Chapter IV: , VII (143)

"The Assyrian empire was much weakened and the king could not
think of maintaining his power in the more distant provinces.
… In the year 610 B. C., Nineveh was again besieged, this
time by the Medes and Babylonians in league together. In the
same year Psammetichus, king of Egypt, died and was succeeded
by his son Necho. If Psammetichus had already tried to enlarge
his kingdom at the expense of Assyria, Necho was not the man
to miss the golden opportunity that now presented itself: he
proposed to seize Syria and Palestine, the Assyrian provinces
that bordered on his own kingdom, and thus to obtain his share
of the spoil, even if he did not help to bring down the giant.
By the second year after his accession to the throne he was on
the march to Syria with a large army. Probably it was
transported by sea and landed at Acco, on the Mediterranean,
whence it was to proceed overland. But in carrying out this
plan he encountered an unexpected obstacle: Josiah went to
meet him with an army and attempted to prevent his march to
Syria. … Josiah must have firmly believed that Jahveh would
fight for his people and defeat the Egyptian ruler. From what
Jeremiah tells us of the attitude of the prophets in the
reigns of Jehoiakim and Zedekiah, we must infer that many of
them strengthened the king in his intention not to endure an
encroachment such as that of the Pharaoh. The Chronicler
relates that Necho himself endeavored to dissuade Josiah from
the unequal contest. But [uselessly]. … The decisive battle
was fought in the valley of Megiddo: Judah was defeated;
Josiah perished. … After the victory in the valley of
Megiddo and the death of Josiah, Necho was master of the
kingdom of Judah. Before he arrived there, 'the people of the
land' made Jehoahaz, a younger son of Josiah, king, presumably
because he was more attached than his elder brother to his
father's policy. At all events, Necho hastened to depose him
and send him to Egypt. He was superseded by Eliakim,
henceforward called Jehoiakim. At first Jehoiakim was a vassal
of Egypt, and it does not appear that he made any attempt to
escape from this servitude. But it was not long before events
occurred elsewhere in Asia that entirely changed his position.
Nineveh had fallen; the Medes and the Chaldeans or Babylonians
now ruled over the former territory of the Assyrians; Syria
and Palestine fell to the share of the Babylonians. Of course,
the Egyptians were not inclined to let them have undisputed
possession. A battle was fought at Carchemish (Circesium), on
the Euphrates, between the armies of Necho and Nebuchadnezzar,
who then commanded in the name of his father, Nabopolassar,
but very shortly afterwards succeeded him. The Egyptians
sustained a crushing defeat (604 B. C). This decided the fate
of Western Asia, including Judæa."

_A. Kuenen,
The Religion of Israel,
chapter 6 (volume 2)._

JEWS: B. C. 604-536.
Fall of the kingdom of Judah.
The Babylonian captivity.

"In the fourth year of Jehoiakim (B. C. 604) the mightiest
monarch who had wielded the Assyrian power, Nebuchadnezzar,
was associated in the empire with his father, and assumed the
command of the armies of Assyria. Babylon now takes the place
of Nineveh as the capital of the Assyrian empire. …
Vassalage to the dominion of Egypt or of Babylon is now the
ignominious doom of the king of Judah. … Nebuchadnezzar,
having retaken Carchemish (B. C. 601), passed the Euphrates,
and rapidly overran the whole of Syria and Palestine.
Jerusalem made little resistance. The king was put in chains
to be carried as a prisoner to Babylon. On his submission, he
was reinstated on the throne; but the Temple was plundered of
many of its treasures, and a number of well-born youths, among
whom were Daniel, and three others, best known by their
Persian names, Shadrach, Meshech, and Abednego. From this date
commence the seventy years of the Captivity. Jehoiakim had
learned neither wisdom nor moderation from his misfortunes.
Three years after, he attempted to throw off the yoke of
Chaldea. … At length this weak and cruel king was slain (B.
C. 598). … Jehoiachin (Jeconias or Coniah), his son, had
scarcely mounted the throne, when Nebuchadnezzar himself
appeared at the gates of Jerusalem. The city surrendered at
discretion. The king and all the royal family, the remaining
treasures of the Temple, the strength of the army and the
nobility, and all the more useful artisans, were carried away
to Babylon. Over this wreck of a kingdom, Zedekiah
(Mattaniah), the younger son of Josiah, was permitted to enjoy
an inglorious and precarious sovereignty of eleven years,
during which he abused his powers, even worse than his
imbecile predecessors. In his ninth year, notwithstanding the
remonstrances of the wise Jeremiah, he endeavoured to assert
his independence; and Jerusalem, though besieged by
Nebuchadnezzar in person, now made some resistance. … At
length, in the city, famine reduced the fatal obstinacy of
despair. Jerusalem opened its gates to the irresistible
conqueror. The king, in an attempt to break through the
besieging forces, or meditating flight towards his ally, the
king of Ammon, was seized on the plain of Jericho. His
children were slain before his face, his eyes put out, and
thus the last king of the royal house of David, blind and
childless, was led away into a foreign prison. The capture of
Jerusalem took place on the ninth day of the fourth month: on
the seventh day of the fifth month (two days on which Hebrew
devotion still commemorates the desolation of the city by
solemn fast and humiliation) the relentless Nebuzaradan
executed the orders of his master by levelling the city, the
palaces, and the Temple, in one common ruin. The few remaining
treasures, particularly the two brazen pillars which stood
before the Temple, were sent to Babylon; the chief priests
were put to death, the rest carried into captivity. …
{1908}
The miserable remnant of the people were placed under the
command of Gedaliah, as a pasha of the great Assyrian monarch;
the seat of government was fixed at Mizpeh. … Nebuzaradan
(the general of Nebuchadnezzar) only left, according to the
strong language of the Second Book of Kings, xxv. 12, 'of the
poor of the land, to be vine-dressers and husbandmen.' … In
general it seems that the Jewish exiles [in Babylonia] were
allowed to dwell together in considerable bodies, not sold as
household or personal or prædial slaves, at least not those of
the better order of whom the Captivity chiefly consisted. They
were colonists rather than captives, and became by degrees
possessed of considerable property. … They had free
enjoyment of their religion, such at least as adhered
faithfully to their belief in Jehovah. We hear of no special
and general religious persecution. The first deportation of
chosen beautiful youths, after the earlier defeat of
Jehoiakim, for hostages, or as a kind of court-pages, was not
numerous. The second transportation swept away the king, his
wife, all the officers and attendants of his court, 7,000 of
the best of the army, 1,000 picked artisans, armourers, and
others, amounting to 10,023 men. The last was more general: it
comprehended the mass of the people, according to some
calculations towards 300,000 or 400,000 souls."

