LIBRARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 University of California. 
 
 RECEIVED BY EXCHANGE 
 
 Class 
 
ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND 
 
 His Reign 
 
 WITH SPECIAL CONSlDIilKA'i'iU.N Ut ihi-. OLD TESTAMENT 
 SOURCES BEARINri UPON TTTE PERIOD 
 
 AN INAUGURAL DISSERTATION 
 
 UBMITTED TO THE PHILOSOPHICAL FACULTY OP THE lu>i 
 IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DOCTOR'S DEGREE 
 
 BY 
 
 NOAH CALVIN HIRSCHY 
 
 OF Briuri;. itv'ki v-m 
 
 A. < BPTED BY THE PHILOSOPHICAL FACULTY UPON THE 
 mOPOSAL OP PROFESSOR DR. K. MARTI 
 
 P1K5FESS0R DR. G. TOBLER 
 
 I- IP' 
 
 CHICAGO 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS 
 
 1909 
 

ArTAXERXES III OCHUS AND 
 
 His Reign 
 
 WITH SPECIAL CONSIDERATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 
 SOURCES BEARING UPON THE PERIOD 
 
 AN INAUGURAL DISSERTATION 
 
 SUBMITTED TO THE PHILOSOPHICAL FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF BERN 
 IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DOCTOR'S DEGREE 
 
 BY 
 
 NOAH CALVIN HIRSCHY 
 
 OF BERNE, INDIANA 
 
 ACCEPTED BY THE PHILOSOPHICAL FACULTY UPON THE 
 PROPOSAL OF PROFESSOR DR. K. MARTI 
 
 PROFESSOR DR. G. TOBLER 
 BERN DEAN 
 
 JULY 16. 1907 
 
 CHICAGO 
 THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS 
 
 1909 
 
Copyright 1909 By 
 The University of Chicago 
 
 Published May 1909 
 
 Composed and Printed By 
 
 The University of Chicago Press 
 
 Chicago, Illinois, U. S. A, 
 
PREFACE 
 
 In this attempt to gather all the historic data of a dark and weary 
 period of the world's history on which the sources of information are 
 rather indefinite and unsatisfactory, it may at first appear that too much 
 attention is paid to the general historic situation. But when we remember 
 that some of the biblical sources claimed for the reign of Ochus are placed 
 by scholars at different periods from the eighth to the first century, then 
 this objection loses its force. The final solution of the acceptance or 
 rejection of the Old Testament sources for this period seems to the writer 
 to depend very largely on the clearness of our conception of the history 
 of the last seven centuries before the Christian era. The reign of Ochus 
 forms only a fragment of the two and a fourth centuries of Persian suprem- 
 acy. But to be fully understood it must be viewed in its connection with 
 the whole. It is for this reason that the history of Persia and the more 
 immediate contemporary history are treated more fully than would other- 
 wise be consistent ^vith the subject. 
 
 In chap, i the aim is simply to give a brief summary of the accepted 
 history of the period, while in chap, ii and in chap, iii both the sources and 
 
 the literature have been consulted. 
 
 N. C. H. 
 Bern 
 June, 1907. 
 
 19100G 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 PAOB 
 
 Preface iii 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 I. A Historical Survey i 
 
 A. Literature 
 
 B. From Achaemenes to Cyrus 
 
 C. Persian and Contemporary History 
 
 II. The History of Ochus and His Reign 21 
 
 A. The Historical Sources 
 
 B. Literature 
 
 C. The Empire of Ochus 
 
 D. The Events of the Reign of Ochus 
 
 E. The Work and Character of Ochus 
 
 III. An Examination of the Old Testament Sources Pos- 
 sibly Dating from the Reign of Ochus or Reflecting 
 Light Thereon 46 
 
 A. The Sources 
 
 B. The Literature 
 
 C. Examination of the Sources 
 
 D. Summary Result 
 
 Appendix: Chronological Tables 83 
 

 -«-■■■.■ 
 
 or THE 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 
 A HISTORICAL SURVEY. ACHAEMENES TO CYRUS. PERSIAN 
 AND CONTEMPORARY HISTORY 550-331 B. C. 
 
 A. LITERATURE 
 
 Geo. Grote History of Greece, 1854''. Geo. Rawlinson History 
 of Herodotus I-IV, 1875. F. Justi Geschiclite des alien Persiens, 1879. 
 F. Spiegel Die alt-persischen Keilinschriften, I88I^ A.Wiedemann 
 Aegyptische Geschichte II, 1884. Th. Noldeke Aufsdtze zur per- 
 sischen Geschichte, 1887, the best treatment of the subject; the same 
 appeared in a less complete form in Enc. Brit. Article "Persia," 
 1875. E. Meyer Die Entstehung des Judentums, 1896. E. Meyer 
 Geschichte des Altertums I-V, 1884, 1893, 1901, 1901, 1902. C. P. 
 Tiele, Article "Persia" in E. B. Ill, 1902. E. Schradcr Die Keilin- 
 schriften und das Alte Testament, 1883% 3. Auflagc neubearbeitet 
 von H. Zimmern und H. Winckler, 1903. 
 
 Of the Greek and Latin Sources the following contain valuable 
 information: Herodotus, ca. 555-ca. 424. Xenophon, ca. 430- 
 ca. 354. Ktesias, between 500 and 400. Isocrates, 436-338. Ephoros 
 Cumae, born ca. 408. Demosthenes, 385-322. Strabo, bom 
 ca. 63. Diodorus Siculus, between 49 b. c. and 14 a. d. Josephus, 
 ca. 37 A. D.-ca. 100. Plutarch, ca. 46-ca. 120. Arrian, born ca. 100. 
 C. Julius SoHnus, ca. 230. Eusebius, ca. 265-340. Paulus Orosius, 
 toward the close of the fourth centur}'. Cf. the sources under chap. ii. 
 
 B. FROM ACHAEMENES TO CYRUS 
 
 The Achaemenides were a royal family whose ancient home was 
 in the city of Ansan, probably near the later family seat Pas- 
 argadae in Persis, or identical with it. The ancestor of the entire 
 family was Achaemenes (Hakhamanis) who was perhaps not a 
 historical personage, but a heros eponymus. Unhke the early oriental 
 nations the Persians were not Semites but Ar}'ans who belonged to 
 the Indo-European races, as did all the Iranians. To the Aryan 
 
2 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 
 
 race belonged also the Achaemenides.' As early as 730 b. c, Teispis, 
 the first leader, flourished in Ansan. Following him in direct lineage 
 were Cambyses, Cyrus, Teispis II, Cyrus II, and Cambyses II, 
 before the beginning of the Persian empire. 
 
 The history of Persia begins with the downfall of the Median 
 empire. This empire began to rise when the shadows began to fall 
 upon Assyria. About the time when Assurbanipal of Assyria sub- 
 jugated Babylonia, the Median tribes, wishing to cease their quarrels 
 and to unite against a common foe, chose Deioces as their first 
 king. But the real founder of the empire was his successor, Phraortes, 
 647-625. Through him the empire was enlarged. Persia was 
 brought under his power, and afterward, Uttle by little, large portions 
 of Asia. Phraortes himself fell in a campaign against Assyria. 
 Under his son and successor, Cyaxares, 624-585, the empire reached 
 its highest power. Nineveh was besieged, but, by reason of an 
 invasion by the Scythians, Cyaxares was called home. These 
 Scythians, also Aryans, were conquered and afterward joined his 
 army. With the aid of Babylon the siege of Nineveh was renewed, 
 the proud capital taken, 606, and the empire, once the arbitrary ruler 
 of the world, wiped entirely from the earth. Cyaxares was already 
 master of Armenia and Cappadocia when he began the war with 
 Lydia. Five years of fruitless conflict with that rival empire finally 
 resulted in a treaty of peace after the battle of Halys, May 28, 585, 
 a peace effected through Syennesis of Celicia and Nebuchadrezzar 
 of Babylonia as arbiters. 
 
 Under Astyages, the last Median king, 584-550, probably a 
 survivor of the Scythian tribes,^ the empire gradually approached its 
 close. Compared with Assyria before and Persia after, the Median 
 empire was rather insignificant, but it was the first attempt of an 
 Aryan people to found a great and conquering empire. Unable to 
 conquer Lydia and obliged to recognize the mighty power of Nabopo- 
 lassar, it nevertheless gave the death blow to Assyria. It liberated 
 Irin 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. 
 
 I Behistun Inscription i. ii. 
 
 a According to Justi, Astyages was a son of Cyaxares Gesch. des alien Persiens 13. 
 
HISTORICAL SURVEY 
 
 C. PERSIAN AND CONTEMPORARY HISTORY, 550-331 B. C 
 
 The Persians under Cyrus (KQrus), king of Ansan, revolted against 
 Astyages, who is said to have been an extravagant and fierce ruler, so 
 that his own subjects rejoiced over the rise of Cyrus. One of his 
 own officials, Harpagus, betrayed him into the hands of Cyrus. When 
 Astyages 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 Persia nine years before the beginning of the empire. Now he 
 became "the great king" of a new empire, 550-529.* His first effort 
 was to subdue the lands which had belonged to the Median empire. 
 This he accomplished in three years. The next step was to conquer 
 the powerful and wealthy king Croesus of Lydia, who ruled over 
 nearly the whole western half of Asia Minor. Croesus sought the 
 help of Greece, Egypt, and Babylonia. The Delphic oracle gave a 
 favorable reply. Croesus decided to postpone the attack on the 
 advancing Persians until spring. This was his mistake, for already, 
 in the winter, Cyrus proceeded into Lydia and speedily took Sardis, 
 the capital. Croesus was spared, but the Lydian empire had become 
 a Persian province, 547-546. The Lydians made no attempt ever 
 afterward to shake off the Persian yoke. The Greek cities of western 
 Asia Minor were soon brought into subjection through Harpagus 
 and other Persian leaders. 
 
 Babylonia anticipated danger in case the balance of power between 
 the East and the West should be broken. Consequently Nebuchad- 
 rezzar built great fortifications, a double wall around the city and the 
 Median wall from the Tigris to the Euphrates, besides numerous 
 canals. This made Babylon secure under Nebuchadrezzar, but 
 his successors were not his equals in power. The last of the kings, 
 Nabunaid, 559-539, brought the ill-will of his subjects upon himself 
 through the neglect of the worship of Marduk and the introduction 
 of foreign gods. Cyrus was still without the true capital of Asia, 
 Babylon, on which his eye was fixed. He could not think of breaking 
 through the fortifications on the north, so he approached on the side 
 of the Tigris. The Babylonian army, under the command of Bel- 
 
 I Cf. Noldeke Aufsdlze zur persischen Geschichte 14-85. 
 
 * For the dates of the Persian rulers Noldeke op. cit. is followed. 
 
4 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 
 
 shazzar (Bel-sar-usur) met Cyrus but was defeated near Opis, and 
 again as often as it rallied. The north Babylonians had revolted 
 against their king and Sippar opened its gates to the enemy. Babylon 
 fell into the hands of Cyrus without resistance in 538. The new 
 king entered the city to the great joy of all classes, but was especially 
 welcomed by the priesthood and the nobles who looked upon him 
 as a Hberator. Belshazzar was probably slain by Gobryas' the 
 governor of Gutium, and Nabunaid was taken captive. All the 
 territory subject to Babylonia seems to have submitted to the rule 
 of the Persians without resistance. 
 
 Syria also, as far as the borders of Eg}'pt, and Phoenicia, with all 
 her island cities, came without opposition under the Persian dominion. 
 The Semitic world had become an Aryan empire. A final work 
 remained for Cyrus. Wliile Harpagus was subduing the Greek 
 cities and free states and coast-lands, Cyrus himself compelled the 
 settled Aryan tribes of the East, and the nomadic tribes of the North- 
 east to recognize the new empire. The Persian dominion now ex- 
 tended from the Indus to the blue waters of the Aegean. In a battle 
 with a savage tribe of the northeast, probably the Massagatae, Cyrus 
 met his death in 529. His body was probably rescued and brought 
 to Pasargadae, where a tomb erected by his son Cambyses marks his 
 burial-place. It is possible, however, that this is not his actual 
 burial-place, but merely a mausoleum erected in his honor, in the 
 great king's favorite capital. 
 
 The captive Jews in Babylonia had placed great hopes in Cyrus 
 for their future liberation. Through him their God Jahwe would set 
 them free, punish their oppressors, and restore Jerusalem. This 
 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 reahzed at once. On the cylinder 
 (11. 30 f.) Cyrus says that he returned to their homes the gods of a 
 great many towns, brought together the inhabitants, and restored 
 both temple and dwelling-places. Whether this extended beyond 
 the immediate neighborhood of Babylon may rightly be questioned. 
 Of the Jews " comparatively few availed themselves of this permission, 
 but these few formed the starting-point of a development which has 
 
 I Annals, 3.22 f. ' Isa., chaps. 40-55. 
 
