmudic), Syrian
  and Mahommedan law, or in the unwritten usages of all ages; for even
  where there were neither written laws nor duly instituted lawgivers,
  there was no lawlessness, since custom and belief were, and still are,
  almost inflexible. Various collections are preserved in the Old
  Testament; they are attributed to the time of Moses the lawgiver, who
  stands at the beginning of Israelite national and religious history.
  But many of the laws were quite unsuitable for the circumstances of
  his age, and the belief that a body of intricate and even
  contradictory legislation was imposed suddenly upon a people newly
  emerged from bondage in Egypt raises insurmountable objections, and
  underestimates the fact that legal usage existed in the earliest
  stages of society, and therefore in pre-Mosaic times. The more
  important question is the date of the laws in their present form and
  content. Collections of laws are found in Deuteronomy and in exilic
  and post-exilic writings; groups of a relatively earlier type are
  preserved in Exod. xxxiv. 14-26, xx. 23-xxiii., and (of another stamp)
  in Lev. xvii.-xxvi. (now in post-exilic form). For a useful conspectus
  of details, see J. E. Carpenter and G. Harford-Battersby. _The
  Hexateuch_ (vol. i., appendix); C. F. Kent, _Israel's Laws and Legal
  Enactments_ (1907); and in general I. Benzinger, articles
  "Government," "Family" and "Law and Justice," _Ency. Bib._, and G. B.
  Gray, "Law Literature," ib. (the literary growth of legislation).
  Reference may also be made, for illustrative material, to W. R. Smith,
  _Kinship and Marriage_, _Religion of the Semites_; to E. Day, _Social
  Life of the Hebrews_; and, for some comparison of customary usage in
  the Semitic field, to S. A. Cook, _Laws of Moses and Code of
  Hammurabi_.

14. _Religion and the Prophets._--The elements of the thought and
religion of the Hebrews do not sever them from their neighbours; similar
features of cult are met with elsewhere under different names. Hebrew
religious institutions can be understood from the biblical evidence
studied in the light of comparative religion; and without going afield
to Babylonia, Assyria or Egypt, valuable data are furnished by the cults
of Phoenicia, Syria and Arabia, and these in turn can be illustrated
from excavation and from modern custom. Every religion has its customary
cult and ritual, its recognized times, places and persons for the
observance. Worship is simpler at the smaller shrines than at the more
famous temples; and, as the rulers are the patrons of the religion and
are brought into contact with the religious personnel, the character of
the social organization leaves its mark upon those who hold religious
and judicial functions alike. The Hebrews shared the paradoxes of
Orientals, and religious enthusiasm and ecstasy were prominent features.
Seers and prophets of all kinds ranged from those who were consulted for
daily mundane affairs to those who revealed the oracles in times of
stress, from those who haunted local holy sites to those high in royal
favour, from the quiet domestic communities to the austere mountain
recluse. Among these were to be found the most sordid opportunism and
the most heroic self-effacement, the crassest supernaturalism and--the
loftiest conceptions of practical morality. A development of ideals and
a growth of spirituality can be traced which render the biblical
writings with their series of prophecies a unique phenomenon.[23] The
prophets taught that the national existence of the people was bound up
with religious and social conditions; they were in a sense the
politicians of the age, and to regard them simply as foretellers of the
future is to limit their sphere unduly. They took a keen interest in all
the political vicissitudes of the Oriental world. Men of all standards
of integrity, they were exposed to external influences, but whether
divided among themselves in their adherence to conflicting parties, or
isolated in their fierce denunciation of contemporary abuses, they
shared alike in the worship of Yahweh whose inspiration they claimed. A
recollection of the manifold forms which religious life and thought have
taken in Christendom or in Islam, and the passions which are so easily
engendered among opposing sects, will prevent a one-sided estimate of
the religious standpoints which the writings betray; and to the
recognition that they represent lofty ideals it must be added that the
great prophets, like all great thinkers, were in advance of their age.

The prophets are thoroughly Oriental figures, and the interpretation of
their profound religious experiences requires a particular sympathy
which is not inherent in Western minds. Their writings are to be
understood in the light of their age and of the conditions which gave
birth to them. With few exceptions they are preserved in fragmentary
form, with additions and adjustments which were necessary in order to
make them applicable to later conditions. When, as often, the great
figures have been made the spokesmen of the thought of subsequent
generations, the historical criticism of the prophecies becomes one of
peculiar difficulty.[24] According to the historical traditions it is
precisely in the age of Jeroboam II. and Uzziah that the first of the
extant prophecies begin (see AMOS and HOSEA). Here it is enough to
observe that the highly advanced doctrines of the distinctive character
of Yahweh, as ascribed to the 8th century B.C., presuppose a foundation
and development. But the evidence does not allow us to trace the earlier
progress of the ideas. Yahwism presents itself under a variety of
aspects, and the history of Israel's relations to the God Yahweh (whose
name is not necessarily of Israelite origin) can hardly be disentangled
amid the complicated threads of the earlier history. The view that the
seeds of Yahwism were planted in the young Israelite nation in the days
of the "exodus" conflicts with the belief that the worship of Yahweh
began in the pre-Mosaic age. Nevertheless, it implies that religion
passed into a new stage through the influence of Moses, and to this we
find a relatively less complete analogy in the specific north Israelite
traditions of the age of Jehu. The change from the dynasty of Omri to
that of Jehu has been treated by several hands, and the writers, in
their recognition of the introduction of a new tendency, have obscured
the fact that the cult of Yahweh had flourished even under such a king
as Ahab. While the influence of the great prophets Elijah and Elisha is
clearly visible, it is instructive to find that the south, too, has its
share in the inauguration of the new era. At Horeb, the mount of God,
was located the dramatic theophany which heralded to Elijah the advent
of the sword, and Jehu's supporter in his sanguinary measures belongs to
the Rechabites, a sect which felt itself to be the true worshipping
community of Yahweh and is closely associated with the Kenites, the kin
of Moses. It was at the holy well of Kadesh, in the sacred mounts of
Sinai and Horeb, and in the field of Edom that the Yahweh of Moses was
found, and scattered traces survive of a definite belief in the entrance
into Palestine of a movement uncompromisingly devoted to the purer
worship of Yahweh. The course of the dynasty of Jehu--the reforms, the
disastrous Aramaean wars, and, at length, Yahweh's "arrow of
victory"--constituted an epoch in the Israelite history, and it is
regarded as such.[25]

  The problem of the history of Yahwism depends essentially upon the
  view adopted as to the date and origin of the biblical details and
  their validity for the various historical and religious conditions
  they presuppose. Yahwism is a religion which appears upon a soil
  saturated with ideas and usages which find their parallel in
  extra-biblical sources and in neighbouring lands. The problem cannot
  be approached from modern preconceptions because there was much
  associated with the worship of Yahweh which only gradually came to be
  recognized as repugnant, and there was much in earlier ages and in
  other lands which reflects an elevated and even complex religious
  philosophy. In the south of the Sinaitic peninsula, remains have been
  found of an elaborate half-Egyptian, half-Semitic cultus (Petrie,
  _Researches in Sinai_, xiii.), and not only does Edom possess some
  reputation for "wisdom," but, where this district is concerned, the
  old Arabian religion (whose historical connexion with Palestine is
  still imperfectly known) claims some attention. The characteristic
  denunciations of corruption and lifeless ritual in the writings of the
  prophets and the emphasis which is laid upon purity and simplicity of
  religious life are suggestive of the influence of the nomadic spirit
  rather than of an internal evolution on Palestinian soil. Desert
  pastoral life does not necessarily imply any intellectual inferiority,
  and its religious conceptions, though susceptible of modification, are
  not artificially moulded through the influence of other civilizations.
  Nomadic life is recognized by Arabian writers themselves as possessing
  a relative superiority, and its characteristic purity of manner and
  its reaction against corruption and luxury are not incompatible with a
  warlike spirit. If nomadism may be recognized as one of the factors in
  the growth of Yahwism, there is something to be said for the
  hypothesis which associates it with the clans connected with the
  Levites (see E. Meyer, _Israeliten_, pp. 82 sqq.; B. Luther, ib. 138).
  It is, however, obvious that the influence due to immigrants could be,
  and doubtless was, exerted at more than one period (see §§ 18, 20;
  also HEBREW RELIGION; PRIEST).

15. _The Fall of the Israelite Monarchy._--The prosperity of Israel was
its undoing. The disorders that hastened its end find an analogy in the
events of the more obscure period after the death of the earlier
Jeroboam. Only the briefest details are given. Zechariah was slain after
six months by Shallum ben Jabesh in Ibleam; but the usurper fell a month
later to Menahem (q.v.), who only after much bloodshed established his
position. Assyria again appeared upon the scene under Tiglath-pileser
IV. (745-728 B.C.).[26] His approach was the signal for the formation of
a coalition, which was overthrown in 738. Among those who paid tribute
were Rasun (the biblical Rezin) of Damascus, Menahem of Samaria, the
kings of Tyre, Byblos and Hamath and the queen of Aribi (Arabia, the
Syrian desert). Israel was once more in league with Damascus and
Phoenicia, and the biblical records must be read in the light of
political history. Judah was probably holding aloof. Its king, Uzziah,
was a leper in his latter days, and his son and regent, Jotham, claims
notice for the circumstantial reference (2 Chron. xxvii.; cf. xxvi. 8)
to his subjugation of Ammon--the natural allies of Damascus--for three
years. Scarcely had Assyria withdrawn before Menahem lost his life in a
conspiracy, and Pekah with the help of Gilead made himself king. The new
movement was evidently anti-Assyrian, and strenuous endeavours were made
to present a united front. It is suggestive to find Judah the centre of
attack.[27] Rasun and Pekah directed their blows from the north,
Philistia threatened the west flank, and the Edomites who drove out the
Judaeans from Elath (on the Gulf of 'Akaba) were no doubt only taking
their part in the concerted action. A more critical situation could
scarcely be imagined. The throne of David was then occupied by the young
Ahaz, Jotham's son. In this crisis we meet with Isaiah (q.v.), one of
the finest of Hebrew prophets. The disorganized state of Egypt and the
uncertain allegiance of the desert tribes left Judah without direct aid;
on the other hand, opposition to Assyria among the conflicting interests
of Palestine and Syria was rarely unanimous. Either in the natural
course of events--to preserve the unity of his empire--or influenced by
the rich presents of gold and silver with which Ahaz accompanied his
appeal for help, Tiglath-pileser intervened with campaigns against
Philistia (734 B.C.) and Damascus (733-732). Israel was punished by the
ravaging of the northern districts, and the king claims to have carried
away the people of "the house of Omri." Pekah was slain and one Hoshea
(q.v.) was recognized as his successor. Assyrian officers were placed in
the land and Judah thus gained its deliverance at the expense of Israel.
But the proud Israelites did not remain submissive for long; Damascus
had indeed fallen, but neither Philistia nor Edom had yet been crushed.

