Artaxerxes Iii Ochus and His Reign

Home , Achaemenes, Autophradates, Belesys, Bessus, Cambyses II, Harpagus

ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN

W ITH SPE CIA L C O N S IDE RAT IO N O F T H E O LD T E STA MENT S O U RC E S B EA RING U PO N T H E PE RIO D

AN INAUG URA L DISS E RT AT ION T H E P H I LOS OP H IC A L FA C ULTY O F T H E UNI V E RS IT Y O F IN C ANDI DA C Y FO R T H E DOCT OR’S D E G R E E

BY NOAH CALVIN HIRSCHY BE R E I IA N A OF N , ND

A CC E PT E D BY T H E P H ILOS OP H IC A L FA C ULTY UP ON T H E

K. MA TI P ROP OS A L OF PROFES S OR DR. R E G . T PROFES S OR DR. OBL R E AN BE RN D J Y 16 1907 UL .

C H IC AGO T H E U N IVERS ITY O F C H ICAGO PRE SS 1 909 C O PYR IG HT 1 90 9 BY

P ubli sh ed May 1 90 9

C omposed and Printed By T h e Unive rs i ty of C h icag o Pre ss

C h c a o I llino is . S . A . i g , , U PREFACE

In this attempt to gather all the historic data of a dark and weary ’ peri od of the world s history on which the sources of information are

n ﬁn and n s c r ﬁr m rather i de ite u sati fa to y, it may at st appear that too uch

en i e er l ri c n B u t en remem e att t on is paid to the g n a histo situatio . wh we b r that some of the biblical sources c laimed for the reign of O chu s are placed

l i ff r n r r m ﬁ e ur e by scho ars at d e e t pe iods f o the eighth to the rst c nt y , th n l e e T h e ﬁn l l n the cce n or this objection os s its forc . a so utio of a pta ce rejection of the O ld Testament sources for this period seems to the wri ter to depend very largely on the clearness of our conception of the history n he n ra T h e re n O c hu s of the last seven ce turi es before t Christia e . ig of form s only a fragment of the two and a fourth centuries of Persian suprem ll u r m be v e e in nn n acy . But to be fu y nde stood it ust i w d its co ectio with l n the h s r Pe and r th e W ho e . It is for this reaso that i to y of rsia the mo e imm ediate contemporary history are treated more fully than would oth er wise be consisten t with the subject . m l e r e um m the e I n chap . i the aim is si p y to giv a b i f s ary of acc pted he urce and l and in . t r the r . histo y of pe iod , whi e in chap ii chap iii both so s

n the li terature have been co sulted .

C . H .

TABLE OF C ONTENTS

HI T RIC A R E Y I . A S O L SU V

terature A. Li rom aemene B . F Ach s to C yrus P n n C . ers ia a d C ontemporary History

T H E I T O F O H II . H S ORY C US AND Hrs REI GN

T h e H s r r e A . i to ical Sou c s L tera ure B . i t T h e Em re f h s C . pi o O c u T h e E vents o f the e n f h us D . R ig o O c E T h e ork and ara ter of O ch us . W C h c

XAMI ATI O F THE O LD TAM T S C E Pos III . AN E N ON TES EN OUR S S IB LY D ATIN G FROM TH E REI GN O F O crm s O R REFLECTING LI GH T THEREON

T he Sour es A . c T he terature B . Li E xam nation o f the Sour es C . i c D Summar Result . y

APPENDI X : CH RONOLOGI C AL TABLES

CHAPTER I

A H I ST I A O R C L SURVEY . C HAEMEN ES T R R A O C Y US . PE SIAN AND C O NT E M PO RARY HI T R 0 — S O Y . 55 33 1 B . c

A LI T AT R . ER U E

4 G eo . G H i stor o e G r ece 1 8 . G eo . i t rote y f , 54 Rawlinson H s ory — o H erodotus I I V 1 8 . . G eschi chte des alten P ersi ens 1 8 . f , 75 F Justi , 79 - . S D i e alt ersi sch en Keili nsch riften F piegel p , A . Wiedemann

’ A e ti he h sc G esc i chte . 1 88 . N Oldeke Au s otze zur e gyp II , 4 Th f p r si sch en G escki ckte 1 88 , 7, the best treatment of the subject ; the same “ ”

E ri e. rit B . P appeared in a less complete form in Article ersia ,

1 8 . D i e E ntsteh urt des udent . m 6 u s 1 8 . 75 E Meyer g J , 9 E . Meyer

G eschi chte des Altertu ms I — 1 88 1 1 0 1 1 0 V 8 1 1 0 2 . P , 4, 93 , 9 , 9 , 9 C . . “ ”

P E . 1 0 2 . S D i e K i n . B . e li Tiele , Article ersia in III , 9 E chrader schr ten n o te t m nt Au ﬂ u d d s Al T es a e . a e if , 3 g neubearbeitet

1 0 . von H . Zimmern und H . Winckler , 9 3 Of the G reek and Latin Sources the following contai n valuable — : ca . 60 . 2 . ca . 0 information Herodotus , 555 4 4 Xenophon , 43 a 0 0 — E h Kt i 0 0 . 6 8 . r c . . es as o os 354 , between 5 and 4 Isocrates , 43 33 p

— 8 2 2 . S ca . 0 8 . Cumae, born 4 Demosthenes , 3 5 3 trabo , born

D i d ru iculu B . C . 1 A . D . ca . 6 . o o s S s 3 , between 49 and 4 Josephus , - — P ca . 6 ca . 1 2 0 . m ca . 1 0 0 ca . A . D . ca . 1 0 0 . . 37 lutarch , 4 Arria , born — 6 0 . P Solinu s ca . 2 0 . ca . 2 C . Julius , 3 Eusebius , 5 34 aulus Orosius , toward the close Of the fourth century . Cf . the sources under chap . ii .

R M A C A ME T O C R U B . F O H E NES Y S The Achaemenides were a royal family whose ancient home was

f An San i Pas in the city o , probably near the later fam ly seat

r dae P or a ga in ersis , identical with it The ancestor Of the entire fami ly was Achaemenes (H akh am am s) who was perhaps not a

h eros e on mu s . hi storical personage, but a p y Unlike the early oriental nations the Persians were not Semites but Aryans who belonged to

- a i . r the Indo European races , as did all the Ir n ans To the A yan ART AXERXES I I'I O CH US AN D H IS REI G N

A h m id x c ae en es . 0 B . c . T eis is race belonged also the As early as 73 , p ,

ﬁ An San . hi m the rst leader, ﬂourished in Following in direct lineage

T eis is were Cambyses , Cyrus , p II , Cyrus II , and Cambyses II,

of P before the beginning the ersian empire . The hi story of Persia begins with the downfall of the Medi an i empire . Th s empire began to rise when the shadows began to fall ni upon Assyria . About the time when As surba pal of Assyria sub B i jugated abylonia , the Median tribes , wish ng to cease their quarrels

m D eioces ﬁ and to unite against a co mon foe , chose as their rst f hi i . B ut o s Ph r o s k ng the real founder the empire was successor, a rte , — h hi m P 647 6 2 5 . T rough the empire was enlarged . ersia was his brought under power, and afterward , little by little , large portions

h r ortes h l o . P a f Asia imse f fell in a campaign against Assyria .

C axares 6 2 — 8 Under his son and successor , y , 4 5 5 , the empire reached

. N of its hi ghest power ineveh was besieged , but , by reason an

i x r S C a a es . invasion by the cyth ans , y was called home These hi A Scyt ans , also ryans , were conquered and afterward joined his of B of army . With the aid abylon the siege Nineveh was renewed ,

60 6 the proud capital taken , , and the empire , once the arbitrary ruler

. C axares of the world , wiped entirely from the earth y was already master of Armenia and Cappadocia when he began the war with of ﬁ Lydia . Five years fruitless conﬂict with that rival empire nally

of of H al s 2 8 8 resulted in a treaty peace after the battle y , May , 5 5 , a peace eﬁected through Syennesis of C elicia and Nebuchadrezzar of B abylonia as arbiters .

Ast a es 8 — 0 Under y g , the last Median king , 5 4 55 , probably a S h 2 survivor of the cyt ian tribes , the empire gradually approached its

r P close . Compared with Assy ia before and ersia after, the Median

ﬁ ﬁ o empire was rather insigni cant , but it was the rst attempt f an

Aryan people to found a great and conquering empire . Unable to conquer Lydi a and obliged to recognize the mighty power of N abopo i lassar , it nevertheless gave the death blow to Assyria . It l berated Iran from Semitic suzerainty and united the quarreling tribes under a central power and so laid the foundation and paved the way for the Persian empire .

1 B ehi stu n I ns cri ption i . H .

2 or n to ust Ast a es was a son of C axa res G esek . des ali en Pers ens I . Acc di g J i , y g y i 3 HI ST ORI C AL SURVEY

— ‘ C . P R IA AN D C T MP A R I T R 0 1 B C . E S N ON E OR Y H S O Y, 55 33 .

' P KﬁruS AnSan The ersians under Cyrus ( ) , king of , revolted against Ast a es ﬁ y g , who is said to have been an extravagant and erce ruler, so

' his own ri that subjects rejoiced over the Se of Cyrus . One of his

’ ﬁi i l H r u o c a s a a s . Own , p g , betrayed him into the hands of Cyrus When

Ast a es y g and his capital Ecbatana were conquered , Media and - Persia changed places . The Medo Persian empire became the - Perso Median in the year 550 B . C . Cyrus had already been king of P ersia nine years before the beginning of the empire . Now he “ ” ' of 0 ﬁ eﬂ ort became the great king a new empire , 55 His rst to hi was subdue the lands w ch had belonged to the Median empire . i Th s he accomplished in three years . The next step was to conquer

of the powerful and wealthy king Croesus Lydia , who ruled over nearly the whole western half of Asia Minor . Croesus sought the

of G B . help reece , Egypt , and abylonia The Delphic oracle gave a

on favorable reply . Croesus decided to postpone the attack the hi P . s advancing ersians until spring This was mistake , for already ,

y S in the winter, Cyrus proceeded into Lydia and speedil took ardis , the capital . Croesus was spared , but the Lydian empire had become

— P 6 . a ersian province , 547 54 The Lydians made no attempt ever G r afterward to shake O ﬁ the Persian yoke . The reek cities of weste n Asia Minor were soon brought into subjection through H arpagu s and other Persian leaders . B abyloni a anticipated danger in case the balance O f power between N ebu ch ad the East and the West should be broken . Consequently ﬁ rezzar built great forti cations , a double wall around the city and the

Median wall from the Tigris to the Euphrates , besides numerous B a canals . This made abylon secure under Nebuch drezzar, but of his successors were not his equals in power . The last the kings , - bu naid — l of i N a , 559 539 , brought the ill wil his subjects upon h mself through the neglect of the worship of Marduk and the introduction of of foreign gods . Cyrus was still without the true capital Asia , i i hi s ﬁ . of Babylon , on wh ch eye was xed He could not th nk breaking on through the fortiﬁcations on the north , so he approached the side i of of the Tigris . The Babylon an army , under the command Bel t - t N OIdek e Au satze zu r ers s h en G es h h e 1 4 8 . C f. j p i c c ic 5 i is o o ed 2 k c t . lde e o . . For th e dates of th e Persia n ru lers No p f ll w 4 ARTAXERXES II I O C H US AN D H I S REI GN sh az z ar B el-Sar- r ( usu ) met Cyrus but was defeated near Opis, and B agai n as Often as it rallied . The north abylonians had revolted S B against their king and ippar opened its gates to the enemy . abylon o fell into the hands f Cyrus without resistance in 538 . The new o of king entered the city to the great j y all classes , but was especially welcomed by the priesthood and the nobles who looked upon hi m B ‘ as a liberator . elshazzar was probably slain by G obryas the

G N abun id of a . governor utium , and was taken captive All the territory subject to B abyloni a seems to have submitted to the rule P of the ersians without resistance . S P yria also , as far as the borders of Egypt , and hoenicia, with all P i her island cities , came without opposition under the ersian dom nion . A ﬁ The Semitic world had become an ryan empire . A nal work

hi H r u remained for Cyrus . W le a pag s was subduing the G reek

— cities and free states and coast lands , Cyrus himself compelled the

of N settled Aryan tribes of the East , and the nomadic tribes the orth i P east to recogn ze the new empire . The ersian dominion now ex

of tended from the Indus to the blue waters the Aegean . In a battle

of M assa atae with a savage tribe the northeast , probably the g , Cyrus met his death in 5 2 9 . His body was probably rescued and brought

P son to asargadae , where a tomb erected by his Cambyses marks his

- burial place . It is possible , however , that this is not his actual

- hi s burial place , but merely a mausoleum erected in honor, in the ’ great king s favorite capital . The captive Jews in B abylonia had placed great hopes in Cyrus

od for their future liberation . Through him their G Jahwe would set i them free , punish their Oppressors , and restore Jerusalem . Th s

— 2 was the message of their prophet Deutero Isaiah . Disappointment may have followed this expectation , for the hopes excited by this prophet do not appear to have been realized at once . On the cylinder of (11. 30 f . ) Cyrus says that he returned to their homes the gods a great many towns , brought together the inhabitants , and restored

- both temple and dwelling places . Whether this extended beyond the immedi ate neighborhood Of B abylon may rightly be questioned . “ of Of the Jews comparatively few availed themselves this permission , but these few formed the starting-point of a development which has

1 9 — n na s I sa . h a s . 0 . A . l , f , c p 4 55 HI ST ORI C AL SUR VEY V

“ of ﬁ been in nite importance for the history of the world . Yet the importance of Cyrus for Israel lies less in anything he actually di d than in the great expectations which he excited , expectations which in their turn exercised a great inﬂuence on th e ideas ultimately formed by the Jews as to the earlier stages of their restoration after the mis

” 2 fortunes of the exile .

r In hi s personality Cy us is amiable both in history and in legend . li He is the simple leader and king , tolerant in his dea ngs with his

of hi s subjects , and mild in his government the empire , granting

- subjects a sort of self government . The empire of Cyrus was a world of tolerance . He certainly was a remarkable man and truly a great king . And yet he left the empire in an unorganized condition . The S treasures of Ecbatana , ardis , and Babylon became the property of the king and not of the empire . The great contribution of Cyrus to his time was the laying of a foundation for a better empire in that he broke with the hated Assyro-Babyloni an system of rigid and

hi s i arbitrary rule . It was left to successors to establ sh the empire on thi s broad foundation . B Cyrus left two sons , ardiya and Cambyses , whose mother was ’ K m udéi a n of n . a b Kassanda a , also Achaeme ian descent Cambyses ( j )

— 2 2 2 . succeeded hi s father on the throne , 5 9 5 The empire of Cyrus was capable of expansion . On the frontier was Egypt whose wealth was alluring and which was a menace to the empire . Just at this

Am asis time occurred the death of , and his successor on the throne P ’ was the weak king Ps amm etich III . This was ersia s opportunity ﬁr of and Cambyses seized it . He spent the st four years his reign in P preparation for an expedition against Egypt . Before leaving ersia he secretly killed his brother Bardi ya in order to avoid a revolt at

G of , home during hi s absence . The reeks Asia Minor , the Cyprians and the Phoenicians furni shed a large ﬂeet under the command of

Phanes and H alicarnassus formerly in the service of the Egyptians . Pclu sium Cambyses at the head of an army , after a single battle at ,

2 entered Egypt in the spring of 5 5 , and soon was lord of the whole country from Memphis to Kush . The neighboring Libyans and the

G reek cities of Cyrene and Barca readily submitted . Even the

Soudan and parts of Kush were added to the conquered territory .

“ 8 2 . I . 2 i n E . B . Art. C ru s P . T e e C . 9 1 cit. 2 . N Oldeke op. 3 i l y 6 ART AXERXES II I O CH US AN D H I S REI GN

Cambyses appears to have been moody and hateful in impassioned

moments . His action in Egypt was , to say the least , unwise and H e r m Am asis impolitic . bu ned the mu my Of the late king , and with

w ﬂ on hi s o n hand in icted a mortal wound the sacred Apis at Memphis .

Sud Consequently he was unpopular in Egypt as well as at home .

l of den y the news a rebellion at home spread through the empire . ’ G aum ata (pseudo-Sm erdis) pretended to be the king s brother

B . ardiya and made claims to the throne The people , displeased

of to with the long absence Cambyses , were the more ready accept

o the pretender . Cambyses was n his return when he learned of the

. H S terrible insurrection At amath , in northern yria , he put an end m 2 2 . G au ata to his life in 5 was accepted by the people, but not by d hi m the lea ing families who knew to be an impostor .

H stas is u to r y p , the father of Dari s , was the real heir the th one ,

u - m r i con but he lacked co rage to rise against the pseudo S e d s . A spiracy of seven representative men of illustrious families was formed

dl of i to murder the impostor . Darius was undoubte y the leader th s

heptad from the beginning . The conspiracy was completely suc

ul G uam ata cessf . was slain in a fortress near Ecbatana and Darius P — D ar avau S of 2 1 8 . ( y ) I became king the ersian empire , 5 4 5 It only remained for him to ﬁn d recogni tion among the Persian people wh o

G aum ata . Attossa had accepted He married , daughter of Cyrus , who had already been married to her brother Cambyses and to the pseudo

m r . H e S e di s This alone brought him favor with the people . also restored the temple which G au m ata had destroyed and set aright

everything else the impostor had altered .

All over the empire there were rebellions whi ch had to be quelled .

Western Asia alone remained quiet . First the rebellion in Lydia B N was quieted and then that in abylonia where ebuchadrezzar , a

of N abu naid e. descendant , had arisen to claim the thron Even in - Persia another pseudo Sm erdis appeared in the absence of Darius .

i Ph raortes or of In Med a , a real a pretending descendant the Old P i Median royalty , became king and was recognized by the arth ans

H rk ni bu ch S . A N e and y a ans . In usiana Imani arose as king nother

drez z r his a a i . of arose in Babylon a The ruling power Darius , great energy and circumspect enabled him speedily to conquer all these ﬁ dif culties . As early as 5 1 9 all these insurrections were suppressed

8 ART AXERXES II I O C H US AN D H I S REI G N

H Z i of aggai and echariah , wh ch resulted in the rebuilding the temple , 5 1 9— 5 1 63 of l An organized empire with such a system government , para leled l of . by its re igious development , was capable still greater expansion

Cyrus had conquered Lydia and B abylonia . Cambyses added

. n B u Egypt Darius orga ized the whole into one vast empire . t

thi s was not enough . He had desires to follow the example of hi s

. of predecessors India , though probably only a portion of the region

of of P the Indus , is mentioned in the inscriptions the palace ersepolis

of B hi and in the epitaph Darius , but not in the e stun inscription . From thi s it may be inferred that Darius added a portion of Indi a

to his empire . An expedition against the Scythians proved altogether unsuccess

of P ful , not because their superiority over the ersians , but on account of physical conditions of the country with whi ch Darius di d not

ff out S reckon su iciently . Before setting from usa with an army

B a Ari amnes of men towards the osporus , D rius sent , satrap

of S t i of Cappadocia , with a ﬂeet thirty Ships , to sail to the cy h an i ni G coast to capture some of the Scyth ans . The Io an reeks were

called upon to furnish a ﬂeet of 60 0 shi ps . The campaign was carried on on a large scale and was continued far inland but with no

results .

The Persians were absorbed in schemes of a universal empire . There was one more nation at that time whi ch had grown to such dimensions and stood in such close proximity to the Persian empire that it would naturally become a part of the empire or in time become

G . B a menace to it . This nation was reece efore continuing the history of Persia we must turn aside a little and take a glance at thi s

of P rising world power, and see how through it the history ersia was ﬁ modi ed . A thousand years and more before Persia was known as a separate nation there were civilizations of a hi gh order on the borders of the

Aegean . Troy and Mycenae had already been succeeded by later

and civilizations . From the northern more backward parts Of the

peni nsula came Dorian migrations and supplanted in some parts ,

1 — d t ona a ou nt of 8 . A a r ar e tra H a ha s . I 2 e h ha s . 1 te g , c p , , Z c . , c p l l g ly i i l cc - th e resto ration is fou nd i n E z ra N eh . HI ST ORI C AL SURVEY 9

but in others supplemented the earlier peoples . There were two l of on particular ines development the peninsula , one the Dorian , S i with its center at parta , the other the Ion an , with its center at Athens . No sooner were these centers formed than began the expansion and

i of G colon zation in the neighboring states reece , the islands of the

of Aegean , and the coast Asia Minor, where twelve cities were founded of i i i wh ch Miletus was the most important . Th s whole d strict took the name of Ionia . The process of colonization continued to the

of islands and borders the Mediterranean , and through the Bosporus to the shores of the Euxine . At the centers kings made room for hi oligarc es , and these in turn were overthrown by tyrants , who ﬁ nally gave place to democracies . In military and political organiza

S . on l tion parta excelled In Athens , the other hand , art and iterature , science and philosophy reached their fullest expression , particularly under the favorable condi tions during the prosperous reign of

Lycurgus . It was not till about the year 50 0 that the G reek and oriental v ci ilizations came into close touch with each other, and it is here P where the interest of Persian history in G reece begins . ersia was i G at th s time a mighty organized empire , while reece consisted of a large number of disunited cities and small states . In this Hellenic

: G S . world there were three centers reece , the Asiatic coast , and icily T o the close of the sixth century the Ionian G reeks of Asia Minor

60 excelled the others in culture . As early as 5 , when Croesus became

k . h ing of Lydia , they were subdued by that monarch W en Cyrus d G conquered Ly ia in 547 the reek cities , after some resistance , became

a part of the empire and so lost their leadershi p among the G reeks .