HISTORICAL SURVEY 5 
 
 been of infinite importance for the history of the world.'" Yet "the 
 importance of Cyrus for Israel lies less in anything he actually did 
 than in the great expectations which he excited, expectations which 
 in their turn exercised a great influence on the ideas ultimately formed 
 by the Jews as to the earher stages of their restoration after the mis- 
 fortunes of the exile."^ 
 
 In his personality C>tus is amiable both in history and in legend. 
 He is the simple leader and king, tolerant in his dealings with his 
 subjects, and mild in his government of the empire, granting Ms 
 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 
 treasures of Ecbatana, Sardis, and Babylon became the property of 
 the king and not of the empire. The great contribution of C}tus to 
 his time was the laying of a foundation for a better empire in that 
 he broke with the hated Assyro-Babylonian system of rigid and 
 arbitrary rule. It was left to his successors to establish the empire 
 on this broad foundation. 
 
 Cyrus left two sons, Bardiya and Cambyses, whose mother was 
 Kassandana, also of Achaemenian descent. Cambyses (Kambudsija) 
 succeeded his father on the throne, 529-522. 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 
 time occurred the death of Amasis, and his successor on the throne 
 was the weak king Psammetich III. This was Persia's opportunity 
 and Cambyses seized it. He spent the first four years of his reign in 
 preparation for an expedition against Egypt. Before leaving Persia 
 he secretly killed his brother Bardiya in order to avoid a revolt at 
 home during his absence. The Greeks of Asia Minor, the Cyprians, 
 and the Phoenicians furnished a large fleet under the command of 
 Phanes and Halicarnassus formerly in the service of the Egyptians. 
 Cambyses at the head of an army, after a single battle at Pclusium, 
 entered Egypt in the spring of 525, and soon was lord of the whole 
 country from Memphis to Kush. The neighboring Libyans and the 
 Greek cities of Cyrene and Barca readily submitted. Even the 
 Soudan and parts of Kush were added to the conquered territory. 
 
 I Noldeke op. cit. 23. * C. P. Tide Art. "Cyrus" in E. B. I. 982. 
 
6 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 
 
 Cambyses appears to have been moody and hateful in impassioned 
 moments. His action in Egypt was, to say the least, unwise and 
 impolitic. He burned the mummy of the late king Amasis, and with 
 his own hand inflicted a mortal wound on the sacred Apis at Memphis. 
 Consequently he was unpopular in Egypt as well as at home. Sud- 
 denly the news of a rebellion at home spread through the empire. 
 Gaumata (pseudo-Smerdis) pretended to be the king's brother 
 Bardiya and made claims to the throne. The people, displeased 
 with the long absence of Cambyses, were the more ready to accept 
 the pretender. Cambyses was on his return when he learned of the 
 terrible insurrection. At Hamath, in northern Syria, he put an end 
 to his Hfe in 522. Gaumata was accepted by the people, but not by 
 the leading families who knew him to be an impostor. 
 
 Hystaspis, the father of Darius, was the real heir to the throne, 
 but he lacked courage to rise against the pseudo-Smerdis. A con- 
 spiracy of seven representative men of illustrious families was formed 
 to murder the impostor. Darius was undoubtedly the leader of this 
 heptad from the beginning. The conspiracy was completely suc- 
 cessful. Guamata was slain in a fortress near Ecbatana and Darius 
 (Daryavaus) I became king of the Persian empire, 521-485. It only 
 remained for him to find recognition among the Persian people who 
 had accepted Gaumata. He married Attossa, daughter of Cyrus, who 
 had already been married to her brother Cambyses and to the pseudo- 
 Smerdis. This alone brought him favor with the people. He also 
 restored the temple which Gaumata had destroyed and set aright 
 everything else the impostor had altered. 
 
 All over the empire there were rebellions which had to be quelled. 
 Western Asia alone remained quiet. First the rebellion in Lydia 
 was quieted and then that in Babylonia where Nebuchadrezzar, a 
 descendant of Nabunaid, had arisen to claim the throne. Even in 
 Persia another pseudo-Smerdis appeared in the absence of Darius. 
 In Media Phraortes, a real or a pretending descendant of the old 
 Median royalty, became king and was recognized by the Parthians 
 and Hyrkanians. In Susiana Imani arose as king. Another Nebuch- 
 adrezzar arose in Babylonia. The ruling power of Darius, his great 
 energy and circumspect enabled him speedily to conquer all these 
 difficulties. As early as 519 all these insurrections were suppressed 
 
HISTORICAL SURVEY 7 
 
 SO that they were not to be feared again during his reign. Darius 
 commemorated this event by an inscription in word and picture in 
 the stone cliff at Behistun. 
 
 Darius was now free to devote his efforts to the inner estabHsh- 
 ment of the empire. In this work he manifested his true greatness 
 and rendered his chief service to the world. Darius was not so great 
 a general as Cyrus, but he was a greater king. He was the first 
 statesman of Asia. The rulers of the older empires, Assyria and 
 Chaldaea, were unlimited despots, gods upon the earth.' Darius 
 was the most remarkable king of the dynasty of all the native kings 
 of Ir^n, as energetic as he was prudent.^ He set the standard for the 
 empire until the days of Alexander the Great. He delegated power 
 to governors and satraps who were free almost like kings, but he kept 
 the reins in the hands of the central power. To further the organiza- 
 tion he constructed a network of highways and instituted a regular 
 system of posts. In this way the king could have his "eyes" and 
 "ears," i. e., his royal commissioners and his royal secretaries, in each 
 of the twenty provinces, into which the empire was divided. He 
 substituted a new and better system of coinage for that of the Lydians, 
 and established a regular system of taxes to the great benefit of the 
 state. Such a centralized government was excellent as long as there 
 was a strong and energetic man at the center. As soon as this was 
 missing it gave equally great opportunity for satraps and governors 
 to rise as kings. Political organization in Asia reached its greatest 
 height under Darius. It was the most satisfactory ever devised by 
 Orientals. 
 
 Along with the poHtical development followed the religious. 
 Zoroastrianism^ had already found favorable conditions for spreading 
 over Persia during the liberal reign of Cyrus. The tolerance of 
 Darius granting to all freedom of language, customs, and religion, 
 was especially favorable for its spread and development. It is not 
 a mere accident that during this statesman's reign the Jewish com- 
 munity at Jerusalem revived again, partly indeed through the in- 
 spiration furnished by returned exiles, but more largely through the 
 energy of the people of Palestine roused up through the prophets 
 
 1 justi op. cit. 56. 3 K. Geldner Art. "Zoroastrianism" in E. B. IV. § 6. 
 
 2 Noldeke op. cit. 41. 
 
8 ARTAXERXES UI OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 
 
 Haggai and Zechariah, which resulted in the rebuilding of the temple, 
 519-516.' 
 
 An organized empire with such a system of government, paralleled 
 by its religious development, was capable of still greater expansion. 
 Cyrus had conquered Lydia and Babylonia. Cambyses added 
 Eg}'pt. Darius organized the whole into one vast empire. But 
 this was not enough. He had desires to follow the example of his 
 predecessors. India, though probably only a portion of the region of 
 the Indus, is mentioned in the inscriptions of the palace of PersepoUs 
 and in the epitaph of Darius, but not in the Behistun inscription. 
 From this it may be inferred that Darius added a portion of India 
 to his empire. 
 
 An expedition against the Scythians proved altogether unsuccess- 
 ful, not because of their superiority over the Persians, but on account 
 of physical conditions of the country with which Darius did not 
 reckon sufficiently. Before setting out from Susa with an army 
 of 700,000 men towards the Bosporus, Darius sent Ariamnes, satrap 
 of Cappadocia, with a fleet of thirty ships, to sail to the Scythian 
 coast to capture some of the Scythians. The Ionian Greeks were 
 called upon to furnish a fleet of 600 ships. 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 which 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 
 a menace to it. This nation was Greece. Before continuing the 
 history of Persia we must turn aside a little and take a glance at this 
 rising world power, and see how through it the history of Persia was 
 modified. 
 
 A thousand years and more before Persia was known as a separate 
 nation there were civilizations of a high order on the borders of the 
 Aegean. Troy and Mycenae had already been succeeded by later 
 civilizations. From the northern and more backward parts of the 
 peninsula came Dorian migrations and supplanted in some parts, 
 
 > Hag., chaps, i, 2, Zech., chaps. 1-8. A later largely traditional account of 
 the restoration is found in Ezra-Neh. 
 
HISTORICAL SURVEY 9 
 
 but in others supplemented the earher peoples. There were two 
 particular Hnes of development on the peninsula, one the Dorian, 
 with its center at Sparta, the other the Ionian, with its center at Athens. 
 No sooner were these centers formed than began the expansion and 
 colonization in the neighboring states of Greece, the islands of the 
 Aegean, and the coast of Asia Minor, where twelve cities were founded 
 of which Miletus was the most important. This whole district took 
 the name of Ionia. The process of colonization continued to the 
 islands and borders of the Mediterranean, and through the Bosporus 
 to the shores of the Euxine. At the centers kings made room for 
 oligarchies, and these in turn were overthrown by tyrants, who 
 finally gave place to democracies. In military and i)olitical organiza- 
 tion Sparta excelled. In Athens, on the other hand, art and literature, 
 science and philosophy reached their fullest expression, particularly 
 under the favorable conditions during the prosperous reign of 
 Lycurgus. 
 
 It was not till about the year 500 that the Greek and oriental 
 civilizations came into close touch with each other, and it is here 
 where the interest of Persian history in Greece begins. Persia was 
 at this time a mighty organized empire, while Greece consisted of a 
 large number of disunited cities and small states. In this Hellenic 
 world there were three centers: Greece, the Asiatic coast, and Sicily. 
 To the close of the sixth century the Ionian Greeks of Asia Minor 
 excelled the others in culture. As early as 560, when Croesus became 
 king of Lydia, they were subdued by that monarch. When Cyrus 
 conquered Lydia in 547 the Greek cities, after some resistance, became 
 a part of the empire and so lost their leadership among the Greeks. 
 In the year 500, possessed by a love of liberty, these lonians revolted 
 against Persia. Reinforced by ships from Athens and Eretria they 
 made an attack upon Sardis. The city was taken but the citadel 
 withstood the attack. The Greeks were driven back and defeated at 
 Ephesus. The Persians now came with a great fleet to Cyprus, which 
 had joined the lonians. The Persians were met and defeated by the 
 lonians at sea off Salamis in Cyprus, but beat them in turn on land. 
 Cyprus, after being free only one year, came under Persian power 
 again. A decisive struggle was concentrated about Miletus, up to 
 that time by far the most important of all the Greek cities in Asia. A 
 
lO ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 
 
 complete overthrow was the result after a long defense on land and 
 on sea. 
 
 Immediately after the Ionian revolt Darius began vast prepara- 
 tions for the invasion of Greece. A great army under Mardonius, 
 the king's son-in-law, was gathered at the Hellespont. A large fleet 
 was equipped to accompany the arniy with supplies. In 492 the 
 army set out but suffered constant attacks by savage Thracian tribes, 
 and the fleet was dashed to pieces by a storm near the rocky prom- 
 ontory off Mount Athos. As a result Mardonius was forced to 
 retreat into Asia. Two years later a second expedition was made 
 against Greece and on a larger scale. The command was entrusted 
 to the Median Datis and the younger Artaphernes. They set out 
 in the spring of 490 direct from Euboea. Naxos was taken and 
 Eretria destroyed. The Athenians and Plataeans, under Miltiades, 
 met the Persians at Marathon and utterly defeated them. This was 
 the first great victory over the Persians in the open field. By this 
 victory Athens rendered immortal service to Europe and the cause 
 of civihzation. For the Greeks themselves the victory proved an 
 inspiration for later daring enterprise. Darius ordered preparations 
 for a new expedition to wipe out the disgrace of Marathon, but did 
 not live to carry out his plans. 
 
 In Egypt Darius promoted material well-being. By building 
 a canal from the Nile to the Red Sea he increased facilities for com 
 merce. He had early offered a reward for the finding of a new Apis 
 to take the place of the one killed by Cambyses. This won him the 
 favor of his subjects. The new Apis lived till the thirty-first year 
 of Darius. The prudent rule of the Persian king gave him a place 
 among six great lawgivers in the legal code of the Egyptians.' But 
 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. 
 
 After the death of Darius his son Xerxes (Chsaj^s^) I, through 
 the influence of his mother Atossa, the daughter of Cyrus, succeeded 
 him on the throne, 485-464. He was in all points inferior to Darius. 
 With him begins a scries of weak and unworthy kings, and a conse- 
 quent decline of the empire held together only by the solid foundation 
 which Darius had given it. Unfortunately the sources for the Persian 
 
 • Justi op. oil. 55. 
 
HISTORICAL SURVEY II 
 
 history after Darius are few. The inscriptions are fewer than before 
 and give less of the events of the reigns of kings. Herodotus closes 
 his account with the battle of Plataea, so that we are thrown back 
 upon the fragmentary accounts especially of Greek writers. "What 
 we gather from classic writers as to the affairs of the Persian court 
 is a sad history of alternate weakness and cruelty, corruption, murders, 
 intrigues and broken faith,"' 
 
 Xerxes suppressed the revolt of Egypt which had broken out during 
 the last years of his father Darius, and laid a much harder yoke 
 upon them. The king's own brother Achacmcncs became satrap 
 of the country. In Babylon the Persian satrap Zopyrus was mur- 
 dered, but his son Megabyzus suppressed the revolt. 
 