_H. H. Milman,
History of the Jews,
books 8-9, with foot-note (volume 1)._

The inhabitants left behind in Judæa "formed but a pitiful
remnant of the former kingdom of Judah. Part of them had grown
wild and led the lives of freebooters. Others busied
themselves with agriculture, but they had much to suffer from
the bands of Chaldean soldiers that roved about the land, and
from the neighbouring tribes, who took advantage of Israel's
abasement to extend their territories. … We do not know with
certainty the number of the exiles carried off by
Nebuchadnezzar: the returns given in the Old Testament are
evidently incomplete. But that their number was very
considerable, can be gathered from the number of those who
afterwards went back. For their intrinsic worth, even more
than for their numerical strength, these exiles had a right to
be regarded as the real representatives of the kingdom of
Judah and thus of all Israel. … It was … the kernel of the
nation that was brought to Babylonia. Our information as to
the social condition of the exiles is very defective. Even to
the question, where they had to settle, we can only return an
imperfect answer. We meet with a colony of exiles, companions
of Jeconiah, at Tel-abib, in the neighbourhood of the river
Chebar, usually supposed to be the Chaboras, which runs into
the Euphrates not far from Circesium, but considered by others
to be a smaller river, nearer to Babylon. It lay in the nature
of the case, that the second and third company of captives
received another destination. Even had it been possible,
prudence would have opposed their settling in the immediate
vicinity of their predecessors. We are not surprised therefore
that Ezekiel, who lived at Tel-abib, does not mention their
arrival there. Where they did go we are not told. The
historian says 'to Babylon,' to which place, according to him,
the first exiles (597 B. C.) were also brought; probably he
does not, in either passage, mean only the capital of the
Chaldean kingdom, but rather the province of that name to
which the city of course belonged. … Nebuchadnezzar's
purpose, the prevention of fresh disturbances, having been
attained by their removal from Judæa, he could now leave them
to develop their resources. It was even for the interest of
the districts in which they settled, that their development
should not be obstructed. Many unnecessary and troublesome
conflicts were avoided and the best provision was made for the
maintenance of order, by leaving them free, within certain
limits, to regulate their own affairs. So the elders of the
families and tribes remained in possession of the authority
which they had formerly exercised."