0 0 i In the year 5 , possessed by a love of liberty , these Ion ans revolted P against ersia . Reinforced by ships from Athens and Eretria they made an attack upon Sardis . The city was taken but the citadel G withstood the attack . The reeks were driven back and defeated at P i Ephesus . The ersians now came with a great ﬂeet to Cyprus , wh ch P had joined the Ionians . The ersians were met and defeated by the

i . Ionians at sea ofI Salam s in Cyprus , but beat them in turn on land

one P Cyprus , after being free only year , came under ersian power

again . A decisive struggle was concentrated about Miletus , up to

that time by far the most important of all the G reek cities in Asia . A I O ARTAXERXES I I I O CH US AN D H I S REI G N complete overthrow was the result after a long defense on land and on sea . Immedi ately after the Ioni an revolt Darius began vast prepara M G . ardoniu tions for the invasion of reece A great army under s , ’ -in- H l the king s son law , was gathered at the el espont . A large ﬂeet was equipped to accompany the army with supplies . In 49 2 the out ff army set but su ered constant attacks by savage Thracian tribes , and the ﬂeet was dashed to pieces by a storm near the rocky prom

r fI M ardoni us onto y o Mount Athos . As a result was forced to

T wo retreat into Asia . years later a second expedition was made against G reece and on a larger scale . The command was entrusted

A h r to the Median Datis and the younger rtap e nes . They set out in the spring of 490 direct from Euboea . Naxos was taken and P Eretria destroyed . The Athenians and lataeans , under Miltiades , i met the Persians at Marathon and utterly defeated them . Th s was

ﬁr P ﬁ the st great victory over the ersians in the open eld . By this victory Athens rendered immortal service to Europe and the cause of l G civi ization . For the reeks themselves the victory proved an inspiration for later daring enterprise . Darius ordered preparations

ou t of for a new expedition to wipe the disgrace Marathon , but did not live to carry out his plans . - B i In Egypt Darius promoted material well being . y build ng a canal from the Nile to the Red Sea he increased facilities for com ff ﬁ merce . He had early O ered a reward for the nding of a new Apis

won him to take the place of the one killed by Cambyses . This the

-ﬁrst favor of his subjects . The new Apis lived till the thirty year o of P f Darius . The prudent rule the ersian king gave him a place

E ia I But among six great lawgivers in the legal code of the gypt ns . the old hatred against the Persians rose again and in the last years of Darius Egypt was in a state of revolt against the empire .

of After the death Darius his son Xerxes I , through . of of the inﬂuence his mother Atossa , the daughter Cyrus , succeeded

— 8 6 . . him on the throne , 4 5 4 4 He was in all points inferior to Darius conse With him begins a series of weak and unworthy kings , and a quent decline of the empire held together only by the solid foundation for P which Darius had given it . Unfortunately the sources the ersian

u cit. . J sti op. 5 5 HI ST ORI CAL SURVEY I I

history after Darius are few . The inscriptions are fewer than before and give less of the events of the reigns of kings . Herodotus closes hi s P account with the battle of lataea , so that we are thrown back “ l of G W upon the fragmentary accounts especial y reek writers . hat we gather from classic writers as to the affairs of the Persian court

of n is a sad history alternate weak ess and cruelty, corruption , murders , h ” I intrigues and broken fait . Xerxes suppressed the revolt of Egypt which had broken ou t during of the last years his father Darius , and laid a much harder yoke ’ upon them . The king s own brother Achaemenes became satrap B P of the country . In abylon the ersian satrap Zopyru s was mur

M e ab z u s dered , but his son g y suppressed the revolt . The most important undertaking of Xerxes was the conquest of

G . ou t reece Darius had resolved to wipe the stain of Marathon , but was kept from it through frequent revolts in the empire and his

’ ou t death . Xerxes now decided to carry his predecessor s resolve . Extensive preparations were made and the king himself set out to ﬁ S S . ardis , the rst rendezvous upplies were collected and the Helles

80 pont bridged . In the spring of 4 Xerxes , with an army of at least i a million soldiers , besides attendants , and accompan ed by a ﬂeet of G on . Ships , set out the expedition reece was forced into hurried preparation and a greater unity than before existed among the

ff one G di erent states . The great change in reece since the victory of Marathon that was against Xerxes was the building of a great

eﬂ orts of . ﬂeet through the Themistocles Athens had become , during

l . the last few years , the greatest naval power in Hel as Xerxes entered l G reece without a blow . The Thessa ian cities joined the invaders G with their powerful cavalry . The reeks decided to make a stand P at Thermopylae , but in vain , for the ersian army forced their way , after a three days ’ battle over the dead bodies of Leoni das and his

Pelusium P faithful three hundred . At four hundred ersian ships were wrecked in a storm and the rest were checked by the G reeks

on in a sternly contested conﬂict . Xerxes now advanced Athens and was joined by nearly all the states of central G reece . The city was abandoned and the Athenians took refuge on their ﬂeet . Themisto

of S cles , delaying the retreat the ﬂeet at alamis , sent a treacherous

“ I P T e e Art Pers a i n E . B . I I I . C . . i l . i 1 2 ART AXERXES I II O CH US AN D H I S REI G N

message to Xerxes pretending friendship , notifying him of the weak ness and dissension of the G reeks . Xerxes accepted the treacherous advice to block the straits in order to prevent their escape . The only fi P thi ng to do now was to ght . The ersian fleet more than doubled i the G reek wh ch consisted of 378 Ships . A conflict lasting from G dawn till night resulted in an overwhelming victory for the reeks . i Xerxes , boastfully and vaingloriously watch ng the struggle from

i n the shore , now cowardly and effeminately resolved to return to Asia

of - stead pressing farther inland . He left the land forces under

M rd ni u a o s who withdrew to Thessaly to spend the winter . Athens was burned a second time and Attica laid waste . The next spring ﬁ P P the nal contest was fought near lataea , 479 , where the ersian army of nearly was almost completely destroyed by the - i G reek force of about one third that number . Th s was the turning

P i P on point of ersian h story . The ersians were thrown back the P defensive . The defeat was so complete that no hostile ersian dared ever set foot on European G reece again . Oriental centralized despotism was crushed by the rising freedom and republican indi vidu li sm of P G a . The fall ersia resulted in the ripening of reek art and thought . G Xerxes retreated into the depths of Asia . The reeks , invited

G M cale by the reek islanders , crossed over to the Asiatic coast and at y ,

i of P . near M letus, the rest the ersian ﬂeet was annihilated All the islands Of the Aegean were permanently wrested from the Persians and the liberation of the Asiatic coast was begun . This defeat in

G reece worked disadvantageously in the empire at home . In the l very heart of the empire , as we l as in the distant frontier , tribes were for regaining their independence . More dangerous the empire was the conﬁdence the victory of the G reeks put into their minds to turn ’ the spear and to enter into the enemy s own home . It was left for

Alexander the G reat to do this . Xerxes was assassinated by Arta - ai of . banus , capt n the body guard His younger brother Artaxerxes , in league with the murderer , put to death his older brother Darius ,

Arta anu s wh o had a better title to the throne . b was soon afterwards

out of Artaxerxes t l put the way by , who thereby made himse f secure

r fo the throne .

1 o it. 1 o n her . ust . c 2 6 f r a ot v e C f. J i p i w HI ST ORI C AL S URVEY I 3

’ Artach Sath ra su m am ed Lon im anus M a x o et Artaxerxes ( ) I , g ( p x p) ’ G i 6 — 2 I m by the reeks , became k ng in his father s stead , 4 4 4 4 . mediately after his accession he had to quiet the revolt of the Bactrians ’ i H stas is wh ch may have been instigated by the king s older brother y p , then satrap of Bactria . After two battles they were brought to subjection .

ou t I naru In Egypt a second revolt broke , this time through s , son of Psamm etich was i , a Libyan prince who proclaimed k ng over all

Egypt . He had stirred up a revolt against the satrap Achaemenes

I n ru who fell in battle . a s summoned aid from Athens . T h e Per S P sians in turn sought help from parta but failed . The ersians then

S M e ab z u s dispatched a large army from yria , under g y , who was at ﬁ that time satrap of Syria . After hard ghting the Atheni ans in Egypt

u I n r u ﬁ o t a s . were wiped , and was captured and cruci ed Upon this fol P lowed a treaty of peace between Persia and Athens . The ersians agreed to send no ships of war into G reek waters and the Atheni ans in turn renounced all rights in the eastern seas . Meanwhile the jealousy between Athens and Sparta increased and

— P 1 0 . resulted in the eloponnesian war, 43 4 4 By reason of this war

‘

P h ei . ersia was secure from greatest foe , Athens During the early years of war there was repeated communi cation between Sparta and P P . S ersia The partans wanted the assistance of ersia in the war,

i i P but were not skilful in obta n ng it , and the ersians were too ignorant ﬁ P and sel sh to grant it . Athens also sought help from ersia but naturally in vain .

Artaxerxes was not a bad but a weak man , governed by courtiers

Amestris Am tes and women . His mother and her daughter y , wife of

M e ab z u s li g y , both cruel and dissolute women , exercised a control ng inﬂuence on him . He rendered his chief service to the empire in repleni sh n the ﬁnances whi ch were exhausted during the wars of

Xerxes , and in restoring order throughout his empire . v O f i Within his reign fall the acti ity the prophet Malach , the

h e lI orts rebuilding of the wall t rough the of Nehemiah , and the introduction of the law through Ezra . The memoirs of Nehemiah Si ni ﬁ and of Ezra are compositions that were written at this time . g

M e ab z u s S P r cant is the quarrel O i g y , satrap of yria , with the e sian court , a quarrel which lasted several years and was brought to a close I 4 ARTAXERXES II I O C H U S AN D H I S REI G N

of M e ab z u only after a severe conﬂict . In the treaty peace g y s was “ i gran ted full pardon . It is not improbable that th s war was the occasion of the destruction of the walls and gates of Jerusalem

” l lamented by Nehemiah . After the long reign of Artaxerxes followed two sudden changes

one of hi s o n the throne . The only eighteen sons eligible , Xerxes II ,

D amas ia b hi s - So dianu s the son of p , was murdered y half brother g ,

AlO un -ﬁve of e . the son the Babylonian g , forty days after his accession

H e O ch u s of H rkani a in turn was overthrown by his brother , satrap y ,

of of after a reign six and a half months , and in violation solemn oaths

O ch u s of 2 — 0 was put to death . assumed the name Darius II , 4 3 4 4 . G hi m The reeks called Nothus (Bastard) . He left the supreme power

of P of in the hands his sister and consort arysatis , the prompter all hi s acts and all hi s crimes . The empire in the hands of a weak ruler

o i S becam e the scene f uncontrollable rebell ons . In yria and in Asia

1 0 Minor there were repeated revolts . Soon after 4 Egypt was lost

P r o of to the ersians fo a period f over sixty years . The throne Phraortes was again established with Amyrtaeu s as the ﬁrst inde

F r ll P . pendent king . o a this time the ersians were unable to reduce

of the unwarlike Egyptians , a fact which shows the weakness the Persians rather than the strength of the Egyptians wh o were fre quently divided by internal strife . In G reece the Peloponnesian war was hastened to a close by a S two dreadful catastrophe in icily , where hundred perfectly equipped ships and over men were pitilessly sacriﬁced through the miser

i of i 1 P able generalsh p their leader Mi c as in 4 3 . This gave the ersians hope to regain the seacoast . At once their satraps , both the untrust

T i ssa h erne of S Ph arnabaz u s worthy p s ardis and his rival , of Helles P of n . pontine hrygia , appeared upon the coast the Aegea The Spartans sought the aid of the Persians and o ﬂ ered to betray the G Asiatic reeks into their hands . The aid thus received enabled

S on parta to carry the war with Athens , a war which was hastening

. of to a close Cyrus , the younger son Darius II , was made satrap of P -in- Lydia , hrygia , and Cappadocia , and commander chief of all

T i ssa h ernes the troops in Asia Minor, while the treacherous p retained only the seacoast . Cyrus had a burning desire to avenge the defeats

I I k i N O de e o . c t. p 56 .

1 6 ART AXERXES 11 1 O C HU S AN D H I S REI G N

invaded Asia Minor with a large army . This in turn raised new

for S G enemies parta in reece , particularly Thebes and Corinth , who

not S did share equally in the partan gains in the victory over Athens .

r S P These cities now joined Athens and A gos against parta and ersia ,

i . A esilau s l who supplied the all es with gold g was recal ed in 394 . When he reached the frontier of Boeotia he heard the dread tidings

of P that Conon , in command a hoenician ﬂeet , had completely des S ni troyed the partan naval power at C dus . With this the Spartan authority in the Aegean vani shed at once . Their sovereign ty over the seas , after lasting ten years , was forever gone . Athens was again of S raised to the place one of the great powers , and parta fell back into her former position of one state among many .

of S After a few more years indecisive war , parta sought peace with

P 8 G r ersia . In 3 7 the two powers invited all the reek states th ough

Antalcidas T eribaz u s their ambassadors , and , to send deputies to

P i of l : Sardis , where the ersian k ng dictated the term peace as fo lows

Ki n rta er es deems it ust t at th e ties in As a t th e slands o f g A x x j h ci i , wi h i lazomenae and C rus s ould belon to hi ms el th e rest of th e H ellen ti es C yp , h g f; ic ci ,

reat and small h e ll leave nde endent save Lemnos I mbros and both g , wi i p , , , f r n c ros hi t ree are to belon to t ens as o o e . S ou ld a of th e art es S y , w ch h g A h y h y p i e t t i s ea e I rta er es to et er t t ose wh o s are m v e s not acc p h p c , , A x x , g h wi h h h y i w n ill w r a a nst he ff n e l n n 1 th e S arta s a t o e d rs b a d a d sea . ( p ) , w g i y

S This peace was a great gain to the partans , for they gave up i nothing wh ch they still possessed , and gained a greater power over G the mainland than they had before , since reece was divided into P many petty little states . The only gain to ersia was a ﬁrm hold on P the seacoast . It was known that the ersian empire was now much weaker than when peace was concluded with Athens and that it was

G . S now only maintained by reek mercenaries ixteen years later,

1 S at the battle of Leuctra , 37 , parta was overthrown and Thebes rose i P of . to supremacy under hil p Macedon , to fall again at his death

P Eu a oras Another enemy rose up against ersia in the west . g of

Salamis had become the almost independent lord of Cyprus . Athens was obli ged to support hi m for the services of Conon in her behalf P against Sparta . Although formally leagued with ersia against P f Sparta , ersia made great ef orts to reduce him to subjection , but

I H ellenica v. I . X en. HI ST ORI C AL SUR VEY I 7

E u did not succeed for ten years and then only in part . agoras was murdered but his descendants continued to be princes of Cyprian

towns .

Sea Kadu sians On the borders of the Caspian the , who perhaps i ’ were never completely subdued , kept annoying the k ng s territory . Artaxerxes made a disastrous campaign against them from which

diﬂi cult r he escaped with his life only with great y . There was e eated i p warring with Egypt also without accompl shing anything . The last part of the reign of Artaxerxes II was ﬁlled with revolts of

of i the satraps Asia Minor, wh ch must have weakened the imperial power immensely in the western provinces and certainly prepared

the way for Macedonia .

6 1 In Egypt Tachos now occupied the throne . In 3 he actually ff P S t assumed the O ensive against ersia . The par ans sent them aid , for they were bitterly enraged against Persia on account of her recog

u nition of the independence of Messinia . B t when Tachos was engaged in Phoenicia his nephew Nectanebus set himself up as rival i P k ng . This obliged Tachos to take refuge with the ersians . This would have been an excellent Opportuni ty for the Persians to subdue f Egypt again but they made no e fort in that direction . t 5 Ar axerxes II was a mild and friendly monarch , but a man without f energy . He su fered many misfortunes which a man of greater “ for his strength could have prevented . The contempt brother whi ch Cyrus exhibited was perfectly justiﬁed : under the effeminate ” 1 A king the empire gradually fell to pieces . Not the energy of rtaxer xes but the dissensions among his enemi es kept the empire from the

fate whi ch awaited it some twenty years later . With the exception P Of Egypt the empire remained , in name at least , the ersian empire .

-ﬁve - After having reigned forty or forty six years Artaxerxes died .

His oldest son Darius had been declared by his father as his successor . ’ ill- B ut before his father s death Darius incurred his will . Atossa ,

of wife as well as daughter Artaxerxes , espoused the interests of

h u . h r O c s , a younger son Darius , t rough the discontented cou tier

z u s . hi s T eriba , plotted to assassinate his father He failed in attempt i and both he and T eribaz u s were put to death . Th s improved the

ch u s l chances of O , but there were sti l two older brothers in the way,

I cit. . N OIdeke op. 75 1 8 ARTAXERXES II I O CH US AN D H I S REI G N

Arsanes Ari as es . of O ch us o and p Both these had removed , ne by i treacherous poison ng , the other by assassination , so that he now stood next in order .

f O chus V A ter Artaxerxes II died , ( akuka) became king under the 8— A 8 . S i name of Artaxerxes III , 35 33 king he man fested the same sangui nary dispositions as those by which he placed hi mself on the of hi thr one . At the very beginning s reign he massacred a number of hi s nearest relatives , among them his two younger brothers and h on . S his sister Ocha , in order to secure imself the throne uch l executions were common to oriental despots . Even A exander the G reat put several near relatives to death after ascending the throne .

r Fo a while the whole empire seemed to be in a state of dissolution .

of A century and a quarter had passed since the days Darius I ,

of and this was a period gradual weakeni ng and decay of the empire .

h u Art b z u of O c s . a a s The heritage was anything but desirable ,

o H P o P i f satrap f ellespontine hrygia , deserted to the court f h lip o

hi m -i n- Macedonia , and with the Rhodian Memnon , his brother law . Orontes also became an enemy of the king and entered into alli

ni . . P ance with the Athe ans In Egypt the war continued hoenicia , previously so trustworthy , also revolted , and with it Cyprus . Judea P ll li kewise was rebellious against ersia . It required a the energy of the cruel king to bring these revolting countries into subjection

i ﬁ . again . In this task , however, he proved h mself ef cient

1 G . After the battle at Leuctra , 37 , Thebes was at the head Of reece for on This lasted for a Short time only , the north a new nation was forming itself whi ch was d estined by reason of its able kings to rise i S to that primacy for wh ch parta , Athens , and Thebes in turn had l vainly striven . A conso idated monarchy came into conﬂict with

v . di ided and mutually jealous states This country was Macedonia , P with the ambitious and powerful hili p II at its head . Demosthenes P l tried in vain to stir up G reece against the inroads of hi ip . The G monarch invaded reece with a powerful army , and both Athens and

of 8 . Thebes were crushed at the battle Chaeronea, 33 This left

f of H . Phi lip master o G reece . The history ellas was ended All this was a preparation on a large scale for the ﬁnal conquest and P r of P overthrow of ersia th ough the son and successor hilip , only a few years later . HI ST ORI C AL SURVEY I 9

It appears that O ch u s was keen enough to see the danger Of hi s P empire through hilip , and that he entered into negotiations with

Athens and rendered her assistance . There are evidences also that P h hilip entered into a treaty with O c us . This may have been in of P P i good faith on the part ersia , but not so with h lip , who simply G P wanted time enough to conquer reece before invading ersia . By his great energy O ch u s smothered every revolt and really t e P stored for the time the ersian supremacy . He was murdered by

B a oas g , an Egy ptian eunuch , and his youngest son Arses was placed o th r I n the one .

of 8— l Of the reign Arses , 33 335 , ittle is known . In the spring of 336 a Macedonian army for the ﬁrst time crossed over into Asia of P under the command armenio , but little or nothing was accom lish ed P p , for armenio was recalled when in the same year Phi lip was assassinated . Memnon , in command in Asia Minor , probably soon ll won back a the Macedonian conquests . When Arses t ried to get

of B a oas rid his patron , g poisoned him and gave the crown to Darius , - the great grandson of Darius II .

C odom annu s — 1 -ﬁve Darius III , , 335 33 , was about forty years of age when he was placed on the throne . B agoas could not have made a worse choice . He had hoped to rule Darius , but being unable to do so he prepared the poison cup for him . The king noticing his

B a oas . O ch us intention compelled g to drink the cup Unlike , Darius was an incapable despot whom Alexander could easily conquer . He “ i was a king no better than Xerxes , val ant perhaps in ordinary ﬁ ghts but quickly confused in great emergencies , and in no wise ” on hi 2 equal to the gigantic task imposed s weak shoulders . Philip Of Macedon was succeeded on the throne by his son Alex ld nl o . ander , then o y twenty years He at once showed himself both

of hi s . statesman and general , to the great surprise subjects The revolts all over the empire were qui ckly suppressed . Thebes was razed to the ground because of revolt . The other cities were fright

of ened into submission . Early in the spring 334 he crossed the i Hellespont with discipl ned troops . He swept everything l d . G before him with wonderful rapi ity At the ranicus , a sma l

I n h re n of O ch us wide h a . 26 . tme of t e . For a fu ll trea t ig c p II , pp f ” 2 “ P in E . B . I I I . P T e e Art. ers a C . . i l i 2 0 ARTAXERXES I II O C H U S AN D H I S REI GN

P i of stream in the Troad , the ersians , under the leadersh p the satraps of Asia Minor, attempted to check his advance , but their large army was utterly routed . This victory made Alexander master of all

i i of Asia Minor . The Rhod an Memnon , at th s time at the head a

ﬂeet that ruled the sea , purposed to recall Alexander by carrying war into G reece . Island after island was captured . The G reeks began to look to Memnon to save them from the Macedonian power .

Ph arnabaz u s But just then Memnon died and his successor, , was hi ou t s . unable to carry plans , greatly to the advantage of Alexander Before marching farther inland the Mediterranean coast had ﬁrst to be made secure . Hence Alexander turned to the south . At Issus

P of a ersian army led by Darius himself, met him in

November in 333 , and was driven back with great loss . Cyprus surrendered to the Macedonians . Egypt hailed Alexander as their

of 1 deliverer . In the spring 33 , after founding the city that bears S his name , Alexander left Egypt and marched through yria to the

of won northeast . In October the same year he the decided Victory P m i over the large ersian army , said to have numbered a illion sold ers , at G augamela . Darius ﬂed for safety to Media . The battle was P decisive . The ersian empire was ended , and Alexander was temporary master of the whole east . The march was continued of S eastward and the capitals the empire , Babylon , usiana , Ecbatana,

P . and ersepolis , surrendered with all their enormous treasure Darius

ﬁ B essu s of B was pursued and nally captured by , satrap actria , and

0 i . slain in 33 . The last of the Achaemen an great kings had fallen

B essu s of I V not assumed the title king as Artaxerxes , altogether A without ground , for he was a relative of Darius . fter many an adventure he came into the power of Alexander who had him brought to Ecbatana to be executed . The campaign was carried far into the east , beyond the Indus to the mountainous regions , until Alexander was forced to return because his soldiers refused to advance any

B r x i of farther . During his absence a ya es declared h mself king

P . Media and ersia , but was soon captured and executed Alexander returned to Babylon which he made his capital . Europe and Asia - had joined hands . There was one mighty world empire subject to

— the will of one world emperor . And this also was of short duration . CHAPTER II

T H E H I ST O RY O F O C H US AN D H I S RE I N 8— 8 G , 35 33

A T H E I T A . H S ORI C L SOURC ES

D iodoru s Si cu lus was born in Agyriu m in Sicily and li ved during ' - B . A C . 1 D . the reigns Of Caesar and Augustus , 49 4 . He wrote a

i l B L M odr x a un versal history in forty books , ca led B j , a work cover ing a period of eleven hundred years and extending to the subjugation of G B ri tann aul and y through Caesar . He labored forty years at

u n this work , wrote without careful criticism , and Often embodied di l I — . n V gested fragments from his sources O y Books , the early

of hi history Egypt , Et opia , Assyria , and other oriental nations , as well

G — 80 — 0 2 as of reece , and Books XI XX , 4 3 , are preserved . Of other I . XV books fragments remain For Book , covering the reign of

O ch u s , he used the history Of Ephorus composed in the fourth century ,

h u 1 consequently close to or during the reign of O c s .

A D . Flavius Josephus was born in Jerusalem , 37 . , and lived till after the death of Agrippa II who died in the third year of Trajan

1 0 0 H rcanu s of in the year . He was a descendant of John y , priestly P family , and a harisee . After the war of Titus against Jerusalem Josephus went to Rome where he wrote his four works : ( 1 ) B eltu m

Jndai cmn in seven books , relating the history of the siege and fall of

66—6 2 Anti u i tates Judai cae Jerusalem under Titus , 3 ; ( ) g in twenty i books , tell ng the history of the Jews from the beginning till the out

oi 66 Vi ta C ontra break the war in ; (3) , an autobiography ; and (4)

A i onem i of . pp , concern ng the antiquity the Jews His works were

2 all written in G reek . t An . P . The ersian period is treated in xi Of this book one section ,

I i nform ati an xi . S often quoted as giving of the treatment of the - l . Jews under O ch u s . But this falls in the post bib ical period The

E i h anes 0 — 1 whole period from Nehemiah to Antiochus p p , 44 75 , is 3 ﬁlled largely with legendary material . Yet the passage in question

1 kes I . 1 . J . Vo 0 f S ch iirer G esch . des iid C . l 7

2 — 3 I bi d 8 2 . I b d 1 0 6. . i . 74 2 2 ART AXERXES I II O CH U S AN D H I S REI G N

i i Wellh au se ‘ is generally accepted as h storically rel able , in spite of n who calls it a loose anecdote of doubtful origin with which Josephus

ﬁll ou t seeks to the gap between Nehemiah and the Maccabees . 2 l o 3 Marquart fo lows W llhausen , and like Willrich , after him, sup poses that Josephus based hi s information on the lost work of Jason of of Cyrene , who , about the middle the second century , wrote a

ﬁve on history , in books , the Maccabaean uprising from its beginning

l of 1 6 1 Bu t til the victory Judas over Nicanor , . if so , why should Jason embody it in his history if it is merely legendary ? The account of so signi ﬁcant an event could scarcely ﬁnd credence without some historical fact back of it .