 The most important undertaking of Xerxes was the conquest of 
 Greece. Darius had resolved to wipe out the stain of Marathon, 
 but was kept from it through frequent revolts in the empire and his 
 death. Xerxes now decided to carry out his predecessor's resolve. 
 Extensive preparations were made and the king himself set out to 
 Sardis, the first rendezvous. Supphes were collected and the Helles- 
 pont bridged. In the spring of 480 Xerxes, with an army of at least 
 a milhon soldiers, besides attendants, and accompanied by a fleet of 
 1,200 ships, set out on the expedition. Greece was forced into hurried 
 preparation and a greater unity than before existed among the 
 different states. The one great change in Greece since the victory 
 of Marathon that was against Xerxes was the building of a great 
 fleet through the efforts of Themistocles. Athens had become, during 
 the last few years, the greatest naval power in Hellas. Xerxes entered 
 Greece without a blow. The Thessalian cities joined the invaders 
 with their powerful cavalry. The Greeks decided to make a stand 
 at Thermopylae, but in vain, for the Persian army forced their way, 
 after a three days' battle over the dead bodies of Leonidas and his 
 faithful three hundred. At Pclusium four hundred Persian ships 
 were wrecked in a storm and the rest were checked by the Greeks 
 in a sternly contested conflict. Xerxes now advanced on Athens and 
 was joined by nearly all the states of central Greece. The city was 
 abandoned and the Athenians took refuge on their fleet. Themisto- 
 cles, delaying the retreat of the fleet at Salamis, sent a treacherous 
 
 I C. P. Tide Art. "Persia" in E. B. III. 3,674. 
 
12 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 
 
 message to Xerxes pretending friendship, notifying him of the weak- 
 ness and dissension of the Greeks. Xerxes accepted the treacherous 
 advice to block the straits in order to prevent their escape. The only 
 thing to do now was to fight. The Persian fleet more than doubled 
 the Greek which consisted of 378 ships. A conflict lasting from 
 dawn till night resulted in an overwhelming victory for the Greeks. 
 
 Xerxes, boastfully and vaingloriously watching the struggle from 
 the shore, now cowardly and efi'eminately resolved to return to Asia in- 
 stead of pressing farther inland. He left the land-forces under 
 Mardonius who withdrew to Thessaly to spend the winter. Athens 
 was burned a second time and Attica laid waste. The next spring 
 the final contest was fought near Plataea, 479, where the Persian 
 army of nearly 300,000 was almost completely destroyed by the 
 Greek force of about one-third that number. This was the turning- 
 point of Persian history. The Persians were thrown back on the 
 defensive. The defeat was so complete that no hostile Persian dared 
 ever set foot on European Greece again. Oriental centrahzed 
 despotism was crushed by the rising freedom and repubhcan indi- 
 vidualism. The fall of Persia resulted in the ripening of Greek art 
 and thought. 
 
 Xerxes retreated into the depths of Asia. The Greeks, invited 
 by the Greek islanders, crossed over to the Asiatic coast and at Mycale, 
 near Miletus, the rest of the Persian fleet was annihilated. All the 
 islands of the Aegean were permanently wrested from the Persians 
 and the hberation of the Asiatic coast was begun. This defeat in 
 Greece worked disadvantageously in the empire at home. In the 
 very heart of the empire, as well as in the distant frontier, tribes were 
 regaining their independence. More dangerous for the empire was 
 the confidence the victory of the Greeks put into their minds to turn 
 the spear and to enter into the enemy's own home. It was left for 
 Alexander the Great to do this. Xerxes was assassinated by Arta- 
 banus, captain of the body-guard. His younger brother Artaxerxes, 
 in league with the murderer, put to death his older brother Darius, 
 who had a better title to the throne. Artabanus was soon afterwards 
 put out of the way by Artaxerxes,' who thereby made himself secure 
 for the throne. 
 
 I C£. Jusli op. cil. 126 for another view. 
 
HISTORICAL SURVEY I3 
 
 Artaxerxes (Artachsathra) I, sumamcd Longimanus {MaKpox^ip) 
 by the Greeks, became king in his father's stead, 464-424. Im- 
 mediately after his accession he had to quiet the revolt of the Bactrians 
 which may have been instigated by the king's older brother Hystaspis, 
 then satrap of Bactria. After two battles they were brought to 
 subjection. 
 
 In Egypt a second revolt broke out, this time through Inarus, son 
 of Psammetich, a Libyan prince who was proclaimed king over all 
 Egypt. He had stirred up a revolt against the satrap Achaemenes 
 who fell in battle. Inarus summoned aid from Athens. The Per- 
 sians in turn sought help from Sparta but failed. The Persians then 
 dispatched a large army from Syria, under Mcgabyzus, who was at 
 that time satrap of Syria. After hard fighting the Athenians in Egypt 
 were wiped out, and Inarus was captured and crucified. Upon this fol- 
 lowed a treaty of peace between Persia and Athens. The Persians 
 agreed to send no ships of war into Greek waters and the Athenians 
 in turn renounced all rights in the eastern seas. 
 
 Meanwhile the jealousy between Athens and Sparta increased and 
 resulted in the Peloponnesian war, 431-404. By reason of this war 
 Persia was secure from her greatest foe, Athens. During the early 
 years of war there was repeated communication between Sparta and 
 Persia. The Spartans wanted the assistance of Persia in tlie war, 
 but were not skilful in obtaining it, and the Persians were too ignorant 
 and selfish to grant it. Athens also sought help from Persia but 
 naturally in vain. 
 
 Artaxerxes was not a bad but a weak man, governed by courtiers 
 and women. His mother Amestris and her daughter Amytes, wife of 
 Megabyzus, both cruel and dissolute women, exercised a controlling 
 influence on him. He rendered his chief service to the empire in 
 replenishing the finances which were exhausted during the wars of 
 Xerxes, and in restoring order throughout his empire. 
 
 Within his reign fall the activity of the prophet Malachi, the 
 rebuilding of the wall through the efforts of Nehemiah, and the 
 introduction of the law through Ezra. The memoirs of Nehemiah 
 and of Ezra are compositions that were written at this time. Signifi- 
 cant is the quarrel of Megabyzus, satrap of S>Tia, with the Persian 
 court, a quarrel which lasted several years and was brought to a close 
 
14 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 
 
 only after a severe conflict. In the treaty of peace Megabyzus was 
 granted full pardon. "It is not improbable that this war was the 
 occasion of the destruction of the walls and gates of Jerusalem 
 lamented by Nehemiah.'" 
 
 After the long reign of Artaxerxes followed two sudden changes 
 on the throne. The only one of his eighteen sons eligible, Xerxes II, 
 the son of Damaspia, was murdered hy his half-brother Sogdianus, 
 the son of the Babylonian Alogune, forty-five days after his accession. 
 He in turn was overthrown by his brother Ochus, satrap of Hyrkania, 
 after a reign of six and a half months, and in violation of solemn oaths 
 was put to death. Ochus assumed the name of Darius II, 423-404. 
 The Greeks called him Nothus (Bastard). He left the supreme power 
 in the hands of his sister and consort Par}^satis, the prompter of all 
 his acts and all his crimes. The empire in the hands of a weak ruler 
 became the scene of uncontrollable rebelhons. In Syria and in Asia 
 Minor there were repeated revolts. Soon after 410 Egypt was lost 
 to the Persians for a period of over sixty years. The throne of 
 Phraortes was again estabhshed with Amyrtaeus as the first inde- 
 pendent king. For all this time the Persians were unable to reduce 
 the unwarlike Egyptians, a fact which shows the weakness of the 
 Persians rather than the strength of the Egyptians who were fre- 
 quently divided by internal strife. 
 
 In Greece the Peloponnesian war was hastened to a close by a 
 dreadful catastrophe in Sicily, where two hundred perfectly equipped 
 ships and over 4,000 men were pitilessly sacrificed through the miser- 
 able generalship of their leader Micias in 413. This gave the Persians 
 hope to regain the seacoast. At once their satraps, both the untrust- 
 worthy Tissaphernes of Sardis and his rival, Pharnabazus of Helles- 
 pontine Phrygia, appeared upon the coast of the Aegean. The 
 Spartans sought the aid of the Persians and offered to betray the 
 Asiatic Greeks into their hands. The aid thus received enabled 
 Sparta to carr\' on the war with Athens, a war which was hastening 
 to a close. Cyrus, the younger son of Darius II, was made satrap 
 of Lydia, Phrygia, and Cappadocia, and commander-in-chief of all 
 the troops in Asia Minor, while the treacherous Tissaphernes retained 
 only the seacoast. Cyrus had a burning desire to avenge the defeats 
 
 > Noldeke op. cil. 56. 
 
HISTORICAL SURVEY I5 
 
 the Persians suffered from the Athenians. Hence he sought to ally 
 himself closely with Sparta. Just at this time the command fell to 
 the energetic unscrupulous Lysandcr. These two men were the 
 ruin of Athens. Cyrus furnished the gold, Lysander did the work. 
 In 405 her last fleet was captured at Aegospotami. Lysandcr in cold 
 blood put to death the 4,000 Athenian citizens among the captives. 
 In the following year the proud city surrendered to the mercy of her 
 enemies and promised to follow Sparta in peace and war. The fall 
 of Athens was at the same time the beginning of the fall of Hellas. 
 
 About the time of the peace between Athens and Sparta, Darius 
 II died. His older son, Arsicas, ascended the throne as Artaxerxes 
 II, later known as Mnemon (Thinker), 404-358. The younger son, 
 Cyrus, was the abler and more powerful, far more worthy of the throne 
 than his brother, and at the same time the favorite of his mother 
 Parysatis. When Darius II was upon his death-bed Cyrus was 
 summoned to his side, yet Artaxerxes was made king. Cyrus after- 
 ward made an attempt to seize the throne, but too late. He was 
 arrested, and only at the request of Parysatis was he released and 
 sent back to his satrapy. Within himself he was resolved to occupy 
 his father's throne. He collected under false pretext an army of 
 over 10,000 Greeks and 100,000 Persians, and in 401 set out in 
 face of the greatest difficulties with the purpose of seizing the throne. 
 His effort was a failure and he was slain in the battle of Cunaxa 
 near Babylon. The leaders of his army perished through cruel and 
 cowardly treachery. The 10,000 Greeks chose new generals and 
 retreated through wild and mountainous regions to the Greek dis- 
 tricts on the Euxine, suff'ering untold hardships both from the severe 
 cUmate and the barbarous people.' The expedition revealed to the 
 Greeks the weakness of the Persian empire, the cowardice of its 
 rulers, and the great tracts of land regarded as royal territor}-^ but 
 which were altogether independent. All this was remembered till 
 the days of Alexander. 
 
 Sparta had rendered assistance to Cyrus and thus incurred the 
 hatred of Persia. Agesilaus was burning with the ambition of freeing 
 the Asiatic Greeks who, a Uttle before, had been abandoned to Persia. 
 This resulted in war between Sparta and Persia. In 396 Agesilaus 
 
 I Xen. Anabasis i-vii. 
 
l6 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 
 
 invaded Asia Minor with a large army. This in turn raised new 
 enemies for Sparta in Greece, particularly Thebes and Corinth, who 
 did not share equally in the Spartan gains in the victory over Athens. 
 These cities now joined Athens and Argos against Sparta and Persia, 
 who supphed the aUies with gold. Agesilaus was recalled in 394. 
 When he reached the frontier of Boeotia he heard the dread tidings 
 that Conon, in command of a Phoenician fleet, had completely des- 
 troyed the Spartan naval power at Cnidus. With this the Spartan 
 authority in the Aegean vanished at once. Their sovereignty over 
 the seas, after lasting ten years, was forever gone. Athens was again 
 raised to the place of one of the great powers, and Sparta fell back 
 into her former position of one state among many. 
 
 After a few more years of indecisive war, Sparta sought peace with 
 Persia. In 387 the two powers invited all the Greek states through 
 their ambassadors, Antalcidas and Teribazus, to send deputies to 
 Sardis, where the Persian king dictated the term of peace as follows: 
 
 King Artaxerxes deems it just that the cities in Asia, with the islands of 
 Clazomenaj and Cyprus, should belong to himself; the rest of the Hellenic cities, 
 both great and small, he will leave independent, save Lemnos, Imbros, and 
 Scyros, which three are to belong to Athens as of yore. Should any of the parties 
 not accept this peace, I, Artaxerxes, together with those who share my views 
 (the Spartans), will war against the offenders by land and sea.' 
 
 This peace was a great gain to the Spartans, for they gave up 
 nothing which they still possessed, and gained a greater power over 
 the mainland than they had before, since Greece was divided into 
 many petty httle states. The only gain to Persia was a firm hold on 
 the seacoast. It was known that the Persian empire was now much 
 weaker than when peace was concluded with Athens and that it was 
 now only maintained by Greek mercenaries. Sixteen years later, 
 at the battle of Leuctra, 371, Sparta was overthrown and Thebes rose 
 to supremacy under Phihp of Macedon, to fall again at his death. 
 
 Another enemy rose up against Persia in the west. Euagoras of 
 Salamis had become the almost independent lord of Cyprus. Athens 
 was obhged to support him for the services of Conon in her behalf 
 against Sparta. Although formally leagued with Persia against 
 Sparta, Persia made great efforts to reduce him to subjection, but 
 
 » Xen. Hellenica v. i. 
 
HISTORICAL SURVEY 
 
 17 
 
 did not succeed for ten years and then only in part. Euagoras was 
 murdered but his descendants continued to be princes of Cyprian 
 towns. 
 