At this stage a new problem becomes urgent. A number of petty peoples,
of whom little definite is known, fringed Palestine from the south of
Judah and the Delta to the Syrian desert. They belong to an area which
merges itself in the west into Egypt, and Egypt in fact had a hereditary
claim upon it. Continued intercourse between Egypt, Gaza and north
Arabia is natural in view of the trade-routes which connected them, and
on several occasions joint action on the part of Edomites (with allied
tribes) and the Philistines is recorded, or may be inferred. The part
played by Egypt proper in the ensuing anti-Assyrian combinations is not
clearly known; with a number of petty dynasts fomenting discontent and
revolt, there was an absence of cohesion in that ancient empire previous
to the rise of the Ethiopian dynasty. Consequently the references to
"Egypt" (Heb. _Misrayim_, Ass. _Musri_) sometimes suggest that the
geographical term was really extended beyond the bounds of Egypt proper
towards those districts where Egyptian influence or domination was or
had been recognized (see further MIZRAIM).

When Israel began to recover its prosperity and regained confidence, its
policy halted between obedience to Assyria and reliance upon this
ambiguous "Egypt." The situation is illustrated in the writings of Hosea
(q.v.). When at length Tiglath-pileser died, in 727, the slumbering
revolt became general; Israel refused the usual tribute to its overlord,
and definitely threw in its lot with "Egypt." In due course Samaria was
besieged for three years by Shalmaneser IV. The alliance with So (Seveh,
Sibi) of "Egypt," upon whom hopes had been placed, proved futile, and
the forebodings of keen-sighted prophets were justified. Although no
evidence is at hand, it is probable that Ahaz of Judah rendered service
to Assyria by keeping the allies in check; possible, also, that the
former enemies of Jerusalem had now been induced to turn against
Samaria. The actual capture of the Israelite capital is claimed by
Sargon (722), who removed 27,290 of its inhabitants and fifty chariots.
Other peoples were introduced, officers were placed in charge, and the
usual tribute re-imposed. Another revolt was planned in 720 in which the
province of Samaria joined with Hamath and Damascus, with the Phoenician
Arpad and Simura, and with Gaza and "Egypt." Two battles, one at Karkar
in the north, another at Rapih (Raphia) on the border of Egypt, sufficed
to quell the disturbance. The desert peoples who paid tribute on this
occasion still continued restless, and in 715 Sargon removed men of
Tamud, Ibadid, Marsiman, Hayapa, "the remote Arabs of the desert," and
placed them in the land of Beth-Omri. Sargon's statement is significant
for the internal history; but unfortunately the biblical historians take
no further interest in the fortunes of the northern kingdom after the
fall of Samaria, and see in Judah the sole survivor of the Israelite
tribes (see 2 Kings xvii. 7-23). Yet the situation in this neglected
district must continue to provoke inquiry.

16. _Judah and Assyria._--Amid these changes Judah was intimately
connected with the south Palestinian peoples (see further PHILISTINES).
Ahaz had recognized the sovereignty of Assyria and visited
Tiglath-pileser at Damascus. The Temple records describe the innovations
he introduced on his return. Under his son Hezekiah there were fresh
disturbances in the southern states, and anti-Assyrian intrigues began
to take a more definite shape among the Philistine cities. Ashdod openly
revolted and found support in Moab, Edom, Judah, and the still ambiguous
"Egypt." This step may possibly be connected with the attempt of Marduk
(Merodach)-baladan in south Babylonia to form a league against Assyria
(cf. 2 Kings xx. 12); at all events Ashdod fell after a three years'
siege (711) and for a time there was peace. But with the death of Sargon
in 705 there was another great outburst; practically the whole of
Palestine and Syria was in arms, and the integrity of Sennacherib's
empire was threatened. In both Judah and Philistia the anti-Assyrian
party was not without opposition, and those who adhered or favoured
adherence to the great power were justified by the result. The
inevitable lack of cohesion among the petty states weakened the national
cause. At Sennacherib's approach, Ashdod, Ammon, Moab and Edom
submitted; Ekron, Ascalon, Lachish and Jerusalem held out strenuously.
The southern allies (with "Egypt") were defeated at Eltekeh (Josh. xix.
44). Hezekiah was besieged and compelled to submit (701). The small
kings who had remained faithful were rewarded by an extension of their
territories, and Ashdod, Ekron and Gaza were enriched at Judah's
expense. These events are related in Sennacherib's inscription; the
biblical records preserve their own traditions (see HEZEKIAH). If the
impression left upon current thought can be estimated from certain of
the utterances of the court-prophet Isaiah and the Judaean countryman
Micah (q.v.), the light which these throw upon internal conditions must
also be used to gauge the real extent of the religious changes ascribed
to Hezekiah. A brazen serpent, whose institution was attributed to
Moses, had not hitherto been considered out of place in the cult; its
destruction was perhaps the king's most notable reform.

In the long reign of his son Manasseh later writers saw the deathblow to
the Judaean kingdom. Much is related of his wickedness and enmity to the
followers of Yahweh, but few political details have come down. It is
uncertain whether Sennacherib invaded Judah again shortly before his
death, nevertheless the land was practically under the control of
Assyria. Both Esar-haddon (681-668) and Assur-bani-pal (668-c. 626)
number among their tributaries Tyre, Ammon, Moab, Edom, Ascalon, Gaza
and Manasseh himself,[28] and cuneiform dockets unearthed at Gezer
suggest the presence of Assyrian garrisons there (and no doubt also
elsewhere) to ensure allegiance. The situation was conducive to the
spread of foreign customs, and the condemnation passed upon Manasseh
thus perhaps becomes more significant. Precisely what form his worship
took is a matter of conjecture; but it is possible that the religion
must not be judged too strictly from the standpoint of the late
compiler, and that Manasseh merely assimilated the older Yahweh-worship
to new Assyrian forms.[29] Politics and religion, however, were
inseparable, and the supremacy of Assyria meant the supremacy of the
Assyrian pantheon.

If Judah was compelled to take part in the Assyrian campaigns against
Egypt, Arabia (the Syrian desert) and Tyre, this would only be in
accordance with a vassal's duty. But when tradition preserves some
recollection of an offence for which Manasseh was taken to Babylon to
explain his conduct (2 Chron. xxxiii.), also of the settling of foreign
colonists in Samaria by Esar-haddon (Ezra iv. 2), there is just a
possibility that Judah made some attempt to gain independence. According
to Assur-bani-pal all the western lands were inflamed by the revolt of
his brother Samas-sum-ukin. What part Judah took in the Transjordanic
disturbances, in which Moab fought invading Arabian tribes on behalf of
Assyria, is unknown (see MOAB). Manasseh's son Amon fell in a court
intrigue and "the people of the land," after avenging the murder, set up
in his place the infant Josiah (637). The circumstances imply a regency,
but the records are silent upon the outlook. The assumption that the
decay of Assyria awoke the national feeling of independence is perhaps
justified by those events which made the greatest impression upon the
compiler, and an account is given of Josiah's religious reforms, based
upon a source apparently identical with that which described the work of
Jehoash. In an age when the oppression and corruption of the ruling
classes had been such that those who cherished the old worship of Yahweh
dared not confide in their most intimate companions (Mic. vii. 5, 6), no
social reform was possible; but now the young Josiah, the popular
choice, was upon the throne. A roll, it is said, was found in the
Temple, its contents struck terror into the hearts of the priests and
king, and it led to a solemn covenant before Yahweh to observe the
provisions of the law-book which had been so opportunely recovered.