— i l 6 1 20 A . D P B eot a . lutarch Of Chaeronea , in , ived from about 4 His great work is the B i ographi es of I llustri ous G reeks and R omans nf O f which about ﬁfty are extant . I ormation is contained in the

For Life of Artaxerxes II and of Alexander the G reat . Artaxerxes

H i stor o the P ersi ans D inon of his main source was the y f by Colophon , B 4 hi u nfor of . c . the latter half Of the fourth century , a work w ch t l P ’ u nate y is lost . lutarch s diligence as a historian cannot be ques s tioned even if his accuracy in some points is impeached .

Arrianu s G of ca . 1 0 0 A . D . Flavius , a reek Asia Minor , born , wrote

a o A e ander on the Anab si s f l x . This work is based reliable sources - n of P such as the Royal Court Jour al , the works tolemaeus , afterwards

of of king Egypt , and those Aristobulus , who was with Alexander 6 in his Asiatic campaign .

a A D f B c . 1 0 . . o Dio Cassius , born at Nicea in ithynia 5 , was a man

of 2 1 1 — 2 2 public career in Rome . He wrote a history Rome about 9 ,

ﬁr - l l consisting of eighty books . Of the st thirty four books on y sma l

e a . B fragments , and of the n xt two books larger portions rem in ooks

— — xxxvii liv are complete . Of books lv xl larger portions are left , of Xi hi lu s while of the remaining twenty only extracts p , who wrote in ’ the eleventh century , are left .

l Solinu s of of Caius Ju ius , a Roman writer the third century the

ca 2 0 of C ollectanea R erum M emor Christian era , born . 3 , is the author

1 2 d h liv. . u nd I sr . esch . 1 2 . lo o u s Ju . G 9 P i l g 5 0 9

3 Ju den u nd Gr e hen var der M ala E rhebu n 88 . i c . g f 6 4 Al I I oboda G r e h s he G esch . 1 1 . M e er G esch . des t. I . E . 6 y , Sw i c i c 7 “ ” 5 P u r h i n 7 S ch tlrer o . ci t. I . 1 0 . ta E B . Art. l c . p 9

2 4 ART AXERXES II I O C H US AN D HI S REI G N

0 Stridon l of h roni kon 34 in of Da matia , wrote the second part the C

— I Of his father in Latin and continued the same from 3 2 5 379 .

ﬁf H i stori ae Justinus , sometime before the th century , wrote his

P hili icae - pp , a work in forty four books , which he himself describes in hi s preface as a collection Of the most important and interesting passages from the voluminous H i storia e Philippi cae et toti us M u ndi

O ri i nes et T errae S i tus of T ro u s g , written in the time Augustus by g

iu r Pom e s . T o u s P or p The work of g is lost , but the rologi , the table

- of of contents of the forty four books , and a few fragments the text P P are preserved by Justinus and linius . Even these rologi and brief

2 ai . extracts cont n a large amount of valuable information . E Meyer thinks it probable that Justinus also obtained hi s information from 3 Eusebius . B LI T AT UR E . ER

H i or o ree e 4 0 G eo . G st G c 1 8 . 0 6 f. . 6 f. . rote y f , 54 , X 5 ; XI 5 ; XII

0 0 e hi h e d ke — 3 Vol s I srael 1 86 68 . . . 1 . G sc c t es f Ewald , 4 Engl transl ,

— eschi chte der uden von den testen eiten bi s 1 869 86 . G ratz G J al Z

— di e e enwart 1 1 0 Ed . . K . . au G 8 8 2 a 6 . f g , 53 7 , ii , p F Justi

e hi chte des alten P e s i ens 1 8 Ae ti sch e G sc r . . , 79 A Wiedemann gyp

h i chte 1 — es hi hte des alten G esc 88 . 6 6 2 . . G c c , 4 , II 4 7 5 E Meyer

‘ Ae tens — N ldeke Au s tze zu r P ersi schen 1 88 6 . . ci gyp , 7, 394 9 Th O f

hichte 1 8 — B eschi chte des Vollees I srael G esc 8 8 . . S G , 7, 57 5 tade ,

— le na t he tudi en d 1 8 1 6 . u d ich K i sia i sc S 2 . E 8 8 . e , , 94 9 W J ,

’ 2 — G ut chmi ed N eue B ei trci e zur G eschichte des 1 8 1 . . V. s 9 , 44 79 A g alten i en O r ts H von u . . , erausgegeben Franz R hl J Marquart “ ” G von Philolo us LI V 1 8 Untersuchungen zur eschichte Eran , in g , 95 ,

‘ 0 — 1 0 d i e hen r der akhabci i schen . uden un G r c vo M 5 7 H . Willrich J “ ' E rh ebu n — d u in m u 88 0. . L a e e e g , 9 Th Reinach , r ine de ” e S emi ti c S tudi es i n M emor o Alex ander Koh ut 1 8 J richo , in y f , 97,

— 6 2 . . h ht de lke srael 1 8 8 1 1 . . C ornill G esc i c e s Vo s I 457 C H , 9 , 74 , 75

' P ’ — — . Pi e enbri n H i stoi re da eu le d I srael 1 8 8 8 8 6 1 1 1 . C p g p , 9 , 5 3 9 , 5 K P h e ab lonia n . A n t . H i stor o the ewi h eo le du ri B C F ent y f J s p g y , P — er i an d r P u dai ca . s an k er . l G ee i ods 1 8 2 2 8 . , , 99 , 9 3 H Wi lrich J

Forsch u n en zu r h elleni sti s h— h en es hi ht e u nd Li teratur 1 0 0 g c indi sc G c c , 9 ,

e A h o ne D W ltch ron i E s s i n i hrer B earbeitu n (lu r h H i er S e . Sc ie e h dcs u ebi u g c

on mu s 1 0 0 . y , 9

2 il I I 3 Alt I I . 1 1 2 . h ur r . I . I . esch . des . I Sc e op o . G H I ST ORY OF O C H US AN D H I S REI G N

— — ” 8 . 2 f 1 0 6 . . di Altor en , 35 39 , 3 H Winckler Zum Buche Ju th , in i “ ” tali s h e Fors h un en 6 — c c 1 8 2 6 6 . G u th . e g II , 99 , 7 H , Article Israel

’

E . h e B . 1 0 1 . Sc ii rer G schi chte des udi s h en in II , 9 . E J c Volkes i m

Z ei talt hri t 1 0 2 3 er esu C s i . . P . S O ld T estament H i stor J , 9 H mith y “ 0 H ls h 1 . G . c er in the International Theological Library , 9 3 O

P alasti na i n der P ers i sch en u nd H elleni sti sch en eit 1 0 6— 0 Z , 9 3 , 4 5 .

’ Wellh u I s raeli tis he u nd adi h 5 — . sen c J sc e G eschi chte 0 a 1 1 2 20 8 . J , 9 4 , 9 2 - . G u th e G eschi chte des Volkes I srael 1 0 2 8 0 1 H 9 4 , 9 3 .

C T H E MP R . E I E OF O C H U S

When O ch u s ascended the throne of Persia the empire was nom i nall 8 i y as large as in 4 5 , when Darius I d ed , although there had been many revolts all over the empire during the century and a quarter

. of i ﬁ preceding The successors Darius were insign cant weaklings ,

to out unable carry the plans of the great organizer . Consequently there had been a gradual weakening and dissolution . Egypt had

own Am rtaios 0 8 established its government under y in 4 , and was in P P reality no longer a part of the ersian empire , although ersia never

of recognized its independence . Many cities Asia Minor also claimed

P o . independence . hoenicia and Cyprus were in a state f revolt The empire handed over to O ch u s by his predecessors was a tottering ff structure , held together only by the strong organization e ected

r through Darius I , and because there was no other g eat power ready

m of hi s to conquer and destroy it . Yet at the im ediate time accession there seems to have been a short time of quiet and rest . In extent no empire before this had such vast dimensions as the

P on ersian . From the Indus and the Oxus the east to the Aegean ,

on one . the Bosporus , and Cyprus the west , all was vast empire Its northern boundary was formed by the Euxine and the Caspian seas , with the Caucasus mountains between them , while its southern

im x P G A . l its e tended to the Indian Ocean , the ersian ulf , and rabia

i of i I Egypt formed the southwestern lim ts the emp re , ncluding a of part of Ethiopia and Libya on the west . The capital the empire ﬁr was Babylon . The divisions of the empire into satrapies , st established by Darius I , was still in vogue . There was the same central governm ent , although the strong man at the center was ll wanting . Wealth and force , not mind and inte igence , were the 2 6 ARTAXERXES II I O CH US AND H I S RE I G N

of controlling powers . The period active growth had passed and

the tim e of decline and decay had set in .

D T H E T T H E I G O C H U . EVEN S OF RE N OF S

O ch u s of As we have seen before , ascended the throne Cyrus with bloody hands . He had a considerable following at the court and ’ hi s hoped through Atossa , mother and sister , to win the king s favor . H e won her to hi s side through a promise to marry her after his ’ S father s death and to make her a partaker in the reign . landerous reports concerning hi m reached his father who then appointed Darius ‘ i . B of n as his successor efore the death Artaxerxes II , Darius - i curred his ill will and so lost his claim to the throne . Upon th s he made an attempt at the life of his father through T iribazu s . The plot failed and both he and T iribaz u s were executed together with

ﬁf 2 two ty others connected with the plot . There were yet brothers

h u Ars m Ari wh O c s a es as es o . older than , and p , were in his way Ari aspes was considered worthy of the throne by the Persian people

on of . account his gentleness , uprightness , and friendliness He was

O ch u s recognized as a reasonable and intelligent man . knew this ’ H e and consequently sought his brother s death . so annoyed and vexed him continually that Ari aspes ended his own life by drinking

of old the cup poison . Artaxerxes was too to see the treachery in this and afterwards loved Arsam es all the more and placed full

w H e ﬁ O ch u no . con dence in him . s delayed no longer compelled

H r iri u Ar m s u t o a ates of T baz s sa e o f . p , son , to put the way Artaxerxes G r in his old age could not resist any further . rief and so row ended 3 his life in a little while . ’

O ch u s now 8 . stood ﬁrst , and became king in his father s place , 35 As king he manifested the same sanguinary dispositions as those by

whi ch he had placed himself on the throne . Whether by reason of a troubled conscience or from fear O f revenge he did not rest till he

m . had killed the remaining members of his fa ily His sister Ocha ,

4 two whose daughter he had in the harem , was buried alive . His

5 of younger brothers were assassinated . One his uncles , with his

one whole family and children and grandchildren , eighty in day ,

1 ta 4 t n ns 1 . u 6 . s . d s al e P ers e 0 P t Ar x . 2 ust G e ch e l . J i i 7

2 u nu . . S st 0 G reece . 0 . J s ti s x 2 G rote H i . } x 5 7

3 P u Artax . 0 . l t. 3 HI ST O RY O F O CH US AND HI S RE I GN 2 7

‘ he ordered to be shot in his courtyard . That he did not put to death all hi s near relatives is seen from the fact that some appear in later

. O x ath res history His successor, Darius III , and his brother, y ,

- of Mith redates son-in- were great grandsons Darius IL , the law of ’ Ph arm aces Darius , and , his wife s brother , are mentioned after

O ch u s . So Arbu ales of the death of also p , a son Darius , the brother of O ch u s Bisth anes of O ch u s , is mentioned in and , a son , in 3 From all the murderous acts of the king Plutarch is justiﬁed in saying that O ch u s excelled all his predecessors in cruelty and 4 bloodthirstiness . The diﬂi cu lti es of O ch u s were not ended when he had secured the throne and the court . The revolts suppressed by Artaxerxes II

. Artabaz us of l were only temporarily quieted , satrap the Hel es

P D atames Ariobarz anes i pontine hrygia , like and , his immed ate predecessor, had rebelled against Artaxerxes II and was captured

Au to h radates O ch u s by p , but afterwards released . Now when , in

6 o 35 , ordered all satraps n the coast whose revolt he feared to dis charge their mercenary troops , the orders were obeyed . But when

O ch u s Artabazu s — Artabaz u s wanted , his nephew the mother of ,

As ama ch u — for hi s p , being the daughter of O s to give an account d S refu se . previous revolt he At the time of the social war, about 355 , ’ he fought against the kin g s satraps and was powerft supported ’ by the Athenians . When rumors of the king s threats against the

i Art baz us . Athen ans were spread , they left a in the lurch But since he was well furnished with money he was able to procure the services of Pamm enes the Theban , with men , and maintained himself 6 for n a lo g time . When the Thebans also entered into an under 7 hi s . standing with the king , fortune took a turn In the year 345 Artabaz u s was a fugitive at the court of Philip of Macedon and with him -indi one of his brother law , the Rho an Memnon , the most dis 8 i ui h f of t ng s ed generals of his time . A ter the reconquest Egypt , ’ two M emnon s years later, brother Mentor was rewarded for his services in the war with Egypt with a hundred talents of silver and

S B P A ta 1 i . u . xv 2 2 t. r x 6 . iod . ; l 6 i B od . xv . i . 34

7 I d 0 . bi . 4 8 I 2 . bid . 5 2 8 ARTAXERXES 111 O C H U S AND H I S RE I G N

other precious gifts , and at the same time was appointed satrap over

l on of the rebe lious portions the coast Asia . Mentor stood in close relation with Memnon and Artabaz u s and procured pardon for them

o and their families . From then n till the overthrow of the empire

x Artabaz us remained loyal . At the same time Artabazus revolted came also the revolt of

of hi s -in- Orontes , satrap eastern Armenia under father law Arta

2 H e E . i u a oras of xerxes II had fought for the king aga nst g , king

— Salamis in Cyprus 386 363 . An intrigue against T i ribaz us gave hi m 3 hi s the chi ef command in the Cyprian war . When treachery was di scovered the king was di spleased and deprived him of his position as satrap of Armeni a and banished him to Mysia where he

of Au to h radates was satrap under the immediate oversight p , the

h of . of of most fait ful all satraps When , at the close the reign Arta xerxes II , there was a general uprising in western Asia against the P of king of ersia , he was appointed commander the troops of Asia

Min or . When the plan failed he betrayed his troops with the hopes of i of of becom ng satrap the coast lands , the position Cyrus the

T i h rn 4 of hi s ssa e es . Younger and successor, p His hopes , however , were not realized . He did not get the position he desired , as a

of reward for his treachery, but Armenia , which he was deprived 5 twenty years before . He then entered into an understanding with of of Nectanebus Egypt , but before the death Artaxerxes II was 6 forced to submit again .

And now O ch u s 7 , after was upon the throne , this same Orontes revolted again and still with the same aim of becoming satrap of the ’ 2 — 2 coast districts , 54 53 , and became the king s most dangerous 8 n . opponent next to Egypt. He entered into an allia ce with Athens At this tim e a rumor was current that the king of Persia was pre G paring a great expedition against Athens and G reece . The reeks

o probably felt guilty n account of their wavering policy , and the mercenary support which they had repeatedly lent to rebellious

1 B d . xvi 2 i o . 5

2 Artax . 2 . X n . A n a l . . . P u . b. l 8 . . i . . t e 1 . 1 v 4 ; 5 40 ; iii 4 . 3 ; 5 7; 3 4 ; cf l 7

3 D i 6 o d . xv . 8 1 8 I b d , 9 , . i . - 4 7 t s he S tud en 2 2 1 2 . 1 . e na s a I bid . 9 Ju deic h Kl i i i c i 5 3 5 mm orii s xi v. 1 . u u r . D e m s th e S st n P o . D J i s l x o . y 3 HI ST ORY OF O CHU S AN D H IS REI GN 29

satraps . Demosthenes warned the Athenians against taking a

on of hostile attitude towards the king the grounds mere rumors ,

not ff 1 I and advised to o end the king frivolously , 35 . It is probable

ﬁn that Orontes , after concluding a peace favorable to himself , ally

ai of obt ned what he so long desired , the satrapy the coast regions , of a position he held till after the reconquest Egypt in 343 , when Mentor of Rhodes was appointed to this offi ce by O ch u s for the

2 valuable services rendered in that war . Phoeni cia and Cyprus ﬁrst came under Persian domini on in the

of . of days Darius I A century later Artaxerxes II , after a war six

E u axares of S on years against , king alamis , Cyprus , again reduced them to submission from which they never afterwards were able to 3 rise to independence . Toward the close of the reign of Artaxerxes

of . II there was a general revolt the western states Egypt , already s oth er independent , would have delighted to ee/ states withdraw from P o the ersian empire . The satrapies f Asia Minor also desired independence . A general revolt was agreed upon but was sup pressed before any real outbreak . This , however, was only the lull of before the storm . Through the instigation of Egypt the cities

Phoeni cia revolted and were joined by the kings of Cyprus . Eua

of S goras II was at this time king alamis , 3 of P The revolt broke out in Sidon . It was the custom the ersian kings wherever they stayed for any length of time to build a park where everything beautiful and valuable which the country produced ,

of of . S both plants and animals , was collected uch a park was at 5 S . Sidon . This was destroyed by the idonians The hay which the

Persian ofﬁ cials had collected for the war with Egypt was burned . m i The ofﬁcials themselves were slain . The i mediate cause for th s revolt may have been the wounding of their religious feelings by the

P fﬁ on S t ersian o cials , a point which emitic people are par icularly 6 Aradus S all P i sensitive . Tyre and joined with idon and soon hoen cia

of was under revolt . Nectanebus II , Egypt , in answer to a request

of S G from Tennes , king idon , sent reek mercenaries under

I D emos D e Rh odi oru m Libertate 1 1 . th . 9 f

2 — 5 it. 2 . u t o . c 8 i h o cit. 2 1 2 0 . s Ju de c p. 7 J i p

3 — 6 N l ek i t B xv 1 O d e o . c . . iod . . 8 0 . p 77

4 I bid . 4 1 , 42 . 3 0 ARTAXERXES III O C H U S AN D H I S REI GN

of R d . O ch us the command the ho ian Mentor , still engaged in the

th e~ reat a B eles s of S preparation for g camp ign , sent y , satrap yria ,

M i z aeu s of to and Cilicia , check the revolt , but they were driven

x back by Mentor . While thi s was taking place there arose a war on the island of

Cyprus . On that island there were nine principal cities and many

smaller ones subject to these . Each city had a king , subject to the

of P . of P i king ersia Following the example hoen cia , the nine kings

P of 0 agreed to sever their connection with ersia . In the spring 35

O ch us I dri eu s of sent , satrap of Caria , with a ﬂeet forty triremes G P and reek mercenaries , led by the Athenian hocion , and

E ua oras on with him g , formerly a king the island . They blockaded the city of Salami s by land and by sea . Volunteers came from Syria and Cili cia with the expectation of obtaini ng a share in the Spoils of P 2 of . the city , so that the army hocion was doubled All the cities

E u r except Salami s surrendered to the Persians . ago as desired the

fﬁ of of S O ch us Pn ta oras o ce king alamis , but retained y g , then king , 3 who had surrendered to the Persians after the destruction of Sidon .

of of G He was king Salamis till the time Alexander the reat . Thus the island was once more reduced to submission under the Persian

power . B efore the surrender of Salami s the king of Persia had left B abylon

o and moved with his army toward Phoenicia . His army consisted f

- 0 0 0 0 i foot soldiers , horsemen , 3 triremes , and 5 sh ps

of . burden , besides other Ships to convey provisions When Tennes ’ T o hi s heard of the size of the king s army he lost courage . save ’ So own life he resolved to betray his city into the enemy s hands . he sent hi s servant T h essali on privi ly to O ch u s with a promise not only to surrender Sidon but to render him valuable services in the

reconquest of Egypt . The king rejoiced greatly over this and

m T h essali on pro ised Tennes rich rewards . Of this he gave the 4 most reliable security . O ch u s considered the conquest of the greatest importance and consequently sent to the largest cities in G reece to aid him in the

expedition . Athens and Sparta replied that they wished to keep the

1 D i xvi . 1 3 od . 4 , 4 2 . I bid . 46 .

2 I bid . 2 . 4 I b d . 4 i . 43

3 2 ARTAXERXES II I O CH US AN D HI S REI G N

i of the wider interests of the empire th s was greatest importance, both because of the great resources of that country and for warding off the

danger that might arise from it if left unconquered . Egypt was ﬁrst

P 2 . conquered by the ersians under Cambyses in 5 5 The Egyptians , of however, never abandoned the hope regaining their independence .

0 8 Repeated attempts resulted in failure until in 4 , when under Amyrtaeu s the desired end was accompli shed and Egypt was again

—ﬁ B u P u independent for a period of sixty ve years . t ersia was m

of ow on willing to let go so valuable a portion of its n empire . C

of 0 sequently, after the accession Artaxerxes II to the throne in 4 4, f t P repeated e forts were made o regain the lost territory . ersia in

of . l 8 fact never recognized the independence Egypt A ready in 3 9 , to and again in 374 , expeditions were made subdue the revolting P Egyptians but without any encouraging results for ersia . In the early part of his reign Artaxerxes II was Occupied in withstanding the

cr w I attempts of his brother Cyrus the Younger to seize the o n . All thr ough his reign disintegrating forces were at work within the empire , which the king was unable to check completely . Couse

2 quently his ability for reconquering Egy pt was weakened . On the

a other hand , Egypt never ceased to stir up revolts in Asi Minor and

Ph oem cra and Cyprus against the hated Persians .

of of i 6 1 In the great revolt the satraps Asia M nor, in 3 , Egypt took

K ach os t an active part . ing T sent hem money and ships , and planned to move aggressively against Persia with the help of the

S A esilaos C h abrias . H e partan king , g , and the Athenian was

2 0 0 - C h abri as equipped with well manned triremes under command of ,

G A esilaos chosen reek mercenaries under g , and foot soldiers of Egypt whomhe hi mself commanded . Discord arose concerni ng the plans of the war and as soon as the expedition started ’ u t hi m o , the king s cousin , Nectanebus , rebelled against and attempted A i to seize the throne . ges laos joined Nectanebus and the whole undertaking was speedily defeated . There was nothing left for

H ﬁr S of . e Tachos but to ﬂee st sought refuge with traton , king

of P Sidon , and then ﬂed to the king ersia and surrendered himself ’ 3 unconditionally . He afterwards died at the king s court .

I Ana . I . 1 . n b. X e . ii 4

2 D i d . xv. 3 I b d . 2 P u t. A es ilaos 8 . o i 9 ; l g 3 7, 3 HI ST ORY OF O CH US AN D H I S REI GN 33

In the same year must have occurred an expedition against Egypt

P O ch u s ﬁr of under the ersian prince , the st the three expedi tions m ade I ﬁ 2 , for we are de nitely told by Eusebius that O ch u s made an expedition against Egypt while his father Artaxerxes was still

’ ' ’ ' ’ 0 137 0 9 d e eie A i f vvr 'rov em a 'r a r eé a a s em éi v'ro ‘ living . o y p é s 7 0 6 ’ ’ ' ’ ' r ' n a r ds the [ca l ct or er d. T a ﬁra erc a o ev A u i57r rov p , n p m y , ’ ' c eé f ovr es (in; r aves eis A iﬁtom' a v (i) ? 8S é r e oc ei a x p y , , p , s M e ’

80 ma v. of i It is not clear what the results were th s expedition . All th at is kn own is that Nectanebus I was at this time the unlimi ted monarch

A ilaos of . es Egypt g was rewarded for his services , but on hi s way 3 home he died in Cyrene .