_A. Kuenen,
The Religion of Israel,
chapter 7 (volume 2)._

"About the middle of the sixth century before Christ, Cyrus,
King of Elam, began the career of conquest which left him
master of Western Asia. Greek writers of history have done
full justice to the character of this extraordinary man, but
what they tell of his origin, his early adventures and rise to
power, is for the most part mere fable. … Within recent
years a new light has been thrown on one of the dimmest
figures of the old world by the discovery of contemporary
documents, in which the Conqueror of Babylon himself records
his victories and the policy of his reign. … It appears from
the Inscriptions that the founder of the Persian Empire was by
no means the parvenu prince described by Herodotus. Cyrus was
a king's son, and in early youth, by legitimate succession,
himself became a king. From Susa (Shushan) on the Choaspes,
his capital city, he ruled over the fertile and populous
region lying eastward of the Lower Tigris which bore the name
of Elam or Susiana. This realm was one of the most ancient in
Western Asia. … Nabonidus became king of Babylon in the year
555 B. C. He had raised himself to the throne by conspiracy
and murder, and his position at first was insecure. The
eastern provinces, Syria and Phœnicia, rose in revolt against
the usurper, while the Medes on the north began a harassing
warfare and threatened an invasion of Babylonia. This latter
danger was averted for the time by an unlooked-for
deliverance. In the sixth year of Nabonidus (550 B. C.) Cyrus
led his army against Astyages, the Median king. The
discontented soldiery of Astyages mutinied on the eve of
battle, seized the person of their sovereign, and delivered
him up to the enemy. … This bloodless victory added Media to
the dominions of Cyrus, gave him Ecbatana as a second capital
and place of arms, and more than doubled his military
strength. … The real aim of Cyrus was the overthrow of
Babylon, and the construction of a new and still wider empire
on the ruins of the old. … Within the two years following
his conquest of the Medes he had extended his sway over the
kindred race of the Persians, from which he himself had
sprung. The wild tribes of Iran had long looked greedily on
the rich Chaldæan plains and cities, and only waited a leader
before swooping down like ravenous birds on their prey. This
leader appeared in Cyrus. … Forty years had passed since the
destruction of Jerusalem and the deportation of the great mass
of the Jewish people to Babylonia (588 B. C.). During this
period, under Nebuchadnezzar and his immediate successors on
the throne, the exiles had lived in peace, following without
interference their own customs, religious and social. …
Nothing hindered them from leading a quiet and comfortable
life among the Chaldæans, if only they were content to break
with their past and give up hope for the future.
{1909}
But this was impossible for all true Israelites. They could
not forget what they had been, or reconcile themselves to be
what they now were. They had the means of livelihood in
abundance, but to them their drink was as vinegar, their meat
as gall. … The home-sickness of the people finds manifold
expression in the literature of the Exile. … Now, as at
every crisis in the national history, the Prophets stood
forth, the true leaders of Israel. They kept the people
constantly in mind of their high destinies, and comforted and
encouraged them in their darkest hours. … Among the Jewish
exiles, enlightened by the prophetic word, the name Koresh
passed from lip to lip, and the movements of this new
Conqueror were followed with straining eyes. … In the month
Nisan (March) of the year 547 B. C., the ninth year of
Nabonidus, Cyrus crossed the Tigris at the fords of Arbela,
eastward of the modern Mosul, and began his first invasion of
Babylonia. … Meanwhile the fainéant king Nabonidus lingered
in his palace near Babylon, leaving the defence of the empire
to his eldest son, the Prince Royal Belshazzar. Whether
worsted in battle or, as is more likely, baffled by the
difficulties in the way of an invader—the country seamed
with water-courses, the numerous fortified towns, the Median
Wall—Cyrus was forced to retreat. … In the seventeenth
year of Nabonidus (539 B. C.) the King of Elam once more took
the field against Babylon. This time the attack was made from
the southeast. An opportune revolt of the southern provinces,
probably fomented by Cyrus himself, opened the way for him
into the heart of the land. … On all sides the disaffected
subjects of Nabonidus went over to the invader, who passed on
at the head of his 'vast army, innumerable, like the waters of
a river,' without meeting any serious resistance. The last
hope of Nabonidus rested on his Army of the North. In the
month Tammuz (June) a pitched battle was fought near Routou, a
town in Accad, and ended in the defeat of the Babylonians. A
revolution followed at once. … Some days later the
victorious army, under a lieutenant of the King, appeared
before the walls of Babylon. The collapse of all authority
made useless defences which were the wonder of the world;
friendly hands threw open the brazen gates, and without a
struggle the great city fell. … Four months later Cyrus
entered Babylon in triumph. … The hitherto accepted opinion
that Cyrus was an Aryan monotheist, a worshipper of Ormazd,
and therefore so far in religious sympathy with the Jews, is
seriously shaken if not overthrown by the Inscriptions which
record his Babylonian conquest. Even if allowance be made for
the fact that these are state documents, and reveal only what
the monarch professed, not necessarily what he believed, there
still remains the strong probability that Cyrus was not
Zoroastrian in creed, but polytheist like his people of Elam.
The Cyrus of the Inscriptions is either a fanatical idolater
or simply an opportunist in matters of religion. The latter
alternative is the more probable."

_P. H. Hunter,
After the Exile,
part 1, chapters 1-2._

JEWS: B. C. 537.
The return from Babylon.