  That the writer (2 Kings xxii. seq.) meant to describe the discovery
  of Deuteronomy is evident from the events which followed; and this
  identification of the roll, already made by Jerome, Chrysostom and
  others, has been substantiated by modern literary criticism since De
  Wette (1805). (See DEUTERONOMY; JOSIAH.) Some very interesting
  parallels have been cited from Egyptian and Assyrian records where
  religious texts, said to have been found in temples, or oracles from
  the distant past, have come to light at the very time when "the days
  were full."[30] There is, however, no real proof for the traditional
  antiquity of Deuteronomy. The book forms a very distinctive landmark
  in the religious history by reason of its attitude to cult and ritual
  (see HEBREW RELIGION, § 7). In particular it is aimed against the
  worship at the numerous minor sanctuaries and inculcates the sole
  pre-eminence of the one great sanctuary--the Temple of Jerusalem. This
  centralization involved the removal of the local priests and a
  modification of ritual and legal observance. The fall of Samaria,
  Sennacherib's devastation of Judah, and the growth of Jerusalem as the
  capital, had tended to raise the position of the Temple, although
  Israel itself, as also Judah, had famous sanctuaries of its own. From
  the standpoint of the popular religion, the removal of the local
  altars, like Hezekiah's destruction of the brazen serpent, would be an
  act of desecration, an iconoclasm which can be partly appreciated from
  the sentiments of 2 Kings xviii. 22, and partly also from the modern
  Wahhabite reformation (of the 19th century). But the details and
  success of the reforms, when viewed in the light of the testimony of
  contemporary prophets, are uncertain. The book of Deuteronomy
  crystallizes a doctrine; it is the codification of teaching which
  presupposes a carefully prepared soil. The account of Josiah's work,
  like that of Hezekiah, is written by one of the Deuteronomic school:
  that is to say, the writer describes the promulgation of the teaching
  under which he lives. It is part of the scheme which runs through the
  book of Kings, and its apparent object is to show that the Temple
  planned by David and founded by Solomon ultimately gained its true
  position as the only sanctuary of Yahweh to which his worshippers
  should repair. Accordingly, in handling Josiah's successors the writer
  no longer refers to the high places. But if Josiah carried out the
  reforms ascribed to him they were of no lasting effect. This is
  conclusively shown by the writings of Jeremiah (xxv. 3-7, xxxvi. 2
  seq.) and Ezekiel. Josiah himself is praised for his justice, but
  faithless Judah is insincere (Jer. iii. 10), and those who claim to
  possess Yahweh's law are denounced (viii. 8). If Israel could appear
  to be better than Judah (iii. 11; Ezek. xvi., xxiii.), the religious
  revival was a practical failure, and it was not until a century later
  that the opportunity again came to put any new teaching into effect (§
  20). On the other hand, the book of Deuteronomy has a characteristic
  social-religious side; its humanity, philanthropy and charity are the
  distinctive features of its laws, and Josiah's reputation (Jer. xxii.
  15 seq.) and the circumstances in which he was chosen king may suggest
  that he, like Jehoash (2 Kings xi. 17; cf. xxiii. 3), had entered into
  a reciprocal covenant with a people who, as Micah's writings would
  indicate, had suffered grievous oppression and misery.[31]

17. _The Fall of the Judaean Monarchy._--In Josiah's reign a new era was
beginning in the history of the world. Assyria was rapidly decaying and
Egypt had recovered from the blows of Assur-bani-pal (to which the
Hebrew prophet Nahum alludes, iii. 8-10). Psammetichus (Psamtek) I., one
of the ablest of Egyptian rulers for many centuries, threw off the
Assyrian yoke with the help of troops from Asia Minor and employed
these to guard his eastern frontiers at Defneh. He also revived the old
trading-connexions between Egypt and Phoenicia. A Chaldean prince,
Nabopolassar, set himself up in Babylonia, and Assyria was compelled to
invoke the aid of the Askuza. It was perhaps after this that an inroad
of Scythians (q.v.) occurred (c. 626 B.C.); if it did not actually touch
Judah, the advent of the people of the north appears to have caused
great alarm (Jer. iv.-vi.: Zephaniah). Bethshean in Samaria has perhaps
preserved in its later (though temporary) name Scythopolis an echo of
the invasion.[32] Later, Necho, son of Psammetichus, proposed to add to
Egypt some of the Assyrian provinces, and marched through Palestine.
Josiah at once interposed; it is uncertain whether, in spite of the
power of Egypt, he had hopes of extending his kingdom, or whether the
famous reformer was, like Manasseh, a vassal of Assyria. The book of
Kings gives the standpoint of a later Judaean writer, but Josiah's
authority over a much larger area than Judah alone is suggested by
xxiii. 19 (part of an addition), and by the references to the border at
Riblah in Ezek. vi. 14, xi. 10 seq. He was slain at Megiddo in 608, and
Egypt, as in the long-distant past, again held Palestine and Syria. The
Judaeans made Jehoahaz (or Shallum) their king, but the Pharaoh banished
him to Egypt three months later and appointed his brother Jehoiakim.
Shortly afterwards Nineveh fell, and with it the empire which had
dominated the fortunes of Palestine for over two centuries (see § 10).
Nabonidus (Nabunaid) king of Babylonia (556 B.C.) saw in the disaster
the vengeance of the gods for the sacrilege of Sennacherib; the Hebrew
prophets, for their part, exulted over Yahweh's far-reaching judgment.
The newly formed Chaldean power at once recognized in Necho a dangerous
rival and Nabopolassar sent his son Nebuchadrezzar, who overthrew the
Egyptian forces at Carchemish (605). The battle was the turning-point of
the age, and with it the succession of the new Chaldean or Babylonian
kingdom was assured. But the relations between Egypt and Judah were not
broken off. The course of events is not clear, but Jehoiakim (q.v.) at
all events was inclined to rely upon Egypt. He died just as
Nebuchadrezzar, seeing his warnings disregarded, was preparing to lay
siege to Jerusalem. His young son Jehoiachin surrendered after a three
months' reign, with his mother and the court; they were taken away to
Babylonia, together with a number of the artisan class (596).
Jehoiakim's brother, Mattaniah or Zedekiah, was set in his place under
an oath of allegiance, which he broke, preferring Hophra the new king of
Egypt. A few years later the second siege took place. It began on the
tenth day of the tenth month, January 587. The looked-for intervention
of Egypt was unavailing, although a temporary raising of the siege
inspired wild hopes. Desertion, pestilence and famine added to the usual
horrors of a siege, and at length on the ninth day of the fourth month
586, a breach was made in the walls. Zedekiah fled towards the Jordan
valley but was seized and taken to Nebuchadrezzar at Riblah (45 m. south
of Hamath). His sons were slain before his eyes, and he himself was
blinded and carried off to Babylon after a reign of eleven years. The
Babylonian Nebuzaradan was sent to take vengeance upon the rebellious
city, and on the seventh day of the fifth month 586 B.C. Jerusalem was
destroyed. The Temple, palace and city buildings were burned, the walls
broken down, the chief priest Seraiah, the second priest Zephaniah, and
other leaders were put to death, and a large body of people was again
carried away. The disaster became the great epoch-making event for
Jewish history and literature.

Throughout these stormy years the prophet Jeremiah (q.v.) had realized
that Judah's only hope lay in submission to Babylonia. Stigmatized as a
traitor, scorned and even imprisoned, he had not ceased to utter his
warnings to deaf ears, although Zedekiah himself was perhaps open to
persuasion. Now the penalty had been paid, and the Babylonians, whose
policy was less destructive than that of Assyria, contented themselves
with appointing as governor a certain Gedaliah. The new centre was
Mizpah, a commanding eminence and sanctuary, about 5 m. N.W. of
Jerusalem; and here Gedaliah issued an appeal to the people to be loyal
to Babylonia and to resume their former peaceful occupations. The land
had not been devastated, and many gladly returned from their
hiding-places in Moab, Edom and Ammon. But discontented survivors of the
royal family under Ishmael intrigued with Baalis, king of Ammon. The
plot resulted in the murder of Gedaliah and an unsuccessful attempt to
carry off various princesses and officials who had been left in the
governor's care. This new confusion and a natural fear of Babylonia's
vengeance led many to feel that their only safety lay in flight to
Egypt, and, although warned by Jeremiah that even there the sword would
find them, they fled south and took refuge in Tahpanhes (Daphnae, q.v.),
afterwards forming small settlements in other parts of Egypt. But the
thread of the history is broken, and apart from an allusion to the
favour shown to the captive Jehoiachin (with which the books of Jeremiah
and Kings conclude), there is a gap in the records, and subsequent
events are viewed from a new standpoint (§ 20).

  The last few years of the Judaean kingdom present several difficult
  problems.

  (a) That there was some fluctuation of tradition is evident in the
  case of Jehoiakim, with whose quiet end (2 Kings xxiv. 6 [see also
  Lucian]; 2 Chron. xxxvi. 8 [Septuagint]) contrast the fate
  foreshadowed in Jer. xxii. 18 seq., xxxvi. 30 (cf. Jos. _Ant._ x. 6, 2
  seq.). The tradition of his captivity (2 Chron. xxxvi. 6; Dan. i. 2)
  has apparently confused him with Jehoiachin, and the latter's reign is
  so brief that some overlapping is conceivable. Moreover, the prophecy
  in Jer. xxxiv. 5 that Zedekiah would die in peace is not borne out by
  the history, nor does Josiah's fate agree with the promise in 2 Kings
  xxii. 20. There is also an evident relation between the pairs:
  Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin and Zedekiah (e.g. length of
  reigns), and the difficulty felt in regard to the second and third is
  obvious in the attempts of the Jewish historian Josephus to provide a
  compromise. The contemporary prophecies ascribed to Jeremiah and
  Ezekiel require careful examination in this connexion, partly as
  regards their traditional background (especially the headings and
  setting), and partly for their contents, the details of which
  sometimes do not admit of a literal interpretation in accordance with
  our present historical material (cf. Ezek. xix. 3-9, where the two
  brothers carried off to Egypt and Babylon respectively would seem to
  be Jehoahaz and his nephew Jehoiachin).

  (b) Some fluctuation is obvious in the number, dates and extent of the
  deportations. Jer. lii. 28-30 gives a total of 4600 persons, in
  contrast to 2 Kings xxiv. 14, 16 (the numbers are not inclusive), and
  reckons three deportations in the 7th (? 17th), 18th and 23rd years of
  Nebuchadrezzar. Only the second is specifically said to be from
  Jerusalem (the remaining are of Judaeans), and the last has been
  plausibly connected with the murder of Gedaliah, an interval of five
  years being assumed. For this twenty-third year Josephus (_Ant._ x. 9,
  7) gives an invasion of Egypt and an attack upon Ammon, Moab and
  Palestine (see NEBUCHADREZZAR).