O ch u s hi m on When Artaxerxes died and succeeded the throne , P Egypt continued to be the main issue for the ersians . Extensive preparations were made and in 3 544 a second campaign was directed

O ch u s against Egypt , this time not by in person but by his generals ,

the satraps of Asia Minor . The outcome was unfavorable to the

P m cﬂ ersians not only in its im ediate results , but also in the ect it

o of 5 had n other portions the empire and the world without . It P i encouraged hoenicia and Cyprus and Cil cia to revolt . In 346 Isocrates6 used this failure as an argument for Philip to make war

7 a r oly u v n e i against Persia because it was no longer to be feared . p ’ ’ ' 7 9 1; ai a v ( b Bi d/ca r a t T ie 0 1316 czx oda a s‘ n a a vvﬁet n ok e ei v 7 x p e , p f n u ’ ' ’' ’ ’ ’ ‘ ' 71 36 a IJT ov A i f mrr os ! a cu ei o' r r /ca c u év rea l [ca r elcei vov r c w ovov 7 9 ; y y p p j xp , ’ 0 13 uiyv 31 70 0 ecpoBoﬁz/ r o mj wor e Ba n k er)? CLOT OS’ n oma duevoe a r pa

' ' ’ ' e n or a Ov Ova w i a rea l. i r eta y x pa r rjo ete rea l 7 739 8rd. r v u x p s T js c t ne

' ' ’ ' ' ' a a a /cew ci n a m vi m83: 0 137 0 ct ta ev a dm in 7 0 6 Beau m é r ov n p js ys 9 i f s . ’ ‘ ’ f - a v n a a a x eva a a evo cz Oriy a Li v 30 1 1) old? T i u wi eld v rea l. u p p e y p / 7 j m , ’ ’ - ’ ' ’ ' G' a eﬁa a ‘ e7r a im obs cvm k dev ex eidev 0 13 ovov 7 7 7 7 06 29 rea l Tp r s , j u 5 7 , ' ’ ' i rea l So a ofir e a a i xeﬁew oii 're a r a ' ei v ci i o elva Xa U Qe r. n a r a ye e, E e B p my f c And yet this failure did not di scourage O ch u s but stimulated him 7 A . S to make new and larger preparations we have seen before , O ch u s set ou t from Babylon with a tremendous army and had

I J u sti nu s P rol . x .

2 = E d S ch One 1 1 2 S n . 86 . 2 0 . . y c 4

3 D i xv . . od . 93

h d L bertate xv. 1 2 . 4 D e R o . D emosth . i

5 8 O ros us . . 8 . B od . xvi . 0 1 i 4 , 4 , 44, 4 ; i iii 7 6 7 B d. xvi . 0 1 . h 1 0 2 . o Ad P il . i 4 , 4 34 ARTAXER XES II I O CH US AN D H I S REI G N

encamped before Sidon which he cruelly destroyed in 348 and ren P 1 dered all hoenicia subject to his will .

ﬁr of This victory was itself the st step towards the conquest Egypt .

ch u Other preparations were made . O s awaited the troops from 6 Thebes and Argos . In 34 he made the ﬁrst advance of his third campaign against Egypt . The troops missed the way of entrance of B h S and a part the army perished in the arat ra , the erbonian Kasios - swamp between Mount and Damiata, half way between

S on all — i l hi yria and Egypt , surrounded sides by sand h ls , w ch were

i m S frequently carried into the swamp , form ng a botto less marsh O that entire armies not knowing the nature of the swamp could sink

2 ch u P down . O s was forced to return to hoeni cia till the spring of

l ai out 3 the fo lowing year , when he ag n started against Egypt . His of i h army consisted three d visions , led by t ree G reek and three Persian generals :4 the ﬁrst of Boeotian mercenaries led by the L akrates of ni Theban and Rosaces , satraps Io a and Lydia ; the second of troops from Argos led by N ik astrates and the Persian Aristabaz us ; the thi rd of the G reek mercenaries sent by Egypt to

S now P idon , led by the Rhodian Mentor and the ersian eunuch

ch us B agoas . O followed with the remaining troops as a reserve 5 force . The army of Nectanebus consisted of G reek and

Libyan mercenaries and Egyptians . The land was well All ﬁ fortiﬁed . the Nile entrances were strongly forti ed , especially

i B ut h u the one at Pelus um . Nectanebus was no great general . O c s G advanced upon Pelu sium . The reek generals succeeded through their maneuvering to brin g Nectanebus out of his position . C on

i of sequently he withdrew to Memph s . The approach the army was enough to cause the coward to ﬂee to Ethiopia . The remaining

e ﬁ citi es surrendered on after the other . The forti cations were broken down , the temples plundered and the sacred books carried away , and returned by B agoas to the priests only after these paid large sums O ch u s of for them . treated the religion Egypt with little more di d respect than did Cambyses before him . Not only he desecrate

2 4 M ar uart o cit 0 . k A h 2 . I o . d P . 1 . C f . . od . xvi s 0 B i . 45 ; il q p 5 7

2 s D . B od . . . iod . xvi . t xvi . 1 60 0 S rabo 74 , 7 ; i i 3 4 7 — 6 3 o cit. 1 . Judeich p. 73 7 HI ST ORY OF O C H US AN D H IS REI GN 35

their temples but he even slaughtered the sacred ani mals . This may account for the fact that neither his name nor that of his successors

‘ is mentioned in the inscriptions . i P Th s reconquest was a great triumph for ersia . Through it the

ch u name of O s received respect . Yet it was not hard to see that the G Victory was due to the reek troops and commanders , and that the Persians di d not conquer by reason of their ability in war but Simply because they had the most money to pay mercenary troops . It was

B oas to Mentor and not to ag that the king chieﬂy owed his success .

of of k Mentor was the real conqueror Egypt , yet the presence the ing and his prompt decisions contributed much to the speedy results . di Mentor was splen dly rewarded . He received the satrapy of the

of M B coast regions Asia inor . y cunning and treachery he quickly

a of Alarucu s of removed Hermias , the tyr nt and the friend Aristotle , who had concluded treaties like an independent prince and stood hi 2 in suspicious relations with king P lip of Macedon . The G reek

Ph r nd t mercenaries were paid and dismissed . e e a es was appointed

of O ch u s satrap Egypt , and returned triumphantly to his capital , B P abylonia , in Egyp t remained a ersian province till the close of the empire .

of P i The rise Macedonia as a political power dates from hil p II , — P 6 . him 359 33 Before it had no special bearing upon ersian history ,

0 although invaded and temporarily conquered by Xerxes in 48 . P i i i While h l p entered upon the work of expand ng his territory , his

fir hi eyes were first of all fixed upon G reece . At st s invasions were resisted by Athens . For ten years there was war between them .

of P i The bitter opponent hil p was Demosthenes , the greatest orator of G i reece , who at th s time had espoused the cause of the democracy ,

an one whose party leader he became . He saw more clearly than v

of P i else the designs hilip , and recogn zed in him a dangerous enemy of Athens and of all G reece . And yet in spite of all Opposition

P and Philip advanced step by step into G reek territory . ydna li P two 6 . P otidaea , Athenian cities , fell in 3 5 Three years later hi p

P . invaded Thessaly and hocis, and obtained supremacy there Demos th enes poured out his bitter invectives against Phili p to arouse the 4 Athenians to a sense of their danger . He believed the only safety

2 — 2 3 4 h . . I id . 2 . I bi . 1 . P . 8 1 . b I bid . 4 5 5 d 5 il i , p 5 4 36 ARTAXERXES 111 O CH U S AND H I S REI G N

or P P f G reece now lay in an alliance with the ersians against hilip . He favored the negotiations now going on between Athens and the P king Of ersia , who indeed repeatedly sent subsidies for the conﬂict

with Macedoni a . In 349 Phi lip advanced into Thrace and conquered the Athenian now of G Olynthus . The only hope saving middle reece from the P inroads of hilip was to enter into a treaty of peace with him . Even hi Demosthenes consented to t s . There arose at this time a Mace doni an of party right in Athens under the leadership Aeschines , the f w rival politician of Demosthenes . Di ferences arose between the t o hi orators w ch later resulted in unreconcilable animosity . A peace 6 i P i was, however, concluded in 34 , wh ch gave hilip the Athen an

o h r i n of coloni es n the T ac a coast . In a letter Darius to Alexander it is deﬁni tely stated that Phi lip concluded a peace also with O ch u s ’ ‘ no shortly after the reconquest of Egypt . The king s intentions doubt were pure but not so those of Phi lip . H e had to subdue

G ﬁr reece st before he could conquer Asia Minor, and for this purpose P i peace with ersia was advantageous to him . The honest but pol ti cally shortsighted Isocrates overlooked thi s fact when he urged Phi P Phili p to attack Persia . lip saw in ersia a great obstacle to his

hi s P aims for a large empire . Hence attitude toward ersia was P deﬁn ite and decisive . ersia must recede before Macedonia . The only reason for delay was to await the proper moment . It is probable that Philip tried to gain a foothold in Asia Minor through Artabaz us

for . B u t O ch u s who had ﬂed to his court safety when , after the

of l di reconquest Egypt , appointed the ski ful general and plomat ,

Artabaz u s Mentor , and restored to his hereditary satrapy , he under ﬁ stood the political Situation . He thereby forti ed Asia Minor . He P ’ was aware of hilip s plans . There was no immediate danger, but O ch u s noticed the attempts of Philip to secure the mastery of the

fﬁ . Bosporus and of the Hellespont . This was su cient cause for alarm It was in the year 340 that Phi lip sent a ﬂeet into the Hellespont P P ’ and began to besiege erinthus . hilip s plans were no longer a

P . secret . Conﬂict between Macedonia and ersia were now inevitable The Atheni ans sent an embassy to O ch u s for help against Philip

i O ch u s for wh ch refused , he was not well disposed toward the

I Arr . 1 . . II 4 HI ST ORY OF O CH US AN D HI S REI GN 3 7

. B ut P i of P Athenians when hil p continued his siege erinthus , O ch us P ordered the coast satraps to help erinthus with all their power . Through the help of Athens and Persia Perinthus was saved from P i ‘ the power of h lip . Thereupon O ch u s sent troops to invade P Thrace in order to weaken hilip in his own country , but with ff P P little e ect . The help that ersia gave erinthus was to the Mace doni ans o P equivalent to a declaration f war . The ersians did not do see as we now from the result , that it was necessary for them to of G w prevent the subjugation reece to insure their o n safety . Or

2 if they saw it they lacked energy to act . The reasons for their G failure to help Athens and reece are not evident . After the battle f P i i o 8 of G . Chaeronea , 33 , h l p was master reece Just at this time

O ch u s P died and was succeeded by his son Arses . Upon this hilip nl P ope y sought to unite the G reeks against the ersians . In the spring of 6 33 he sent troops to Asia Minor to free the G reek cities . But

P f hi s of ersia was not to su fer much at hands , for in the summer the P i P same year hil p was assassinated . ersia was granted a breathing

or P i spell but only f a brief while . The work which hil p had begun was carried to its completion by his son and successor on the throne , 3 Alexander the G reat . The reliable sources outside of the Old Testament for the history

of of O ch u s . Judea , during the reign , are scanty Only fragmentary

of fﬁ l i evidence is at hand , yet su cient re iabil ty to enable us to form a reasonably deﬁnite conception of the condi tions and events during i b e that time . Judea always held a middle geograph cal position

ﬁr tween larger and contending countries . At st it was Assyria and

B on one on . after that abylonia the side , and Egypt the other Now it was Persia and Egypt in their long-continued struggles with each

o P S other . S closely was Judea connected with hoenicia and yria ff that it was always a ected by their successes or reverses, so that

’ Judea s fate can be i nferred partly from that Of its close-linked vi i neighbors . That olent d sturbances occurred among the Jews during the reign of O ch u s is generally recogni zed among hi storians .

Just what these disturbances were, and through what agencies they

I B xv. Arr . . 1 . io d . 75 ; II 4

2 k ci t. 8 0 . N Olde e op.

3 6 Arr . . 1 . B od . xvi . 1 u st. . i 9 ; J ix 5 , ; II 4 38 ART AXERXES I I I O C H US AN D H I S REI G N

ﬁ of were brought about , and at what de nite time, are matters less

ﬂ r certaintv and of di e ences Of Opinion . There appear to have been two uprisings in Judea during the

i ut chmi d ‘ G s e . reign of O ch u s . This was establ shed already by The ﬁrst of these came in close connection with the second campaign

o ch u s f O against Egypt , 353 It is more than likely that the

P on Jews revolted against the ersians who , their way to Egypt , passed

in front Of their homes . Why should they be led away into cap tivi ty to Hyrcania (vide i nfra) except for revolting against the Persians and for refusing to yield to all their wishes and encroachments ?3 Since the days of Jeremiah Egypt had been more or less of an asylum

of for many Jews . In this way there may have grown up something

' i 4 a k ndred feeling between Jews and Egyptians . This fact may also have added to the Jewish hatred of the Persians now advancing

against Egypt under the command of the satraps of Asia Minor . Both D iodoru s and Plutarch speak of the cruelty of O ch u s in hi s

hi vide i nfra court and in s rule over the empire ( ) . From such a ruler we would then expect just such treatment of the Jews who Showed no inclination to be obedi ent subjects to a nation whose

diﬁ r religion was so e ent from their own . Actual traces of just what we would otherwise expect are found

u r ﬁ f i in o historic sources . The rst o these to notice is a quotat on “ Soli nus u daeae Hi eru sol ma from J caput fuit y , sed excisa ” . Su ccessit H ieri ch u s : et desivit Artaxerxi s l subacta . est haec , bel o 6 D odw llS e and more recently Th . Reinach advanced the supposition

of that the Artaxerxes mentioned is Ardashir I , the founder the

S i 2 2 — A D w 2 2 . . h o S assan d kingdom , 4 4 , threatened yria under

S A D Solinus Alexander everus in 2 33 . . Reinach thinks that mis

J ah rb h r a nd u deich . uc er u K ss s he P h o o e 1 86 1 so E a d G esek . a f l i c il l g i , 3 , 7 4 ; w l ; J

o . ci t. 1 0 1 1 p 7 , 7 .

2 - H ero n mu s 8 Arm en an T rans . bu t i n th e seventh ear of O ch u s . i y , 3 59 5 , y i l

‘ 3 G ra tz G os . der n k c an be a e ted as h Jude I I . h n . 2 1 1 0 t i s if th e a t v t , c , c p i i y cc p h stor th en i t is du e to h h n t e r adh er n e o r o r nes an o v t ons . i y , i e c t t ei d c t i d c ic i

4 C f. T h e u an P Ass api ri .

5 I n H n o a u ds o G e r h . G ra c . I I . 1 g p e 7 . 6 “ ” L a deu xieme ru ne de er ho i n em ud s i n M or of A ex . Koh u t S . S t e em i J ic i y l , - 4 5 7 46 2

40 ART AXERXES II I O CH U S AN D H I S REIG N

E i h anes or Sidetes Antiochus p p , through Antiochus , nor yet like of that Titus , but some lesser disaster that made less impression upon the world outside and yet temporarily at least made Jerusalem

unﬁt or undesirable for a capital . Momm sen ‘ has rightly taken the Opposite View and has con ’ clusively shown the impossibility of R ei nach s conclusion since there hi P ‘ is no evidence that Ardas r I ever came near alestine . Twice

he made an attempt to advance westward , but was unable to cross

i 2 the Mesopotam an desert . In 33 he met with some success in the S Roman Asiatic possessions , but was defeated by Alexander everus 3 i — . 2 2 8 in a great battle Under the Roman Max mus , 35 3 , Mesopo tami a came into the power of Ardashir and the Persians again threat

to 2 2 ened cross the Euphrates . In 4 the Romans once more declared P war against the ersians and defeated them completely . Ardashir had demanded from Rome all the provinces formerly in the empire of Darius but never Obtained them . There was a long and bitter i S i conﬂ ct between the Romans and the assan ds , but no evidence

hi r 4 i can be adduced that Ardas r ever crossed the Euph ates . Noth ng “ :s is mentioned Of a destruction of Jericho . Mommsen says Hoc scio neque a Solino u s quam tali a citari ipsi us aetate gesta neque ” Art x rx a e en ili um attigi sse Palaestinam . The citation from Dio 6 Cassius does not prove in any way that Ardashir advanced farther

H l ch er7 than the Euphr ates . O s therefore rightly concludes that the quotation from Solinu s points to Artaxerxes II and that since there is nothing against its credibility there remains nothing but to

accept it as fact . 8 ’ Another reference is found in Eusebius : o s m i ls ’ ’ s is Ai f v'n' r ov O ' T a 'reﬁwv e uci v a l a k coa la v ell ev I ov3a rcov di v y p p p y xn , ' " ‘ ’ ' ’ r obs év ev I na m Ma r i/ew e w b 7 lca a m a Oa k da a 8 £1! u p a n p s 5 y , ’ ’ ' ' lt éBI/ t oi [ca l e i viii! cla w a trrodc (it n ok k oi 7 6311 E7t7u vwv Ba . p xp , s j “ o o o 9 i r p ﬁo w . In the translation of Hieronymus we read : O ch us

2 — S oli nu s n . 3 1 . I tr d VI I h . 1 2 o . Kom s e G esch 1 886 V. ; cf i c , 4 9

2 N eld k t — — e e o . ci . 86 2 t . ci . 1 8 2 p 9 ; J usti op. 77 == 3 La m u A 4 n 68 . ridi l. S v E u s b . S n . 6 a d p s e reu s 5 6 . e y c 74 3

5 6 li nu s n r . i S o I t od v i . . lxxx . 3

7 P aldsti na i n der r P e s . u . H e 8 . l. e t Z i 4 7, 4 3 = h n . n 1 1 0 I d . 1 1 . S c hO e I I . S n . 8 . 1 . b C ro ed . 2 y c 4 6 0 i 3 HI ST ORY OF O CH U S AN D H I S REI G N 4 1

Apodasm o Ju daiorum capta in Hyrcani am accolas translatos juxta i l ‘ mare C asp um con ocavi t. In the Armenian translation this reads : “ O ch u spartem ali qu am de Romanis Judaeisqu e cepit et h abitare fecit

z i in Hyrcania juxta mare C a b um . There is some doubt as to the sources from which Eusebius drew his information (vide su pra

. l p but scarcely any as to the credibi ity of the facts mentioned . “ “ ” Wellh au sen calls it eine schwache Kunde and Stade3 considers “ ” . l the quotation sehr dunkel Others accept it as re iable , and ’ S u 4 r r obe 8 i n a rightly so . ch rer is no doubt co rect in saying that ' “ ” 8 v7t o3vc S his , was added by yncellus out of own wisdom , and that i “ ” the Armen an translation added de Romanis . A reference undoubtedly based on Eusebius is found in Orosius “ T u h s r . : ne O c u s et t ansactum iii 7 etiam , qui Artaxerxes , post in

Ae to diuturnum u e l lu rim os u daioru m gyp maximum q bel um , p J in transmi ratinem e i t C as iu m h abitare g g , atque in Hyrcania ad p mare praecepit : quos ibi usque in h odi erum diem amplissimis generis sui i ncrementis exinde uando u e eru tu ros n consistere , atque q q p opi io ” est . Conﬁrmi ng evidence is also found in the condition Of the Jericho 6 H Olsch er D iodoru s 7 valley at this time, as has shown from who had

hi of K i for s source in this case Hieronymus ard a, who wrote in the

— of 2 0 1 of l G . days Antigonus , 3 3 3 , a successor A exander the reat i N O more reliable source could be asked for . According to th s source the whole Jericho valley in the last decade of the fourth century was no longer Jewish but Arabian , whom Hieronymus calls Nabataeans . 8 H lsch er ou t O has pointed that their territory included Idumaea , whi ch extended from Engedi northward . These Idumaeans then pressed into the Jericho valley after its desolation . As in earlier deportations , so now not all Jews were removed , but enough so that the general character of the land became Arabian .

A ﬁnal and less certain reference is found in Justinus xxxvi . 3 Primum Xerxes rex Persarum Ju daios dom u it; postea cum ipsis

diu u e Persis in di cionem Alexandri Magni venere , q in potestate

' ’ 1 s A r a é e 6 d ok ov ei ﬂ o s x ﬂ s s. Mid. 1 1 2 , p £ p£ x

2 6 i t 8 — 0 O . c . . ci t. 1 2 . O p. 9 p 4 5

7 = . 8 . 8 . I I . 1 . 3 o s sr . I G esch . des V lke 94 xix 9 ii 4

3 — it 2 . O . c . 2 4 ci t. I I I . 6 n . O p. , p 3 5 4 2 ARTAXERXES II I O CH US AN D H I S RE I GN

i Macedonici im perm subject Syriac regno fuere . A Demetrio cum des ci vi ssent i R omanorum i i , am citia petita , prim omn um ex oriental

li ert t m rece erunt l r i ibus b a e p , facile tunc Romanis de alieno a g en ” tibu s . There is no other evidence that Xerxes ever forced the Jews into subjection . It is very probable that we are to understand with H Olsch er‘ that the original reading was Artaxerxes (III) instead of

H e Xerxes . thinks that the information is based on T im agenes who

l of ﬁ C . wrote during the latter ha f the rst century B . Taking all these evi dences together we have the strong probability if not the absolute certainty that Jericho was devastated and that the

H ni O ch us Jews were deported to yrca a during the reign of , and , as

i — 2 n shown before, with n the year 353 35 , as a pu ishment for their or for i P rebellion at least their refusal to subm t to the ersian rule . Thi s conclusion is strengthened by the fact that there was a large colony of Jews in Hyrcania numbering in the Roman time not only

‘ G o thousands but millions . ranted that many f these went there of own their choice and that many more were born there , the accept

of i of ance these h storic references explains the beginning the colony , which is otherwise not explained in history . Finally , also , the frequent occurrence of the name Hyrcanus among the Jews3 points in the

d of O ch u s to 4 same irection , and to the time rather than a later period , since in the later period the name is already in common use .

of O ch u s The second revolt Of the Jews during the reign , as 6 udeich S J , followed by Outhe , has clearly Shown , came in connection with the thi rd campaign against Egypt shortly after the destruction N 1 of S 8 ﬁ of . 6 idon , 34 , and before the nal reconquest Egypt , 343 8 7 h ﬁr S deke incorrectly connects t is with the st revolt , and tade places

i of it still earl er, namely in the reign Artaxerxes Mnemon , while

Sch ii rer" ‘ ° is uncertain as to the date . Willrich supposes the Josephus

B oses section to refer to an event of the Maccabaean period . ag is

2 i t n O . c 6 . p . 4 ,

2 ure . h r o c it. I I I . 6 b e o n o . A nt. . . as d s 2 . Sc p , 7, J xi 5 3 t — A n . a . os . mm . . 6 1 1 V ta k t n i n M s n J 4 ; i 1 ; I I M a . O f e i h

4 W n k er n m m As a d W r h b th e r s stem of han e of na es a . i c l ill ic , y i y c g , cl i 5 it. 1 II O . c 1 . p 7 , 6 — G esc . des Vo 7 s it. 8 h ke I sr. . l 2 9 2 : O p c 77 7 . 3 i t. 1 . 9 O . c t I I n . O . ci . I . 6 p 94 p ,

1 ° — Juden u . r h n va d h E n 8 . G iec e r er M ak. r ebu g 8 89 HI ST ORY OF O CH US AND H I S R EI GN 43 not P B E i h the ersian agoas but Antiochus p p anes . Josephus did not

o hu make O ch u s a persecutor f the Jews . In fact O c s was not an enemy of the Jews . All the references originated from the Josephus

not O ch u s E i h ‘ passage and that does refer to but to Antiochus p p anes . That this conclusion does not stand appears already from a historic

S o examination of the sources . uch confusing r changing of names

not o is in harmony with the historic method f Josephus . Already Ewald 2 considered it likely that the Jews rebelled with their near P P i neighbors , the hoenicians , against the ersians . Th s is indeed more ﬁ than probable . Otherwise it is dif cult to see why their temple should be polluted and additional burdens be laid upon them . It was the common practice of the Persians to inﬂict such Visitations u pon revolting colonists . In the section of Josephus 3 we read that after the death of the

son O ﬂi ce high priest Eliashib , his Judas succeeded him in that , and

B o 4 = B o he in turn was followed by Johanan . He gave ag ses ( ag as) occasion to desecrate the temple and to burden the Jews with a com pulsory tax of ﬁfty drachmas from the common income for every lamb ﬁ before the sacri ce . This came about as follows Johanan had a

B a oses brother , Jesus , to whom g , as to a good friend , had promised ffi the o ce of high priest . This led to a quarrel between the two brothers in which Johanan slew Jesus . This was an outrageous act on the part Of the high priest , so much more horrible since such an ungodly act was unheard of either among the G reeks or the

r G od . fo barbarians Consequently , as a result this act , allowed the people to be reduced to servitude and their temple to be polluted

P For B a oses by the ersians . as soon as g learned that Johanan slew his brother in the temple he censured the Jews with the reproach : And so you dared to commit a murder in your temple ? ” And when they refused him entrance into their temple he said to them : “ Am I not purer than the man who commi tted murder in the ” temple ? And with these words he entered the temple . The death of Jesus gave B agoses a desired occasion to oppress the Jews seven 5 years .