"The fall of the metropolis had decided the fortune of the
Babylonian kingdom, and the provinces. The most important of
these was Syria, with the great trading places of the
Phenicians on the Mediterranean. … The hopes of the Jews
were at last fulfilled. The fall of Babylon had avenged the
fall of Jerusalem, and the subjugation of Syria to the armies
of Babylon opened the way for their return. Cyrus did not
belie the confidence which the Jews had so eagerly offered
him; without hesitation he gave the exiles permission to
return and erect again their shrine at Jerusalem. The return
of the captives and the foundation of a new state of the Jews
was very much to his interest; it might contribute to support
his empire in Syria. He did not merely count on the gratitude
of the returning exiles, but as any revival of the Babylonian
kingdom, or rebellion of the Syrians against the Persian
empire, imperilled the existence of this community, which had
not only to be established anew, but would never be very
strong, it must necessarily oppose any such attempts.
Forty-nine years—seven Sabbatical years, instead of the ten
announced by Jeremiah—had passed since the destruction of
Jerusalem, and more than sixty since Jeremiah had first
announced the seventy years of servitude to Babylon. Cyrus
commissioned Zerubbabel, the son of Salathiel, a grandson of
Jechoniah, the king who had been carried away captive, and
therefore a scion of the ancient royal race, and a descendant
of David, to be the leader of the returning exiles, to
establish them in their abode, and be the head of the
community; he bade his treasurer Mithridates give out to him
the sacred vessels, which Nebuchadnezzar had carried away as
trophies to Babylon, and placed in the temple of Bel; there
are said to have been more than 5,000 utensils of gold and
silver, baskets, goblets, cups, knives, etc. But all the Jews
in Babylon did not avail themselves of the permission. Like
the Israelites deported by Sargon into Media and Assyria some
180 years previously, many of the Jews brought to Mesopotamia
and Babylonia at the time of Jechoniah and Zedekiah, had found
there a new home, which they preferred to the land of their
fathers. But the priests (to the number of more than 3,000),
many of the families of the heads of the tribes, all who cared
for the sanctuary and the old country, all in whom Jehovah
'awoke the spirit,' as the Book of Ezra says, began the march
over the Euphrates. With Zerubbabel was Joshua, the high
priest, the most distinguished among all the Jews, a grandson
of the high priest, Zeraiah, whom Nebuchadnezzar had executed
after the capture of Jerusalem. … It was a considerable
multitude which left the land 'beyond the stream,' the waters
of Babylon, to sit once more under the fig-tree in their
ancient home, and build up the city of David and the temple of
Jehovah from their ruins; 42,360 freemen, with 7,337 Hebrew
men-servants and maid-servants; their goods were carried by
435 camels, 736 horses, 250 mules, and 6,720 asses (537 B.
C.). The exodus of the Jews from Babylon is accompanied by a
prophet with cries of joy, and announcements filled with the
wildest hopes. … 'Go forth from Babylon,' he cries; 'fly
from the land of the Chaldæans! Proclaim it with shouts of
joy, tell it to the end of the earth and say: "Jehovah hath
redeemed his servant Jacob."'
{1910}
'How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that
bringeth glad tidings, that publisheth peace, that saith unto
Zion, Thy God reigneth. Up, up, go forth, touch no unclean
person; go forth from among them. Cleanse yourselves, ye that
bear Jehovah's vessels. Ye shall go forth in joy, and be led
in peace; the mountains and the hills shall break forth before
you into singing, and all the trees shall clap their hands.
Jehovah goes before you, and the God of Israel brings up the
rear. … Jehovah calls thee as an outcast sorrowful woman,
and thy God speaks to thee as to a bride who has been put
away; thy ruins, and deserts, and wasted land, which was
destroyed from generation to generation—thy people build up
the ruins, and renew the ancient cities. Behold, I will make
thy desert like Eden, and thy wilderness like the garden of
the Lord; I will lay thy stones with bright lead, and thy
foundations with sapphires, and make thy towers of rubies and
thy gates of carbuncles. Joy and delight is in them,
thanksgiving and the sound of strings. The wealth of the sea
shall come to thee, and the treasures of the nations shall be
thine; like a stream will I bring salvation upon Israel, and
the treasures of the nations like an overflowing river. Thy
sons hasten onward; those that laid thee waste go forth from
thee. Lift up thine eyes and see; thy sons come from far, and
I will gather them to those that are gathered together. The
islands and the ships of Tarshish wait to bring thy children
from afar, their gold and their silver with them. The land
will be too narrow for the inhabitants; widen the place for
thy tent, let the carpets of thy habitation be spread—delay
not. Draw out the rope; to the right and to the left must thou
be widened. I will set up my banner for the nations, that they
bring thy sons in their arm, and thy daughters shall be
carried on the shoulders. Kings shall be thy guardians, and
queens thy nursing-mothers; I will bow them to the earth
before thee, and they shall lick the dust of thy feet, and
thou shalt know that I am Jehovah, and they who wait patiently
for me shall not be put to shame.' Such expectations and hopes
were far from being realised. The Edomites had, in the
mean-time, extended their borders and obtained possession of
the South of Judah, but the land immediately round Jerusalem
was free and no doubt almost depopulated. As the returning
exiles contented themselves with the settlement at Jerusalem,
the towns to the North, Anathoth, Gebah, Michmash,
Kirjath-Jearim, and some others—only Bethlehem is mentioned
to the South—they found nothing to impede them. Their first
care was the restoration of the worship, according to the law
and the custom of their fathers. … Then voluntary gifts were
collected from all for the rebuilding of the temple;
contributions even came in from those who had remained in
Babylonia, so that 70,000 pieces of gold and 5,000 mimæ of
silver are said to have been amassed. Tyrian masons were
hired, and agreements made with Tyrian carpenters, to fell
cedars in Lebanon, and bring them to Joppa, for which Cyrus
had given his permission. The foundation of the temple was
laid in the second year of the return (536 B. C.). … The
fortunate beginning of the restoration of the city and temple
soon met with difficulties. The people of Samaria, who were a
mixture of the remnant of the Israelites and the strangers
whom Sargon had brought there after the capture of Samaria,
… and Esarhaddon at a later date, … came to meet the
exiles in a friendly spirit, and offered them assistance, from
which we must conclude that in spite of the foreign admixture
the Israelitish blood and the worship of Jehovah were
preponderant in Samaria. The new temple would thus have been
the common sanctuary of the united people of Israel. But the
'sons of captivity' were too proud of the sorrows which they
had undergone, and the fidelity which they had preserved to
Jehovah, and their pure descent, to accept this offer. Hence
the old quarrel between Israel and Judah broke out anew, and
the exiles soon felt the result. After their repulse the
Samaritans set themselves to hinder the building by force;
'they terrified the exiles that they built no more, and hired
counsellors to make the attempt vain during the
whole of the remainder of the reign of Cyrus.'"

_M. Duncker,
History of Antiquity,
book 8, chapter 8 (volume 6)._

The duration of the Captivity, strictly speaking, "was only
forty-seven years, if we reckon by the Canon of Ptolemy, from
the 19th 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."

_H. Ewald,
History of Israel,
book 5, introduction._

"The decree of Cyrus, at the close of the captivity, extended
only to the rebuilding of the Temple. 'Thus saith Cyrus, king
of Persia, The Lord God of heaven … hath charged me to build
him an house at Jerusalem.' And under this decree Jeshua and
Zerubbabel 'builded the altar of the God of Israel. … But
the foundation of the Temple of the Lord was not yet laid.'
Afterwards they 'laid the foundation of the Temple of the
Lord,' including, apparently, the outer wall, for their
enemies made a representation to the king of Persia that the
Jews were rebuilding the walls of their city: 'The Jews which
came up from thee to us are … building the rebellious and
the bad city, and have set up the walls thereof, and joined
the foundations.' And as the wall of the Temple, which was
about twelve feet thick, gave a colour to the charge, a decree
was issued by Artaxerxes to prohibit the further prosecution
of the work. 'Then ceased the work of the house of God, which
is at Jerusalem.' On the accession of Darius to the throne of
Persia, Jeshua and Zerubbabel recommenced the restoration of
the Temple, including the wall of the Outer Temple, for they
'began to build the house of God,' when their enemies again
stepped forward, saying, 'Who hath commanded you to build this
house, and to make up this wall?' And on a renewed complaint
to the king of Persia, search was made for the decree of
Cyrus, and when it was found, Darius permitted the Jews to
proceed with the Temple; 'Let the governor of the Jews and the
'elders of the Jews build this house of God in his place;' and
thereupon the structure and the outer walls thereof (the
square of 600 feet) were completed: 'They builded and finished
it … on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the
sixth year of the reign of Darius the king.' Thus far the
rebuilding extended to the Temple only, and not to the walls
of the city. Ezra afterwards obtained a decree to restore the
nationality of the Jews, viz., to 'set magistrates and judges,
which might judge all the people;' and afterwards Nehemiah,
the cupbearer to the king, was enabled in a favourable moment
to win from him express permission to rebuild the Baris, or
Vestry, afterwards Antonia, and also the city: 'Send me unto
Judah, unto the city of my fathers' sepulchres, that I may
build it;' and a direction was given to the governors beyond
the Euphrates to forward Nehemiah and his company to
Jerusalem; and the king's forester was required to supply the
necessary timber."