  (c) That the exile lasted seventy years (? from 586 B.C. to the
  completion of the second temple) is the view of the canonical history
  (2 Chron. xxxvi. 21; Jer. xxv. 11, xxix. 10; Zech. i. 12; cf. Tyre,
  Isa. xxiii. 15), but it is usually reckoned from the first
  deportation, which was looked upon as of greater significance than the
  second (Jer. xxiv. xxix.), and it may be a round number. Another
  difficulty is the interpretation of the 40 years in Ezek. iv. 6 (cf.
  Egypt, xxix. 11), and the 390 in _v._ 5 (Septuagint 150 or 190; 130 in
  Jos. x. 9, 7 end). A period of fifty years is allowed by the
  chronological scheme (1 Kings vi. 1; cf. Jos. c. _Ap._ i. 21), and the
  late book of Baruch (vi. 3) even speaks of seven generations. Varying
  chronological schemes may have been current and some weight must be
  laid upon the remarkable vagueness of the historical information in
  later writings (see DANIEL).

  (d) The attitude of the neighbouring peoples constitutes another
  serious problem (cf. 2 Kings xxiv. 2 and 2 Chron. xxxvi. 5, where
  Lucian's recension and the Septuagint respectively add the
  Samaritans!), in view of the circumstances of Gedaliah's appointment
  (Jer. xl. 11, see above) as contrasted with the frequent prophecies
  against Ammon, Moab and Edom which seem to be contemporary (see EDOM;
  MOAB).

  (e) Finally, the recurrence of similar historical situations in
  Judaean history must be considered. The period under review, with its
  relations between Judah and Egypt, can be illustrated by prophecies
  ascribed to a similar situation in the time of Hezekiah. But the
  destruction of Jerusalem is not quite unique, and somewhat later we
  meet with indirect evidence for at least one similar disaster upon
  which the records are silent. There are a number of apparently related
  passages which, however, on internal grounds, are unsuitable to the
  present period, and when they show independent signs of a later date
  (in their present form), there is a very strong probability that they
  refer to such subsequent disasters. The scantiness of historical
  tradition makes a final solution impossible, but the study of these
  years has an important bearing on the history of the later Judaean
  state, which has been characteristically treated from the standpoint
  of exiles who returned from Babylonia and regard themselves as the
  kernel of "Israel." From this point of view, the desire to intensify
  the denudation of Palestine and the fate of its remnant, and to look
  to the Babylonian exiles for the future, can probably be recognized in
  the writings attributed to contemporary prophets.[33]

18. _Internal Conditions and the Exile._--Many of the exiles accepted
their lot and settled down in Babylonia (cf. Jer. xxix. 4-7); Jewish
colonies, too, were being founded in Egypt. The agriculturists and
herdsmen who had been left in Palestine formed, as always, the staple
population, and it is impossible to imagine either Judah or Israel as
denuded of its inhabitants. The down-trodden peasants were left in peace
to divide the land among them, and new conditions arose as they took
over the ownerless estates. But the old continuity was not entirely
broken; there was a return to earlier conditions, and life moved more
freely in its wonted channels. The fall of the monarchy involved a
reversion to a pre-monarchical state. It had scarcely been otherwise in
Israel. The Israelites who had been carried off by the Assyrians were
also removed from the cult of the land (cf. 1 Sam. xxvi. 19; Ruth i. 15
seq.). It is possible that some had escaped by taking timely refuge
among their brethren in Judah; indeed, if national tradition availed,
there were doubtless times when Judah cast its eye upon the land with
which it had been so intimately connected. It would certainly be unwise
to draw a sharp boundary line between the two districts; kings of Judah
could be tempted to restore the kingdom of their traditional founder, or
Assyria might be complaisant towards a faithful Judaean vassal. The
character of the Assyrian domination over Israel must not be
misunderstood; the regular payment of tribute and the provision of
troops were the main requirements, and the position of the masses
underwent little change if an Assyrian governor took the place of an
unpopular native ruler. The two sections of the Hebrews who had had so
much in common were scarcely severed by a border-line only a few miles
to the north of Jerusalem. But Israel after the fall of Samaria is
artificially excluded from the Judaean horizon, and lies as a foreign
land, although Judah itself had suffered from the intrusion of
foreigners in the preceding centuries of war and turmoil, and strangers
had settled in her midst, had formed part of the royal guard, or had
even served as janissaries (§ 15, end).

Samaria had experienced several changes in its original population,[34]
and an instructive story tells how the colonists, in their ignorance of
the religion of their new home, incurred the divine wrath. _Cujus regio
ejus religio_--settlement upon a new soil involved dependence upon its
god, and accordingly priests were sent to instruct the Samaritans in the
fear of Yahweh. Thenceforth they continued the worship of the Israelite
Yahweh along with their own native cults (2 Kings xvii. 24-28, 33).
Their descendants claimed participation in the privileges of the
Judaeans (cf. Jer. xli. 5), and must have identified themselves with the
old stock (Ezra iv. 2). Whatever recollection they preserved of their
origin and of the circumstances of their entry would be retold from a
new standpoint; the ethnological traditions would gain a new meaning;
the assimilation would in time become complete. In view of subsequent
events it would be difficult to find a more interesting subject of
inquiry than the internal religious and sociological conditions in
Samaria at this age.

To the prophets the religious position was lower in Judah than in
Samaria, whose iniquities were less grievous (Jer. iii. 11 seq., xxiii.
11 sqq.; Ezek. xvi. 51). The greater prevalence of heathen elements in
Jerusalem, as detailed in the reforms of Josiah or in the writings of
the prophets (cf. Ezek. viii.), would at least suggest that the
destruction of the state was not entirely a disaster. To this
catastrophe may be due the fragmentary character of old Judaean
historical traditions. Moreover, the land was purified when it became
divorced from the practices of a luxurious court and lost many of its
worst inhabitants. In Israel as in Judah the political disasters not
only meant a shifting of population, they also brought into prominence
the old popular and non-official religion, the character of which is not
to be condemned because of the attitude of lofty prophets in advance of
their age. When there were sects like the Rechabites (Jer. xxxv.), when
the Judaean fields could produce a Micah or a Zephaniah, and when Israel
no doubt had men who inherited the spirit of a Hosea, the nature of the
underlying conditions can be more justly appreciated. The writings of
the prophets were cherished, not only in the unfavourable atmosphere of
courts (see Jer. xxxvi., 21 sqq.), but also in the circles of their
followers (Isa. viii. 16). In the quiet smaller sanctuaries the old-time
beliefs were maintained, and the priests, often perhaps of the older
native stock (cf. 2 Kings xvii. 28 and above), were the recognized
guardians of the religious cults. The old stories of earlier days
encircle places which, though denounced for their corruption, were not
regarded as illegitimate, and in the form in which the dim traditions of
the past are now preserved they reveal an attempt to purify popular
belief and thought. In the domestic circles of prophetic communities the
part played by their great heads in history did not suffer in the
telling, and it is probable that some part at least of the extant
history of the Israelite kingdom passed through the hands of men whose
interest lay in the pre-eminence of their seers and their beneficent
deeds on behalf of these small communities. This interest and the
popular tone of the history may be combined with the fact that the
literature does not take us into the midst of that world of activity in
which the events unfolded themselves.

  Although the records preserve complete silence upon the period now
  under review, it is necessary to free oneself from the narrow outlook
  of the later Judaean compilers. It is a gratuitous assumption that the
  history of (north) Israel ceased with the fall of Samaria or that
  Judah then took over Israelite literature and inherited the old
  Israelite spirit: the question of the preservation of earlier writings
  is of historical importance. It is true that the situation in Israel
  or Samaria continues obscure, but a careful study of literary
  productions, evidently not earlier than the 7th century B.C., reveals
  a particular loftiness of conception and a tendency which finds its
  parallels in Hosea and approximates the peculiar characteristics of
  the Deuteronomic school of thought. But the history which the Judaean
  writers have handed down is influenced by the later hostility between
  Judah and Samaria. The traditional bond between the north and south
  which nothing could efface (cf. Jos. _Ant._, xi. 8, 6) has been
  carried back to the earliest ages; yet the present period, after the
  age of rival kingdoms, Judah and Israel, and before the foundation of
  Judaism, is that in which the historical background for the inclusion
  of Judah among the "sons" of Israel is equally suitable (§§ 5, 20,
  end). The circumstances favoured a closer alliance between the people
  of Palestine, and a greater prominence of the old holy places (Hebron,
  Bethel, Shechem, &c.), of which the ruined Jerusalem would not be one,
  and the existing condition of Judah and Israel from internal and
  non-political points of view--not their condition in the
  pre-monarchical ages--is the more crucial problem in biblical
  history.[35]