 On the borders of the Caspian Sea the Kadusians, who perhaps 
 were never completely subdued, kept annoying the king's territory. 
 Artaxerxes made a disastrous campaign against them from which 
 he escaped with his life only with great difficulty. There was re- 
 peated warring with Egypt also without accomplishing anything. 
 The last part of the reign of Artaxerxes II was filled with revolts of 
 the satraps of Asia Minor, which must have weakened the imperial 
 power immensely in the western provinces and certainly prepared 
 the way for Macedonia. 
 
 In Egypt Tachos now occupied the throne. In 361 he actually 
 assumed the offensive against Persia. The Spartans sent them aid, 
 for they were bitterly enraged against Persia on account of her recog- 
 nition of the independence of Messinia. But when Tachos was 
 engaged in Phoenicia his nephew Nectanebus set himself up as rival 
 king. This obliged Tachos to take refuge with the Persians. This 
 would have been an excellent opportunity for the Persians to subdue 
 Egypt again but they made no effort in that direction. 
 ^ Artaxerxes II was a mild and friendly monarch, but a man without 
 energy. He suffered many misfortunes which a man of greater 
 strength could have prevented. "The contempt for his brother 
 which Cyrus exhibited was perfectly justified: under the effeminate 
 king the empire gradually fell to pieces.'" Not the energy of Artaxer- 
 xes but the dissensions among his enemies kept the empire from the 
 fate which awaited it some twenty years later. With the exception 
 of Egypt the empire remained, in name at least, the Persian empire. 
 After having reigned forty-five or forty-six years Artaxerxes died. 
 His oldest son Darius had been declared by his father as his successor. 
 But before his father's death Darius incurred his ill-will. Atossa, 
 wife as well as daughter of Artaxerxes, espoused the interests of 
 Ochus, a younger son. Darius, through the discontented courtier 
 Teribazus, plotted to assassinate his father. He failed in his attempt 
 and both he and Teribazus were put to death. This improved the 
 chances of Ochus, but there were still two older brothers in the way, 
 
 I Noldeke op. cit. 75. 
 
l8 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 
 
 Arsanes and Ariaspes. Both of these Ochus had removed, one by- 
 treacherous poisoning, the other by assassination, so that he now 
 stood next in order. 
 
 After Artaxerxes II died, Ochus (Vakuka) became king under the 
 name of Artaxerxes III, 358-338. As king he manifested the same 
 sanguinary dispositions as those by which he placed himself on the 
 throne. At the very beginning of his reign he massacred a number 
 of his nearest relatives, among them his two younger brothers and 
 his sister Ocha, in order to secure himself on the throne. Such 
 executions were common to oriental despots. Even Alexander the 
 Great put several near relatives to death after ascending the throne. 
 For a while the whole empire seemed to be in a state of dissolution. 
 A century and a quarter had passed since the days of Darius I, 
 and this was a period of gradual weakening and decay of the empire. 
 The heritage of Ochus was anything but desirable. Artabazus, 
 satrap of Hellespontine Phrygia, deserted to the court of Philip of 
 Macedonia, and with him the Rhodian Memnon, his brother-in-law. 
 Orontes also became an enemy of the king and entered into alli- 
 ance with the Athenians. In Egypt the war continued. Phoenicia, 
 previously so trustworthy, also revolted, and with it Cyprus. Judea 
 likewise was rebellious against Persia. It required all the energy 
 of the cruel king to bring these revolting countries into subjection 
 again. In this task, however, he proved himself efficient. 
 
 After the battle at Leuctra, 371, Thebes was at the head of Greece. 
 This lasted for a short time only, for on the north a new nation was 
 forming itself which was destined by reason of its able kings to rise 
 to that primacy for which Sparta, Athens, and Thebes in turn had 
 vainly striven. A consolidated monarchy came into conflict with 
 divided and mutually jealous states. This country was Macedonia, 
 with the ambitious and powerful Philip II at its head. Demosthenes 
 tried in vain to stir up Greece against the inroads of Philip. The 
 monarch invaded Greece with a powerful army, and both Athens and 
 Thebes were crushed at the battle of Chaeronca, 338. This left 
 Philip master of Greece. The history of Hellas was ended. All 
 this was a preparation on a large scale for the final conquest and 
 overthrow of Persia through the son and successor of Philip, only 
 a few years later. 
 
HISTORICAL SURVEY 19 
 
 It appears that Ochus was keen enough to sec the danger of his 
 empire through PhiHp, and that he entered into negotiations with 
 Athens and rendered her assistance. There are evidences also that 
 PhiHp entered into a treaty with Ochus. This may have been in 
 good faith on the part of Persia, but not so with Phihp, who simply 
 wanted time enough to conquer Greece before invading Persia. 
 By his great energy Ochus smothered every revolt and really re- 
 stored for the time the Persian supremacy. He was murdered by 
 Bagoas, an Egyptian eunuch, and his youngest son Arses was placed 
 on the throne.' 
 
 Of the reign of Arses, 338-335, httle is known. In the spring of 
 336 a Macedonian army for the first time crossed over into Asia 
 under the command of Parmenio, but little or nothing was accom- 
 plished, for Parmenio was recalled when in the same year Philip was 
 assassinated. Memnon, in command in Asia Minor, probably soon 
 won back all the Macedonian conquests. When Arses tried to get 
 rid of his patron, Bagoas poisoned him and gave the crown to Darius, 
 the great-grandson of Darius II. 
 >- Darius III, Codomannus, 335-331, was about forty-five years of 
 age when he was placed on the throne. Bagoas 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 
 intention compelled Bagoas to drink the cup. Unlike Ochus, Darius 
 was an incapable despot whom Alexander could easily conquer. He 
 was "a king no better than Xerxes, valiant perhaps in ordinary 
 fights but quickly confused in great emergencies, and in no wise 
 equal to the gigantic task imposed on his weak shoulders."' 
 
 Philip of Macedon was succeeded on the throne by his son Alex- 
 ander, then only twenty years old. He at once showed himself both 
 statesman and general, to the great surprise of his subjects. The 
 revolts all over the empire were quickly suppressed. Thebes was 
 razed to the ground because of revolt. The other cities were fright- 
 ened into submission. Early in the spring of 334 he crossed the 
 Hellespont with 35,000 discipHned troops. He swept everything 
 before him with wonderful rapidity. At the Granicus, a small 
 
 1 For a full treatment of the reign of Ochus vide chap, ii, pp. 26 f. 
 
 2 C. P. Tiele Art. "Persia" in E. B. III. 3,674. 
 
20 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 
 
 Stream in the Troad, the Persians, under the leadership of the satraps 
 of Asia Minor, attempted to check his advance, but their large army 
 was utterly routed. This victory made Alexander master of all 
 Asia Minor. The Rhodian Memnon, at this time at the head of a 
 fleet that ruled the sea, purposed to recall Alexander by carr}'ing 
 war into Greece. Island after island was captured. The Greeks 
 began to look to Memnon to save them from the Macedonian power. 
 But just then Memnon died and his successor, Pharnabazus, was 
 unable to carry out his 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 
 a Persian army of 600,000, led by Darius himself, met liim in 
 November in ;^^T), and was driven back with great loss. Cyprus 
 surrendered to the Macedonians. Egypt hailed Alexander as their 
 dehverer. In the spring of 331, after founding the city that bears 
 his name, Alexander left Egypt and marched through Syria to the 
 northeast. In October of the same year he won the decided victory 
 over the large Persian army, said to have numbered a million soldiers, 
 at Gaugamela. Darius fled for safety to Media. The battle was 
 decisive. The Persian empire was ended, and Alexander was 
 temporary master of the whole east. The march was continued 
 eastward and the capitals of the empire, Babylon, Susiana, Ecbatana, 
 and Persepohs, surrendered with all their enormous treasure. Darius 
 was pursued and finally captured by Bessus, satrap of Bactria, and 
 slain in 330. The last of the Achaemenian great kings had fallen. 
 
 Bessus assumed the title of king as Artaxcrxes IV, not altogether 
 without ground, for he was a relative of Darius. After 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 
 farther. During his absence Baryaxes declared himself king of 
 Media and Persia, 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 
 
 THE HISTORY OF OCHUS AND HIS REIGN, 358-338 
 
 A. THE HISTORICAL SOURCES 
 
 Diodonis Siculus was born in Agyrium in Sicily and lived during 
 the reigns of Caesar and Augustus, 49 b. C.-14 a. d. He wrote a 
 universal history in forty books, called Bi/SXiodi^Ka, a work cover- 
 ing a period of eleven hundred years and extending to the subjugation 
 of Gaul and Britanny through Caesar. He labored forty years at 
 this work, wrote without careful criticism, and often embodied un- 
 digested fragments from his sources. Only Books I-V, the early 
 history of Egypt, Ethiopia, Assyria, and other oriental nations, as well 
 as of Greece, and Books XI-XX, 480-302, are preserved. Of other 
 books fragments remain. For Book XVI, covering the reign of 
 Ochus, he used the history of Ephorus composed in the fourth century, 
 consequently close to or during the reign of Ochus.* 
 
 Flavius Josephus was born in Jerusalem, 37 a. d., and lived till 
 after the death of Agrippa II who died in the third year of Trajan 
 in the year 100. He was a descendant of John Hyrcanus, of priestly 
 family, and a Pharisee. After the war of Titus against Jerusalem 
 Josephus went to Rome where he wrote his four works: (i) Bcllum 
 Judaicum in seven books, relating the history of the siege and fall of 
 Jerusalem under Titus, 66-63; (2) Antiquitates Judaicae in twenty 
 books, telling the history of the Jews from the beginning till the out- 
 break of the war in 66; (3) Vita, an autobiography; and (4) Contra 
 Appionem, concerning the antiquity of the Jews. His works were 
 all written in Greek. ^ 
 
 The Persian period is treated in Ant. xi. Of this book one section, 
 xi. 7.1, is often quoted as giving informatian of the treatment of the 
 Jews under Ochus. But this falls in the post-biblical period. The 
 whole period from Nehemiah to Antiochus Epiphanes, 440-175, is 
 filled largely with legendary material.^ Yet the passage in question 
 
 I Cf. Schiirer Gesch. des Jud. Volbes I. 107. 
 
 » Ibid. 74-106. 3 Ibid. 82. 
 
22 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 
 
 is generally accepted as historically reliable, in spite of Wellhausen^ 
 who calls it a loose anecdote of doubtful origin with which Josephus 
 seeks to fill out the gap between Nehemiah and the Maccabees. 
 Marquart* follows Wellhausen, and like Willrich,'' after him, sup- 
 poses that Josephus based his information on the lost work of Jason 
 of Cyrene, who, about the middle of the second century, wrote a 
 history, in five books, on the Maccabaean uprising from its beginning 
 till the victory of Judas over Nicanor, i6i. But if so, why should 
 Jason embody it in his history if it is merely legendary ? The account 
 of so significant an event could scarcely find credence without some 
 historical fact back of it. 
 
 Plutarch of Chaeronea, in Beotia, lived from about 46-120 a. d. 
 His great work is the Biographies of Illustrious Greeks and Romans 
 of which about fifty are extant. Information is contained in the 
 Life of Artaxerxes II and of Alexander the Great. For Artaxerxes 
 his main source was the History of the Persians by Dinon of Colophon, 
 of the latter half of the fourth century b. c.,^ a work which unfor- 
 tunately is lost. Plutarch's dihgence as a historian cannot be ques- 
 tioned even if his accuracy in some points is impeached. ^ 
 
 Flavius Arrianus, a Greek of Asia Minor, born ca. 100 a. d., wrote 
 the Anabasis of Alexander. This work is based on reliable sources 
 such as the Royal Court-Journal, the works of Ptolemaeus, afterwards 
 king of Egypt, and those of Aristobulus, who was with Alexander 
 in his Asiatic campaign.*^ 
 
 Dio Cassius, born at Nicea in Bithynia ca. 150 a. d., was a man of 
 public career in Rome. He wrote a history of Rome about 211-229, 
 consisting of eighty books. Of the first thirty-four books only small 
 fragments, and of the next two books larger portions remain. Books 
 xxxvii-liv are complete. Of books Iv-xl larger portions are left, 
 while of the remaining twenty only extracts of Xiphilus, who wrote in 
 the eleventh century, are left.' 
 
 Caius Julius Solinus, a Roman writer of the third century of the 
 Christian era, born ca. 230, is the author of Collectanea Rerum Memor- 
 
 ' Jud. und Isr. Gesch. 192. » Philologus liv. 509. 
 