_T. Lewin,
Jerusalem,
chapter 2._

{1911}

"The Jews returned home sobered and improved by their
sufferings in exile, and entirely cured of their early
hankering after idolatry. Having no political independence,
and living under a governor, they devoted themselves all the
more to religion, the only source and support of their
nationality, and became zealots for the law, and for a devout
carrying out of all its precepts, as far as practicable. All,
indeed, could not be again restored, The most holy of the new
temple was empty, for it was without the lost and
irreplaceable ark of the covenant; the oracular ornaments of
the high-priest had disappeared. As Jerusalem was now, far
more than formerly, the head and heart of the nation, the
high-priesthood … was the authority to which the nation
willingly submitted; it served as the representative and
pillar of unity, and the sons of David were forgotten. Another
of the abiding consequences of their exile was, the altered
mode of life which the nation led. At first they had been
exclusively devoted to agriculture; but after mixing with
strangers they learnt to engage in trade, and this inclination
went on always increasing; it contributed essentially to their
being spread far beyond the borders of Palestine, and to their
multiplying their settlements in foreign lands."

_J. J. I. Dollinger,
The Gentile and the Jew
in the Courts of the Temple of Christ,
book 10, section 1 (volume 2)._

ALSO IN:
_H. H. Milman,
History of the Jews,
book 9._

JEWS: B. C. 536-A. D. 50.
The Babylonian Jews.

"There is something very remarkable in the history of this
race, for the most part descendants of those families which
had refused to listen to the summons of Zorobabel, Ezra, and
Nehemiah, and to return to the possession of their native
country. … The singular part of their history is this, that,
though willing aliens from their native Palestine, they
remained Jews in character and religion; they continued to be
a separate people, and refused to mingle themselves with the
population of the country in which they were domiciliated.
While those who returned to the Holy Land were in danger of
forming a mixed race, by intermarriages with the neighbouring
tribes, which it required all the sternest exercise of
authority in their rulers to prevent, the Babylonian Jews were
still as distinct a people as the whole race of Israel has
been since the final dispersion. … Nor did they, like the
Jews of Alexandria, become in any degree independent of the
great place of national worship; they were as rigid Jews as if
they had grown up within sight of the Temple. … The Temple
became what the Caaba of Mecca is to the Mohammedans, the
object of the profoundest reverence, and sometimes of a pious
pilgrimage; but the land of their fathers had lost its hold on
their affections; they had no desire to exchange the level
plains of Babylonia for the rich pastures, the golden
cornfields, or the rocky vineyards of Galilee and Judæa. This
Babylonian settlement was so numerous and flourishing, that
Philo more than once intimates the possibility of their
marching in such force to the assistance of their brethren in
Palestine, in case the Roman oppression was carried to excess,
as to make the fate of the war very doubtful. Their chief city
Nearda, was strongly situated in a bend of the river
Euphrates, which almost surrounded the town." About the middle
of the first century (of the Christian era) a band of
freebooters, formed by two brothers of this Jewish community,
gave great provocation to the Babylonians, and to the Parthian
king whose subjects they then were. They were finally, but
with much difficulty, destroyed, and the Babylonians then
"began to commit dreadful reprisals on the whole Jewish
population. The Jews, unable to resist, fled in great numbers
to Seleucia; six years after many more took refuge from a
pestilence in the same city. Seleucia happened to be divided
into two factions: one of the Greeks, the other of the
Syrians. The Jews threw themselves into the scale of the
Syrians, who thus obtained a superiority, till the Greeks came
to terms with the Syrians; and both parties agreed to fall
upon the unhappy Jews. As many as 50,000 men were slain. The
few who escaped fled to Ctesiphon. Even there the enmity of
the Seleucians pursued them; and at length the survivors took
refuge in their old quarters, Nearda and Nisibis."

_H. H. Milman,
History of the Jews,
book 12 (volume 2)._

JEWS: B. C. 433-332.
The century of Silence.

"The interval between the Testaments has been called 'The
Centuries of Silence.' The phrase is most untrue; for, as a
whole, this time was vocal with the cry of a battle in which
empire contended with empire, and philosophy with philosophy:
it was an age of earnest and angry contention. But the hundred
years succeeding the death of Nehemiah are for us, so far as
any record remains of that Judæan history, a century of
silence. For some reason which does not appear, the period
from the death of this sturdy old captain at Jerusalem to the
time of the Greek conquest of Persia has no Jewish history.
That it was a period of growth and development with the
Judæans—especially in their theological and ecclesiastical
life—is evident from the changes which the close of the
century shows. The stress of external events made it a time of
heavy taxation and distress,—a time of struggle with Samaria,
and of internal conflict for the control of the high priest's
office."

_T. R Slicer,
Between the Testaments
(The New World, March, 1892)._

JEWS: B. C. 413-332.
The rule of the High Priests.