19. _Persian Period._[36]--The course of events from the middle of the
6th century B.C. to the close of the Persian period is lamentably
obscure, although much indirect evidence indicates that this age holds
the key to the growth of written biblical history. It was an age of
literary activity which manifested itself, not in contemporary
historical records--only a few of which have survived--but rather in the
special treatment of previously existing sources. The problems are of
unusual intricacy and additional light is needed from external
evidence. It will be convenient to turn to this first. Scarcely 40 years
after the destruction of Jerusalem, a new power appeared in the east in
the person of Cyrus the Great. Babylon speedily fell (539 B.C.) and a
fresh era opened. To the petty states this meant only a change of
masters; they now became part of one of the largest empires of
antiquity. The prophets who had marked in the past the advent of
Assyrians and Chaldeans now fixed their eyes upon the advance of Cyrus,
confident that the fall of Babylon would bring the restoration of their
fortunes. Cyrus was hailed as the divinely appointed saviour, the
anointed one of Yahweh. The poetic imagery in which the prophets clothed
the doom of Babylon, like the romantic account of Herodotus (i. 191),
falls short of the simple contemporary account of Cyrus himself. He did
not fulfil the detailed predictions, and the events did not reach the
ideals of Hebrew writers; but these anticipations may have influenced
the form which the Jewish traditions subsequently took. Nevertheless, if
Cyrus was not originally a Persian and was not a worshipper of Yahweh
(Isa. xli. 25), he was at least tolerant towards subject races and their
religions, and the persistent traditions unmistakably point to the
honour in which his memory was held. Throughout the Persian supremacy
Palestine was necessarily influenced by the course of events in
Phoenicia and Egypt (with which intercourse was continual), and some
light may thus be indirectly thrown on its otherwise obscure political
history. Thus, when Cambyses, the son of Cyrus, made his great
expedition against Egypt, with the fleets of Phoenicia and Cyprus and
with the camels of the Arabians, it is highly probable that Palestine
itself was concerned. Also, the revolt which broke out in the Persian
provinces at this juncture may have extended to Palestine; although the
usurper Darius encountered his most serious opposition in the north and
north-east of his empire. An outburst of Jewish religious feeling is
dated in the second year of Darius (520), but whether Judah was making a
bold bid for independence or had received special favour for abstaining
from the above revolts, external evidence alone can decide. Towards the
close of the reign of Darius there was a fresh revolt in Egypt; it was
quelled by Xerxes (485-465), who did not imitate the religious tolerance
of his predecessors. Artaxerxes I. Longimanus (465-425), attracts
attention because the famous Jewish reformers Ezra and Nehemiah
flourished under a king of this name. Other revolts occurred in Egypt,
and for these and also for the rebellion of the Persian satrap Megabyzos
(c. 448-447), independent evidence for the position of Judah is needed,
since a catastrophe apparently befell the unfortunate state before
Nehemiah appears upon the scene. Little is known of the mild and
indolent Artaxerxes II. Mnemon (404-359). With the growing weakness of
the Persian empire Egypt reasserted its independence for a time. In the
reign of Artaxerxes III. Ochus (359-338), Egypt, Phoenicia and Cyprus
were in revolt; the rising was quelled without mercy, and the details of
the vengeance are valuable for the possible fate of Palestine itself.
The Jewish historian Josephus (_Ant._ xi. 7) records the enslavement of
the Jews, the pollution of the Temple by a certain Bagoses (see BAGOAS),
and a seven years' punishment. Other late sources narrate the
destruction of Jericho and a deportation of the Jews to Babylonia and to
Hyrcania (on the Caspian Sea). The evidence for the catastrophes under
Artaxerxes I. and III. (see ARTAXERXES), exclusively contained in
biblical and in external tradition respectively, is of particular
importance, since several biblical passages refer to disasters similar
to those of 586 but presuppose different conditions and are apparently
of later origin.[37] The murder of Artaxerxes III. by Bagoses gave a
set-back to the revival of the Persian Empire. Under Darius Codomannus
(336-330) the advancing Greek power brought matters to a head, and at
the battle of Issus in 333 Alexander settled its fate. The overthrow of
Tyre and Gaza secured the possession of the coast and the Jewish state
entered upon the Greek period. (See § 25.)

  During these two centuries the Jews in Palestine had been only one of
  an aggregate of subject peoples enjoying internal freedom provided in
  return for a regular tribute. They lived in comparative quietude;
  although Herodotus knows the Palestinian coast he does not mention the
  Jews. The earlier Persian kings acknowledged the various religions of
  the petty peoples; they were also patrons of their temples and would
  take care to preserve an ancient right of asylum or the privileges of
  long-established cults.[38] Cyrus on entering Babylon had even
  restored the gods to the cities to which they belonged.[39]
  Consequently much interest attaches to the evidence which illustrates
  the environment of the Jews during this period. Those who had been
  scattered from Palestine lived in small colonies, sometimes mingling
  and intermarrying with the natives, sometimes strictly preserving
  their own individuality. Some took root in the strange lands, and, as
  later popular stories indicate, evidently reached high positions;
  others, retaining a more vivid tradition of the land of their fathers,
  cherished the ideal of a restored Jerusalem. Excavation at Nippur
  (q.v.) in Babylonia has brought to light numerous contract tablets of
  the 5th century B.C. with Hebrew proper names (Haggai, Hanani,
  Gedaliah, &c.). Papyri from Elephantine in Upper Egypt, of the same
  age, proceed from Jewish families who carry on a flourishing business,
  live among Egyptians and Persians, and take their oaths in courts of
  law in the name of the god "Yahu," the "God of Heaven," whose temple
  dated from the last Egyptian kings. Indeed, it was claimed that
  Cambyses had left the sanctuary unharmed but had destroyed the temples
  of the Egyptians. In Elephantine, as in Nippur, the legal usages show
  that similar elements of Babylonio-Assyrian culture prevailed, and the
  evidence from two such widely separated fields is instructive for
  conditions in Palestine itself.[40]

20. _The Restoration of Judah._--The biblical history for the Persian
period is contained in a new source--the books of Ezra and Nehemiah,
whose standpoint and period are that of Chronicles, with which they are
closely joined. After a brief description of the fall of Jerusalem the
"seventy years" of the exile are passed over, and we are plunged into a
history of the return (2 Chron. xxxvi.; Ezra i.). Although Palestine had
not been depopulated, and many of the exiled Jews remained in Persia,
the standpoint is that of those who returned from Babylon. Settled in
and around Jerusalem, they look upon themselves as the sole community,
the true Israel, even as it was believed that once before Israel entered
and developed independently in the land of its ancestors. They look back
from the age when half-suppressed hostility with Samaria had broken out,
and when an exclusive Judaism had been formed. The interest of the
writers is as usual in the religious history; they were indifferent to,
or perhaps rather ignorant of, the strict order of events. Their
narratives can be partially supplemented from other sources (Haggai;
Zechariah i.-viii.; Isa. xl.-lxvi.; Malachi), but a consecutive sketch
is impossible.[41]

In 561 B.C. the captive Judaean king, Jehoiachin, had received special
marks of favour from Nebuchadrezzar's son Amil-marduk. So little is
known of this act of recognition that its significance can only be
conjectured. A little later Tyre received as its king Merbaal (555-552)
who had been fetched from Babylonia. Babylonia was politically
unsettled, the representative of the Davidic dynasty had descendants; if
Babylon was assured of the allegiance of Judah further acts of clemency
may well have followed. But the later recension of Judaean history--our
sole source--entirely ignores the elevation of Jehoiachin (2 Kings xxv.
27 sqq.; Jer. lii. 31-34), and proceeds at once to the first year of
Cyrus, who proclaims as his divine mission the rebuilding of the Temple
(538). The Judaean Sheshbazzar (a corruption of some Babylonian name)
brought back the Temple vessels which Nebuchadrezzar had carried away
and prepared to undertake the work at the expense of the royal purse. An
immense body of exiles is said to have returned at this time to
Jerusalem under Zerubbabel, who was of Davidic descent, and the priest
Jeshua or Joshua, the grandson of the murdered Seraiah (Ezra i.-iii.; v.
13-vi. 5). When these refused the proffered help of the people of
Samaria, men of the same faith as themselves (iv. 2), their troubles
began, and the Samaritans retaliated by preventing the rebuilding. The
next historical notice is dated in the second year of Darius (520) when
two prophets, Haggai and Zechariah, came forward to kindle the Judaeans
to new efforts, and in spite of opposition the work went steadily
onwards, thanks to the favour of Darius, until the Temple was completed
four years later (Ezra v. 2, vi. 13 sqq.). On the other hand, from the
independent writings ascribed to these prophets, it appears that no
considerable body of exiles could have returned--it is still an event of
the future (Zech. ii. 7, vi. 15); little, if anything, had been done to
the Temple (Hag. ii. 15); and Zerubbabel is the one to take in hand and
complete the great undertaking (Zech. iv. 9). The prophets address
themselves to men living in comfortable abodes with olive-fields and
vineyards, suffering from bad seasons and agricultural depression, and
though the country is unsettled there is no reference to any active
opposition on the part of Samaritans. So far from drawing any lesson
from the brilliant event in the reign of Cyrus, the prophets imply that
Yahweh's wrath is still upon the unfortunate city and that Persia is
still the oppressor. Consequently, although small bodies of individuals
no doubt came back to Judah from time to time, and some special mark of
favour may have been shown by Cyrus, the opinion has gained ground since
the early arguments of E. Schrader (_Stud. u. Krit._, 1867, pp.
460-504), that the compiler's representation of the history is
untrustworthy. His main object is to make the new Israel, the
post-exilic community at Jerusalem, continuous, as a society, with the
old Israel.[42] Greater weight must be laid upon the independent
evidence of the prophetical writings, and the objection that Palestine
could not have produced the religious fervency of Haggai or Zechariah
without an initial impulse from Babylonia begs the question.
Unfortunately the internal conditions in the 6th century B.C. can be
only indirectly estimated (§ 18), and the political position must remain
for the present quite uncertain. In Zerubbabel the people beheld once
more a ruler of the Davidic race. The new temple heralded a new future;
the mournful fasts commemorative of Jerusalem's disasters would become
feasts; Yahweh had left the Temple at the fall of Jerusalem, but had now
returned to sanctify it with his presence; the city had purged its
iniquity and was fit once more to become the central sanctuary. So
Haggai sees in Zerubbabel the representative of the ideal kingdom, the
trusted and highly favoured minister who was the signet-ring upon
Yahweh's hand (contrast Hag. ii. 24 with Jer. xxii. 23). Zechariah, in
his turn, proclaims the overthrow of all difficulties in the path of the
new king, who shall rule in glory supported by the priest (Zech. vi.).
What political aspirations were revived, what other writers were
inspired by these momentous events are questions of inference.

