translated into many languages,' principally because it was confounded with the real Josephus, it was in fact only composed in the earlier Middle Ages in order to supply the place of the true Josephus, whose history had been for a long time lost, as far as the Jews of that period were concerned. It would be more correctly entitled a Romano-Judean history. Its author no doubt imitates the ancient Hebrew style with great dexterity, and made use of all the authorities he could get together in Italy, where he seems to have lived in the eighth century after Christ; but, in common with his age, he suffered from a total want of historical perception or judgment, and gave himself no trouble to produce anything more satisfactory.'

The Duration of the Exile.

At this point, however, we must for a moment once more turn to the beginning of this long period, and observe how this internal transformation, which was brought about in Israel by the exile, produced from the first such important results, that, as soon as ever affairs had come to their crisis, which they did (as we shall see) under Zerubbabel as the first governor of the new Jerusalem, it at once led up to the hagiocracy, which was henceforth the only enduring constitution in the centuries which elapsed before the close of this whole term. And unless the way for the profound transformation and regeneration of Israel had been already prepared, as has been amply explained above, long before the beginning of the general exile, and unless the change had been brought on by the great prophets themselves, it certainly could not have been accomplished in so short a time as that for which the exile really lasted.

Strictly speaking, its duration was only forty-seven years, if we reckon by the Canon of Ptolemy, from the nineteenth year of Nabuchodrozzor to the first of Cyrus; or better, forty-nine years, if we add on, as we probably ought to do, the two years' reign of the Median king whom Cyrus set on the throne of Babylon. Besides this we have evidence to the same effect,

For instance, into Arabic and Ethiopic, as I pointed out in the Zeitschr. für das Morgenland, vol. v. p. 200 sq.

2 Scaliger and other men of his stamp already estimated the work correctly.

The intervening reign, very short at any rate, of Darius the Mede (aged 62) mentioned in Dan. vi. 1, 29 [v. 31, vi. 28.], ix. 1, xi. 1, is not noticed by the Canon of

Ptolemy or Herodotus (or Ctesias ?), but he may be identified with the Cyaxares, son of Astyages, of Xenophon's Cyropædia. It is in fact difficult to understand how such an intervening reign could have been a pure invention of the Book of Daniel; the difficulty is only that the Cyaxares of Xenophon is here called Darius son of Ahasverosh, ix. 1. Now

though it is certainly somewhat remote, in the Old Testament itself, for the Book of Daniel reckons seven times seven years from Jeremiah's prediction concerning the destruction and subsequent rebuilding of Jerusalem up to 'a princely anointed one,' under whom Cyrus is evidently signified.' This evidence, at any rate, gains more weight from the fact that the Book of Daniel limits the time during which Jerusalem was completely in ruins to these forty-nine years. But another method of computation was frequently employed at an early period. Jeremiah had fixed the duration of the Chaldean supremacy which still remained at seventy years. This, indeed, as the prophet most distinctly explained, was nothing but a round number, to signify a space of time reaching to the third generation, or about the extent of a whole lifetime, and to indicate that only the smallest possible number of those then living would see the end of this supremacy. Accordingly, Ezekiel, in speaking a considerable number of years later, reduces the round number to forty. To this it may be added that Jeremiah fixed the term of servitude at seventy years with reference not to Israel alone but to all the weaker nations as well, and did not definitely specify any particular year from which the seventy were to be counted. This number was first given out by him eighteen years before the destruction of Jerusalem, and was afterwards repeated without alteration in subsequent years, as a fixed number, although it is clear that he always let the year in which he first uttered this grand oracle concerning the future of all the nations of the time stand as the immediate commencement of the seventy years, and purposely abstained from altering it. The oracle itself was indeed fulfilled in the same sense as others were, for a year or two more or less need not be considered in the case of so large

this last name, at any rate (cf. 'Aovnpós, Tob. xi. 15), is undoubtedly identical with Cyaxares, namely, Axares with the prefix Cy, like Kai-Chosrev. A more distant connection between these names would accordingly still appear if the new king assumed some such name in Babylon as Darius, son of Ahasverosh (son of Astyages). When, however, the Hellenistic writer who edited the latest Book of Daniel (vid. infr.), in the story of Bel and the Dragon, v. 1, calls the predecessor of Cyrus in Babylon Astyages, i.e. the father of Cyaxares, it is only a further confusion of father and son similar to that of Herodotus, i. 127 sqq. The only difficulty is that we have as yet no further evidence concerning this name, and indeed

a round number, and it was this that soon brought the figure into such universal renown and constant use. But Jeremiah had not intended the number seventy to serve as a historical datum, still less did he wish to specify by it the number of years during which Jerusalem was to lie in a state of absolute ruin. As, however, this prediction about Israel had been, broadly speaking, entirely fulfilled, Jeremiah, too, being in later times the most renowned prophet of the decline of the kingdom, it gradually became usual to transfer Jeremiah's seventy years to the period of the exile in its narrowest sense, i.e. the time during which Jerusalem was in ruins. The first instance of this is furnished by the Chronicler; but even if we take the period of the exile in the wider sense, that is, if we count from Jehoiachin's banishment eleven years before the destruction of Jerusalem, the number seventy is still too high.