"After the death of Nehemiah and the high priest, Eliashib
(413 B. C.), the Persian Court did not appoint governors of
Judea. Samaria was the seat of the Persian Satrap for Syria,
Phœnicia and Palestine. The sons of David had lost prestige
under Nehemiah (Psalm lxxxix.). The ruler acknowledged by the
Law, the prophet (Deuteronomy xviii. 15), was no more; the
last prophets under Nehemiah, with the exception of Malachi,
had proved unworthy of their illustrious predecessors.
Therefore, the high priest was now the first man in the
theocracy, and, contrary to the Laws of Moses (Leviticus x.
3), he was acknowledged the chief ruler of the nation,
although he was no longer the bearer of the Urim and Thumim
(Ezra ii. 63). He presided over the Great Synod, was the
representative of the people before the king and his satrap,
and gradually he established himself in the highest dignity of
the nation."

_I. M. Wise,
History of the Hebrews' Second Commonwealth, 1st period,
chapter 4._

{1912}

JEWS: B. C. 332-167.
The Greek domination.
Jewish dispersion.
Hellenism.

On the fall of the Persian monarchy, Judea, with all the rest
of western Asia, was gathered into the empire of Alexander the
Great (see MACEDONIA: B. C. 334-330, and after), Jerusalem
submitting to him without a siege, and so avoiding the fate of
Tyre. In the wars between Alexander's generals and successors,
which followed his death, Palestine changed masters several
times, but does not seem to have been much disturbed. The High
Priests continued to be the chiefs of the nation, and neither
the religion nor the internal government of the Hebrew state
suffered much interference. The final partition made among the
new Macedonian kings (B. C. 302), gave Palestine to Ptolemy of
Egypt, and it remained subject to Egypt for a century. This
period was a happy one, on the whole, for the Jews. The
Ptolemies were friendly to them, with one exception,
respecting their religion and laws. Large numbers of them
settled in Egypt, and especially in the rising new capital and
emporium of trade—Alexandria. But in 201 B. C. Antiochus the
Great, king of the Syrian or Seleucid monarchy, wrested
Cœlosyria and Palestine from the Ptolemies and added it to his
own dominions.

See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.

Antiochus dealt favorably with the Jews, but his successors
proved harder masters than the Egyptian Greeks.

_H. Ewald,
History of Israel,
book 5, section 2 (volume 5)._

"These kings promoted the settlement of Greeks and Syrians in
Palestine, so that it was by degrees all covered with cities
and towns of Grecian nomenclature. The narrow territory of
Judea alone kept free of them, but was surrounded with
settlers whose speech, customs, and creed were Greek. On the
other hand, the Jews went on spreading in lands where Greek
was spoken. A good many of these were planted in Egypt, in the
newly founded capital Antioch, in Lydia and Phrygia. Led on by
their love of trade, they soon became numerous in the
commercial cities of western Asia, Ephesus, Pergamus, Miletus,
Sardis, &c. From Egypt and Alexandria, in which city, at a
later period, they formed two-fifths of the inhabitants, they
drew along the coast of Africa to Cyrene and the towns of the
Pentapolis, and from Asia Anterior to the Macedonian and Greek
marts; for the national love of commerce became more and more
developed, till it absorbed all other occupations, and to this
certainly the general inclination for commercial intercourse,
prevalent at that period, greatly contributed. Thus it
happened that two movements, identical in their operation,
crossed each other, viz., an influx of Greek, or of Asiatic
but hellenised, settlers into Palestine, and an outpouring of
Jews and Samaritans into the cities speaking the Greek
tongue. In olden times, while the Israelites still possessed a
national kingdom, they felt their isolation from other people
as a burden. It was as an oppressive yoke to them, which they
bore impatiently, and were always trying to shake off. They
wanted to live like other nations, to eat, drink, and
intermarry with them, and, together with their own God, to
honour the gods of the stranger also; for many raw and
carnally-minded Jews only looked upon the one special God and
protector of their nation as one god amongst many. But now
there was a complete change in this respect. The Jews
everywhere lived and acted upon the fundamental principle,
that between them and all other nations there was an
insurmountable barrier; they shut themselves off, and formed
in every town separate corporations, with officers of their
own; while at the same time they kept up a constant connexion
with the sanctuary at Jerusalem. They paid a tribute to the
temple there, which was carefully collected everywhere, and
from time to time conveyed in solemn procession to Jerusalem.
There alone, too, could the sacrifices and gifts which were
demanded by the law be offered. In this wise they preserved a
centre and a metropolis. And yet there followed from all this
an event, which in its consequences was one of the most
important in history, namely, the hellenising of the Jews who
were living out of Judea, and even, in a degree, of those who
remained in their own land. They were a people too gifted
intellectually to resist the magnetic power by which the
Hellenistic tongue and modes of thought and action worked even
upon such as were disposed to resist them on principle. The
Jews in the commercial towns readily acquired the Greek, and
soon forgot their mother tongue; and as the younger generation
already in their domestic circle were not taught Greek by
natives, as might be supposed, this Jewish Greek grew into a
peculiar idiom, the Hellenistic. During the reign of the
second Ptolemy, 284-247 B. C., the law of Moses was translated
at Alexandria into Greek, probably more to meet the religious
wants of the Jews of the dispersion than to gratify the desire
of the king. The necessity of a knowledge of Hebrew for the
use of the holy Scriptures was thereby done away with, and
Greek language and customs became more and more prevalent.
Individuals began to join this or that school of philosophy,
according to predilection and intellectual bias. The Platonic
philosophy had necessarily most attractions for the disciples
of Moses. The intrusion of Hellenism into Judea itself met
with a much more considerable resistance from the old
believing and conservative Jews. Those of the heathen
dispersion were obliged to be satisfied with mere prayer,
Bible readings and expositions, in their proseuchæ and
synagogues, and to do without the solemn worship and
sacrifices of the temple; but in Jerusalem the temple-worship
was carried out with all its ancient usages and symbols. There
presided the Sopherim, the Scribes or skilled expounders of
the law, a title first appropriated to Esdras (about 450 B.
C.). He was one of the founders of the new arrangements in the
restored state, and was a priest, and at the same time a judge
appointed by the king of Persia. … From that time forth
dependence on the law, pride in its possession as the pledge
of divine election, and the careful custody of this wall of
partition, sank deep into the character of the nation, and
became the source of many advantages as well as of serious
faults. … The later Jewish tradition makes much mention of
the great synagogue believed to have existed already in the
time of Esdras, or to have been founded by him. It is supposed
to have mustered 120 members, and, under the presidency of the
high-priest, was to be the guardian of the law and doctrine.
{1913}
One of its last rulers was Simon the Just, who was
high-priest, and the most distinguished doctor of his time
(that of the first Ptolemys). Afterwards this threefold
dignity or function of high-priest, scribe or rabbi, and of
Nasi or prince of the synagogue, were never united in one
person. … The high-priesthood fell into contempt, the more
it served foreign rulers as the venal instrument of their
caprice; but the Scribes flourished as being the preservers of
all theological and juridical knowledge, and were supported by
the respect and confidence of the people. … By the year 170
B. C., Hellenism had undoubtedly made such progress among the
Jews, in Palestine even, that the Assyrian king, Antiochus
Epiphanes, was able to plan the extirpation of the Jewish
religion, and the conversion of the temple at Jerusalem into a
temple of Jupiter Olympius."