  A work which inculcates the dependence of the state upon the purity of
  its ruler is the unfinished book of Kings with its history of the
  Davidic dynasty and the Temple. Its ideals culminate in Josiah (§ 16,
  end), and there is a strong presumption that it is intended to impress
  upon the new era the lessons drawn from the past. Its treatment of the
  monarchy is only part of a great and now highly complicated literary
  undertaking (traceable in the books Joshua to Kings), inspired with
  the thought and coloured by language characteristic of Deuteronomy
  (especially the secondary portions), which forms the necessary
  introduction. Whatever reforms Josiah actually accomplished, the
  restoration afforded the opportunity of bringing the Deuteronomic
  teaching into action; though it is more probable that Deuteronomy
  itself in the main is not much earlier than the second half of the 6th
  century B.C.[43] It shows a strong nationalist feeling which is not
  restricted to Judah alone, but comprises a greater Israel from Kadesh
  in Naphtali in the north to Hebron in the south, and even extends
  beyond the Jordan. Distinctive non-Judaean features are included, as
  in the Samaritan liturgical office (Deut. xxvii. 14-26), and the
  evidence for the conclusion that traditions originally of (north)
  Israelite interest were taken over and adapted to the later standpoint
  of Judah and Jerusalem (viz. in the Deuteronomic book of Kings)
  independently confirms the inferences drawn from Deuteronomy itself.
  The absence of direct testimony can be partially supplied by later
  events which presuppose the break-up of no inconsiderable state, and
  imply relations with Samaria which had been by no means so unfriendly
  as the historians represent. A common ground for Judaism and
  Samaritanism is obvious, and it is in this obscure age that it is to
  be sought. But the curtain is raised for too brief an interval to
  allow of more than a passing glimpse at the restoration of Judaean
  fortunes; not until the time of Nehemiah, about 140 years after the
  fall of Jerusalem, does the historical material become less imperfect.

  Upon this blank period before the foundation of Judaism (§§ 21, 23)
  much light is also thrown by another body of evidence. It has long
  been recognized that 1 Chron. ii. and iv. represent a Judah composed
  mainly of groups which had moved up from the south (Hebron) to the
  vicinity of Jerusalem. It includes Caleb and Jerahmeel, Kenite or
  Rechabite families, scribes, &c., and these, as "sons" of Hezron,
  claim some relationship with Gilead. The names point generally to an
  affinity with south Palestine and north Arabia (Edom, Midian, &c.; see
  especially the lists in Gen. xxxvi.), and suggest that certain members
  of a closely related collection of groups had separated from the main
  body and were ultimately enrolled as Israelites. It is also recognized
  by many scholars that in the present account of the exodus there are
  indications of the original prominence of traditions of Kadesh, and
  also of a journey northwards in which Caleb, Kenites and others took
  part (§ 5). On these and on other grounds besides, it has long been
  felt that south Palestine, with its north Arabian connexions, is of
  real importance in biblical research, and for many years efforts have
  been made to determine the true significance of the evidence. The
  usual tendency has been to regard it in the light of the criticism of
  early Israelite history, which demands some reconstruction (§ 8), and
  to discern distinct tribal movements previous to the union of Judah
  and Israel under David. On the other hand, the elaborate theory of T.
  K. Cheyne involves the view that a history dealing with the south
  actually underlies our sources and can be recovered by emendation of
  the text. Against the former is the fact that although certain groups
  are ultimately found in Judah (Judg. i.), the evidence for the
  movement--a conquest north of Kadesh, almost at the gate of the
  promised land--explicitly mentions Israel; and against the latter the
  evidence again shows that this representation has been deliberately
  subordinated to the entrance of Israel from beyond the Jordan.[44] In
  either case the history of separate sections of people may have been
  extended to Israel as a whole, but there is no evidence for any
  adequate reconstruction. Yet the presence of distinct representations
  of the history may be recognized, and since the Judaean compilers of
  the Old Testament have incorporated non-Judaean sources (e.g. the
  history of the northern monarchy), it is obvious that, apart from
  indigenous Judaean tradition, the southern groups which were
  ultimately enrolled in Judah would possess their own stock of oral and
  written lore. Hence it is noteworthy that the late editor of Judges
  has given the first place to Othniel, a Kenizzite, and therefore of
  Edomite affinity, though subsequently reckoned as a Judaean (Judg i.
  13, iii. 9; cf. Gen. xxxvi. 11; 1 Chron. iv. 13). Of Kenite interest
  is the position of Cain, ancestor of heroes of culture and of the
  worship of Yahweh (Gen. iv. 17 sqq.). One fragmentary source alludes
  to a journey to the Midianite or Kenite father-in-law of Moses with
  the Ark (q.v.); another knows of its movements with David and the
  priest Abiathar (a name closely related to Jether or Jethro; cf. also
  1 Chron. iv. 17). Distinctively Calebite are the stories of the eponym
  who, fearless of the "giants" of Palestine, gained striking divine
  promises (Num. xiv. 11-24); Caleb's overthrow of the Hebronite giants
  finds a parallel in David's conflicts before the capture of Jerusalem,
  and may be associated with the belief that these primitive giants once
  filled the land (Josh. xi. 21 seq.; see § 7, and DAVID; SAMUEL, BOOKS
  OF). Calebite, too, are Hebron and its patron Abraham, and both
  increase in prominence in the patriarchal narratives, where, moreover,
  an important body of tradition can have emanated only from outside
  Israel and Judah (see GENESIS). Although Judah was always closely
  connected with the south, these "southern" features (once clearly more
  extensive and complete) are found in the Deuteronomic and priestly
  compilations, and their presence in the historical records can hardly
  be severed from the prominence of "southern" families in the vicinity
  of Jerusalem, some time after the fall of Jerusalem. The background in
  1 Chron. ii. presupposes the desolation after that disaster, and some
  traces of these families are found in Nehemiah's time; and while the
  traditions know of a separation from Edom (viz. stories of Jacob and
  his "brother" Esau), elsewhere Edom is frequently denounced for
  unbrotherly conduct in connexion with some disaster which befell
  Jerusalem, apparently long after 586 B.C. (see § 22).[45] The true
  inwardness of this movement, its extent and its history, can hardly be
  recovered at present, but it is noteworthy that the evidence generally
  involves the Levites, an ecclesiastical body which underwent an
  extremely intricate development. To a certain extent it would seem
  that even as Chronicles (q.v.) has passed through the hands of one who
  was keenly interested in the Temple service, so the other historical
  books have been shaped not only by the late priestly writers
  (symbolized in literary criticism by P), but also by rather earlier
  writers, also of priestly sympathies, but of "southern" or
  half-Edomite affinity. This is independently suggested by the contents
  and vicissitudes of the purely ecclesiastical traditions.[46]

  Recent criticism goes to show that there is a very considerable body
  of biblical material, more important for its attitude to the history
  than for its historical accuracy, the true meaning of which cannot as
  yet be clearly perceived. It raises many serious problems which
  concentrate upon that age which is of the greatest importance for the
  biblical and theological student. The perplexing relation between the
  admittedly late compilations and the actual course of the early
  history becomes still more intricate when one observes such a feature
  as the late interest in the Israelite tribes. No doubt there is much
  that is purely artificial and untrustworthy in the late (post-exilic)
  representations of these divisions, but it is almost incredible that
  the historical foundation for their early career is severed from the
  written sources by centuries of warfare, immigration and other
  disturbing factors. On the one hand, conservative scholars insist upon
  the close material relation between the constituent sources; critical
  scholars, on the other hand, while recognizing much that is relatively
  untrustworthy, refrain from departing from the general outlines of the
  canonical history more than is absolutely necessary. Hence the various
  reconstructions of the earlier history, with all their inherent
  weaknesses. But historical criticism is faced with the established
  literary conclusions which, it should be noticed, place the
  Deuteronomic and priestly compilations posterior to the great changes
  at and after the fall of the northern monarchy, and, to some extent,
  contemporary with the equally serious changes in Judah. There were
  catastrophes detrimental to the preservation of older literary
  records, and vicissitudes which, if they have not left their mark on
  contemporary history--which is singularly blank--may be traced on the
  representations of the past. There are external historical
  circumstances and internal literary features which unite to show that
  the application of the literary hypotheses of the Old Testament to the
  course of Israelite history is still incomplete, and they warn us that
  the intrinsic value of religious and didactic writings should not
  depend upon the accuracy of their history.[47] Future research may not
  be able to solve the problems which arise in the study of the period
  now under discussion; it is the more necessary, therefore, that all
  efforts should be tested in the light of purely external evidence (see
  further § 24; and PALESTINE: _History_).