 3 Juden und Griechen vor der Mah. Erhebung 88 f. 
 
 4 E. Meyer Gesch. des Alt. Ill, § 6. <* Swoboda Griechische Gesch. 171. 
 
 5 Art. "Plutarch" in E. B. 7 SchUrer op. cit. I. 109. 
 
HISTORY OF OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 23 
 
 abilium in fifty-six books. His principal source was Plinius Historia 
 Naturalis. The extract is chiefly of geographical contents known 
 by the title " Polyhistor." The part that concerns us here is the 
 reference to the destruction of Jerusalem and of Jericho, 35.4. The 
 best edition is that of Th. Mommsen, 1895. What immediately 
 precedes the quotation is based on Plinius v. 71, 72. The quotation 
 itself Mommsen ascribes to an unknown source, and identifies 
 "Hierichus" with "Machaerus" after Plinius v. 72: "Machaerus 
 secunda quondam arx Judaeae ab Hierosolymis.'" It is evident, 
 however, that the last part of the quotation: "et haec desivit 
 Artaxerxis bello subacta," is not from Plinius. Hence it is best with 
 Hoelscher to retain "Hierichus" as in Sohnus.^ 
 
 Eusebius Pamphili, ca. 265-340 a. d., in his Chronikon preserves 
 some of the writings of the Christian chronographers of the time of 
 the emperors, who based their writings on those of Hellenistic chronog- 
 raphers, chief of whom were Eratosthenes at the close of the third 
 century, and Apollodorus, of Athens, in the second half of the second 
 century.3 Probably from Alexander Polyhistor and in the last 
 analysis dating from a Jewish Hellenist. The historic trustworthi- 
 ness is not to be doubted.-* 
 
 Upon Eusebius are based the references in Paulus Orosius,^ a 
 Christian priest born in Spain toward the close of the fourth century, 
 in his Historia adversus Paganos in seven books. 
 
 Also the Chronographia (EKXajr] ;;^poi^o7/3a0ta9) of Georgius 
 Syncellus, a Byzantian historian of the eighth century. It contains 
 the history from creation to 285 a. d. It is preserved in the 
 Chronikon of Eusebius. For a knowledge of the Christian chronog- 
 raphers the Chronikon of Syncellus is next to Eusebius the most 
 important work. It is dominated fully by the theological spirit.^ 
 
 Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus, a son of Eusebius, born ca. 
 
 » Solinus ed. Mommsen 154 n. 
 
 2 Palastina in der pers. iind hellen. Zeit 47. 
 
 3 Unger Die Chronik des Apollodorus, in Philologus xl. 602-51. 
 
 4 Marquart op. cit. 509-10. Cf. Wachsmuth, Einl. in das Studium der alien Gesch., 
 1895, 163-76. 
 
 s Schiirer op. cit. I. 6. 
 
 6Cf. K. Krumbacher in Mviller's Altertums Wissenschajt, 1891, IX. 1 18-19. 
 
24 ARTAXERXES lU OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 
 
 340 in Stridon of Dalmatia, wrote the second part of the Chronikon 
 of his father in Latin and continued the same from 325-379.' 
 
 Justinus, sometime before the fifth century, wrote his Historiae 
 Philippicae, a work in forty-four books, which he himself describes 
 in his preface as a collection of the most important and interesting 
 passages from the voluminous Historiae Philippicae et totius Mundi 
 Origines et Terrae Situs, written in the time of Augustus by Trogus 
 Pompeius. The work of Trogus is lost, but the Prologi, or the table 
 of contents of the forty-four books, and a few fragments of the text 
 are preserved by Justinus and Plinius. Even these Prologi and brief 
 extracts contain a large amount of valuable information.* E. Meyer 
 thinks it probable that Justinus also obtained his information from 
 Eusebius.3 
 
 B. LITERATURE 
 
 Geo. Grote History of Greece, 1854^, X. 506 f.; XI. 605 f.; XII. 
 100 f. Ewald Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 1864-68^. Engl, transl., 
 1869-86. Gratz Geschichte der Juden von den dltesten Zeiten bis 
 auf die Gegenwart, 1853-1870, Bd. 2. ii, Kap. 6. F. Justi 
 Geschichte des alten Persiens, i8yg. A. Wiedemann Aegyptische 
 Geschichte, 1884, II. 646-725. E. Meyer Geschichte des alten 
 Aegyptens, 1887, 394-96, Th. Noldeke Aiifsdtze zur Persischen 
 Geschichte, 1887, 57-85, B. Stade Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 
 2. Bd,, 1888, 194-96, W. Judeich Kleinasiatische Studien, 
 1892, 144-79. A* V- Gutschmied Neiie Beitrdge zur Geschichte des 
 alten Orients, Herausgegeben von Franz Riihl. J. Marquart 
 "Untersuchungen zur Geschichte von Eran," in Philologus LIV, 1895, 
 507-10, H, Willrich Juden und Griechen vor der Makkabdischen 
 Erhebung, 1895, 88-90, Th, Rcinach, "La dcuxieme mine de 
 Jdricho," in Semitic Studies in Memory of Alexander Kohut, 1897, 
 457-62. C. H. Cornill Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 1898, 174, 175. 
 C. Piepenbring Histoire du Peuple d^ Israel, 1898, 583-89, 611-15, 
 C, F. Kent A History of the Jewish People during the Babylonian, 
 Persian, and Greek Periods, 1899, 229-38. H. Willrich Judaica. 
 Forschungen zur hellenistisch-jildischen Geschichte und T.iteratiir, 1900, 
 
 ' See A. Schone Die Weltchronih des Eusebius in ihrer Bearbeilung durch Hier- 
 onymus, 1900. 
 
 2 Schilrer op. cit. I. iii. 3 Gesch. des Alt. III. 112. 
 
HISTORY OF OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 25 
 
 28 f., 35-39, 103-6. H. Winckler "Zum Buche Judith," in Altorien- 
 talische Forschungen II, 1899, 266-76. H. Guthe, Article "Israel" 
 in E. B. II, 1901. E. Schiirer Geschichte des Jiidischen Volkes im 
 Zeitalter Jesu Christi, 19023. H. P. Smith Old Testament History 
 in the ''International Theological Library," 1903. G. Holscher 
 Paldstina in der Persischen und Hellenistischen Zeit, 1903, 46-50. 
 J. Wcllhausen Israelitische und Jiidische Geschichte, 1904s, 192-208. 
 H. Guthe Geschichte des Volkes Israel 1904^, 289-301. 
 
 C. THE EMPIRE OF OCHUS 
 
 When Ochus ascended the throne of Persia the empire was nom- 
 inally as large as in 485, when Darius I died, although there had been 
 many revolts all over the empire during the century and a quarter 
 preceding. The successors of Darius were insignificant weaklings, 
 unable to carry out the plans of the great organizer. Consequently 
 there had been a gradual weakening and dissolution. Egypt had 
 established its own government under Amyrtaios in 408, and was in 
 reality no longer a part of the Persian empire, although Persia never 
 recognized its independence. Many cities of Asia Minor also claimed 
 independence. Phoenicia and Cyprus were in a state of revolt. The 
 empire handed over to Ochus by his predecessors was a tottering 
 structure, held together only by the strong organization effected 
 through Darius I, and because there was no other great power ready 
 to conquer and destroy it. Yet at the immediate time of his 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 
 Persian. From the Indus and the Oxus on the east to the Aegean, 
 the Bosporus, and Cyprus on the west, all was one vast empire. Its 
 northern boundary was formed by the Euxine and the Caspian 
 seas, with the Caucasus mountains between them, while its southern 
 limits extended to the Indian Ocean, the Persian Gulf, and Arabia. 
 EgyjU formed the southwestern limits of the empire, including a 
 part of Ethiopia and Libya on the west. The capital of the empire 
 was Babylon. The divisions of the empire into satrapies, first 
 established by Darius I, was still in vogue. There was the same 
 central government, although the strong man at the center was 
 wanting. Wealth and force, not mind and intelligence, were the 
 
26 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 
 
 controlling powers. The period of active growth had passed and 
 the time of dechne and decay had set in. 
 
 D. THE EVENTS OF THE REIGN OF OCHUS 
 
 As we have seen before, Ochus ascended the throne of Cyrus with 
 bloody hands. He had a considerable following at the court and 
 hoped through Atossa, his mother and sister, to win the king's favor. 
 He won her to his side through a promise to marry her after his 
 father's death and to make her a partaker in the reign. Slanderous 
 reports concerning him reached his father who then appointed Darius 
 as his successor.' Before the death of Artaxerxes II, Darius in- 
 curred his ill-will and so lost his claim to the throne. Upon this he 
 made an attempt at the life of his father through Tiribazus. The 
 plot failed and both he and Tiribazus were executed together with 
 fifty others connected with the plot.^ There were yet two brothers 
 older than Ochus, Arsames and Ariaspes, who were in his way. 
 Ariaspes was considered worthy of the throne by the Persian people 
 on account of his gentleness, uprightness, and friendhness. He was 
 recognized as a reasonable and intelligent man. Ochus knew this 
 and consequently sought his brother's death. He so annoyed and 
 vexed him continually that Ariaspes ended his own hfe by drinking 
 the cup of poison. Artaxerxes was too old to sec the treacherj' in 
 this and afterwards loved Arsames all the more and placed full 
 confidence in him. Ochus delayed no longer now. He compelled 
 Harpates, son of Tiribazus, to put Arsames out of the way. Artaxerxes 
 in his old age could not resist any further. Grief and sorrow ended 
 his life in a little while. ^ 
 
 Ochus now stood first, and became king in his father's place, 358. 
 As king he manifested the same sanguinary dispositions as those by 
 which he had placed himself on the throne. Whether by reason of 
 a troubled conscience or from fear of revenge he did not rest till he 
 had killed the remaining members of his family. His sister Ocha, 
 whose daughter he had in the harem, was buried alive.'' His two 
 younger brothers were assassinated. s One of his uncles, with his 
 whole family and children and grandchildren, eighty in one day, 
 
 » Plut. Artax. 26. 4 Justi Gesch. des alten Persiens 107. 
 
 » Justinus X. 2. 5 Grote Hist, oj Greece x. 507. 
 
 3 Plut. Artax. 30. 
 
HISTORY OF OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 27 
 
 he ordered to be shot in his courtyard.' That he did not put to death 
 all his near relatives is seen from the fact that some appear in later 
 history. His successor, Darius III, and his brother, Oxyathres, 
 were great-grandsons of Darius TL Mithredates, the son-in-law of 
 Darius, and Pharmaces, his wife's brother, are mentioned after 
 the death of Ochus. So also Arbupales, a son of Darius, the brother 
 of Ochus, is mentioned in 334,^ and Bisthanes, a son of Ochus, in 
 330.3 From all the murderous acts of the king Plutarch is justified 
 in saying that Ochus excelled all his predecessors in cruelty and 
 bloodthirstiness."* 
 
 The difficulties of Ochus were not ended when he had secured the 
 throne and the court. The revolts suppressed by Artaxerxes II 
 were only temporarily quieted. Artabazus, satrap of the Helles- 
 pontine Phrygia, Hke Datames and Ariobarzancs, his immediate 
 predecessor, had rebelled against Artaxerxes II and was captured 
 by Autophradates, but afterwards released. Now when Ochus, in 
 356, ordered all satraps on the coast whose revolt he feared to dis- 
 charge their mercenary troops, the orders were obeyed. But when 
 Ochus wanted Artabazus, his nephew — the mother of Artabazus, 
 Aspama, being the daughter of Ochus — to give an account for his 
 previous revolt he refused. ^ At the time of the social war, about 355, 
 he fought against the king's satraps and was powerfully supported 
 by the Athenians. When rumors of the king's threats against the 
 Athenians were spread, they left Artabazus in the lurch. But since 
 he was well furnished with money he was able to procure the services 
 of the Theban Pammencs, with 5,000 men, and maintained himself 
 for a long time.^ When the Thebans also entered into an under- 
 standing with the king, his fortune took a turn.' In the year 345 
 Artabazus was a fugitive at the court of Phihp of Macedon and with 
 him his brother-in-law, the Rhodian Memnon, one of the most dis- 
 tinguished generals of his time.^ After the reconquest of Egypt, 
 two years later, Memnon's brother Mentor was rewarded for his 
 services in the war with Egypt with a hundred talents of silver and 
 
 ' Justinus X. 3. I. s Diod. xvi. 22; Plut. Arlax. 16. 
 
 2 Arrian i. 16. ^ Diod. x^'i. 34. 
 
 3 Ibid. iii. 19. ' Ibid. 40. 
 
 4 Artax. 30. 8 Ibid. 52. 
 
28 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 
 
 other precious gifts, and at the same time was appointed satrap over 
 the rebellious portions on the coast of Asia. Mentor stood in close 
 relation with Memnon and Artabazus and procured pardon for them 
 and their families. From then on till the overthrow of the empire 
 Artabazus remained loyal.' 
 
 At the same time Artabazus revolted came also the revolt of 
 Orontes, satrap of eastern Armenia under his father-in-law Arta- 
 xerxes II.' He had fought for the king against Euagoras, king of 
 Salamis in Cyprus 386-363. An intrigue against Tiribazus gave 
 him the chief command in the Cyprian war.^ When his treachery 
 was discovered the king was displeased and deprived him of his 
 position as satrap of Armenia and banished him to Mysia where he 
 was satrap under the immediate oversight of Autophradates, the 
 most faithful of all satraps. When, at the close of the reign of Arta- 
 xerxes II, there was a general uprising in western Asia against the 
 king of Persia, he was appointed commander of the troops of Asia 
 Minor. WTien the plan failed he betrayed his troops with the hopes 
 of becoming satrap of the coast lands, the position of Cyrus the 
 Younger and of his successor, Tissaphernes.'* His hopes, however, 
 were not reahzed. He did not get the position he desired, as a 
 reward for his treachery, but Armenia, of which he was deprived 
 twenty years before. s He then entered into an understanding with 
 Nectanebus of Egypt, but before the death of Artaxerxes II was 
 forced to submit again.^ 
 
 And now, after Ochus was upon the throne, this same Orontes' 
 revolted again and still with the same aim of becoming satrap of the 
 coast districts, 254-253, and became the king's most dangerous 
 opponent next to Egypt.* He entered into an alliance with Athens. 
 At this time a rumor was current that the king of Persia was pre- 
 paring a great expedition against Athens and Greece. The Greeks 
 probably felt guilty on account of their wavering pohcy, and the 
 mercenary support which they had repeatedly lent to rebellious 
 
 ' Diod. xvi. 52. 
 
 a Xen. Anab. ii. 4. 8; 5. 40; iii. 4. 13; 5. 17; iv. 3. 4; cf. Plut. Arlax. 27. 
 