_J. J. I. Döllinger,
The Gentile and the Jew
in the Courts of the Temple of Christ,
book 10, section 1 (volume 2)._

Twice, Antiochus Epiphanes crushed rebellion in Jerusalem with
awful ferocity. On the last occasion, the slain were believed
to number 80,000, while 10,000 captives were led away and sold
as slaves. The city was sacked and partly burned; the Temple
was plundered and polluted. "Not content with these
enormities, Antiochus determined to abolish altogether the
Jewish religion, and, if possible, entirely to exterminate the
race. With this intention, he issued an edict throughout his
dominions, calling upon all the nations who were subject to
his authority to renounce their religion and worship his gods,
and this order he enforced with the most severe pains and
penalties. The Jews were the only people who ventured to
disobey the edict, whereupon, Antiochus ordered them to be
treated with the utmost rigour, and sent to Jerusalem an old
man named Atheneas, who was well versed in the rites of the
Greek worship, as commissioner, to enforce obedience to his
commands. This old pagan dedicated the Temple to Jupiter
Olympus, and placed a statue of that false deity upon the
altar of burnt offering. This desecration was not confined to
Jerusalem, for everywhere throughout the Syrian empire groves
and temples were dedicated, and statues and altars erected, to
the heathen deities, and the worship of the true God was
everywhere prohibited, and punished as the worst of crimes.
That the chief fury of Antiochus's impious rage was directed
against the Jews is evident from the fact that, whilst a
general edict was published, condemning to death or torture
all those who refused to worship the idols, a special decree
was promulgated, by which it was made death to offer
sacrifices to the God of Israel, observe the Sabbath, practise
circumcision, or indeed to conform in the smallest degree to
the precepts of the Mosaic law. Every effort was also made to
destroy the copies of the Holy Scriptures; and persons
refusing to deliver them up were punished by death. In this
terrible distress, many of the Jews abandoned their homes and
took shelter in the wilderness, where 'they lived in the
mountains after the manner of beasts, and fed on herbs
continuously lest they should be partakers of the pollution'
(Maccabees v.). Of those who remained behind, some few yielded
to the temptation, and saved themselves by apostacy, but the
majority remained faithful to the God of their forefathers,
Who, in His own good time, hearkened to the prayers of His
people, and sent them a deliverer."

_E. H. Palmer,
History of the Jewish Nation,
chapter 7._

JEWS: B. C. 166-40.
Revolt of the Maccabees.
Reign of the Asmoneans.
Rise of Herod.