21. _Nehemiah and Ezra._--There is another remarkable gap in the
historical traditions between the time of Zerubbabel and the reign of
Artaxerxes I. In obscure circumstances the enthusiastic hopes have
melted away, the Davidic scion has disappeared, and Jerusalem has been
the victim of another disaster. The country is under Persian officials,
the nobles and priests form the local government, and the ground is
being prepared for the erection of a hierocracy. It is the work of
rebuilding and reorganization, of social and of religious reforms, which
we encounter in the last pages of biblical history, and in the records
of Ezra and Nehemiah we stand in Jerusalem in the very centre of
epoch-making events. Nehemiah, the cup-bearer of Artaxerxes at Susa,
plunged in grief at the news of the desolation of Jerusalem, obtained
permission from the king to rebuild the ruins. Provided with an escort
and with the right to obtain supplies of wood for the buildings, he
returned to the city of his fathers' sepulchres (the allusion may
suggest his royal ancestry). His zeal is represented in a twofold
aspect. Having satisfied himself of the extent of the ruins, he aroused
the people to the necessity of fortifying and repopulating the city, and
a vivid account is given in his name of the many dangers which beset the
rebuilding of the walls. Sanballat of Horon, Tobiah the Ammonite, and
Gashmu the Arabian (? Edomite) unceasingly opposed him. Tobiah and his
son Johanan were related by marriage to Judaean secular and priestly
families, and active intrigues resulted, in which nobles and prophets
took their part. It was insinuated that Nehemiah had his prophets to
proclaim that Judah had again its own king; it was even suggested that
he was intending to rebel against Persia! Nehemiah naturally gives us
only his version, and the attitude of Haggai and Zechariah to Zerubbabel
may illustrate the feeling of his partisans. But Tobiah and Johanan
themselves were worshippers of Yahweh (as their names also show), and
consequently, with prophets taking different sides and with the
Samaritan claims summarily repudiated (Neh. ii. 20; cf. Ezra iv. 3), all
the facts cannot be gathered from the narratives. Nevertheless the
undaunted Judaean pressed on unmoved by the threatening letters which
were sent around, and succeeded in completing the walls within fifty-two
days.[48]

In the next place, Nehemiah appears as governor of the small district of
Judah and Benjamin. Famine, the avarice of the rich, and the necessity
of providing tribute had brought the humbler classes to the lowest
straits. Some had mortgaged their houses, fields and vineyards to buy
corn; others had borrowed to pay the taxes, and had sold their children
to their richer brethren to repay the debt. Nehemiah was faced with old
abuses, and vehemently contrasted the harshness of the nobles with the
generosity of the exiles who would redeem their poor countrymen from
slavery. He himself had always refrained from exacting the usual
provision which other governors had claimed; indeed, he had readily
entertained over 150 officials and dependants at his table, apart from
casual refugees (Neh. v.). We hear something of a twelve-years'
governorship and of a second visit, but the evidence does not enable us
to determine the sequence (xiii. 6). Neh. v. is placed in the middle of
the building of the walls in fifty-two days; the other reforms during
the second visit are closely connected with the dedication of the walls
and with the events which immediately follow his first arrival when he
had come to rebuild the city. Nehemiah also turns his attention to
religious abuses. The sabbath, once a festival, had become more strictly
observed, and when he found the busy agriculturists and traders (some of
them from Tyre) pursuing their usual labours on that day, he pointed to
the disasters which had resulted in the past from such profanation, and
immediately took measures to put down the evil (Neh. xiii. 18; cf. Jer.
xvii. 20 sqq.; Ezek. xx. 13-24; Isa. lvi. 2, 6; lviii. 13). Moreover,
the maintenance of the Temple servants called for supervision; the
customary allowances had not been paid to the Levites who had come to
Jerusalem after the smaller shrines had been put down, and they had now
forsaken the city. His last acts were the most conspicuous of all. Some
of the Jews had married women of Ashdod, Ammon and Moab, and the
impetuous governor indignantly adjured them to desist from a practice
which was the historic cause of national sin. Even members of the
priestly families had intermarried with Tobiah and Sanballat; the former
had his own chamber in the precincts of the Temple, the daughter of the
latter was the wife of a son of Joiada the son of the high priest
Eliashib. Again Nehemiah's wrath was kindled. Tobiah was cast out, the
offending priest expelled, and a general purging followed, in which all
the foreign element was removed. With this Nehemiah brings the account
of his reforms to a conclusion, and the words "Remember me, O my God,
for good" (xiii. 31) are not meaningless. The incidents can be
supplemented from Josephus. According to this writer (_Ant._ xi. 7, 2),
a certain Manasseh, the brother of Jaddua and grandson of Joiada,
refused to divorce his wife, the daughter of Sanballat. For this he was
driven out, and, taking refuge with the Samaritans, founded a rival
temple and priesthood upon Mt Gerizim, to which repaired other priests
and Levites who had been guilty of mixed marriages. There is little
doubt that Josephus refers to the same events; but there is considerable
confusion in his history of the Persian age, and when he places the
schism and the foundation of the new Temple in the time of Alexander the
Great (after the obscure disasters of the reign of Artaxerxes III.), it
is usually supposed that he is a century too late.[49] At all events,
there is now a complete rupture with Samaria, and thus, in the
concluding chapter of the last of the historical books of the Old
Testament, Judah maintains its claim to the heritage of Israel and
rejects the right of the Samaritans to the title[50] (see § 5).

In this separation of the Judaeans from religious and social intercourse
with their neighbours, the work of Ezra (q.v.) requires notice. The
story of this scribe (now combined with the memoirs of Nehemiah)
crystallizes the new movement inaugurated after a return of exiles from
Babylonia. The age can also be illustrated from Isa. lvi.-lxvi. and
Malachi (q.v.). There was a poor and weak Jerusalem, its Temple stood in
need of renovation, its temple-service was mean, its priests unworthy of
their office. On the one side was the grinding poverty of the poor; on
the other the abuses of the governors. There were two leading religious
parties: one of oppressive formalists, exclusive, strict and
ritualistic; the other, more cosmopolitan, extended a freer welcome to
strangers, and tolerated the popular elements and the superstitious
cults which are vividly depicted (Isa. lxv. seq.). But the former gained
the day, and, realizing that the only hope of maintaining a pure worship
of Yahweh lay in a forcible isolation from foreign influence, its
adherents were prepared to take measures to ensure the religious
independence of their assembly. It is related that Ezra, the scribe and
priest, returned to Jerusalem with priests and Levites, lay exiles, and
a store of vessels for the Temple. He was commissioned to inquire into
the religious condition of the land and to disseminate the teaching of
the Law to which he had devoted himself (Ezra vii.). On his arrival the
people were gathered together, and in due course he read the "book of
the Law of Moses" dally for seven days (Neh. viii.). They entered into
an agreement to obey its teaching, undertaking in particular to avoid
marriages with foreigners (x. 28 sqq.). A special account is given of
this reform (Ezra ix. seq.) and the description of Ezra's horror at the
prevalence of intermarriage, which threatened to destroy the distinctive
character of the community, sufficiently indicates the attitude of the
stricter party. The true seed of Israel separated themselves from all
foreigners (not, however, without some opposition) and formed an
exclusively religious body or "congregation." Dreams of political
freedom gave place to hopes of religious independence, and "Israel"
became a church, the foundation of which it sought in the desert of
Sinai a thousand years before.

  22. _Post-exilic History._--The biblical history for the period in the
  books of Ezra and Nehemiah is exceptionally obscure, and it is
  doubtful how far the traditions can be trusted before we reach the
  reign of Artaxerxes (Ezra vii. sqq., Neh.). The records belonging to
  this reign represent four different stages: (a) The Samaritans
  reported that the Jews who had returned from the king to Jerusalem
  were rebuilding the city and completing its walls, an act calculated
  to endanger the integrity of the province. Artaxerxes accordingly
  instructed them to stop the work until he should give the necessary
  decree, and this was done by force (Ezra iv. 7-23, undated; 1 Esdras
  ii. 16 sqq. mentions a building of the Temple!). (b) It was in the 7th
  year (i.e. 458 B.C.) that Ezra returned with a small body of exiles to
  promulgate the new laws he had brought and to set the Temple service
  in order.[51] Fortified with remarkable powers, some of which far
  exceed the known tolerance of Persian kings, he began wide-sweeping
  marriage reforms; but the record ceases abruptly (vii.-x.). (c) In the
  20th year (445 B.C.) Nehemiah returned with permission to rebuild the
  walls, the citadel and the governor's house (Neh. ii. 5, 8; see § 21
  above). But (d), whilst as governor he accomplishes various needed
  reforms, there is much confusion in the present narratives, due partly
  to the resumption of Ezra's labours after an interval of twelve years,
  and partly to the closely related events of Nehemiah's activity in
  which room must be found for his twelve-years' governorship and a
  second visit. The internal literary and historical questions are
  extremely intricate, and the necessity for some reconstruction is very
  generally felt (for preliminary details, see EZRA AND NEHEMIAH). The
  disaster which aroused Nehemiah's grief was scarcely the fall of
  Jerusalem in 586 B.C., but a more recent one, and it has been
  conjectured that it followed the work of Ezra (in _b_ above). On the
  other hand, a place can hardly be found for the history of Ezra before
  the appearance of Nehemiah; he moves in a settled and peaceful
  community such as Nehemiah had helped to form, his reforms appear to
  be more mature and schematic than those of Nehemiah; and, whilst
  Josephus handles the two separately, giving Ezra the priority, many
  recent scholars incline to place Nehemiah's first visit before the
  arrival of Ezra.[52] That later tradition should give the pre-eminence
  to the priestly reforms of Ezra is in every way natural, but it has
  been found extremely difficult to combine the two in any
  reconstruction of the period. Next, since there are three distinct
  sources, for (a) above, and for the work of Nehemiah and of Ezra,
  implicit reliance cannot be placed upon the present sequence of
  narratives. Thus (a), with its allusion to a further decree, forms a
  plausible prelude to the return of either Ezra (vii. 13) or Nehemiah
  (i. 3, ii. 3); and if it is surprising that the Samaritans and other
  opponents, who had previously waited to address Artaxerxes (Ezra iv.
  14 sqq., v. 5, 17), should now interfere when Nehemiah was armed with
  a royal mandate (Neh. ii. 7-9), it is very difficult not to conclude
  that the royal permits, as now detailed, have been coloured by Jewish
  patriotism and the history by enmity to Samaria. Finally, the
  situation in the independent and undated record (a) points to a
  return, a rebuilding (apparently after some previous destruction), and
  some interference. This agrees substantially with the independent
  records of Nehemiah, and unless we assume two disasters not widely
  separated in date--viz. those presupposed in (a) and (c)--the record
  in (a), may refer to that stage in the history where the other source
  describes the intrigues of the Samaritans and the letters sent by
  Tobiah (cf. Tabeel in Ezra iv. 7) to frighten Nehemiah (Neh. vi.
  19).[53] Their insinuations that Nehemiah was seeking to be ruler and
  their representations to Artaxerxes would be enough to alarm the king
  (cf. Neh. vi. 5-9, 19, and Ezra iv. 15 seq., 20 seq.), and it may
  possibly be gathered that Nehemiah at once departed to justify himself
  (Neh. vii. 2, xiii. 4, 6). Nevertheless, since the narratives are no
  longer in their original form or sequence, it is impossible to trace
  the successive steps of the sequel; although if the royal favour was
  endorsed (cf. the account ascribed to the time of Darius, Ezra v.
  seq.), Nehemiah's position as a reformer would be more secure.