1 2 G esek . I I . 2 . 2 1 0 . Judaic a 39 an d § 1 0 3 .

3 A N es e 1 8 2 th ose h u s a ree B od . xvn . and trabo . nt. xi . . 1 e d. 7 , i , 9 ; wi J p g i S ' ‘ 4 a u m s e d . ese . G rk . ﬁ y n Ni 2 5 h a ru su rlau nden au s E e h ant ne 1 0 6 . D re aram . P C f. S a au c i py l p i , 9 44 ART AXERXES I I I O CHO S AN D H I S REI GN

Contrary to Stade ‘ who says : Uber die Schicks ale der j ii disch en G S emeinde in dem Jahrhundert , welches zwischen Nehemias tatt h altersch aft und dem Einbruch Alexanders in das persische Reich

verﬂossen V ist , durch ganz orderasien in eine neue Entwicklung i di h ngerissen wurde , erfahren wir aus dem Alten Testamente rect

G Uberlieferu n gar nichts . Und auch die eschichtliche g anderer

‘ ' VOlker lasst uns fIIr diesen Zeitraum in der G eschichte der ” G emeinde vOllig im Stiche ; and contrary to Wellh au sen 2 who says “ of the second half of the Persian period : Uber die aussere G eschi chte Z ” dieser eit erfahren wir beinahe nichts , we have found historic traces whi ch bear upon the period and throw rays of li ght upon it that enable us to understand to some extent the conditions of the

h u Jewish community in the days Of O c s .

O ch us own It remains yet , after a look at what did for his and

of mi succeeding ages and what sort a man he was , to exa ne the Biblical records to ﬁnd what light they will throw upon the period

under consideration .

T H E W K AN D C ARAC T R O C H U S E . OR H E OF

O ch u s at last fell a prey to the treachery of his most trusted general h B B a oas of C aeronaea 8 . a oas g shortly after the battle , 33 g , fearing

of a change in the favor the king , and in order to avenge the death

of O ch us the Egyptian Apis through , caused the king to drink poison

3 h u of O c s on . and placed Arses , the youngest son , the throne All B hi s . a oas other sons he killed When Arses would not let g rule ,

he too , together with all his children , was slain , and a friend Of the

C odom annus a son of Arsanes - of eunuch , , , , and a great grandson

B a oas Darius II , was placed upon the throne . He in turn caused g

B a oa to drink the poison which g s had prepared for him , because he i would not y eld to the wishes of the eunuch . The same year that

C odom annus 6 P n ascended the throne , 33 , hilip II was assassi ated O ch u s and followed by his son Alexander . With the death of and the accession Of Alexander the death-knell of the Persian empire

was sounded . It required only a little more time for the inevitable

to take place .

1 it 1 2 O . c . . it 1 2 c . . p 9 4 O p. 9

3 D . iod . v P u . x ii 5 ; l t Alex . HI ST O RY OF O C H US AN D H I S REI GN 45

O ch us was the ﬁr st Persian ruler Since Darius I who had in person energetically conducted a great expedition and restored the empire hi to its former greatness . It was a great pity that he died just at t s

‘ critical moment , for far more than in the days of Darius I did the

of of empire center in the personality the king . The last years his reign Show a prompt management and a powerful rule . He was shrewd enough to place the right men in whom he could have con

ﬁdence fﬁ hi into the most important O ces , a management w ch was

2 P o h u not always found in oriental courts . lutarch said f O c s that

- 3 he excelled all his predecessors in cruelty and in blood thirstiness . ’ ’ ’ ' ’ ar o o i ' a k o o 4 m . n c vr a in re ﬁ ev . o s u r nr c rea l. ma up q s p u s G rote calls “ him a sanguinary tyrant who shed by wholesale the blood of ” his family and courtiers . He was energetic and determined , but

of . treacherous and cruel , an oriental despot an extreme type His cruelty shows itself alike in his court before and after his accession ,

N O and in his rule over the empire in Sidon and in Egypt . means s were too low for him just so they would accomplish his ends . Cheyne “ ” h u of O c s . mentions the insane cruelties that degenerate king , 6 “ N ldeke one of And O says he was , it appears , those great despots

for who can raise up again a time a decayed oriental empire , who shed blood without scruple and are not nice in the choice of means , but who in the actual position of affairs do usually contribute to the ” of welfare the state as a whole .

1 l k t 4 t N . I o de e o . ci . 8 0 . O . ci . xI I ha c . p p , c p

2 S ust o . cit. 1 . E . B I I I . J i p 39 . 6 3 A tax . i t r . 0 O c . . 3 . p 75 CHAPTER III

AN EXAMINAT I O N O F T H E O LD T E ST AM ENT SO URC E S PO SSIBLY DAT IN G FRO M T H E RE I GN O F O C H US O R R EFLECT IN G LI GHT T H EREO N

After gathering together the historical data bearing on the period under consideration from sources and authorities outside the Old

Testament , both in a general and also in a more particular way , it remains for us to search the sacred records to see what additional ﬁ i and con rm ng information they will yield for this period . It is evi dent that we have it to do not with traditional Views but with a ﬁ scienti c treatment Of the records . Much has been said and written

n i or two o th s subject during the last decade . And since there is an

of element of uncertainty about the history the period , there is a great diversity of opini ons among scholars concerning the Old Testament sources ﬁnding a historical explanation in thi s period . There are passages also which ﬁt well here and equally so into one or another

or . O r earlier later period S , fo instance , there is a similarity between the conditions in Palestine during the Assyrian and the late Persian I V time, and again between this time and that under Antiochus ,

E i h r H anes o of rcanus . p p , John y There is no direct reference in the

to O ch us or so Old Testament his reign by name , that it becomes a matter of interpretation through a comparison of the thought con tents oi these sources with what is known of the external history of the period . A T H E U RC . SO ES

Since the historical method of study found its way into the

of of circles Old Testament students , the true meaning and message the Old Testament is sought in its historic background . Every a p ssage is studied with this thought in mind . Consequently the correct place in history is sought for every part of the Old Testament . The following passages have at some time or other been thought by scholars to belong in this period wholly or in part P — — I . assages from Isaiah : ( I ) 2 3 : 1 1 4 ; ( 2) 1 9 : 1 1 5 ; (3) 1 4 - — - - - 2 8 2 . 2 2 2 : 1 6 6 6 3 ; (4) chaps 4 7; (5) 3 9 4 ; ( ) 2 4 ; (7) chaps 5 6 o

48 ARTAXERXES 11 1 O CH US AN D HI S REI G N

0 lli n K . T . 1 . . von O re D as D odeka ro heto . . . p p , in H C A , 9 4 C 3 ll E n er P ro het esa a au s ele t 1 88 1 0 . . . C orni i D p J j g g , 7, 9 4 C H

5 l h r P al ti na leitu n i n die B ilch er des A . T . 1 8 1 1 0 . G . H O sc e as g , 9 , 9 5 — 0 h r P ers i schen u nd H elleni sti schen eit 1 0 6 . . G u t e i n de Z , 9 3 , 4 5 H ,

— Sch r r eschi chte lke srael 1 0 0 1 . G e h hte des Vo s I 2 8 . ii e G sc ic , 9 4 , 9 3 E t 3 K iidi sch en Volkes i m eitalter esu C hri s i 1 0 2 . . des J Z J , 9 R ittel , “ R ealen u r P rotestanti sch e T h eolo i e und Article Psalmen in c. f g

Ed 1 6 Ki rch e 1 0 . . . , 9 5

C AMI AT I T H E RC . EX N ON OF SOU ES

" — P assa es from I sai ah . 1 1 152 S i n T h e I . g Isa 4 [ 5 g racle concerni n S idon one mi O g , of the ten oracles for ng the frame

— — o . . 1 2 . vss . 1 1 8 work i Isa chaps 3 7 That 5 , the promised restoration

not of Tyre , do form a part of the original section but are a later

ou t addition , was pointed already by Ewald , who is followed by most

— vss . 1 1 . later writers . These verses stand in strong contrast with 4

1 — 1 They are not like vss . 4 , poetry , but prose with a quotation from

1 6 . a song in vs . Language , imagery , and subject matter are different in the two parts . Ewald and Cheyne place the added verses in the P ‘ h 2 beginn ing of the ersian period . Du m places them after the

G 2 3 fall of Tyre under Alexander the reat in 33 , and Marti in the

1 — 1 ﬁ second century by a writer who recognized in vss . 4 the ful lment

2 w of a prophecy concerning the fall Of Tyre in 33 , and who sa the

l u id rise of Tyre under the Se e c es . The promise of a restoration

— . 2 : 1 1 2 : 1 0 of Tyre , after seventy years , is modeled after Jer 5 9 , and 9 , of P of meaning after a change dynasty as in case of the haraoh Joseph , l I :8 . o Ex . Tyre was rea ly forgotten by reason f the prosperity of

of . of Carthage and the rise its rival , Alexandria Not till the time

S eleu cides the did it rise again , yet long before the seventy years 4 after the conquests . Further evidence of the rise of Tyre is also found in Zech . And Tyre did build herself a stronghold , and d ﬁne i of . heape up silver as the dust , and gold as the m re the streets

— . 1 1 The date of vss 4 has long perplexed the critics . It is evident that the text has snﬁered corruption in order to adapt the poem

2 S O a s o E hh o rn Vatke Ko n l ic , , ig .

2 ’ as B uc h J es . abers et t D z u . erhl t ad ar , . Zoo.

3 a ac h Jcso o d . D s B a lo . j , c

4 il rer G es . d f. ch ch es J C S d . ii Vo kes I I . l . 74 O LD T EST AMENT SOUR C ES 49

o to another than its original purpose . The acceptance f the text as

D ‘ ldae n ! T e DIDD C ha a s . 1 1 2 . E r D . it is , y , and , in vss and , led W R Smith ‘ to consider the passage as a prophecy of Isaiah against Tyre ’ S 0 1 to shortly before ennacherib s invasion in 7 , pointing the punish ment recently inﬂicted upon Chaldaea by the Assyrians in 71 0 — 70 9

or 0 1 vs . 1 in 7 . But even by accepting 3 as it stands , this is hardly possible , for it describes a severer disaster than that which befell

B . not abylon through Assyria at that time And , besides , Tyre is mentioned in the inscriptions among the cities besieged by Senna

h ri VS . 1 of i c e b . On the other hand , 3 , because its mean nglessness , " is rejected by Cheyne from belonging to the original poem . Duhm and Marti consider the larger portion of it as a gloss and emend the remainder .

of The introduction was thought to be too abrupt . ‘ i I anaani te Ewald proposed to change t to D QBDD C s . His con

ectu re S 3 o i l j was adopted by chrader, Cheyne , Or ll , De itzsch , and 4 viewed favorably by Dillman and Driver . Cheyne afterward ‘ reverted to D AIDD on Assyriological grounds . If the emendation e to would stand , th n the verse would refer simply the threatening P i fate of hoen cia , and the whole section could be considered as an Isaiani c prophecy and could plausibly be assigned to the period of the ﬁve-year siege of Tyre by Shalm aneser I V between 72 7 and 72 3 5 fﬁ ’ related by Josephus . But the text is as di cult with DDS DD

‘ i ﬁ of eh as with D WIDD. What could be the sign cance Ti } b old ? hi Certainly the devastation of Canaan was not ng new . Ewald also noticed the absence of the loftiness, the splendor, and the brevity Of

Isaiah , and consequently assigned the verses to a younger disciple

of . 2 of Isaiah . Others refer all chap 3 to the age if not to the author 6 S 7 ship of Jeremiah . tade places the entire chapter in the age of

Alexander the G reat . ‘ . , D ﬂlDD of E Meyer , followed by Duhm and Marti changes _ ‘ v 1 D WID C ri ans . 1 2 s . 3 to yp , and refers to vs for the reason . The

I 2 I t d. to t e o I h t 0 I s ae . n ro e P o e s r h Bk . sa. 1 1 T h r p } l 333 f 4 .

2 3 A T 0 . K . . . 4 9 f 6 4 to t e Li teratu re o th e O . T . 2 1 . I ntrod. h f 9

s o E a S h rader Ku enen D man O r lli h D A t. . s d e C e ne r n ver. ix w l , c , , ill , , y , i

6 7 d s o I H tz B leek . G esch . e V kes sr . I I . 2 0 8 i ig , l SO ART AXERXES I I I O CH US AN D H I S REIG N

emendation is not an easy one but probably correct . With a Slight “ " “ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘- " change the verse then reads : TDD/DD RE ID I DI l D I ID DR I ! D. Y ehold the land o the Kitti m he h as laid waste to a h ea o rui ns h e B f , p f ide u a a s r . One made i t (Marti) . The rest of the verse is a gloss ( p ) ﬁ more emendation , rst proposed by Duhm and adopted by Marti

orni ll of and C , and it seems to me we have the original meaning " 1 S idon 1 3: 1 3 IT S . the passage . This is to 1 ( T ) in vss and

8 . This is an easy emendation and is altogether probable since in

2 1 2 S . vss . , 4 , idon is certainly meant This gives unity and meaning ﬁ to the S ection , nding its full explanation in the historic situation

of S O ch u s 8 of the destruction idon by in 34 , into which history it

e u ra ﬁts perfectly (aid s p ) . Then we have not a prophecy but an elegy composed upon the destruction of Sidon . It is easy to see how - one . 1 1 8 a later writer, the who added vss 5 , would adapt the elegy to a prophecy against Tyre . He also changed I“; to in vss . 1 8 out of S RI ? bu rden and , and so made the elegy upon idon a D

T re Vs . of y . 5 is a prosaic gloss whose contents has no connection

‘ with the poem . That Tyre was not meant originally is clear from

ﬁve S the fact that it was thrice besieged , years under halmaneser

Asarh addon- -bani al Sargon , again under Assur p , and thirteen years by

2 . Nebuchadrezzar , but not conquered till under Alexander in 33 On the other hand we know that Sidon was the ﬁrst city of Phoenicia

‘ in the Persian period . At no time during the life Of Isaiah was “ “ ” 3 of 15: P it destroyed . The translation as hoenicia is rendered G u th e impossible by vs . Likewise the view Of Cheyne , , and K ittel , that the elegy dates from Isaiah as a prophecy against Tyre , worked over by a later hand , must be abandoned . The passage is not a prophecy and its diction and ideas are too foreign to those of

s ou t Isaiah (Duhm) . Cheyne points Isaianic ideas and phraseology - h ow and then adds what seem to him non Isaianic features , which , ever , seem to predominate . The passage may be accepted without

of S 8 hesitancy as an elegy upon the destruction idon (Marti) in 34 , and may conﬁdently be received as a reliable source for the reign

of O ch us .

2 n 8 6 . D h m C h e e Mart . VII v u H erodotus . , y , i . 9 ; iii 7 — 3 nn c d A t ms . . s . h Piet c h ma G es h der Ph oeni ier 0 2 6 M e er O es . es ter u I C f. z 3 ; y c l 595

2 4 a t h ibel . 5 . 1 n u 2 . G uth e i K zsc B O p cit. 4 O LD T ESTAMENT SO URC ES SI

‘ 1 1 1 1 6— 2 D j l m I E T h e O racle concerni n ( 2) Isa . 9 : 5 [ 5] R D g

E t of of Isa . . 1 2 . I n . 2 gyp , another the ten oracles , chaps 3 7 As chap 3 ,

1 1 so we have here an original section , vss . 5 , and a later addition ,

— i . v . 1 6 n ss 2 5 . Tradition indeed accepted the entire chapter as Isaia c Scholars long accepted this View and sought to ﬁnd a place in history

or ‘ ni f the chapter . Ewald accepted the chapter as Isaia c but noticed ’ e difﬁ culties in the differences . H described it as Isaiah s last and “ ” m of noblest testa ent to posterity , probably because the grand

of catholicity the picture with which the chapter closes , namely that - of both Assyria , the life long oppressor Judah , and Egypt Should turn

on o d to Jahwe and be an equality with Israel in the kingdom f G o .

0 1 Ewald thinks the chapter consistent with the period after 7 , after

‘ Egypt was defeated by Sennacherib . Driver considers it a plausible conjecture to place it in connection with the defeat of Egypt by Sargonat Raphia in

— vss . 1 6 2 not of vss . That 5 do form a part the original section ,

1 — 1 wh o to 5 , was shown already by Hitzig , thought them come from of i own of the hand On as in his interest , at the time the founding

li a 1 60 B of i L eonto o s c . . c . to O the On as temple in p , , according J 4 i of S I sephus . The all ance yria , srael , and Egypt the writer hoped

of to be realized through the successes Judas Maccabaeus . Hitzig

— v 2 1 2 . later considered ss . 5 as purely imaginative His earlier View

. for vs . 1 6 was adopted by Duhm The section cannot be Isaianic ,

i of would be a direct den al his predictions , and at the time these verses were written Judah must have had reason for hoping to become a menace to Egypt and to stand alongside with it and Syria . The

ﬁve of Leonto oli s cities speaking the language Canaan , among them p , the altar and the pillar, the hope that Egypt will turn to Jahwe , all indicate that this prophecy dates from the middle of the second cen tury . Duhm sees in the friendship which shall arise between Egypt

S and of and yria , which shall include Judah , the marriage Alexander B alas with the daughter Of Ptolemy Philom eter at which Jonathan

1 0 clothed in purple was present (I Mac . : 5 1 The gloriﬁcation of the temple of L eontopolis and of the Jewish generals indicates

t H t 2 S o a Stade D m n u n n i s . 0 I sr I I . 2 6 . so a K e e . 1 . 7 f l , ill ,

3 G uth e i n Kau tzsch B ibel places it at 71 5 .

4 A t. 1 . n xiii . 3 . 5 2 ARTAXERXES I II O C H US AN D HI S REI G N

that the author was an Egyptian Jew . Hence it is that there is no reference to the return of the Diaspora and to the hostility toward

O f the gentiles . That the history the time is put into the form Of prediction is in harmony with the literary style of the time . Marti i agrees with Duhm that the time of the founding of the On as temple ,

0 B f . 1 6 . c . of , a fords the best historic explanation these verses He

1 6— 2 or im regards vss . 5 as a unity , intended to limit to cancel the

1 — 1 pression of vss . 5 for Egyptian readers , and at the same time as a message from the Egyptian Jews to the Egyptians to turn to Jahwe and to rejoice over the blessings of the Jewish religion in the l triple al iance with Judah and Syria .

v 6— a ss . 1 2 n Cheyne is certain that 5 are not Isaia ic , for ( ) the

— . 1 1 of prophecy , vss 5 , is from a literary point View complete without

b O f d f an appendix . ( ) The tone these verses is entirely i ferent from

ﬁr the st part . There is a strong contrast between the two parts .

ﬁ s m The rst is the sternest threatening, the second has a more y pathetic tone toward Egypt than is found in any other part of the

' G od . c Old Testament , even a conversion of Egypt to the true ( ) ’ of ri of To a Jew of Isaiah s time the conversion Assy a , not Egyp t , was of primary interest . The conversion Of the less dangerous d neighbor is not a conceivable idea of Isaiah . ( ) The circumstantial

— 1 8 2 . 1 6 description in vss . 5 (vss and 1 7 link the original prophecy

o with the addition) is contrary to the prophetic genius f Isaiah .

e O . ( ) There are no stylistic indications f Isaiah The style is prosaic . The Isaianic expressions only indicate that the writer was acquainted

‘ B u t l . C ornil with Isaiah Cheyne , and with him , thinks it impossible

— . 1 6 2 m 1 60 that vss 5 can co e from so late a date as , since such an addition could not have been accepted into the text of the Palestinian

u synagog e so late . This Objection is , however, not insurmountable since the canon was not closed till after that time . While the pro ph etic collection already existed pretty much in its present form

2 0 0 B . c . l about , sti l the possibility of much later additions is not

2 — . of 1 2 ruled out The group prophecies , Isa . , chaps . 3 7, can hardly 3 o B . have been collected before the close f the second century C .

1 it — c . 1 0 1 . O p. 9 9 “ 2 d K. B u d Art . C a n e o n i n E . B . I n n 1 a . . . §39 d

3 M a o i t x rt c . vi i p. . p . O LD T EST AMENT SOURC ES 53

' ‘ ' Cheyne thinks the author considered l lIDP D Dltj; th e cruel ’ lord O ch us x v rwv (I tch 3 631) h ard lords , as , or with LXX p y/ , as

O ch u s P and the other ersian kings who conquered Egypt , namely

Cambyses and Xerxes . The passage can be explained only by the i th eﬁ P h story of the G reek period under rst four tolemies . When the

of P empire Alexander was divided , Egypt fell to tolemy Lagi who in 3 20 added to it Phoenicia and Goelo-Syria with the territory O f

S . S Judah . Antigonus received yria and Asia Minor outhern f Syria remained disputed ground . The people of Judah su fered P harsh treatment from tolemy . Many captives from Judah and

‘ Samaria were carried away to Egypt . Many Jews also went of

own their accord , invited by the goodly country and the liberality of P So tolemy toward them in Alexandria . far the verses contain

N ow . recent history . follows a look into the future Egypt shall

S . turn to Jahwe . A highway from Egypt to yria shall be opened

l u id P Israel shall be the link between the Se e c es and the tolemies . All shall serve Jahwe and from the three allied peoples spiritual light

of will radiate . Hence he concludes that the addition is the work

a 2 C orni ll2 an Egyptian Jew c . 75 . considers it inconceivable that the verses could date from an earlier time than the settling of Jews

— P 2 2 8 . in Egypt by tolemy Lagi , 3 3 5

V 1 6— 2 fi ffi From the examination of SS . 5 we may con dently a rm that they are not Isaianic and that they are from a later writer than v 1 — 1 1 — 1 find ss . 5 . It remains yet to examine vss . 5 to as nearly as

— h i . 1 6 2 1 60 possible their origin and date . W ile Hitz g dated vss 5 at

— ﬁ V . 1 1 he held rmly to the Isaiani c authorship of S S 5 . Eichhorn ﬁ - rst denied the authorship of Isaiah . The non Isaianic authorship

K rnill Sm end C o . is now held by Duhm , , ittel , , and Marti But for

— V S . 1 1 what reason ? First let us ascertain whether S 5 are a unity .