1

It is only by reckoning the Captivity from the year of Josiah's death and the beginning of the Egyptian vassalage that we make out about seventy years before 538 B.C., but this year cannot be regarded in this light, and the whole computation would be opposed to the spirit of antiquity. On the other hand, about twenty years after the first year of Cyrus, Zechariah, as the first witness we can call, still speaks of seventy years during which the great affliction of Israel was then going on; 2 for we shall soon see that the keenest sufferings of the age were by no means terminated at once with the first year of Cyrus. And when several centuries later in Jerusalem they still felt themselves heavily oppressed by the supremacy of the stranger, they thought that the seventy years of Jeremiah were not yet over, and endeavoured to find a secret meaning in the number, as though it must needs signify a period of much longer duration.3

1 2 Chron. xxxvi. 20 sq.; but even here the number seventy does not yet appear as a definite number on the same footing as others in the continuous chronological reckoning.

2 Zech. i. 12, vii. 5. So Theophilus ad Autolycum, iii. 25-29 (where, however, we can easily see from many indications the full uncertainty of this view), Clem. Al., Strom., i. p. 329-31 (Sylburgius), and Eus., Chron., i. p. 183 sqq., ii. p. 202 sq., arbitrarily reckon the seventy years of Jeremiah down to the second year of Darius, as if the exile had not ended until the completion of the building of the second Temple. So, too, the Seder olam R., c. 29, and Zutta, with an estimate of 52 years for the exile proper; but these works furnish us with no

genuine chronology. Generally speaking, the chronological notions of the later Jews on all the centuries between Cyrus and Titus are so entirely perverse and inadequate that it is better to pass them over in absolute silence whenever we can avail ourselves of older authorities.

Perhaps 7 x 70, or 70 weeks of years (as if a week of years were only a greater, a divine year), Dan. ix.; or as if 70 years in a still wider and less definite sense were intended to signify the years, i.e. the reigns, of 70 foreign princes, Enoch lxxxviii. 94 sqq., lxxxix. 33, cf. x. 15 (in Lawrence's edition lxxxix. 59 sqq.); for details see below. It was also thought that at any rate the exile had really lasted for seven generations (i.e. throughout the whole Persian age), Epist. Jerem. v. 3.

SECTION I.

THE HAGIOCRACY UNDER THE PERSIAN EMPIRE.

In the course of this period, which extended over rather more than two hundred years, from 538 or rather 5361 to B.c. 333, the community which was forming itself once more round the ancient sanctuary and fortress of the hill of Jerusalem could but renovate its strength by degrees, beginning under the humblest and at the same time the most trying circumstances. It is true that there was much to favour its development. The good-will of the Persian government was at first secured to it.2 It was, in fact, one of its fundamental principles to allow every nation or tribe in its broad dominions to continue almost undisturbed in its peculiar customs, its internal organisation, and its self-administration, provided it remained quiet and gave effect to the imperial decrees; and the far-famed justice shown by a Cyrus, and still more by a Darius I., to their subjects, long kept the majority of the subjugated nations in no unwilling submission to this government. In all these respects the Persian supremacy was quite unlike and far superior to the Assyrian, or its simple continuation by the Chaldeans; and even under Artaxerxes I. there were still some propitious days in store for the ancient people of Israel.

But in spite of the initial good-will of the Persian rulers, the ancient fatherland could not be regained without a thousand toils and trials. The foundations of the new settlement long remained very weak and subject to the most various oppression. The seat of the Persian government was too remote, and indeed the supreme power itself was hardly capable of finding a permanent solution of the complications and hostilities between the almost innumerable populations which were crowded together under its sway. Moreover, the new Israel once more occupied, so far as its members were gathered in Palestine, one of the most critical and exposed positions in the Persian empire, close by the Phoenician cities, which were never quite content, and the still more unruly Egyptians. Nor was it long before the relations between this peculiar people, as it arose once more, and its Persian governors gradually

became more and more overcast. To this were added later on the grave evils from which the Persian supremacy languished in most countries, so that this period, after opening with the most eager anticipations of the benefits which would accrue from the rule of Cyrus, drew to a close amid increasing indifference and even keen hostility to the Persians. Thus for two hundred years the new commencement of a more independent community and a national development of Israel could only maintain and unfold itself under the heaviest pressure from without, and its dominant direction was towards the completest retirement from the bustle of the great world, and the closest internal consolidation. But the hardness of this shell and this tranquillity were precisely the conditions which enabled the indestructible growth of this community to rise with fresh power after every oppression. Accordingly, it becomes again more and more convinced of its special higher calling, and sees many new elements connected with it flourishing gaily; and towards the end of the whole of this period it even presents the spectacle of the resurrection of one of the most courageous and vigorous nations, hardly to be restrained from bursting through its narrow bounds.

Externally, then, Israel had hardly any connected or in any way elevating history during this period; and scarcely a single historical work of antiquity has ever been specially devoted to the description of the Persian age of Israel. When in after times it looked back upon these two hundred years they seemed on the whole to form a period of but little light or joy; and since the memory bequeathed to Israel by the majority of the great kings of Persia was only one of indifference and distance, or even of gloom, less and less accuracy came to be practised in distinguishing between the various monarchs who had borne the name of Darius, Xerxes, or Artaxerxes. The names of many of these remote kings were confounded, and only for some few was a fixed place retained in tradition and narration.' But in the quiet inner sanctuary, in the secret world of Israel, a life was kindled of all the more intense activity. A few great men found a field for their noiseless but enduring labours

At any rate in popular language, where there was no particular need of perfectly accurate history, Dan. xi. 2 (cf. vii. 5) mentions only four Persian kings after Cyrus; just as Baruch i. 11, and the Book of Daniel, speak of only one son and successor of Nabuchodrozzor, Belshazzar or Baltasar (contrary to Berosus,

p. 52 note 1, and also to the Canon of Ptolemy). The later chronologists, accordingly, generally followed the Seder olam R. in contracting the 200 years or more of the Persian supremacy into an incredibly short period. This has thrown the whole chronology of these centuries into the utmost confusion.