  Although there was a stock of tradition for the post-exilic age (cf.
  Daniel, Esther, 1 Esdras, Josephus), the historical narratives are of
  the scantiest and vaguest until the time of Artaxerxes, when the
  account of a return (Ezra iv. 12), which otherwise is quite ignored,
  appears to have been used for the times of Darius (1 Esdras iv. seq.)
  and subsequently of Cyrus (Ezra i.-iii.). Moreover, although general
  opinion identifies our Artaxerxes with the first of that name, certain
  features suggest that there has been some confusion with the
  traditions of the time of Artaxerxes II. and III. (§ 19). But the
  problems are admittedly complicated, and since one is necessarily
  dependent upon scanty narratives arranged and rearranged by later
  hands in accordance with their own historical theories, it is
  difficult to lay stress upon internal evidence which appears to be
  conclusive for this or that reconstruction.[54] The main facts,
  however, are clear. Jerusalem had suffered some serious catastrophe
  before Nehemiah's return; a body of exiles returned, and in spite of
  interference the work of rebuilding was completed; through their
  influence the Judaean community underwent reorganization, and
  separated itself from its so-called heathen neighbours. How many years
  elapsed from beginning to end can hardly be said. Tradition
  concentrated upon Ezra and his age many events and changes of
  fundamental importance. The canonical history has allowed only one
  great destruction of Jerusalem, and the disaster of 586 B.C. became
  the type for similar disasters, but how many there were criticism can
  scarcely decide.[55] Allusions to Judah's sufferings at the hands of
  Edom, Moab and Ammon often imply conditions which are not applicable
  to 586. A definite series knows of an invasion and occupation by Edom
  (q.v. end), a people with whom Judah, as the genealogies show, had
  once been intimately connected. The unfriendliness of the "brother"
  people, which added so much to the bitterness of Judah, although
  associated with the events of 586 (so especially 1 Esdras iv. 45),
  probably belongs to a much later date.[56] The tradition that Edomites
  burned the Temple and occupied part of Judah (ib. _vv._ 45, 50) is
  partially confirmed by Ezek. xxxv. 5, 10, xxxvi. 5; Ps. cxxxvii. 7;
  but the assumption that Darius, as in 1 Esdras, helped the Jews
  against them can with difficulty be maintained. The interesting
  conjecture that the second Temple suffered another disaster in the
  obscure gap which follows the time of Zerubbabel has been urged, after
  Isa. lxiii. 7-lxiv. 12, by Kuenen (afterwards withdrawn) and by
  Sellin, and can be independently confirmed. In the records of Nehemiah
  the ruins of the city are extensive (ii. 8, 17, iii.; cf. Ecclus.
  xlix. 13), and the tradition that Nehemiah rebuilt this Temple (Jos.
  _Ant._ xi. 5, 6; 2 Macc. i. 18) is supported (a) by the explicit
  references to the rebuilding of the Temple in the reign of Artaxerxes
  (1 Esdras ii. 18, not in Ezra iv. 12; but both in a context relating
  to the history of the Temple), and (b) by the otherwise inaccurate
  statement that the Temple was finished according to the decree of
  "Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes king of Persia" (Ezra vi. 14).

  The untrustworthy account of the return in the time of Cyrus (Ezra i.
  sqq.) or Darius (1 Esdras iv. seq.; probably the older form) is
  curiously indebted to material which seems to have belonged to the
  history of the work of Nehemiah (cf. Ezra ii. with Neh. vii.), and the
  important return in the reign of Artaxerxes (Ezra iv. 12) seems to be
  connected with other references to some new settlement (Neh. xi. 20,
  23, 25, especially xii. 29). The independent testimony of the names in
  Neh. iii. is against any previous large return from Babylon, and
  clearly illustrates the strength of the groups of "southern" origin
  whose presence is only to be expected (p. 285). Moreover, the late
  compiler of 1 Chronicles distinguishes a Judah composed almost wholly
  of "southern" groups (1 Chron. ii. and iv.) from a subsequent stage
  when the first inhabitants of Jerusalem correspond in the main to the
  new population after Nehemiah had repaired the ruins (1 Chron. ix. and
  Neh. xi.). Consequently, underlying the canonical form of post-exilic
  history, one may perhaps recognize some fresh disaster, after the
  completion of Zerubbabel's temple, when Judah suffered grievously at
  the hands of its Edomite brethren (in Malachi, date uncertain,
  vengeance has at last been taken); Nehemiah restored the city, and the
  traditions of the exiles who returned at this period have been thrown
  back and focussed upon the work of Zerubbabel. The criticism of the
  history of Nehemiah, which leads to this conjecture, suggests also
  that if Nehemiah repulsed the Samaritan claims (ii. 20; cf. Ezra iv.
  3, where the building of the Temple is concerned) and refused a
  compromise (vi. 2), it is extremely unlikely that Samaria had hitherto
  been seriously hostile; see also C. C. Torrey, _Ezra Studies_, pp.
  321-333.

  Biblical history ends with the triumph of the Judaean community, the
  true "Israel," the right to which title is found in the distant past.
  The Judaean view pervades the present sources, and whilst its David
  and Solomon ruled over a united land, the separation under Jeroboam is
  viewed as one of calf-worshipping northern tribes from Jerusalem with
  its one central temple and the legitimate priesthood of the Zadokites.
  It is from this narrower standpoint of an exclusive and confined Judah
  (and Benjamin) that the traditions as incorporated in the late
  recensions gain fresh force, and in Israel's renunciation of the
  Judaean yoke the later hostility between the two may be read between
  the lines. The history in Kings was not finally settled until a very
  late date, as is evident from the important variations in the
  Septuagint, and it is especially in the description of the time of
  Solomon and the disruption that there continued to be considerable
  fluctuations.[57] The book has no finale and the sudden break may not
  be accidental. It is replaced by Chronicles, which, confining itself
  to Judaean history from a later standpoint (after the Persian age),
  includes new characteristic traditions wherein some recollection of
  more recent events may be recognized. Thus, the south Judaean or south
  Palestinian element shows itself in Judaean genealogies and lists;
  there are circumstantial stories of the rehabilitation of the Temple
  and the reorganization of cultus; there are fuller traditions of
  inroads upon Judah by southern peoples and their allies. There is also
  a more definite subordination of the royal authority to the priesthood
  (so too in the writings of Ezekiel, q.v.); and the stories of
  punishment inflicted upon kings who dared to contend against the
  priests (Jehoash, Uzziah) point to a conflict of authority, a hint of
  which is already found in the reconciliation of Zerubbabel and the
  priest Joshua in a passage ascribed to Zechariah (ch. vi.).

23. _Post-exilic Judaism._--With Nehemiah and Ezra we enter upon the era
in which a new impulse gave to Jewish life and thought that form which
became the characteristic orthodox Judaism. It was not a new religion
that took root; older tendencies were diverted into new paths, the
existing material was shaped to new ends. Judah was now a religious
community whose representative was the high priest of Jerusalem. Instead
of sacerdotal kings, there were royal priests, anointed with oil,
arrayed with kingly insignia, claiming the usual royal dues in addition
to the customary rights of the priests. With his priests and Levites,
and with the chiefs and nobles of the Jewish families, the high priest
directs this small state, and his death marks an epoch as truly as did
that of the monarchs in the past. This hierarchical government, which
can find no foundation in the Hebrew monarchy, is the forerunner of the
Sanhedrin (q.v.); it is an institution which, however inaugurated, set
its stamp upon the narratives which have survived. Laws were recast in
accordance with the requirements of the time, with the result that, by
the side of usages evidently of very great antiquity, details now appear
which were previously unknown or wholly unsuitable. The age, which the
scanty historical traditions themselves represent as one of supreme
importance for the history of the Jews, once seemed devoid of interest,
and it is entirely through the laborious scholarship of the 19th century
that it now begins to reveal its profound significance. The
Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis, that the hierarchical law in its complete
form in the Pentateuch stands at the close and not at the beginning of
biblical history, that this mature Judaism was the fruit of the 5th
century B.C. and not a divinely appointed institution at the exodus
(nearly ten centuries previously), has won the recognition of almost all
Old Testament scholars. It has been substantiated by numerous subsidiary
investigations in diverse departments, from different standpoints, and
under various aspects, and can be replaced only by one which shall more
adequately explain the literary and historical evidence (see further, p.
289).

The post-exilic priestly spirit represents a tendency which is absent
from the Judaean Deuteronomic book of Kings but is fully mature in the
later, and to some extent parallel, book of Chronicles (q.v.). The
"priestly" traditions of the creation and of the patriarchs mark a very
distinct advance upon the earlier narratives, and appear in a further
developed form in the still later book of Jubilees, or "Little Genesis,"
where they are used to demonstrate the pre-Mosaic antiquity of the
priestly or Levitical institutions. There is also an unmistakable
development in the laws; and the priestly legislation, though ahead of
both Ezekiel and Deuteronomy, not to mention still earlier usage, not
only continues to undergo continual internal modification, but finds a
further distinct development, in the way of definition and
interpretation, outside the Old Testament--in the Talmud (q.v.). Upon
the characteristics of the post-exilic priestly writings we need not
dwell.[58] Though one may often be repelled by their lifelessness, their
lack of spontaneity and the externalization of the ritual, it must be
recognized that they placed a strict monotheism upon a legal basis. "It
was a necessity that Judaism should incrust itself in this manner;