— — 2 . 1 1 0 As in chapter 3 so we have here three strophes , vss 4 , 5 , and

— 1 1 1 of . 5 , and not regular formation Neither is each strophe a

ﬁr : unit idea . The st is a unity Jahwe stirs up civil war in Egypt , robs the Egyptians of all reason and delivers them into the power of a severe and cruel foreigner . The next two strophes , on the other

— : VS S . 1 0 hand , form a unit idea together 5 , the drying up of the Nile

ﬁ 1 1 — 1 fﬁ of . and the woe shermen and weavers , and vss 5 , the insu ciency

I 2 E a A A t X 1 1 i nl. i n d s . T . 1 1 . o . 1 . . J s n . 7 54 ARTAXERXES II I OCHO S AN D H I S REI G N

and helplessness of the Egyptian wisdom . Cheyne therefore sepa

— 1 0 n rates vss . 5 as obstructing the con ection , and considers them ‘ v from a later hand . The evidence , however , is not con incing since the conn ection between the ﬁrst and third strophe is scarcely any

‘ ni . closer . We may therefore accept the entire section as a u t That the section cannot come from Isaiah is evident (a) from a

O f n lack any historic co nection with Judah , any political motive for s the threats uttered , for the older prophets alway connected their b messages with some contemporary event in history . ( ) Many

i : of on to ideas are not Isaian c The ride Jahwe a swift cloud Egypt , v l s . 1 . e , is almost unique in prophecy The theoretically estab ish d monotheism and the comparison Of the Jewish religious teaching

1 2 with the Egyptian wisdom , vss . 3 and , is unlike Isaiah . The

of . 1 2 . plan Jahwe is already a subj ect of learned wisdom , vs (Marti)

H D h e s ir t o E t v of D RD M t i s . Would Isaiah have spoken p f gyp , 3 , theﬁ of and have shown the anxiety for shermen and weavers Egypt ,

— ? . 1 0 no h c vss 5 , a calamity in way political (Du m) ( ) The arrangement 0 1 3 7 and style is not Isaianic . Would Isaiah have used : six times in the first five lines ? Cheyne3 at fir st pronounced thesection the ’ of work a disciple of Isaiah on the basis of Isaiah s notes . Then he concluded that the whole section is later than Isaiah but still held ‘ lI W31 3 to the Isaianic basis, and thought the Dp none other than S h in 0 argon who defeated the Egyptians at Rap ia 72 . Later he “ ” find asserts I can now no sure traces of an Isaiani c substratum .

v 1 — 1 n That Isaiah cannot have been the author Of ss . 5 is certai ly

evident . Into what other period then does the section belong ? 4 Cheyne thinks of Cambyses who conquered Ps amm etich III in

2 of one 5 5 , and Xerxes who reconquered Egypt . Either can rightly l HI D‘ be ca led DE ﬁ R . The section belongs in the long Persian

period , but nothing compels us to descend as far as Artaxerxes h u — O c s . V S S . 1 0 5 are not later than 485 . Judging from the o f O ch us P di fi cruelty in hoenicia and Judea , he thinks it f cult to see how a Jew could have written so coldly and so i ndifl erently of fi . n the nal campaign against Egypt Duhm , o the other hand , and

hi m C ornill h O chu s with Marti and , rightly t ink of Artaxerxes III , ,

2 O . cit. 1 1 1 0 1 1 . 3 O . cit. 1 1 1 1 . p , p 3 , 4 2 M it art o . c . 1 . 4 it. 1 1 1 . i p 5 5 O p. c 8 , 1 9

56 ARTAXERXES 111 O C H US AN D HI S REI G N

i l of S m ght natura ly rejoice over the death argon , who had defeated

20 1 1 . Hann o of G aza at Raphia in 7 , and captured Ashdod in 7 That Sennacherib severely puni shed the Philistines is clear from his ih

‘ of T i lath -Pileser scriptions . Others have thought of the time g III (745 — 72 7) and Shalmaneser I V (726 and still others thought

the time of Shalmaneser and Sargon most suited to the prophecy .

Thus far all points to Isaiah as the author of the prophecy . Of all

0 the dates mentioned 7 5 seems the most li kely to be the correct one . So f . o . 2 The inviolability Zion , vs 3 , certainly is an Isaianic idea ﬁ . 0 S o also is the sympathy for the poor, vs 3 , that the prophecy nds a reasonable explanation in the Assyrian period and may plausibly

be claimed for Isaiah . B ut is there not another period in which the prophecy ﬁnds even a more perfect explanation ? Duhm thinks of the period after the

I ssos c of G battle of , 333 , and before the apture Tyre and aza by l G A exander the reat , as the Situation best explaining the prophecy, and refers to the suffering of the Philistines during the reign of the P k ﬁ last ersian ings , in their conﬂict with Egypt , as suf cient ground "332 l P . 173 ? for rejoicing over the downfa l of ersia The phrase ,

the oor o hi o l s e e . t p f p p , is decidedly postexilic in appearance Mar i agrees with Duhm and thinks the allusion points to the reign of O ch u s as the cause of the hatred against the Persians on part of the P w 3 P hilistines . Cheyne also holds this view no . But did hilistia

' su ﬁer of P ? such Severe violence at the hand the ersians And , if so , ff m did not , as we have seen before , Judah su er istreatment at that time so that Zion was not any more a place of refuge for the afﬂ icted ?

Yet the predominating evidence points toward this time . If accepted , then the prophecy throws conﬁrming light upon the historic evidence

of ch u the cruelty of O s in his western campaigns .

— . 2 2 (4) Isa , chaps . 4 7, a singular production without any head ’ ing , which later critics agree in assigning to another age than Isaiah s .

4 of — 8 Already Ewald claimed only a part it for Isaiah , namely ,

— 5 . 1 0 1 1 1 ﬁ chaps and , 3 , as Isaianic . Delitzsch , in the rst three

l D r ver Li e a nd T mes a I i / i ] sa . 6 7 f . 3 S o W . R . mi th T h e r D P o h . o n n n r er. I sr . 1 a nd Ku e e a d v S p / 3 9 , i “ ” 3 Art . I a ah n i E . s B . i I I . 4 D ie Leh re def B be vo lt n G o I I I . i l . 444 5 1 i 866 i . Fo r h a s tes t v e v de n ro 8 . l i w i i / , p . 5 O LD T EST AMENT SO URC ES 5 7

of m editions his co mentary , says that it is arbitrary to deny the author

hi of s p of Isaiah an entire section fundamentally , and in a thousand d m I i of . . B re enca details Isaian c , Simply because its peculiarities J p regards the main portion Isaiani c with some lyrical parts as later

AS 1 8 1 . . to insertions . late as 9 W E Barnes thought it necessary “ publish a learned Examination of the Objections brought against

G of . . 2 . . . the enuineness Isa , chaps 4 Two years later C H H

2 “ Wright found nothing really opposed to the Isaianic authorship . Among the reasons for rejecting the Isaianic authorship the fol lowing may be mentioned as conclusive :3 (a) The section lacks a ’ suitable historical occasion in Isaiah s time . There is no period in ﬁt the Assyrian history into which it really s well . The Situation is certainly not that of any of the acknowledged prophecies of Isaiah . (b) The social and religious circumstances described are those of a hi time in w ch priests constitute the most important class , - pointing to the time after the priestly law book had become canoni cal .

c ( ) The ideas and ideals are not those of Isaiah . In Isaiah the

or remnant which escapes is saved in Judah Jerusalem , here the voices of the redeemed are ﬁrst heard from distant quarters of

of to the earth , The extension religious privileges all - peoples , is characteristic of Deutero Isaiah and later times .

of of 2 6 : 1 The hope the resurrection individual Israelites , 9 , is cer tainl d y not Isaianic . ( ) The linguistic and stylistic representation ﬁ is in many respects unlike that of Isaiah . It is more arti cial and characterized by many unusual expressions . The many similarities can easily be accounted for by the writer ’s familiarity with and “ imitation of Isaiah . One cannot think of a greater contrast than ”5 these chapters and the undoubted authentic speeches of Isaiah .

N ot - i only do these arguments point to a post Isaian c period , but as

h ow well to a postexilic time . It only remains to determine far down we are to go . The question of the literary unity must ﬁr st be considered before that of authorshi p can be settled . Already Ewald rightly recog niz ed that 2 - 5 breaks the connection between and

1 om nte r 1 6 1 8 8 ad . Zoo. C me , 88 , 7,

3 “ ” ’ 2 m B . D . 1 . 4 D t 1 Art . ah n h I 8 I d. sai i S i t s 93 ri ver n ro 2 2 .

3 — 5 l . C h n o . t . . Cf e e c i . 1 C o ni l o cit. 1 y p 47 54 r p. 73 58 ART AXERXES 111 OC H U S AN D HI S REI GN

hm Then th e problem was left to rest for a long time , until Du rightly continued in the same direction and reached the conclusion that

-2 -8 — 2 1 1 2— 1 3 , , , 3 , form an apocalypse which - 2 2 . constitutes the groundwork of chaps . 4 7 This apocalypse describes - the approaching of the desolation of a great world empire by war , closing with the judgment of Jahwe over angels and kings . Upon this follows the descent of Jahwe upon Zion in visible glory where the divine throne is set up in the holy city . Judah shall hide itself till the

h as - storm destroyed the three world powers , after which the

r Sy ian and Egyptian diaspora will join her . The remaining portions

of . . 2 he considers as late accretions and a lyrical nature Chap 5 , - vss . 1 of of 5 , is a song in commemoration the destruction a strong citadel on account of which a city of strong people will honor and

G od 2 — 1 1 of — 1 fear ; , an isolated taunting song Moab ; 9 , with

— 2 : 2 . a unique artistic poem ; and 7 5 , a little song Concerning

— 1 1 . the hortatory verses , , he has some hesitancy Cheyne and ill C orn . So agree with Duhm in this analysis also does Marti , who

: - establishes more deﬁni tely 2 7 7 1 1 as an accretion . Hence we have not a Single work written in twelve strophes of the “ B ri s I of same hexameter movement as C . A . gg states , but a mosaic ” ff 2 con passages in di erent styles by several writers , as Duhm has clu iv l 3 s e . r y shown A fu ther division was attempted by J . Boehmer f — 2 — 8 -2 1 into two dif erent groups , namely , 3 ; and ;

i ﬁ of ﬁn Th s , however , increases the dif culty ding a no suitable situation , especially for the second group , and affords

— . 2 2 advantage From what has been said it is clear that chaps . 4 7 h to ﬁnd are not Isaiani c and t at they are not a uni ty . It remains a

for later period of history a suitable background , both for the ground work and for the accretions . At least three postexili c periods were thought of before a literary

So a P . analysis was worked out . ( ) The early ersian period Ewald , l 4 D illm ann 1 8 0 . De itzsch , and , 9 Driver formerly claimed the 6 Isaianic authorship , but now places the chapters between 53 and s 440 . Oort pleads for a date in the ﬁfth century but before the

1 M es s a n c P ro hec es 2 i i p i 95 .

2 C h e ne o . ci t. 2 4 h 1 . M s n s Wei ssa u n en 8 0 1 . y p 9 5 e s ia i c e g g , 9 , 43 f — 3 1 8 . s h T eo T i dsch r . 1 886 1 86 . 9 7 l . j , , 9 4 O LD T EST AMENT SO URC ES 59

hi of N i on of governors p ehemiah , ch eﬂy the ground that by the time

Nehemiah the land of Moab must have become Nabataean . This

f 2 — 1 1 argument , however , a fects only and not the groundwork .

u th I of G e thinks there is no certainty time to be ascribed , but feels

i i of certain that it is at all events postexil c , and incl nes to the reign

O ch u s . This period has some points in its favor . The fact that hi fﬁ storical data in the chapters are so few , makes it di cult to decide ﬁ of de nitely . If placed here, then the references are to the troubles

wide su ra i the warlike reigns of Cambyses and Darius I ( p ) . In th s “ 1 2 6 case the city, ; ; is B abylon , a con - fﬁ elusion which is by no means self evident . Moreover it is di cult ,

ﬁnd 6 6 i if at all possible , to anywhere between 53 and 4 4 any h storical Situation which will at all adequately explain the representation of

2 2 2 6 . chap . 4 and much in chap . Cheyne adds this decisive argu

— 2 : G en . : 6 1 1 6 ment that in 4 5 there is an allusion to 9 3 , 5 , and in f i P to G en . o both wh ch passages belong to , so that

2 — 2 of chaps . 4 7 must be later than the reformation Nehemiah and P b . of Ezra . ( ) The late ersian period This was the later view Ku enen3 who formerly held that the author lived during the ﬁrst 4 i l of . V part of the ex le and that he predicted the fa l Babylon atke ,

r who had decided fo the Maccabaean period , later placed the chapters

8 of h u Ki s S O c s . after 34 , the destruction idon through rkpatrick less deﬁnitely regards the fourth century as the time of the origin hi of the chapters . (c) In close connection with t s period is the early 6 G S ﬁ for s . reek , where tade nds an adequate background the chapter 8 Sm end 7 incli nes with H ilgenfeld to the time of the wars of Alexander

h u of 2 . of O c s after the conquest Tyre in 33 The wars , and later those of Alexander , are thought to be reﬂected in these chapters . The city ” would then have to be taken collectively and would refer to

S r . of for in idon , Jerusalem , and Ty e The long struggle Egypt con dependence , beginning already under Artaxerxes Mnemon and

n Kau t s . G es des Vo kes I sr . 2 1 . a d z h B be ch . l 9 f c i l

2 ’2 3 derzoota I I . . . 1 . O n O p cit. 54 9 9

4 dos A . T . 1 88 h 1 E i nl. n Bibi . T eo . 8 0 i 6 6 2 . l , 35 , 5 5 ; , , 3

s T h e D o tri ne o the P ro hets 1 8 2 . c f p , 9 , 475 , f

6 7 A W 1 - 0 . ci t. I . 86 . . . T . . 88 1 6 1 2 2 . p 5 Z , 4 , 4 8 — W . 1 8 6 8 8 . . T h 6 Z . , , 39 44 60 ART AXERXES I II O C H US AN D H I S REI GN

O ch u s tinning till the complete reconquest under in 343 , could scarcely

go o n without much distress to Judah . It must be remembered that all the above-named critics saw no

necessity for analyzing the chapters into component parts . They

considered them essentially a unity . This was left for Duhm . And

one ﬁ with him the problem of a correct date becomes a double , rst

for the apocalypse and then for the later portions . That the ground work is an apocalypse and not a prophecy may be accepted as cor

’ erusa rect . Duhm thinks the external situation is that of despair ; J “ - “ ” lem lies in ruins ; the three world powers , the gliding serpent , the ” “ ” 2 : 1 winding serpent and the monster that is in the sea , 7 , are the

P S . of arthians , the yrians , and the Egyptians The author the

— of H rcanu s 1 1 0 . apocalypse lived during the time John y , 34 4 He

of of saw the siege Jerusalem , and the devastation Judah through

VI I Sidetes of P Antiochus , ; the beginning the war with the arthians

1 2 in which the Jews were forced to take part , 9 ; the defeat and death

f 1 8 — 1 a o 2 6 . Antiochus , , who is obscurely mentioned in The

2 1 — lyrical portions are later . In 5 5 Duhm sees the exultation of the Jews over the destruction of Samaria by John Hyrcanu s between

’ 1 1 1 0 of on G . 3 and 5 , and the demolition the temple Mount erizim “ ” of The city terrible nations is Rome . The same background is

- — 1 2 . 1 1 of assumed for 9 . Chap . 5 , vss 9 , belongs in the time l — 3 annaeu s 1 1 0 . A exander J , 35 5 , who made the Moabites pay tribute

of C or ill To this view Duhm , Cheyne and n see a grave objection in the history of the prophetic canon which they consider practically

4 20 0 B . C closed at . Cheyne argues that a strong reason is required for making any considerable part of Isaiah later than 2 0 0 B . But the history of the canon rests upon the internal o r textual evidence

of on largely and not the existence the text the canon . Other portions of Isaiah are evidently as late as the last years of the second century

B . 0 . wide s u ra ( p ) . Cheyne ﬁnds a satisfactory background for the apocalypse in the period of the long-continued desolating wars over Syria and Palestine during the reigns of Artaxerxes Mnemon and of O chu s in the long struggles of Egypt for independence , ending

S o D u h m C h e ne M r C 3 t a t ornil h o . i l. C f. ur er c . I . 2 . , y , i , Sc p 77 J A “ ” O S . nt. . 1 . . 4 h I n E . I a a i . B I . J xiii 3 5 Art. s i 3 “ C i . B u dde Art . C ano n i n E B n . I a nd . 1 . , §39 O LD T EST AMENT SOURC ES 6 1

of of P P 0 1 in the consolidation the powers the tolemies in alestine in 3 . The frequent march O f Persian armies to Egypt must have caused

2 of much distress to the Jews . He sees in chap . 4 a monument the

m . of prolonged isery of the time The city or cities destruction ,

vs . 1 0 S . 2 : 1 0 1 1 , may allude to idon and Jerusalem In 7 , is a des cription of the condition of Jerusalem in or soon after 347. The hope that is held ou t to the Jews is the overthrow of the Persian power through Alexander the G reat ; the glittering weapons of whose troops

o were already appearing n the distant horizon . Hence the date of

ornill the apocalypse would be about the year 334 . C regards the

ca . 0 apocalypse to date from 33 , only a few years later than Cheyn e , m d following Stade and S en . The lyrical portions Cheyne assigns to the early years of Alexander G m the reat , i mediately after the fall Of Tyre , as the most probable

— . 1 of date The liturgical poem , 9 , may describe the feelings the pious community of Jews , when their city had been spared by the army of Alexander , deeply grateful for this , yet painfully conscious

h u of the ruin wrought by the tyrant O c s . The gap made by the l I deportation to Hyrcani a was still fe t. It must be admitted that much in the apocalypse ﬁnds an ex

P of planation in the closing years of the ersian empire . In the way accepting this date stands for to take “ the city to mean Sidon

diﬂi cul i and Jerusalem is t. Evidence is lacking for any hum liation

— 1 vide u Of Moab at this time such as 2 1 represents ( s pra) . Was ” 2 6 : Tyre ever the lofty city , 5 , over whose bringing low the Jews would have any occasion to rejoice ? From what we know of the

O f H rcanu s of P time John y and Of the closing years the ersian period , the predominating evidence seems to point in favor O f the former P k for the chapters under consideration . erhaps if we new what we

of do not know each period the order might be reversed . Not only the latest but as well the clearest treatment of the chapters

2 is that of Marti , who in the main follows Duhm . He considers the

a 2 : 1 — 2 of apocalypse to embrace ( ) 4 3 , the revolution the globe , the

on judgment over the powers in heaven and earth , and Jahwe estab lishin b 2 6— 8 of for g his throne in Zion ; ( ) 5 , the feast Jahwe all people

” 1 — i n E . I I . . t. 1 1 . A . I h B O p ci 55 60 ; cf rt saia .

2 — cit. 1 8 2 0 2 . O p. 2 6 2 ARTAXE RXES 111 OCHO S AN D H I S REI GN

Z c 26 : 20 — 2 1 of in ion ; ( ) 7 , the security the Jews during the judgment - of the world ; and (d) 1 3 the gathering of all Jews to the homage of Jahwe in Zion and to the participation in the kingdom Of i G od . The apocalypse is characterized by its deep eth cal grasp and its human feeling . It is a humane spirit that expresses itself here : the people experi ence in contrast with the world-rulers coming into

2 2 — 8 i judgment ; divine compassion , ; yet th s mag ni ﬁcent uni versalism is not altogether free from the particularism hi of the ordinary Judaism w ch , however, receives a certain prerogative .

That the apocalypse originated in a late time cannot be denied . ” ' i DI I hide th self 2 6 : 20 Aside from the Arama c form y , , the theological conceptions which have their parallels in the latest portions of the

of two of Old Testament , in the Jewish literature the last centuries - the pre Christian era , as also in the later centuries , and in the New

a Testament , point to a late time . This appears ( ) from the taking

ri on on — 2 2 b p soner Of the host high and the rulers earth , ; ( )

of 2 : 2 from the appearance Jahwe in splendor and glory in Zion , 4 3 ; (c) from the feast of the peoples in Zion 2 5 6— 8 ; (d) from the security

of e Of the Jews , in the judgment the world , and ( ) from the

m for 2 great tru pet with which the signal assembling will be given , 7 ﬁn of i 1 3 . The more de ite time origin can be determ ned from the reference of the apocalyptist to the Situation Of the world : Jeru

a VI I s lem has not yet recovered from the conquest Of Antiochus ,

Sidetes of of H rcanu s 1 , at the beginning the reign John y I ( 34 -1 2 ; the death of Antiochus SideteS in the campaign

P 1 2 , 8 , against the arthians , awakes among the Jews of the uttermost parts Of the earth the highest hopes , but the apocalyptist expects , ” although Judea had now become free , the entrance Of the robbers , P . e . of i , the arthians and , in connection therewith , the judgment

ﬁ all the world long since predicted by the prophets , in which rst of - P S the three world powers , the arthians , the yrians , and the Egyptians , will be destroyed . From all thi s Marti concludes with Duhm that o B C . the ap calypse originated shortly after 1 2 8 . and that the author is to be sought in the ranks of the Chasidim who expected help alone from G od .

l : a 2 : 1 — The secondary elements Marti enumerates as fo lows ( ) 5 5 ,

S ca . 1 0 b the hymn on the destruction of amaria , dating from 7; ( )

64 ART AXERXES II I O CH US AN D HI S REI GN

— . 1 bial literature he dates the sections in the G reek period Vss . 9 4

l : 1 6— : 1 are paral el with 3 4 and , like that , should precede the portrayal of the Messiani c happiness before and probably date from the 6- i . 8 same t me as the other sections , while vss evidently come from

— a 1 68 1 6 of I V E i h anes . the ye rs 5 , the time Antiochus , p p — f 6 . 2 o ( ) Isa 3 4 , the future happiness the capital Jerusalem r o res cued from danger . Al eady Ewald pronounced the chapter n n Isaiani c and ascribed it to a disciple of Isaiah in the last years Of

Ku enen or Hezekiah . , with hesitation , inclined to the reign Of Josiah a little later . But there was no church at that time such as is implied

2 in chap . 33 . Driver dates the chapter a year later than chap . 3 ,

0 1 hi namely 7 , w le all other later critics accept the postexilic date .

n len th I Chey e gives the argument for this at some g , and ascribes l P the chapter to the second ha f of the ersian period , possibly though not necessarily in the reign of O ch u s . The educated Jews of that “ i or : ﬁr t me , he says , had two special consolations recreations st , they dwelt in imagination in the glorious future whi ch the deepening di d gloom but bring nearer , and , next , they enriched the extant

of prophetic records with insertions and appendices , expressive their

” 2 own hopes and aspirations . A better solution is that of Duhm and Marti who call the chapter

one 1 6 2 an apocalyptic poem and place it , the in the year under

r l A E u ato . ntiochus p , the other a year ear ier Marti calls the chapter ” C ornill a poem of consolation from that unfortunate time . agrees

2 that the chapter is apocalyptic , later than chap . 3 , and sees in it a ﬁtting close for the group of prophecies reﬂecting the time of Senna l 3 ch erib . Bicke l found by rearranging the text two Maccabaean

one poems , a prayer to Jahwe for help after a defeat , the other an

S of 1 2 acrostic poem on imon , probably the year 4 , after the entrance l i into Jerusalem de ivered by the Syrians . Wh le such a rearrangement ﬁ is not at all impossible , the gain therefrom is scarcely suf cient to j ustify it .

fﬁ 2 Hence there is nothing of su cient deﬁni teness in chaps . 3 and 33 bearing on the reign of Artaxerxes O ch u s to justify their accept ance as historic sources for that period . — - - . . 6 6 6 s o l . ( 7) Isa , chaps 5 , the ca led Trito Isaiah It is only

1 it 6 - 3 O . c . 1 . 3 I bid . 1 2 . K . M . 1 8 . p 3 73 7 Z . , 9 7 O LD T E ST AMENT SO URC ES 65

within recent years that these chapters were separated from chaps .