The heroic family called The Maccabees, which began and led
the revolt of the Jewish people against the oppression and
persecution of the Seleucidæan kings, bore, also, the name of
the Asmonean or Hasmonean family, derived from the name of
"its chief of four generations back, Chasmon, or Asmon, 'the
magnate.'" The head of the family at the time of the outbreak
of the revolt, and who precipitated it, was Mattathias. He had
five sons, the third of whom, Judas, became the military
leader and great hero of the nation in its struggle. To Judas
was given the surname or appellation of Makkabi, from whence
came his historical name of Judas Maccabæus, and the general
name of The Maccabees by which his family at large is commonly
designated. The surname "Makkabi" is conjectured to have had
the same meaning as that of Charles the "Martel"—viz., the
"Hammerer"; but this is questioned. "Under Judas the revolt
assumed larger proportions, and in a short time he was able to
meet and defeat the Syrians in the open field. The situation
which the Romans had created in Syria was favourable to the
Jewish cause. In order to find money to pay the tribute
imposed by Rome upon his house; Antiochus had to undertake an
expedition into the Far East, which depleted Syria of a large
number of troops. During the king's absence the government of
the country was entrusted to a high functionary named Lysias.
Lysias took a serious view of the rebellion in Judæa, and
despatched a force under the command of three generals to
suppress it. But this army met with alarming reverses at the
hands of Judas, and Lysias was obliged to go to Palestine in
person to conduct the campaign. Meanwhile Antiochus had been
apprised of the disasters which had befallen his captains, and
was hastening homewards to assume the supreme direction of
affairs, when death put a termination to his career (B. C.
164). The pressure of Roman policy upon Antiochus was the
indirect cause of the Jewish revolt, and the immediate cause
of the king's inability to suppress it. After the death of
Antiochus, the distracted state of Syria and the struggles of
rival pretenders for the crown strengthened the position of
the Jewish patriots. Antiochus V., son of the late king, was
only nine years old when he began to reign (B. C. 164). His
father had appointed a courtier named Philip regent during his
son's minority. But this arrangement did not satisfy Lysias,
who had the young king in his custody, and who was carrying on
the campaign in Palestine when the news of his supersession by
Philip arrived. Lysias immediately left off the contest with
Judas, and devoted his energies to the task of resisting
Philip's claims. At this juncture, if any historic value can
be attached to a statement in the Second Book of the
Maccabees, two Roman envoys, Quintus Memmius and Titus
Manlius, who were probably on their way from Alexandria to
Antioch, offered to take charge of Jewish interests at the
Syrian capital. Peace is said to have been the outcome of
their efforts (B. C. 162). But it was a peace which did not
endure.
{1914}
In the following year the Syrian king once more invaded
Palestine at the head of a great army, and, in spite of the
strenuous opposition of Judas, laid siege to the Holy City.
Famine soon reduced the garrison to the last extremities, and
their fate would have been a hard one had not the disordered
condition of Syria compelled the besiegers to accept
honourable terms. Whilst the siege was in progress news came
to the Syrian camp that Philip had put himself at the head of
a large army, with the intention of enforcing his claims to
the regency. No time was to be lost, and the king, acting on
the advice of Lysias, accorded the Jews religious liberty.
Jerusalem capitulated; and the same order of things was
established as had existed previous to the insurrection. Soon
after these events Antiochus V. was dethroned and executed by
his relative, Demetrius I. In Judæa the new monarch allowed
the people to retain the religious liberties granted them by
his predecessor, and had he exercised more judgment in the
selection of a High Priest it would have been impossible for
Judas to renew the struggle against Syria with any prospect of
success. The Assidæans, or Pious Ones, who afterwards
developed into the party known as the Pharisees, and who,
while their religion was at stake, were devoted followers of
Judas, were satisfied with the attainment of religious
freedom. But Judas and his friends, who formed the party which
afterwards became the Sadducees, … were unwilling to relax
their efforts till the country was completely independent. The
Assidæans, consisting of the scribes and the bulk of the
population, accepted Alcimus, the High Priest whom Demetrius
had appointed, and were disposed for peace. But the senseless
barbarities of Alcimus threw the Assidæans once more into the
arms of the war party, and the struggle began afresh. The High
Priest was obliged to flee from Jerusalem; Demetrius sent an
army to reinstate him, but Judas defeated the Syrian forces,
and the Jews enjoyed a short period of repose. … Two Jewish
delegates, Eupolemos and Jason, were sent to Italy to form an
alliance with Rome. The Senate, which never neglected an
opportunity of crippling the Syrian monarchy, accorded a
favourable reception to the Jewish envoys, and acknowledged
the independence of their country. … While these
negotiations were taking place the Syrian army again invaded
Palestine. Judas went forth to meet them, and, after a
desperate conflict, was defeated and slain [at Beer-Zath] (B.
C. 161). The death of their leader shattered the party of
freedom, and the Romans, probably because they saw no distinct
centre of authority left standing in the country, ignored the
treaty they had just made with the Jewish envoys, and left
Judæa to its fate. It was not by direct intervention that the
Romans helped the Jews forward on the path of independence; it
was by the disintegrating action of Roman policy on the
kingdom of Syria. The Jewish leaders did not fail to take
advantage of the opportunities which were thus afforded them.
About nine years after the death of Judas Maccabæus, the
Romans started a new pretender to the Syrian crown in the
person of Alexander Balas, a young man of unknown origin (B.
C. 152). Supported by the allies of Rome, Balas was able to
take the field against Demetrius, who became alarmed at the
threatening aspect of affairs: Jonathan, a brother of Judas,
was then at the head of the Jewish patriots (B. C. 161-142),
and Demetrius attempted by concessions to win him over to his
side. When the pretender Balas heard of this, he immediately
outbade Demetrius, and offered Jonathan the High Priesthood as
the price of his support. Jonathan sold himself to the highest
bidder, and, notwithstanding further profuse promises from
Demetrius, the Jewish leader remained true to his allegiance.
The war between the two rivals did not last long; Demetrius
was overthrown and slain (B. C. 151), and at the marriage of
the new king, Jonathan was appointed civil and military
governor of Judæa." The spiritual and the temporal government
of the Jews was now united in the office of High Priest.
Jonathan, captured and murdered by one of the Syrian
pretenders, was succeeded in the office (B. C. 142), by
another brother, Simon, who was assassinated, B. C. 135, by an
ambitious son-in-law. Simon's son, John Hyrcanus, took his
place.

_W. D. Morrison,
The Jews under Roman Rule,
chapter 1._

The Asmonean family had now become so established in its
princely character that the next of the line, Judas (who took
the Greek name Aristobulus), assumed the crown and title of
King (B. C. 105). Aristobulus reigned less than two years, and
was succeeded by his brother Jonathan (Jannæus) Alexander.
"These Jewish princes were as wide apart in character as in
name from the house whose honours they inherited. Aristobulus,
the bloody, … starved in prison his mother, whom John had
left as regent. … Alexander, named Jannæus, in a reign of
five and twenty years, was mostly occupied in petty
wars,—generally unsuccessful, but indefatigable to begin
afresh. He signalized himself in successive revolts of his
people, first by the barbarous slaughter of 6,000, then by a
civil war of some six years, which cost 10,000 lives, and
finally by crucifying 800. … A restless, dissolute,
ambitious man, called 'the Thracian' for his barbarities, his
rule abhorred except for the comparative mercy he showed in
the cities he had conquered, he died [B. C. 79] before the age
of fifty, having done the one service of confirming the Jewish
power upon the soil of Palestine."

_J. H. Allen,
Hebrew Men and Times,
chapter 10._