 3 Diod. XV. 8, 9, 18. 6 jbid. 
 
 4 Ibid. gi. 7 Judeich Kleinasialische Studien 221-25. 
 s Justinus Prol. x. » Demosth. De Symmoriis xiv. 31. 
 
HISTORY OF OCHUS AND HTS REIGN 29 
 
 satraps. Demosthenes warned the Athenians against taking a 
 hostile attitude towards the king on the grounds of mere rumors, 
 and advised not to offend the king frivolously, 351/ It is probable 
 that Orontes, after concluding a peace favorable to himself, finally- 
 obtained what he so long desired, the satrapy of the coast regions, 
 a position he held till after the reconquest of Egypt in 343, when 
 Mentor of Rhodes was appointed to this office by Ochus for the 
 valuable services rendered in that war.* 
 
 Phoenicia and Cyprus first came under Persian dominion in the 
 days of Darius I, A century later Artaxerxes II, after a war of six 
 years against Euaxares, king of Salamis, on Cyprus, again reduced 
 them to submission from which they never afterwards were able to 
 rise to independence.^ Toward the close of the reign of Artaxerxes 
 II there was a general revolt of the western states. Egy])t, already 
 independent, would have delighted to see_other states withdraw from 
 the Persian empire. The satrapies of 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 
 before the storm. Through the instigation of Egypt the cities of 
 Phoenicia revolted and were joined by the kings of Cyprus. Eua- 
 goras II was at this time king of Salamis, 352.'* 
 
 The revolt broke out in Sidon. It was the custom of the Persian 
 kings wherever they stayed for any length of time to build a park 
 where everything beautiful and valuable which the country produced, 
 both of plants and of animals, was collected. Such a park was at 
 Sidon. -^ This was destroyed by the Sidonians. The hay which the 
 Persian officials had collected for the war with Egypt was burned. 
 The officials themselves were slain. The immediate cause for this 
 revolt may have been the wounding of their religious feelings by the 
 Persian officials, a point on which Semitic people are particularly 
 sensitive.'^ Tyre and Aradus joined with Sidon and soon all Phoenicia 
 was under revolt. Ncctanebus II, of Egypt, in answer to a request 
 from Tennes, king of Sidon, sent 4,000 Greek mercenaries under 
 
 1 Demosth. De Rhodiorum Libertate 191 f. 
 
 2 Judeich op. cit. 217-20. s Justi op. cit. 82. 
 
 3 Diod. XV. 8-10. ^ Noldeke op. cit. 77. 
 
 4 Ibid. 41, 42. 
 
3© ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 
 
 the command of the Rhodian Mentor. Ochus, still engaged in the 
 preparation for the great campaign, sent Belesys, satrap of Syria, 
 and Mizaeus of Cilicia, to check the revolt, but they were driven 
 back by Mentor.' 
 
 While this 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 
 king of Persia. Following the example of Phoenicia, the nine kings 
 agreed to sever their connection with Persia. In the spring of 350 
 Ochus sent Idrieus, satrap of Caria, with a fleet of forty triremes 
 and 8,000 Greek mercenaries, led by the Athenian Phocion, and 
 with him Euagoras, formerly a king on the island. They blockaded 
 the city of Salamis by land and by sea. Volunteers came from Syria 
 and Cihcia with the expectation of obtaining a share in the spoils of 
 the city, so that the army of Phocion was doubled.^ All the cities 
 except Salamis surrendered to the Persians. Euagoras desired the 
 office of king of Salamis, but Ochus retained Pnytagoras, then king, 
 who had surrendered to the Persians after the destruction of Sidon.^ 
 He was king of Salamis till the time of Alexander the Great. Thus 
 the island was once more reduced to submission under the Persian 
 power. 
 
 Before the surrender of Salamis the king of Persia had left Babylon 
 and moved with his army toward Phoenicia. His army consisted of 
 300,000 foot-soldiers, 30,000 horsemen, 300 triremes, and 500 ships 
 of burden, besides other ships to convey provisions. When Tennes 
 heard of the size of the king's army he lost courage. To save his 
 own life he resolved to betray his city into the enemy's hands. So 
 he sent his servant ThessaUon privily to Ochus with a promise not 
 only to surrender Sidon but to render him valuable services in the 
 reconquest of Eg}'pt. The king rejoiced greatly over this and 
 promised Tennes rich rewards. Of this he gave ThessaUon the 
 most reliable security.^ 
 
 Ochus considered the conquest of the greatest importance and 
 consequently sent to the largest cities in Greece to aid him in the 
 expedition. Athens and Sparta replied that they wished to keep the 
 
 ' Diod. xvi. 41, 42. 3 Ibid. 46. 
 
 a Ibid. 42. 4 Ibid. 43. 
 
HISTORY OF OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 3 1 
 
 friendship with Persia but that they could not send any troops. 
 Thebes replied with i,ooo heavy armed soldiers under Lacrates; 
 Argos sent 3,000 men at the king's request and consented to let 
 Nicostratus go as commander; the coast cities of Asia sent 6,000 
 men, making a total of 10,000. Before their arrival the king had 
 encamped near Sidon, 348.' 
 
 Because of the king's delay the Sidonians had provided them- 
 selves with sufficient troops and provisions. A triple wall was con- 
 structed around the city. They also had more than a hundred 
 triremes and quinqueremes. Tennes now persuaded Mentor to 
 assist in the betrayal and left him in the city, while he himself went 
 out under pretext of going to counsel with the king and took with him 
 a hundred of the leading citizens of Sidon. When he came near the 
 camp he had the hundred men arrested and delivered to Ochus. 
 The king received Tennes as a friend and had the hundred men 
 shot with spears as instigators of the revolt. Aftenvards 500 Sido- 
 nians, with the signal of fugitives, came to Ochus beseeching him for 
 mercy for the city. These also were captured and slain, so relentless 
 was his anger for the murder of his officers. Tennes then persuaded 
 the Egyptian mercenaries to let him and the Idng into the city. The 
 betrayer's turn came next, for he thought now to have no more need 
 of Tennes, and hence he had him slain. Before the king entered 
 the city, the betrayed Sidonians, in their despair, burned all their ships 
 so no one could flee for safety, and then set the city on fire and killed 
 themselves and their dependents. It is said that 40,000 people per- 
 ished. Ochus then sold the ruins to people who hoped to find melted 
 gold and silver in the ashes.^ The Greek mercenaries, with their 
 commander Mentor, whom Neclanebus had sent to assist Sidon, now 
 joined Ochus against Egpyt. The remainder of Phoenicia readily 
 submitted to the requests of Ochus. This was the severest blow the 
 nation ever received in all its history. This tragic downfall of the 
 once so powerful city must have made a deep impression on the whole 
 world. It was the best preparation for the conquest of Egypt. 
 
 The one great aim of Ochus was the reconquest of Egypt.^ For 
 
 I Ibid. 44. ' Ibid. 45. 
 
 3 Judeich op. cit. chap, iv; Meyer Gesch. des alien Aeg. 394-96; Wiedemann, 
 Aeg. Gesch. II. 700-21. 
 
32 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 
 
 the wider interests of the empire this was of 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 
 conquered by the Persians under Cambyses in 525. The Egyptians, 
 however, never abandoned the hope of regaining their independence. 
 Repeated attempts resuhed in failure until in 408, when under 
 Amyrtaeus the desired end was accomplished and Egypt was again 
 independent for a period of sixty-five years. But Persia was un- 
 willing to let go of so valuable a portion of its own empire. Con- 
 sequently, after the accession of Artaxcrxes II to the throne in 404, 
 repeated efforts were made to regain the lost territory. Persia in 
 fact never recognized the independence of Egypt. Already in 389, 
 and again in 374, expeditions were made to subdue the revolting 
 Eg\'ptians but without any encouraging results for Persia. In the 
 early part of his reign Artaxerxes II was occupied in withstanding the 
 attempts of his brother Cyrus the Younger to seize the crown.' All 
 through his reign disintegrating forces were at work within the 
 empire, which the king was unable to check completely. Conse- 
 quently his ability for reconquering Egypt was weakened.^ On the 
 other hand, Egypt never ceased to stir up revolts in Asi^ Minor and 
 Phoenicia and Cyprus against the hated Persians. 
 
 In the great revolt of the satraps of Asia Minor, in 361, Egypt took 
 an active part. King Tachos sent them money and ships, and 
 planned to move aggressively against Persia with the help of the 
 Spartan king, Agesilaos, and the Athenian Chabrias. He was 
 equipped with 200 well-manned triremes under command of Chabrias, 
 10,000 chosen Greek mercenaries under Agesilaos, and 80,000 foot- 
 soldiers of Egypt whom he himself commanded. Discord arose 
 concerning the plans of the war and as soon as the expedition started 
 out, the king's cousin, Nectanebus, rebelled against him and attempted 
 to seize the throne. Agesilaos joined Nectanebus and the whole 
 undertaking was speedily defeated. There was nothing left for 
 Tachos but to flee. He first sought refuge with Straton, king of 
 Sidon, and then fled to the king of Persia and surrendered himself 
 unconditionally. He afterwards died at the king's court. ^ 
 
 I Xen. Anab. ii. i. 14. 
 
 a Diod. XV. 3 Ibid. 92; Plut. Agesilaos 37, 38. * 
 
HISTORY OF OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 33 
 
 In the same year must have occurred an expedition against Egypt 
 under the Persian prince Ochus, the first of the three expeditions 
 made/ for we are definitely told by Eusebius^ that Ochus made 
 an expedition against Egypt while his father Artaxerxes was still 
 living. OSto? 6'Il;^09 et? M^v-rrrov i-maTpaTevam eVt i^SiVTO<i rov 
 irarpo^ 'Apra^ep^ov, o)? Kal aXXoi, fiera ravTa eKpuTrja-ev 'AtyvTrrov, 
 <t)€vyovTe^ NeKTave^co, 0)9 nve^, et? AWiOTriav, d)? 8k erepot, et? Ma/ce- 
 Soviav. It is not clear what the results were of this expedition. All that 
 is known is that Nectanebus I was at this time the unlimited monarch 
 of Egypt. Agesilaos was rewarded for his services, but on his way 
 home he died in Cyrene.^ 
 
 When Artaxerxes died and Ochus succeeded him on the throne, 
 Egypt continued to be the main issue for the Persians. Extensive 
 preparations were made and in 3544 a second campaign was directed 
 against Egypt, this time not by Ochus in person but by his generals, 
 the satraps of Asia Minor. The outcome was unfavorable to the 
 Persians not only in its immediate resuhs, but also in the effect it 
 had on other portions of the empire and the worid without.^ It 
 encouraged Phoenicia and Cyprus and Cilicia to revolt. In 346 
 Isocrates^ used this failure as an argument for Phihp to make war 
 against Persia because it was no longer to be feared, to, toivw irepl 
 rr)v x^pf^v <y? SiciKeLrai, Ti<i ovk civ ciKOvam irapa^vvdeir] iroXefxelv 
 7r^o9 avTop; AtjvTno'i yap a(f)ei,a-T'i]Kai uev Kal Kar cKelvov rov xpovov^ 
 ov iirjv aXX' i(}>o/3ovvTO fMij irore ^aaiXeis auro^ TroirjadfjLevo^; arpa- 
 T€Lau Kpar-qaeie Kal tj}? 8ia rov Trorafxov Svaxo)pLa<; Kal t^9 dXXrj'i 
 TrapaaKcvrj'i dirdar}'; • vvv he otro^ cnrrjXXa^ev avrov^ rov heov^ rovrov. 
 (TV/XTrapaa-Kevaa-d/jLevo'i yap Svvafiiv oarjv old^ r' ^v TrXeiarr^v, Kal 
 arparevaa^ iw avrois, dirriXdev eKelOev ov fiovov yjTrrjOeU, dXXd koI 
 KarayeXacrdeU, Kal So|a9 ovre ^acnXeveiv ovre arparr^yelv d^LO<; ehai. 
 And yet this failure did not discourage Ochus but stimulated him 
 to make new and larger preparations. ^ As we have seen before, 
 Ochus set out from Babylon with a tremendous army and had 
 
 I Justinus Prol. x. 
 
 ' Ed. Schone 112 = Sync. 486. 20. 
 
 3 Diod. XV. 93. 
 
 4 Demosth. De Rhod. Libertate xv. 12. 
 
 s Diod. xvi. 40, 41, 44, 48; Orosius iii. 7. 8. 
 