— 40 55 . That they form a separate group Of prophecies from those — i of 0 . chaps . 4 55 is now rightly the prevailing Opin on A brief 6— 6 6 general summary of the history of the criticism of chaps . 5 will be helpful in determining their true place in history . There are essentially four periods to which the chapters have been assigned ,

for ‘ not to mention the writers who claim them Isaiah .

— a . . 0 ) First in connection with Isa , chaps 4 55 , known as Deutero

of of Isaiah , in the last years the exile , not as a separate group

of - or prophecies , but as a part Deutero Isaiah , , at the utmost , as

or additions by the same or another author authors . Thus Ewald

8 — D eu terO - o considered chaps . 5 59 as borrowed by Isaiah from a c n

of 6 : — 66 : 1 — 2 temporary Ezekiel , and 3 7 4 as added by the same author

— . 0 8 after the return from the exile Dillman placed chaps . 4 4 at

— — — ca . . 6 2 8 . 6 6 6 545 , chaps 49 from 545 53 , and chaps 3 as an appendix

Ku — f . ene 0 o n . at the time the edict of Cyrus regarded chaps 4 49 , — 1 2 and perhaps also as the prophecy of the

on restoration , and the rest he ascribed internal grounds to an author or P authors in alestine after the return from the exile , either Deutero

l or Isaiah himse f subsequent writers belonging to the same school . Stade ’ accepted the chapters as from one author writing at the close of ni of the exile , but recog zed the incongruity chaps . 54 f . with the preceding . These were worked over and additions from the same and later times were made

D ass di ese C apite l au f einen u nd denselben am E nde des E xils weissagenden M ann z u rii ckz u fii h ren se en triﬂft eni stens im esentl en das R t e i , w g W ich ich ig , da die e ssa un en di eses M annes des Abs ni ttes es a 0 —66 n W i g g ch J C pp 4 bilde . Einz eln e der in ihm stehende Abs chnitte erklaren sich jedoch nicht aus den Zeitverh ltnissen am Aus an e des E i ls O der s ren en den Z a g g x p g us amm enhang . es a b z n Zuweilen li egt au ch beides vor. D h l wird u éi ch st an Ueberar beitun en O der E ns altu n en remder frii h estens le c z e t er Stii cke z u g i ch g f , g i h i ig denken sein und erst wo i erdur di e vor andenen Ratsel ni t elOst erden , , h ch h ch g w , an Einschaltungen alterer. (S .

3 0 - 8 Wildeboer agrees that chaps . 4 4 were written in Babylon but i —6 cla ms that the greater part of chaps . 49 2 presupposes a writer

I H en stenber H avernitz D re hs er D el tz s h 3 S t er Ke LOh r R ut ers g g , , c l , i c , i , il, , g ,

Hi m el N a elsbach D ou as W . H . C obb . p , g , gl ,

2 — O . it. I . 3 D e Letter nd c I 68 . lau e G r . T 1 . e rans . p 94 , l § 7 66 ARTAXERXES n r O CH U S AN D HI S REI GN

— 0 8 . P of . li ving in alestine , at the same time as the author chaps 4 4

— 6 6 6 ﬁnd of . In chaps . 3 alone does he the marks a later hand Even these loosely connected fragments may as far as their contents are not concerned come from the same prophet , but in their present

i one hi s own form . A pecul ar view , and which remained practically ,

O f B redencam mi ddle i n is that p who takes a ground , claim g a nucleus 0 —6 6 i ﬁ of genuine Isaianic passages in chaps . 4 wh ch were ampli ed

I of of . Le and published by a prophet the period the exile J . y con 0 -66 one i o siders chaps . 4 as continuous work dom nated by a unity f

one of spirit , hence from author, and written during a period from thirty to thi rty-ﬁve years from the advances of Cyrus toward

o H t i 2 western Asia till the second year f Darius ys asp s . Driver and 3 0 —6 6 one O relli call chaps . 4 continuous prophecy from toward the

of close the exile, dealing throughout with a common theme, namely ’ i B all one Israel s restoration from ex le in abylon , and from author . 4 i . S n With th s view J kin er agrees in the main , though not without of of 6—66 due recognition the possibility a later date for chaps 5 , of inclini ng to the eve the great reformation under Nehemiah . b) The second period is that between the return and the buildi ng

— of 8 20 . the temple , 53 5 It will be remembered that none Of the

a 0 - authorities mentioned in ( ) hold to a separation Of chaps . 4 55 and — ﬁ s 56 6 6 . This division was rst made by Marti in an investigation hi m suggested to in a conversation with Duhm , who afterwards 6 S l 7 worked out the problem fully . E . el in considers this division l 6—6 absolutely estab ished and feels certain that chaps . 5 6 were P ‘ 8 written in alestine . In an earlier work he thought to have estab li sh ed the fall Of Zerubbabel and a destruction of the second temple

1 0 0 of between 5 5 and 5 , and thought the period following this as the time of origin for these chapters : In hi s later investigation he aban dons this view and ﬁn ds the period 538— 5 20 the best background

I 2 H st. E rkldru n I 1 . 2 0 . i g 5 7 ntrod. 3 f

3 D er P ro het Jes a ia 3 — 1 0 1 1 . p , 9 4 , 4 45

4 h — I sa . . a s 0 6 6 i n C o mb. B b e 1 8 8 . , c p 4 i l , 9

5 D er P ro h . S a d k . t c er e enosse S eru bbabels 1 8 2 0 1 n . p Z i g , 9 , 4 , 4 , 6 “ i ” sa H . e a K . . J A T .

7 D ie R esta u rat o n der ud J h - - J . G eme nde i n den a ren 8 1 6 1 0 1 1 2 . i i 53 5 , 9 , 4 53

8 S eru bbabel 1 8 . , 99 O LD T ESTAMENT SOURC ES 67

or hi s f the prophecy as a whole , and bases conclusion upon the refer - ﬁ ences : and 5 . He nds nothing in the entire book that points with certainty to the existence of the temple before

of . SO the composition the prophecy ist unser Resultat , dass zwar di K e vo a . drei ganz konkrete Anhaltepunkte Entstehung n Jes . p

6-66 20 eni z i es 5 zwischen 537 und 5 beweisen , dass aber kein g Argu i Z l ment existiert , welches die Abfassung nach d eser eit wahrschein ich ” A S . S macht ( to the author he ventures no decision , but

- ni x inclines to Deutero Isaiah returned from the Babylo an e ile, and thi nks we are not yet justiﬁed to speak O f a Trito-Isaiah ( 1 50 S hi ellin stands alone in placing the entire prophecy in t s period . — . . 6 : 6 : 1 2 So Others place certain portions here , e g , 3 7 4 . for instance

I 2 de i n 3 r m vi fra . or G ess ann . C nill H . and E Littmann ( ) in earlier

n i n das A hi E i nlei tu T . editions of s g . placed the prophecy before

20 - - 5 , claiming that Haggai 9) borrowed from Trito Isaiah ,

hi i vide i nfra but in s sixth ed tion this view is abandoned ( ) . c) The third period is the eve of the great reformation of Nehe W miah , shortly before 444 . It is here here Duhm has rendered

for hi s hi lasting services , placing the chapters in t s period at once furni shed the key to the interpretation of many otherwise dark and - for meaningless passages . Trito Isaiah is him a postexilic author, at a time when the Kahal or the Jewish religious community had

long been established , Jerusalem inhabited , the temple built , yet

everything in a pitiable condition . The leaders of the community

on avail nothing, the rich oppress the poor, fast days there is con

tention and strife , the pious are no more . Jahwe has no instrument li ke Cyrus : he must with his own hand execute vengeance upon his

i . o enem es These enemies are the heretics, the false brethren f the m of Jerusalem com unity upon whom the day vengeance will come . They will be made an example before the pious for whom the day of

l . salvation wi l appear The sun and moon will be no more , wild

beasts will be tame , men will live for several centuries . The temple will be ornamented with precious wood from Lebanon and enriched

by the wealth of the nations . The Diaspora will return and the w nations will unite themselves with the Je s .

1 - ' b d i . 6 vorau s esetzten ze t es h h h 1 8 Ue er i e n Jes 6 ic t ic en Verh altni sse 8 . 54 g i g c l , 9

2 d s T ito es aia 1 3 t 4 3 Ueber die Ab assu n sze t e r 8 . O . ci . 1 8 1 6 1 . f g i j , 99 p 9 , 68 ARTAXERXES I II O C H US AN D H I S REI G N

u D hm considers the entire prophecy , except some minor additions , as the work of one author who was at the same time the redactor - of . 0 chaps 4 55 , a theologian , and an apocalyptist , thoroughly imbued 0 — with theocratic ideas . The contrast between chaps . 4 55 and - — of . 6 56 66 is very marked . The text chaps 55 6 is not well preserved and is full of glosses and additions . The original order is uncertain

6 1 —6 6 6-60 but it is probable that chaps . preceded chaps . 5 , since

6 1 . 60 . chap . would make as good a beginning as chap would a close 6—66 It is possible that chaps . 5 were composed as an appendix to - - Deutero Isaiah . Trito Isaiah is at once a supplement to Malachi and a forerunner of the priest codex .

m e d I ﬁr Duhm soon had a large following . S n st of all declared his full acceptance of the hypothesis . Cheyne calls the work the most ’ of P ro hets important on the subject since the appearance Ewald s p , 6-66 and accepts in the main the conclusion as to date . Chaps . 5 , he says , contain no works of the second Isaiah , but , with the possible or probable exception of whi ch belong in the time of

O ch u s vide i nfra Artaxerxes ( ) , belong to nearly the same period that of Nehemiah . He rejects , however , the view that the book has anything like literary unity and that it is the work of one man . On the contrary it is the work of a number of different writers who fell under the literary spell of Deutero-Isaiah and loved to perpetuate h his teac ing and develop his ideas . He considers it practically

— — . 60 6 2 0 of certain that chaps are an appendix to chaps . 4 55 , which

— 6 1 6 2 60 . zr a the original order probably was , , While 57 3 belongs to the same period as the main portions , it Shows in a special

6 — 6 : 1 2 degree the inﬂuence of Ezekiel . To a still later time than 3 7 4

of 6 : i ni ﬁ 6 2 2 . S belongs the outburst bitter animosity in 3 , 4 It was g

Wellh au sen 2 cant that likewise accepted the conclusions of Duhm . “ K . 6 . a . K 0 s s u . h r n z a s s . e O e Dass Isa , p 5 nicht p 4 g , sondern aus ” s atere r m fii r K 3 p Zeit stam en , halte ich erwiesen . osters agrees 6— 66 with Cheyne as to the position of chaps . 5 , and with Duhm leaves 6 : — 6 : 1 2 ﬁr 3 7 4 in the same time . Marti , who has st called attention

0 - 6— 66 to the division between chaps . 4 55 and 5 , agrees essentially ,

l Alt/csta mc ntlic he R e o ns s h ht e c e n . 2 . lig i g c i 339 ,

2 I sr . . u Jud . G esch . 1 1 n 5 . 1 . 1 0 1 n . 1 . 5 , ; cf 9 4 , 5 9 , - 3 T h at. T i ds ch r. 1 8 6 j , 9 , 5 77 6 2 3 . O LD T EST AMENT SO UR C ES 69

’ i 1 I sai ah D uhm s both in his earl er works and in his , with treatment

of . the subject Marti considers the chapters , aside from minor

one additions , as coming from author who lived in Jerusalem in the middle of the ﬁfth century before the arrival of Nehemiah . E .

2 Meyer considers this view from a historical standpoint correct . “ r t ndni hlu ssth eils e ai abu ch es von Ka Das Ve s a ss des S c des J s p . ‘ ’ ” 6 T rito esai a 5 an , des j hat Duhm erschlossen 3 6-66 G ressmann . on H . agrees with Duhm that chaps 5 are ground of thought content and language a separate work from Deutero

all 0 Isaiah and that parts are postexilic (3 , and with Cheyne “ T rito i that the chapters are not a literary unity . jesa a ist keine S einheitliche chrift , sondern besteht aus vielen meistens zusammen ” h anglosen Stii cken Both Cheyne and G ressm ann made a careful linguistic analysis and came to the same conclusion , namely ,

— 0 . that these chapters are of diﬂ erent origin from chaps . 4 55 G ress 6-66 ri mann considers chaps . 5 as o ginating from Judea but no part

D u r - as coming from e te O Isaiah . A more exact time than post

— exilic is scarcely probable , even impossible except for 4 ,

of which he places immediately before the building the temple , where also probably belongs . Of essentially the same 4 Opinion as Duhm is E . Littmann for whom the work is for the most

one - part a unity , and from author and from the years 457 455 ,

— except which probably come from the years 538 5 20 . AS not belonging to Trito-Isaiah 59 : 5- 8 ; 2 4 are certain and — 8 r i lls i . C o n probable , besides m nor additions who held a more conservative view earli er now inclines to the same conclusion that the prophecy is fashioned after Deutero-Isaiah and is the work of one author who lived in Palestine and who wrote not immediately after the exile nor later than Nehemi ah ( 1 8 1 d) The fourth and last period to which our chapters have been 6 P con assigned is the second half of the ersian period . Cheyne

— 6 : 1 2 i siders 4 as probably belonging in th s time , a conclusion h 7 8 u t . H l h which G e is inclined to accept G . O sc er places not only

1 2 d A . 1 8 n . d I T h eo . es . T a d G esch er sr . R e i on 1 8 6 1 . l , 94 , lig , 97, 3 f

2 E tst d 3 t 4 5 t e t ms 1 20 . ci . t . n . s J n u O . i i O . c ude f p O p. c p 6 — O . . . n E I I ci t. 6 Art I a ah i . B . p 349 3 ; cf s i . 7 I 8 ' — G esch . d Vo kes . 2 1 . al ti a . H el. ei t es l sr 9 P as n i n der P ers . u . Z 37 43 70 ART AXERXES II I O C H U S AN D HI S REI G N

- these chapters here but the entire Trito Isaiah . He agrees with m i Duh and others that these chapters are a literary un ty , the work of P hi s i an author who lived in alestine , and that work is a polem c S “ P directed against the amaritans . Die olemik richtet sich also

K von gegen Leute , die zum ultus Jerusalem gehalten haben aber

' im B e riﬁe z u g sind , Jahwe verlassen und einen eigenen Tempel sich bauen wollen ” But he dates the prophecies a century

h u of O c s . later , namely in the time Artaxerxes He reverses the

of i di argument . Instead dating the Samaritan sch sm accor ng to - 2 . . 6 6 Neh . 9 he dates it according to Isa chaps 55 and denies

2 i S that Neh . 9 has any reference to the sch sm of hechem , since it only refers to a priest guilty of mixed marriage who continued

hi fﬁ I nt s O ce . A . in Josephus xi . is best explained as

of l a false exegesis the Nehemiah passage, and is not , as is usua ly

done , to be accepted as correct in event but wrong in date .

of l 1 6 The references to the ruins the wal s , 5 , , 7, h not he admits , but claims also the ruin Of the temple, w ich does at

ﬁt H e ﬁ l all into the time of Nehemiah . nds no compel ing reason

— 1 1 vide i nfra . for regarding as a later addition , as Marti does ( ) Yet he does not use these verses according to which Jerusalem was

for desolate and the temple ruined in ﬂames an argument , but he

refers to which Duhm and Marti retain , with slight emenda

i i o tions . Th s does not necessarily mean a rad cal destruction f the

temple but at any rate a severe damage to it . These words do not

sound as if the destruction of Jerusalem through Nebuchadrezzar,

or one a century more before , were meant , but evidently much

closer . In 60 : 1 8 the writer comforts hi s readers with the words :

V olen e s all no more be eard in th land i c h h y , eso a n r D l tion or destruction within thy borde s .

m For such co fort there must have been occasion at that time . Hence H Olsch er concludes against Marti that at the time of Trito-Isaiah some calamity through war must have befallen the Jews in which h both the walls and the temple were greatly damaged , an event w ich does not ﬁt into the time of Nehemiah To establish thi s conclusion he adds the following arguments : (a) the mention of a

1 Fo r anoth e r v e ad h . t e O es . I I . 1 88 . i w cf S , c f

72 ART AXER XES III O C H US AN D H I S REI GN

to the Solomonic temple . Marti sees in an unmistakable reference to the second temple and thinks the author must have

— 1 1 lived while it existed . That the author of ignored the

ﬁ so second temple and referred to the rst can hardly be correct , and he calls the verses a later addition , from the same hand as the gloss

1 6 S in , dating from the time of the yrian persecution under

c the Maccabees in the second century . ( ) Cheyne, to whose view

G u th e ﬁnd inclines , and Holscher, as we have already seen , the most satisfactory explanation in the history of the reign of Artaxerxes

ch u s i O , and think Of some calam ty that befell Jerusalem and the temple at that time , of which traces are found in secular history

ni (vide supra) . Cheyne considers these verses a u que composition 6—6 6 diﬂ erent from the rest of chaps . 5 which he also places Shortly

m H Ols ch er ni before Nehe iah , while regards the chapters as a u ty

h n I and brings them all into this period . C ey e calls the text of “ notoriously doubtful and emends and translates

Why do the wicked trample thy dwelli ng place

ur adversar es tread down th an ua O i y s ct ry .

Marti answers this by pointing ou t that the verse speaks not of a o So destruction f the temple but of despising it . he emends and translates

Wh do th e u n odl des se bel ttle ri di ule th tem le ? y g y pi ( i , c ) y p Why do our adversaries trample down (treat with depreciation) thy sanctuary ?

This no doubt is the best rendering and gives us the correct thought . ’ But Marti s view Of the date obliges him to treat -1 1 as an

addition where Duhm is driven to an unwarranted interpretation . The date Of Cheyne and H Ols ch er makes the interpretation simpler ﬁ ’ if otherwise justi able . Marti s rendering of could then be

not accepted for this period as well as a century earlier, since it is deﬁnitely known what calami ty befell the temple in the days of

O ch u s . Was it literally burned ? Was it only polluted ? Or merely despised and belittled and depreciated ? To the Jews the

last might have been as much of a burden as the ﬁrst . Must the outside historical evidence be absolute before we can date the chapters here ? With the strong probability of the external history furni shi ng

“ "

A . I a n rt sa h i E . B . I i I . O LD T E ST AME NT SO URC ES 73

a clearer and more satisfactory explanation Of these chapters , why can we not take these chapters to strengthen and conﬁrm the external hi story As long as these chapters lose nothing on the one hand by

on cl am placing them in this later period , and the other gain in e ess hi i and storic mean ng , is there any reason why they Should not be placed here ?

e G r ) One other period was thought Of, namely , by otius and

H ubi ant wh o to g , assign the chapters the Maccabaean time, but ﬁ scarcely with suf cient probability . The period would indeed furni sh

of — 1 1 a the explanation as Marti has Shown , but the rem inder of the section does not require so late a date and these verses fin d a reasonable explanation earlier . If now 63 7— 64 : 1 2 finds reasonable explanation in the late Persian w — h o of . 6 66 ? period , about the remainder chaps 5 In answer to the five di fierent views advanced with reference to the prophecy as a

: a 0 - 6—66 whole the following may be said ( ) That chaps . 4 55 and 5 are not one work but two groups of prophecies from different authors di f and at ferent times may , thanks to the services Of Marti and Duhm , on f and their followers , be accepted as established , ground Of dif er ences as in thought content , historic background , and Cheyne and

G ressm ann on f have satisfactorily Shown , also ground of di ference

b - 20 . of 8 in language ( ) The period 5 3 5 , aside from the fact that its S not advocate , ellin , stands alone , is improbable if impossible for

to reasons already stated . The references the existence of the second

ﬁ of K temple are too de nite , the whole development the ahal too f evident , and the dif erence in language too great to accept this . (c) That the prophecy was written in Jerusalem shortly before the

of r arrival Nehemiah , as Duhm , Ma ti and others claim , has much l in its favor . Attention has rightly been cal ed to the existence of the

K of ahal and the temple with its cult , the habitation Jerusalem , - of Sabbaths and fast days , the presence enemies and the coming day of of u revenge upon them , the expectation a brighter future for Jer P salem and the return of the Diaspora . oints in common with dim Malachi may also be admi tted . On the other hand there are

— cu lties of hi . of 6 6 : 1 1 in the way t s date First all is the section 3 7 4 , of i to n a part wh ch at least cannot belong here . Duhm tries retai

for 6 : — 1 1 it but is driven to a forced interpretation 4 9 , and Marti is led 74 ARTAXERXES I II O CH US AN D H I S RE I GN

i . to consider it a later add tion . In either case the unity is broken The mention of a Jewish Diaspora returning from the islands of the

of P 6 : . HOlsch er sea , and the acceptance roselytes 5 3 f ( ) of m does not ﬁt into the time of Nehemiah . The time Nehe iah was of x still concerned with the return more e iles , but here the gentiles

r C . 60 . not a e to come , hap The Similarity with Malachi is as great S - as we would expect . abbaths and fast days are mentioned but not

on of in the same sense . Here there is no emphasis laid the sins ﬁ mixed marriages , corrupt priests , and faulty sacri ces as in Malachi . (d) D O the closing years of the Persian period (H Olsch er) Offer a better background for the prophecy as a whole ? The unity estab h d i li s e by Duhm would remain and be strengthened , since that wh ch

l — 1 1 ﬁn breaks it for a century ear ier, , ds a reasonable explana

of . tion here . The existence the temple is consistent In fact all fﬁ points in favor Of that period also apply here , and the di culties

on of i become less . The Diaspora , the islands the sea , and the com ng of the gentiles clearly ﬁn d a place in thi s time . The mention Of the

6c fin Nabataeans , 7, ds an easier explanation in the later date Since l fi their kingdom was not established til the close Of the fth century , i ff and perhaps not till later . The great d erence in language also finds an easier explanation here since the di fference in two centuries

r one would be g eater than in . The apocalyptic element present here e T o likewise points to the later rather than the earlier date . ( ) put the entire selection in to the Maccabaea n period is out of the question altogether . There is another consideration upon which much depends in this of S ri investigation , namely, the origin the ama tan church and their

x temple . We know that the Samaritans were the remnant of the land , very probably mixed with the peoples planted in the northern k ri in ingdom by the Assy an k gs . In the days of Josiah they united

of . with the Jews in the use the temple in Jerusalem , II Chron S S S The eighty men from hechem , hiloh , and amaria , mentioned in

1 : Jer . 4 5 , can only have been Samaritans . Then for a century we have no information concerning them . After the Jews returned S from the exile the amaritans were refused a share in the new temple ,

“ 1 S ee Kau z t s Art . l ade G esch . I I . h amar . ta ns i n R ealenc 1 0 6 Vo . 1 t c S i , 9 , 7; S

1 88 f. A . E . C o e A . ma n n rt a r ta s i E . B I I I ; wl y S i . . O LD T ESTAMENT SO URC ES 75

: of Ezra 4 5 . But the real cause the mutual estrangement and the wo implacable hatred between the t must lie deeper than this . It was the Old spirit Of opposition between Israel and Judah whi ch had f asserted itself in the days o Jeroboam I . It was in reality a revolt i against central zation . Even under David the two kingdoms were

n never fully blended into o e . The separation between Jews and i Samaritans in the later t me was political rather than religious . The Samaritans would have worshi pped at Jerusalem in the days of 6 : 2 1 no Ezra, Ezra , but the Jews were exclusive and would have

i of dealings with them . In their cond tion social and religious dis organization they found it necessary to pursue the same policy as the

Jews , and to avoid danger to themselves they Sought to hinder the

own on Jews . This strife continued till they had their temple Mount G hi ni erizim , after w ch separation was complete and reu on impossible . “ Of the Samaritan temple we have no mention in the Old Testament

” I and the occasion and date of its erection are alike difﬁ cult. Jose

h u s 2 hi p , who places the sc sm and the erection of the temple under

G 2 . Alexander the reat in 33 , is generally thought to be incorrect

2 Stade thinks Josephus confuses the events of Neh . 9 and brings them a century later into the time of Alexander the G reat . It is probably best to consider the passage in Josephus as a rnisin

er ret tio of of t p a n Neh . The answer as to the time the

i r Samaritan sch sm cannot be determined from it no from Neh .

2 i of S 9 which has no connection with the sch sm hechem . That the division took place a century before the temple was built is altogether improbable , except that there was a continued hatred which found its ﬁnal culmination only when the temple was once

i . of S bu lt And the building the temple , even though the amaritans of of had the religion the Jews except the results the exile , depended

on of P For no doubt the possession the written entateuch . religious l documents are not produced by temples , but the ife gendered by S P religious teachi ngs results in temples . ince the entateuch was n of S not completed before the begi ning the fourth century , the amari

not tans could have come into possession Of it till after that time , hi 0 0 B c . not and consequently the sc sm came after 4 . , and in the time

1 3 i t . C e E . B . E . . H h r o . c owl y C owley B olsc e p . 39

2 Ant. . xi 4 . 76 ARTAXERXES I II O CHU S AND H IS REI GN

i H Of Nehem ah , but rather as olscher has Shown at the time Of the i lmi destruction of Jericho in 35 2 . The sch sm reached its cu nation i of with the bu lding the temple . And the temple, according to

‘ u of G Josephus was b ilt early in the reign Alexander the reat , Since

1 2 8 B . C . it was destroyed in after existing two centuries . The conclusion reached is that the prevailing evidence points to

to of O ch us the second half of the fourth century , namely, the reign , - for the origin of Trito Isaiah . As such it may be accepted as an

r of ﬁnd additional source for the histo y this dark period , and in turn its most reasonable interpretation in the light of the history of this period .

P salms — P m II . The historic background in the sal s is far less ﬁ clear and de nite than in the prophetic writings . The elements of uncertainty we have found in the passages Of Isaiah are greatly

P ou r intensiﬁed here . Of the salms claimed for period there are

: 8 . 8 1 2 chiefly four 44 , 74 , 79 , and 3 Besides these , also 9 , 94 , and 3 were thought of but scarcely with su flficient reason to merit their con P fi sideration here . The four salms rst mentioned have , besides many others , long been claimed for the Maccabaean period . From the

2 days of Theodore of M opsu esti a di fferent Psalms were assigned to

of that late period . Without entering into a discussion that long and much disputed problem it may be asserted that the prevailing

of P consensus opinion concerning the four salms named has been , and is today, that they are Maccabaean . Among later critics who

i vi ew for of adhere to th s , some or all them , may be mentioned Delitzsch ,

G iesebrech t 3 KOni Sm end 4 74 and 79 , , g , 74 , Reuss , , Driver , with some 6 8 Sch urer s B aeth en 7 hesitancy , particularly for 3 , , Wildeboer, g , 8 ° I o “ C ornill K . Duhm , Marti , 74 , ittel , and others The chief argument advanced in favor Of the Maccabaean time i is the h storic situation , for which fuller sources are at hand than for

of Psa. 8 most the postexilic time . The desolation Of Jerusalem , 3 ,

O f : - of n the burning the temple , 74 3 7, and the sy agogues , the

l ' A nt. . 7 ie setzt . l rt ad too. D P s . aber u erk a xiii ,

2 — 8 ‘ C o . 0 2 . l o. 35 4 9 D ie P s . erk art, ad to

3 A W — 9 T . . 1 8 1 . . 8 2 . 6 2 . s uc Jes . 2 1 8 0 0 Z , , 7 33 D a B k , 4

1 ° 4 I ntrod . 8 . t i . 2 . 3 7 f O p. c 2 5 f - “ ” 5 . it. . 1 I I I 8 . n . O c 0 m n al c . B d 1 6 2 Art . Psa e Re e . 0 p 4 5 l , , 9 6 O p. c it. 399 f . O LD T ESTAME NT SOUR C ES 77

1 2 of religious persecution , 9 , 3 , the shedding blood , 3 , vi the capti ty Of many Jews , their feeling Of rejection from

1 2 1 Jahwe , their being mocked and derided , , 3 , are said to be calamities experienced only when Jerusalem was captured by 6 8 . Nebuchadrezzar, 5 , and in the days Of the Maccabaean rule The general tone of the Psalms Of Solomon is also claimed to point

m f M 8 : 2 — P . o ace . sa . to this period The si ilarity II 4 with 74 and 79 ,

— M . P 6 of ace s . and I with , are cited as proof . It must be admitted that the Psalms mentioned do ﬁt into the hi storic situa i tion of the Maccabaean time as known in h story . Perhaps if we

n not P l k ew what we do know of other periods , the same sa ms could

deﬁni t n h be claimed for other periods with equal e ess . Even t i s

not fﬁ period whose history is known is without di culties . 1 fﬁ . . S P W R mith called attention to the di culties of dating sa . 8 P 44 , 74 , 79 , and probably also 3, later than the ersian period , and

for hi h u hi sought the occasion them in the story of O c s . T s View

2 had earlier been advanced by Ewald . The reason for placing the Psalms here was found in the external history of the time of

h u v de u ra . of . S O c s ( i s p ) . The View W R mith has much in its

of P l favor . Already the position these salms in the co lection is

ﬁ of P dif cult for a later period . The canon the Elohistic salter,

2— 8 0 0 ﬁ 4 3 , was likely closed about the year 3 , so that it is dif cult to

k of P l thin Of any later insertions salms into the col ection . And if inserted by a Maccabaean redactor, we must suppose that he entered

of hi l 3 thoroughly into the spirit the Elo stic col ector, which again is

ou r k O di fﬁcult and improbable . Yet nowledge f the formation of the collections is too indeﬁni te to enable us to Speak with anythi ng of 4 absolute certainty . Ben Sira s — 1 7 presupposes exactly the same conditions as

Psa . 74 and 79 . Yet there is no cogent reason advanced for claimi ng

i B en S . hi P th s part Of ira as a later addition More than t s, sa . ’ — [ca/ rd r bv 7tor ov 311 3 is quoted in I Macc . as scripture, y ’ év a r e x 6 . . vs . 1 1 0 0 B . yp l If I Macc dates from about the year C . and

“ 1 n XX 1 T 2 - - ms i E . . O . . . Art . Psa . C 2 8 0 0 . l 3 ; J 7 , 437 4 2 t es 1 8 H I hter es A en B u nd st. o D i c d sr . V. 1 2 0 n . l , 35 , 353 ; i f ,

4 - 3 h e n I ntrod . 1 0 0 . ch iir r o . C e S e cit. 1 8 D ri v r cit. 8 8 . y p 4 ; e op. 3 7

5 n ed ca 1 8 . G e erally dat at . 0 78 ART AXERXES I I I O CH US AN D HI S REI G N

M 6 of ace . Ps . 1 a 79 from about the year 5 , then the writer I would

311 s a s scarcely quote so recent a writing and call it w p , since he hi could easily have a personal recollection of the event . All t s is not indeed decisive but is conﬁrming evidence for the more probable earlier date . That there was no religious persecution in the days

u C ornill Psa . : 1 8 of O ch us , as Sch rer and claim, corresponding to 44 ,

1 2 of O ch u s hi s 9 , 3 , is hardly consistent with what is known in P vide u ra devastation of Egypt and alestine ( s p ) . That there was - Psa . no more a prophet in the land , 9 , was true long before the

ch u s - days of O , for the later writing prophets were not considered

' I ' w . I I P as prophets in their o n time DR D D in sa . is a very ' r the s na o ues improbable ph ase for y g g , and should perhaps read ‘ DS I DI the name o I srael. hi s O ri i n o the DD D f Cheyne , who in g f

P salter 1 8 1 of Psa . , 9 , still held to the Maccabaean origin 74 and 79 , 8 I n Psa . and considered 9 as probably also belonging the same time , ’ h l . S was the ﬁrst to accept W R . mith s argument as istorical y prob

2 hi s I ntroducti on to th e B ook o I saiah 1 60 . able . In f f he compares — m 6 6 : 1 2 ﬁ . these Psalms with Isa . 3 7 4 and nds many points in com on of of w of i The language used the mistreatment the Je s , the profan ng

of of th e of their temple , the ruin of their city, and desolation Of their P - land is indeed more intense in the salms than in Trito Isaiah . And thi s is just what one would expect in subjective poetic li terature where the feelings are ﬁrst considered and historic facts are secondary matters . 3 S G . B The conclusion of W . R . mith was also accepted by eer ’ B 4 h s of I ntroducti on to th e Book and by K. udde in i review Cheyne s of I sai ah where he says : Es ist hohe Zeit mit der Meinung auf

u r u m en di e P di e von Un lii ck z a , dass salmen , tiefstem nationalem g kk ” h s i M a abaerz eit an eh Orten . G ut e reden , der g th nks it probable P sa . 8 yet not certain that 44, 74 , 79 , and also 9 , belong in the late

Persian period . It is u nfortunate that Cheyne now seeks to explain P l all these sa ms , as also the passages in Isaiah which he earlier 6 e P erahm eelite . claim d for the late ersian period , by his J theory

2 h n E . B . I I I . e e and n . C y 1 .

2 Wor d m — ew e te be r 1 1 J F nd s 1 8 2 2 20 2 . N 8 ev e of . C . O . ou er l , S p 9 , R i w , 9 , 3 — 3 d ua u . G emei nde sal I nd v men 1 8 LI V LVI . i i l p , 94 ,

4 . 6 2 s . L . Z 1 88 8 . des Vo kes I sr 2 1 . T h G esek . , , 7 l . 9 6 “ ” “ ” P m i n E . B I I . sa s . I 2 P h u r . Art 8 Art. ro et L terat e l , § ; p ic i , § 43

80 ARTAXERXES 111 O CH US AN D H I S REI G N

Z . . 1 . 1 2 1 ech , chap 4 , undoubtedly falls with chaps and 3 into a later

period . Hence the Minor Prophets yield us no deﬁnite additional hi storic h r of O c u s . info mation for the reign The possibility , however ,

remains for such portions yet to be determined .

P rt o the ook o ob -P a s B . of I V. f f J erhaps no book the Old Testa ment has been assigned to so wide a range of time as the book of

ob r J , th ough every period from Abraham down to the second century

B c . . . , yet with an increasing tendency toward a late date Naturally ﬁn d P then someone would a place for it in the late ersian period . Cheyn e ’ advanced the thought that the original Job story was a

of or poetic version a perfectly righteous man , a second Abraham

2 1 — : 1 2 Noah . Isa . 5 3 53 was modeled after this . During the close Of the Persian or the beginni ng of the G reek period this treatment

of f Of the problem righteous su fering , as presented by the original

of ob . narrator J , was found inadequate for practical uses Hence it

was adapted to meet the needs of the new age . But this was not yet hi l the present form Of the book w ch comes from a date sti l later . K 2 C . F . ent follows this view in the main . He considers the prin

i l — 1 — z c a of . 8 : 1 2 6 on p sections the book , chaps 3 3 and 3 4 , based an i Old Job story , to have been written at th s time . The book of Job in its present form very probably comes from a

l . late date , at all events from a postexi ic period The historic data in the book are too few to allow any deﬁni te assignment of an exact

. of date Whatever the date the book , the gain from it for the history of nl any period is rather for the inner religious development , and o y indirectly for the external history . 3 V. T h e A o r h a B d . p c yp l B ooks . The ook of Ju ith Ewald already Observed that the story O f the book of Judith has its back i ground in the h story of the reign of Artaxerxes O ch u s . He also assigned the writing of the book to that age . The conclusion that the book was written as early as the fourth century has long since been shown to be impossible . It must at all events be later than the

Maccabaean period and may come from a century or more later . 4 “ . . S G u tschmi ed N oldeke W R mith , following and , thinks it probable

2 - Jew s h R el . L a t t e er h e Ex i e 1 3 es hi hte des o kes I srae . i ij j l 58 72 . G c c V l l

2 i t 2 6 O . c . . 4 cit. . p 3 f O p. 439 O LD T ESTAMENT SOURC ES 8 1

that the wars under O ch u s form the historic background of the book Of Judith and that the name H oloph ernes is taken from that of a general of O ch u s who took a prominent part in the Egyptian cam ” h ii r r‘ h H l h z paign . Sc e thinks t is probable and b sc er considers it

H olo h r B established beyond a doubt . He sees in p e nes and agoas i ﬁ historic personages whereas Judith is Judaism person ed . Mar

3 4 Willri ch s ﬁnd quart , Winckler and the solution here as in so many H other instances in a change of names . oloph ernes is not Holo

h ern es for Aristaz anes p but one it is , for the other Assurbanipal ,

O doarras and for the third , with nothing but confusing results .

The most satisfactory View seems to me that the book , though h u . written late , has its background in the history of the reign of O c s Then we have not indeed additional hi story of that period but con ﬁ i i rm ng evidence that the h story as constructed is correct . 6 2 of hi date ( ) The Book Tobit , w ch Ewald thought probably to

from this period , has been satisfactorily Shown to come from nearly two centuries later, and consequently needs no further consideration

here . D U MMAR RE ULT . S Y S

The summary will evidently be a bringing together of that which

has already been given in the separate investigations . As certainly

— - h u . 2 : 1 1 1 dating from the reign of O c s are Isa 3 4 and Isa . 5 . - Tri to Isaiah very probably also comes from the same time . Not

Psa . 8 certain , yet probable , are 44 , 74 , 79 , and 3 as subjective presentations of the same historic situation as that which Trito

of Isaiah gives us . The Book Judith does not come from this time but has its background in the history of the reign of O ch us and re

1 : 2 8- 2 ﬂ ects conﬁrmi ng li ght upon it . In Isa . 4 3 there are probably

of O ch u s P also to be found reﬂections of the campaigns in alestine,

though the passage does not date from that reign . Of the remaini ng passages considered none yield sufﬁciently clear evidence to justify

of of O ch us their acceptance for sources the history the reign of ,

1 2 n n . 1 . O . ci t. . . t I I I . 1 0 a d O p ci . 7 9 p 35

— 3 P hi o o u s liv 1 8 0 1 0 . l l g , 95 , 5 7 - 4 A tori enta s h e Fors hu n en I I 1 8 2 66 6 . l li c c g , 99 , 7

' — 5 Juden u nd G ri e h en vor der M akkabaisch en E rh ebu n 1 8 88 0 . c g, 95 , 9

6 ci t O p. . 8 2 ART AXERXES I II O C H US AN D H I S REI GN

although in the case of some it is equally impossible to say that

they do not date from thi s period .

2 — 1 i r of of O chu Isa . 4 corroborates the h sto y the campaign s - S . 1 against idon , and Isa 5 the impending campaign against - Egypt , as we have found them recorded in extra biblical history . — 6 . 6 6 S Isa , chaps . 5 , shows us the relation between Jews and amaritans of P - during the close the ersian period , their long continued hatred , and their ﬁnal separation resulting from the building of the temple t on Mount G erizim soon after the close of the reign of O ch u s . N o only have we in Trito-Isaiah conﬁrming evidence of the hi story of

of O ch u s the reign as we found it elsewhere , but it gives us a clearer

f h u i picture Of what the Jews suf ered at the hands of O c s . Th s suffering is presented more intensely in the Psalms probably dating i i from th s t me . The presentation is more intense because it is

o i subj ectively contemplated . A later reflection f the same h story i appears in the Book of Jud th . Every portion of the Old Testament finds its true and larger mean l hi fin d ing when it is interpreted in the ight of its true story . To

n aim this larger mea ing, and to interpret it to others, is the supreme

of of the student of the Old Testament . That many the passages treated in this di scussion have been meani ngless until they were i l mi interpreted h storically, every Old Testament student wi l ad t . If in any way the writer has succeeded in bri nging to light a larger

i di of mean ng , or at least has rected the attention others , as he has

i ﬁ of i for himself, to the beauty and deeper sign cance the h storic

O f truth and the religious message contained in some these passages , hi l then s purpose is accomp ished . APPENDIX C H RO NO LO GI CAL T ABLES

G T H E I G O C H U A . CHRONOLO Y OF RE N OF S

n f E - N e tanebus II K O t 6 1 . c , i g gyp , 3 343 — P l I I Ki n O f M a edon 6 . hi ip , g c , 359 33 — D eat of rta er es I I Mnemon Ki n of Pers a 0 8 . h A x x , , g i , 4 4 35 - ccess on of Ar axerxes I II O ch us to th e t rone of Pers a 8 8 . A i t , , h i , 35 33 — D eat of A esilaus Ki n of S arta 8 8 . h g , g p , 39 35 P i n n — F rs t war bet een l a d t e s 6 . i w hi p A h , 35 7 34 War of th e se arate Lea ue O f Rh odes C os and z ant u m a ains p g , hi , By i g t t ens - A h , 35 7 355 r r n r O chus comm ands the coast sat aps to dismi ss thei merce a y troops .

Revolt O f Artabaz us and O ron es wh o fortiﬁes Per am on . , t g

— O utbreak of the P o an war 6 . h ci , 355 34 r n O chus makes prepa ations for the campaign i th e west. n O ro tes subdued by Autoph radates . r n Artabaz us seeks help f om th e T heba s .

n er on uered . C o ﬂi ct of th e Persians with revolting Jews . J icho c q Se ond cam a n of O ch us a a ns E t un der the command of his c p ig g i t gyp , ene l g ra s .

Pammenes sent by T hebes to assist Artabaz us . n Athe s supports the revolting Egyptians . r n O o tes subdued by O chus . ’ m n s D e ost e es ee D e Rh odi oru m L bertate . h p ch , i I n e n en f h R d pe d ce o t e hodi ans .

League between O rontes and Athens . A a az ﬂees Disagreement between Artabaz us and Pammenes . rt b us to M edon ac . r nte de sat f e ern Peace between C ebus and O rontes . O o s ma rap o w st As a n r i Mi o . ch m O us akes preparations against Egypt. ev n n ins R olt i Sidon and entire Phoe icia aga t Persia . mi ni e P ev in . r made R olt C rus E u a oras I I of Sala s ba s d . n ta o as yp g , , h y g k n i n hi i g s stead . n League betwee Phoeni cia and Egypt. I dri r f K — eus sat a O ar a 1 . p i , 35 344 Miz ae us of C elici a and B elesys of Syria sent by O chus to suppress the

r e ul ed . evolt in C yprus . R p s P oci on and E ua oras II land in E t nd bl k l h g gyp a oc ade Sa ami . h c us eek aid r m h e e f t en n rta neu ral . O s s f o t citi s o Greece . A h s a d Spa t

T hebes and Argos send aid . 84 ART AXERXES I II O CH US AN D H I S REI G N

Pnytagoras re cogni ze d by th e Pers ians as king of Salamis .

r n n . E n t ed . P a o uered ua oras II O chus in Syri a . Sido des oy hoe ici c q g

satrap in Sidon .

T h e Jews oppressed by B agoas . F h i n hi t i r m n a t E t 6- rs t attem t b O c us s d a a a ns . i p y h c p ig g i gyp , 34 343 n A en nd P l Peace betwee th s a hi ip I I .

h a a n E . e ne us I ﬂ ee M em Se cond attempt O f O c us g i st gypt N cta b I s to phi s . nt r a ointed b O ch us over th e satra e O f estern Asia M n r Me o pp y pi s w i o . P i n h League between hil p a d O c us . f n N e ta e us I I ﬂ e t E t o a . C onqu es t o Egypt. c b es o hi pi

Ph n e nte r f E are dat s appoi d sat ap o gypt.

O ch us returns to Pers ia .

d n n O ch us refuse to e ter i to a league with Athens against Philip. n N ecta ebus I I di es . ﬁ in Persian troops i n T h race ght g against Macedon . n B attle O f C haero ea . n Peace between Phi lip a d Athens . P mm n er-i n- e over Hellen r n r i hilip co a d chi f ic t oops agai st Pe s a . — D f h eeded b rses 8 . eat O O c us . S u h cc y A , 33 335 D f li e d d Al n r eat o P I I . u e e b e a de the rea h hi p S cc y x G t .

B L G T HE P IA MPI . C HRONO O Y OF ERS N E RE

C C rus h- 2 rta er es I I I O ch us y 5 s 5 9 A x x , C ambyses 5 29—5 2 2 Arses G au ma ta D ar us I I I C odomannus i , D ari us I H stas is le ander the rea , y p A x G t X erxes I T he divided Empi re

rta er es I Lon imanus T he Part an E m re A x x , g hi pi X er e I I - s 2 2 A . D . x 242 B . C . 4 Sogdianus A . D . - D ari us I I T he Sasanian Empire 2 24 65 2

Arta e r es I I M nemon Modern Pers a 6 2 x x , i 5 — After NO LD E KE

C HRONOLO G Y OF EG YPT 1 - Persian Province 5 2530 8 N ectanebus I - Amyrta ios 40 8 40 2 T achos - N eph e ri tes I 40 2 396 N ectanebus I I Akor s 6— 8 Arta er es I I I O chus i 39 3 3 x x , Psammut 383— 38 2 Arses M u thes 8 2 — 8 1 D ar us I I I C odomannus 3 3 i , N eph eri tes I I 38 1 Alexander th e G reat APPEND I X 85

D . C L T HE L U I D A C APIT A AT A T I C E HRONO OG Y OF SE E C E . L N O

B . C . 1 0 Seleu us I N icator 1 2— 280 Antio us VI Dion sus 1 — 1 2 c , 3 ch , y 424 Ant o us I Soter 2 8 1 — 2 6 1 D emetr us in Parth a 1 -1 2 i ch , i i 39 9

Ant o us I I T eos 2 6 1 — 2 6 Antio us VI I Sidetes 1 8-1 2 i ch , h 4 ch , 3 9 - - Seleu us I I C alli nicu s 2 6 2 2 6 D emetr us I I N icator 1 2 1 2 c , 4 i , 9 5 Seleu u s I I I C e raunus or Soter Ale ander I I and Seleu us V c , x c - 2 2 6 2 2 nt o us VII I G r us 1 2 — 6 3 A i ch , yp 5 9

n i oc us I II T h e reat 2 2 2 — 1 8 Ant o us I X C z icenus 1 1 6- A t h , G 7 i ch , y 95 Seleu us IV P lo ater 1 8 -1 Seleu us VI E i hanes Nica tor 6— c , hi p 7 75 c , p p 9 9 5 nti o us IV E i h anes 1 — 1 6 nt o us X — 8 A ch , p p 75 4 A i ch 94 3 - An i o us V E u ator 1 6 1 6 2 P ili us I and D emetri us I I I t ch , p 4 h pp D emetr us I Sote r 1 6 2 1 0 Ant o us X II I As iaticus i , 7 5 i ch , Ale ander I alas 1 — 1 S r a a Roman Provin e x , B 53 45 y i c D emetr us I I Nicator 1 - 1 i , 45 39

— ter . H E in . E . S B I V. . Af W J. WOOD OU f

C O L G T H E PT L MI E . HR NO O Y OF O E ES

B . C . B . C . - Ptolem I La i 2 2 8 Ptolem VI I Ph skon 1 0 — 1 6 y , g 3 3 5 y , y 7 4 - Ptolem I I P ladel us 2 8 2 6 1 - y , hi ph 5 4 45 1 1 7 - Ptolem I I I E ue r etes 2 6 2 2 2 Ptolem L athu rus 1 1 — 1 0 y , g 4 y 7 7

Ptolem IV Philo ator 2 2 2 — 20 Ptolem Ale ander 1 0 8 y , p 5 y x 7 9 - Ptolem V E i h anes 20 1 8 1 Ptolem L athu rus se ond t me y , p p 5 y ( c i ) - Ptolem VI Philometor 1 8 1 1 8 y , 45 9 8 1

— ter TE B ese s e G k . de olk s I sr. V 1 1 . Af GU , 3