 6 Ad Phil. 102. 7 Diod. xvi. 40, 41. 
 
34 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 
 
 encamped before Sidon which he cruelly destroyed in 348 and ren- 
 dered all Phoenicia subject to his will.' 
 
 This victory was itself the first step towards the conquest of Egypt. 
 Other preparations were made. Ochus awaited the troops from 
 Thebes and Argos. In 346 he made the first advance of his third 
 campaign against Egypt. The troops missed the way of entrance 
 and a part of the army perished in the Barathra, the Serbonian 
 swamp between Mount Kasios and Damiata, half-way between 
 Syria and Egypt, surrounded on all sides by sand-hills, which were 
 frequently carried into the swamp, forming a bottomless marsh so 
 that entire armies not knowing the nature of the swamp could sink 
 down.^ Ochus was forced to return to Phoenicia till the spring of 
 the following year, when he again started out against Egypt. ^ His 
 army consisted of three divisions, led by three Greek and three 
 Persian generals:-* the first of Boeotian mercenaries led by the 
 Theban Lakrates and Rosaces, satraps of Ionia and Lydia; the 
 second of troops from Argos led by Nikastrates and the Persian 
 Aristabazus; the third of the Greek mercenaries sent by Egypt to 
 Sidon, now led by the Rhodian Mentor and the Persian eunuch 
 Bagoas. Ochus followed with the remaining troops as a reserve 
 force, s 
 
 The army of Nectanebus consisted of 20,000 Greek and 20,000 
 Libyan mercenaries and 60,000 Egyptians. The land was well 
 fortified. All the Nile entrances were strongly fortified, especially 
 the one at Pelusium. But Nectanebus was no great general. Ochus 
 advanced upon Pelusium. The Greek generals succeeded through 
 their maneuvering to bring Nectanebus out of his position. Con- 
 sequently he withdrew to Memphis. The approach of the army 
 was enough to cause the coward to flee to Ethiopia. The remaining 
 cities surrendered one after the other. The fortifications were broken 
 down, the temples plundered and the sacred books carried away, 
 and returned by Bagoas to the priests only after these paid large sums 
 for them. Ochus treated the religion of Egypt with little more 
 respect than did Cambyses before him. Not only did he desecrate 
 
 ' Diod. xvi. 45; Isok. Ad Phil. 102. 4 Cf. Marquart op. cil. 507. 
 
 a Strabo x\'i. 741, 760; Diod. i. 30. s Diod. xvi. 47. 
 
 3 Judeich op. cit. 173-76. 
 
 I 
 
HISTORY OF OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 35 
 
 their temples but he even slaughtered the sacred animals. This may 
 account for the fact that neither his name nor that of his successors 
 is mentioned in the inscriptions.' 
 
 This reconquest was a great triumph for Persia. Through it the 
 name of Ochus received respect. Yet it was not hard to see that the 
 victory was due to the Greek troops and commanders, and that the 
 Persians did not conquer by reason of their ability in war but simply 
 because they had the most money to pay mercenary troops. It was 
 to Mentor and not to Bagoas that the king chiefly owed his success. 
 Mentor was the real conqueror of Egypt, yet the presence of the king 
 and his prompt decisions contributed much to the speedy results. 
 Mentor was splendidly rewarded. He received the satrapy of the 
 coast regions of Asia Minor. By cunning and treachery he quickly 
 removed Hermias, the tyrant of Alarucus and the friend of Aristotle, 
 who had concluded treaties like an independent prince and stood 
 in suspicious relations with king Philip of Macedon.^ The Greek 
 mercenaries were paid and dismissed. Pherendates was appointed 
 satrap of Egypt, and Ochus returned triumphantly to his capital, 
 Babylonia, in 343.^ Eg}^pt remained a Persian province till the 
 close of the empire. 
 
 The rise of Macedonia as a political power dates from Philip II, 
 359-336. Before him it had no special bearing upon Persian history, 
 although invaded and temporarily conquered by Xerxes in 480. 
 While Philip entered upon the work of expanding his territory, his 
 eyes were first of all fixed upon Greece. At first his invasions were 
 resisted by Athens. For ten years there was war between them. 
 The bitter opponent of Philip was Demosthenes, the greatest orator 
 of Greece, who at this time had espoused the cause of the democracy, 
 whose party leader he became. He saw more clearly than anyone 
 else the designs of Philip, and recognized in him a dangerous enemy 
 of Athens and of all Greece. And yet in spite of all opposition 
 PhiHp advanced step by step into Greek territor}\ Pydna and 
 Potidaea, two Athenian cities, fell in 356. Three years later Philip 
 invaded Thessaly and Phocis, and obtained supremacy there. Demos- 
 thenes poured out his bitter invectives against Phihp to arouse the 
 Athenians to a sense of their danger." He beheved the only safety 
 
 I Ibid. 48-51. 2 Ibid. 52. 3 Ibid. 51. ■♦ Phil, i, p. 54- 
 
36 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 
 
 for Greece now lay in an alliance with the Persians against Philip. 
 He favored the negotiations now going on between Athens and the 
 king of Persia, who indeed repeatedly sent subsidies for the conflict 
 with Macedonia. 
 
 In 349 Phihp advanced into Thrace and conquered the Athenian 
 Olynthus. The only hope now of saving middle Greece from the 
 inroads of Philip was to enter into a treaty of peace with him. Even 
 Demosthenes consented to this. There arose at this time a Mace- 
 donian party right in Athens under the leadership of Aeschines, the 
 rival politician of Demosthenes. Differences arose betw^een the two 
 orators which later resulted in unreconcilable animosity. A peace 
 was, however, concluded in 346, which gave Phihp the Athenian 
 colonies on the Thracian coast. In a letter of Darius to Alexander 
 it is definitely stated that Philip concluded a peace also with Ochus 
 shortly after the reconquest of Egypt.' The king's intentions no 
 doubt were pure but not so those of Phihp. He had to subdue 
 Greece first before he could conquer Asia Minor, and for this purpose 
 peace with Persia was advantageous to him. The honest but pohti- 
 cally shortsighted Isocrates overlooked this fact when he urged 
 Philip to attack Persia. Phihp saw in Persia a great obstacle to liis 
 aims for a large empire. Hence his attitude toward Persia was 
 definite and decisive. Persia must recede before Macedonia. The 
 only reason for delay was to await the proper moment. It is probable 
 that Phihp tried to gain a foothold in Asia Minor through Artabazus 
 who had fled to his court for safety. But when Ochus, after the 
 reconquest of Egypt, appointed the skilful general and diplomat, 
 Mentor, and restored Artabazus to his hereditary satrapy, he under- 
 stood the political situation. He thereby fortified Asia Minor. He 
 was aware of Phihp's plans. There was no immediate danger, but 
 Ochus noticed the attempts of Phihp to secure the mastery of the 
 Bosporus and of the Hellespont. This was sufficient cause for alarm. 
 
 It was in the year 340 that Philip sent a fleet into the Hellespont 
 and began to besiege Perinthus. Phihp's plans were no longer a 
 secret. Conflict between Macedonia and Persia were now inevitable. 
 The Athenians sent an embassy to Ochus for help against Phihp 
 which Ochus refused, for he was not well disposed toward the 
 
 I Arr. ii. 14. 
 
HISTORY OF OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 37 
 
 Athenians. But when PhiHp continued his siege of Perinthus, Ochus 
 ordered the coast satraps to help Perinthus with all their power. 
 Through the help of Athens and Persia Perinthus was saved from 
 the power of Phihp.' Thereupon Ochus sent troops to invade 
 Thrace in order to weaken Phihp in his own country, but with 
 little effect. The help that Persia gave Perinthus was to the Mace- 
 donians equivalent to a declaration of war. The Persians did not 
 see as we now do from the result, that it was necessar}' for them to 
 prevent the subjugation of Greece to insure their own safety. Or 
 if they saw it they lacked energy to act.^ The reasons for their 
 failure to help Athens and Greece are not evident. After the battle 
 of Chaeronea, 338, Phihp was master of Greece. Just at this time 
 Ochus died and was succeeded by his son Arses. Upon this Phihp 
 openly sought to unite the Greeks against the Persians. In the spring 
 of 336 he sent troops to Asia Minor to free the Greek cities. But 
 Persia was not to suffer much at his hands, for in the summer of the 
 same year Philip was assassinated. Persia was granted a breathing- 
 spell but only for a brief while. The work which Philip had begun 
 was carried to its completion by his son and successor on the throne, 
 Alexander the Great.^ 
 
 The rehable sources outside of the Old Testament for the history 
 of Judea, during the reign of Ochus, are scanty. Only fragmentary 
 evidence is at hand, yet of sufficient rehabihty to enable us to form 
 a reasonably definite conception of the conditions and events during 
 that time. Judea always held a middle geographical position be- 
 tween larger and contending countries. At first it was Assyria and 
 after that Babylonia on the one side, and Egypt on the other. Now 
 it was Persia and Egypt in their long-continued struggles with each 
 other. So closely was Judea connected with Phoenicia and Syria 
 that it was always affected by their successes or reverses, so that 
 Judea's fate can be inferred partly from that of its close-linked 
 neighbors. That \-iolent disturbances occurred among the Jews 
 during the reign of Ochus is generally recognized among historians. 
 Just what these disturbances were, and through what agencies they 
 
 1 Diod. XV. 75; Arr. ii. 14. 
 
 2 Noldeke op. cit. 80. 
 
 3 Diod. xvi. 91; Just. ix. 5, 6; Arr. ii. 14. 
 
38 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 
 
 were brought about, and at what definite time, are matters of less 
 certainty and of differences of opinion. 
 
 There appear to have been two uprisings in Judea during the 
 reign of Ochus. This was estabhshed already by Gutschmied.' 
 The first of these came in close connection with the second campaign 
 of Ochus against Egypt, 353-52.^ It is more than likely that the 
 Jews revolted against the Persians who, on their way to Egypt, passed 
 in front of their homes. Why should they be led away into cap- 
 ti\'ity to Hyrcania {vide infra) except for revolting against the Persians 
 and for refusing to yield to all their wishes and encroachments ?^ 
 Since the days of Jeremiah Egypt had been more or less of an asylum 
 for many Jews. In this way there may have grown up something of 
 a kindred 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 Diodorus and Plutarch speak of the cruelty of Ochus in his 
 court and in his rule over the empire {vide infra). From such a 
 ruler we would then expect just such treatment of the Jews who 
 showed no inclination to be obedient subjects to a nation whose 
 reUgion was so different from their own. 
 
 Actual traces of just what we would otherwise expect are found 
 in our historic sources. The first of these to notice is a quotation 
 from Solinus 35.4: "Judaeae caput fuit Hierusolyma, sed excisa 
 est. Successit Hierichus: et haec desivit, Artaxerxis bello subacta." 
 Dodwell^ and more recently Th. Reinach^ advanced the supposition 
 that the Artaxerxes mentioned is Ardashir I, the founder of the 
 Sassanid kingdom, 224-242 a. d., who threatened Syria under 
 Alexander Severus in 233 A. d. Reinach thinks that Solinus mis- 
 
 ' Jahrbiicher fur Klassische Philologie, 1863, 714; so Ewald Gesch.; and Judeich. 
 op. cit. 170, 171. 
 
 » Hieronymus, 359-58, but in the seventh year of Ochus. Armenian Transl. 
 354. 
 
 3 Gratz, Gesch. der Juden II. 2. no, thinks if the captivity can be accepted as 
 history, then it is due to their adherence to their doctrines and convictions. 
 
 4 Cf. The Assuan Papiri. 
 
 5 In Hudson Geograph. Graec. II. 71. 
 
 6 "La deuxi^me ruine de Jericho" in Sem. Studies in Memory of Alex. Kohul, 
 457-462. 
 
HISTORY OF OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 39 
 
 interpreted his source, Plinius, and wrote Jericho for Machaerus. 
 "Solin aurait mal interpr^te le texte de Pline, changd par inadvert- 
 ance Machaerus en Hiericus."' How could Sohnus, a writer of 
 mediocrity, get a hold of such an isolated fact ? The destruction of 
 Jerusalem was that of the year 70 a. d. through Titus, after which 
 Jericho also was destroyed. "Hierichus successit" must be inter- 
 preted cum grano salis, not that Jericho became the capital of Judea, 
 but that it was the second city in rank. And this it was no more in 
 the fourth century, hence it experienced a disaster after Titus and 
 before Solinus. Within this time there was an Artaxerxes, namely 
 Ardashir I. He and not Ochus is meant in the quotation of Solinus. 
 Jericho was destroyed not by the Persians but by the Romans for 
 siding with the Persians. For how could the Persians invade Jericho 
 with its strong fortifications ? Moreover, why should they ? What 
 occasion was there for it ? There was no cause for the Jews to be 
 provoked at the Persians, but every reason for them to hate the 
 Romans who imposed taxes upon them and restricted their efforts 
 in making proselytes. Finally the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus 
 could easily have been mistaken for that of Alexander Sevcrus by 
 Solinus following Jerome and Eusebius. Reinach concludes by 
 admitting that this is only a conjecture, but thinks that it has the 
 advantage of not doing violence to the text and that it affords a more 
 reasonable view of the histor)\ Schiirer^ inclines to accept this and 
 calls the quotation a confused remark usually applied to the cam- 
 paign of Ochus against the Jews. He is followed by E. Meycr^ 
 who thinks it better to apply the passage to the reign of Ardashir I. 
 Cheyne also accepts the conclusion of Reinach. 
 
 On the other hand, is it not just as easy to assume that Solinus 
 had a source unknown to us otherwise, from which he learned the 
 fact stated, as to think that he confused names and dates of events ? 
 Why should the Romans destroy Jericho when the enemy with whom 
 the Jews are supposed to have sympathized never crossed the Eu- 
 phrates at this time ? It is just as easy, and this may be the correct 
 interpretation, to take "excisa est" cum grano salis as "Hierichus 
 successit," and say that the disaster that befell Jerusalem was not a 
 destruction like that through Nebuchadrezzar, or later through 
 
 I P. 457. ' Op. cit. III. 6. n. 3 Gesch. des Alt. III. 212. 
 
40 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 
 
 Antiochus Epiphanes, or through Antiochus Sidetes, nor yet like 
 that of 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. 
 
 Mommsen' has rightly taken the opposite \'iew and has con- 
 clusively shown the impossibility of Reinach's conclusion since there 
 is no evidence that Ardashir I ever came near Palestine.^ Twice 
 he made an attempt to advance westward, but was unable to cross 
 the Mesopotamian desert. In 233 he met with some success in the 
 Roman Asiatic possessions, but was defeated by Alexander Severus 
 in a great battle.^ Under the Roman Maximus, 235-238, Mesopo- 
 tamia came into the power of Ardashir and the Persians again threat- 
 ened to cross the Euphrates. In 242 the Romans once more declared 
 war against the Persians 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 
 conflict between the Romans and the Sassanids, but no evidence 
 can be adduced that Ardashir ever crossed the Euphrates.'' Nothing 
 is mentioned of a destruction of Jericho. Mommsen says:^ "Hoc 
 scio neque a SoUno usquam taha citari ipsius aetate gesta neque 
 Artaxerxen ilium attigisse Palaestinam." The citation from Dio 
 Cassius^ does not prove in any way that Ardashir advanced farther 
 than the Euphrates. Holscher' therefore rightly concludes that 
 the quotation from Solinus points to Artaxcrxes II and that since 
 there is nothing against its credibihty there remains nothing but to 
 accept it as fact. 
 
 Another reference is found in Eusebius:^ *^X°^ 'Apra^ep^ov iralf 
 elf AiyviTTOv aTpuTevcov /xepiKTjv al^fidXcoaiav elXev 'lovSaioov, wv 
 T0V9 fiev ev "TpKavia KarufKicre tt/jo? ttj KaaKia daXdacrr)^ Tovt S' eV 
 ^a^vKoiVL. ol Koi /^e^t vvv elcriv avrodi, &)<? TroWot twv 'FtXXyjvcov 
 la-Topovcnv. In the translation of Hieronymus^ we read: "Ochus 
 
 » Solinus Introd. vii; cf. Romische Gesch., 18863 V. 419-21. 
 
 2 Nbldeke op. cit. 86-92; Justi op. cit. 177-82. 
 
 3 Lampridius Al. Sevreus 56. 4 E\xseh.= Sync. 674 and 683. 
 s Solinus Introd. vii. ^ Ixxx. 3. 
 
 7 Paldslina in der Pers. u. Hel. Zeit 47, 48. 
 
 ^ Chron. ed. Schone II. ii2 = Sync. 486. 10. o Ibid. 113. 
 
HISTORY OF OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 41 
 
 Apodasmo Judaiorum capta in Hyrcaniam accolas translates juxta 
 mare Caspium conlocavit." In the Armenian translation' this reads: 
 "Ochuspartem aliquam de Romanis Judaeisque cepit et habitare fecit 
 in Hyrcania juxta mare Cazbium." There is some doubt as to the 
 sources from which Eusebius drew his information {vide supra 
 p, 24,) but scarcely any as to the credibihty of the facts mentioned. 
 Wellhausen^ calls it "eine schwache Kunde" and Stade^ considers 
 the quotation "sehr dunkel." Others accept it as rehable, and 
 rightly so. Schiirer'' is no doubt correct in saying that tow S' iv ySa- 
 ^vKoiVL was added by Syncellus "out of his own wisdom," and that 
 the Armenian translation added "de Romanis." 
 
 A reference undoubtedly based on Eusebius is found in Orosius 
 iii. 7: "Tunc etiam Ochus, qui et Artaxerxes,^ post transactum in 
 Aegypto maximum diuturnumque bellum, plurimos Judaiorum in 
 transmigratinem egit, atque in Hyrcania ad Caspium mare habitare 
 praecepit: quos ibi usque in hodierum diem amphssimis generis sui 
 incrementis consistere, atque exinde quandoque erupturos opinio 
 est." 
 
 Confirming evidence is also found in the condition of the Jericho 
 valley at this time, as Holscher*^ has shown from Diodorus' who had 
 for his source in this case Hieronymus of Kardia, who wrote in the 
 days of Antigonus, 323-301, a successor of Alexander the Great. 
 No more rehable source could be asked for. According to this source 
 the whole Jericho valley in the last decade of the fourth century was 
 no longer Jewish but Arabian, whom Hieronymus calls Nabataeans. 
 Holscher* has pointed out that their territory included Idumaca, 
 which 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 Judaios domuit; postea cum ipsis 
 Persis in dicionem Alexandri jNlagni vencrc, diuque in potestate 
 
 1 Ihid. 112. 5 ' Apraf^p^es 6 i-KoKovdeh Ox"*' 
 
 2 Op. cit. 192. ^ Op. cit. 48-50. 
 
 3 Gesch. des Volhes Isr. II. 194. ' xix. 98 = ii. 48. 
 
 4 Op. cit. III. 6, n. 8 Op. cit. 23-25. 
 
42 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 
 
 Macedonici imperii subjecti Syriae regno fuere. A Demetrio cum 
 descivissent, amicitia Romanorum petita, primi omnium ex oriental- 
 ibus libertatem receperunt, facile tunc Romanis de alieno largien- 
 tibus." There is no other evidence that Xerxes ever forced the Jews 
 into subjection. It is very probable that we are to understand with 
 Holscher' that the original reading was Artaxerxes (III) instead of 
 Xerxes. He thinks that the information is based on Timagenes who 
 wrote during the latter half of the first century B. c. 
 
 Taking all these evidences together we have the strong probabihty 
 if not the absolute certainty that Jericho was devastated and that the 
 Jews were deported to Hyrcania during the reign of Ochus, and, as 
 shown before, within the year 353-352, as a punishment for their 
 rebellion or at least for their refusal to submit to the Persian rule. 
 This conclusion is strengthened by the fact that there was a large 
 colony of Jews in Hyrcania numbering in the Roman time not only 
 thousands but miUions.^ Granted that many of these went there 
 of their own choice and that many more were born there, the accept- 
 ance of these historic references explains the beginning of the colony, 
 which is otherwise not explained in history. Finally, also, the frequent 
 occurrence of the name Hyrcanus among the Jews^ points in the 
 same direction, and to the time of Ochus rather than to a later period,'* 
 since in the later period the name is already in common use. 
 
 The second revolt of the Jews during the reign of Ochus, as 
 Judeich,5 followed by Guthe,^ has clearly shown, came in connection 
 with the third campaign against Egypt shortly after the destruction 
 of Sidon, 348, and before the final reconquest of Egypt, 343. Nol- 
 deke' incorrectly connects this with the first revolt, and Stade^ places 
 it still earher, namely in the reign of Artaxerxes Mnemon, while 
 Schiirer^ is uncertain as to the date. Willrich'° supposes the Josephus 
 section to refer to an event of the Alaccabaean period. Bagoses is 
 
 ' Op. cit. 46, n. 
 
 » Schiirer op. cit. III. 6, 7, based on Jos. Ant. .\i. 5. 2. 
 
 3 Jos. Ant. xxii. 4. 6-11; Vita i; II Mak. 3:11; often in Mishna. 
 
 4 As Winckler and VVillrich, by their system of change of names, claim. 
 
 5 Op. cit. 171, n. 
 
 6 Gesch. des Volkes Isr. 292. ^ Op. cit. 77-78. 
 
 8 Op. cit. 194. 9 Op. cit. III. 6. n. 
 
 'o Juden u. Criechen vor der Mak. Erhebung 88-89. 
 
Of The "^ 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF 
 HISTORY OF OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 43 
 
 not the Persian Bagoas but Antiochus Epiphanes. Josephus did not 
 make Ochus a persecutor of the Jews. In fact Ochus was not an 
 enemy of the Jews. All the references originated from the Josephus 
 passage and that does not refer to Ochus but to Antiochus Epiphanes.' 
 That this conclusion does not stand appears already from a historic 
 examination of the sources. Such confusing or changing of names 
 is not in harmony with the historic method of Josephus. Already 
 Ewald^ considered it likely that the Jews rebelled with their near 
 neighbors, the Phoenicians, against the Persians. This is indeed more 
 than probable. Otherwise it is difficult 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 
 upon revolting colonists. 
 
 In the section of Josephus^ we read that after the death of the 
 high priest Ehashib, his son Judas succeeded him in that office, and 
 he in turn was followed by Johanan. He gave Bagoses'' ( = Bagoas) 
 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 
 before the sacrifice. This came about as follows: Johanan had a 
 brother, Jesus, to whom Bagoses, as to a good friend, had promised 
 the office 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 Greeks or the 
 barbarians. Consequently, as a result for this act, God allowed the 
 people to be reduced to servitude and their temple to be polluted 
 by the Persians. For as soon as Bagoses 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 committed murder in the 
 temple ?" And with these words he entered the temple. The death 
 of Jesus gave Bagoses a desired occasion to oppress the Jews seven 
 years. 5 
 
 I Jiidaica § 39 and §103. ' Gesch. II. 2. 210. 
 
 3 Ant. xi. 7. I, ed, Niese, 1892; with Josephus agree Diod. xvii. 5.3 and Strabo, 
 
 4 Grk. ^ayuiarji ed. Niese. 
 
 s Cf. Sachau Drei aram. Papyrusurkunden aus Elephantine, 1906^. 
 
44 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 
 
 Contrary to Stade' who says: "Uber die Schicksale der judischen 
 Gemeinde in dem Jahrhundert, welches zwischen Nehemias Statt- 
 hakerschaft und dem Einbruch Alexanders in das persische Reich 
 verflossen ist, durch ganz Vorderasien in eine neue Entwicklung 
 hingerissen wurde, erfahren wir aus dem Alten Testamente direct 
 gar nichts. Und auch die Gescliichtliche Uberlieferung anderer 
 Volkcr lasst uns fiir diesen Zeilraum in der Geschichte der 
 Gemeinde volhg im Stiche;" and contrary to Wellliausen^ who says 
 of the second half of the Persian period : "Uber die aussere Geschichte 
 dieser Zeit erfahren wir beinahe nichts," we have found historic 
 traces which bear upon the period and throw rays of light upon it 
 that enable us to understand to some extent the conditions of the 
 Jewish community in the days of Ochus. 
 
 It remains yet, after a look at what Ochus did for his own and 
 succeeding ages and what sort of a man he was, to examine the 
 Biblical records to find what light they will throw upon the period 
 under consideration. 
 
 E. THE WORK AND CHARACTER OF OCHUS 
 
 Ochus at last fell a prey to the treachery of his most trusted general 
 Bagoas shortly after the battle of Chaeronaea, 338. Bagoas, fearing 
 a change in the favor of the king, and in order to avenge the death 
 of the Egyptian Apis through Ochus, caused the king to drink poison 
 and placed Arses,^ the youngest son of Ochus, on the throne. All 
 his other sons he killed. When Arses would not let Bagoas rule, 
 he too, together with all his children, was slain, and a friend of the 
 eunuch, Codomannus, a son of Arsanes, and a great-grandson of 
 Darius II, was placed upon the throne. He in turn caused Bagoas 
 to drink the poison which Bagoas had prepared for him, because he 
 would not yield to the wishes of the eunuch. The same year that 
 Codomannus ascended the throne, 336, Philip II was assassinated 
 and followed by his son Alexander. With the death of Ochus and 
 the accession of Alexander the death-knell of the Persian empire 
 was sounded. It required only a Uttle more time for the inevitable 
 to take place. 
 
 ' Op. cil. 194. 3 op. cit. 192. 
 
 3 Diod. xvii. 5; Plut. Alex. 
 
HISTORY OF OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 45 
 
 Ochus was the first Persian ruler since Darius I who had in person 
 energetically conducted a great expedition and restored the empire 
 to its former greatness. It was a great pity that he died just at this 
 critical moment,' for far more than in the days of Darius I did the 
 empire center in the personality of the king. The last years of 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 into the most important offices, a management which was 
 not always found in oriental courts.^ Plutarch said of Ochus that 
 he excelled all his predecessors in cruelty and in blood-thirstiness.^ 
 ^Q.^o'; oyfiorrjTL koX /xiaKpovia 'rrdvra<i v'7rep6aX6/xevo<;. GrotC* calls 
 him "a sanguinary tyrant who shed by wholesale the blood of 
 his family and courtiers." He was energetic and determined, but 
 treacherous and cruel, an oriental despot of an extreme type. His 
 cruelty shows itself alike in his court before and after his accession, 
 and in his rule over the empire in Sidon and in Egypt. No means 
 were too low for him just so they would accomplish his ends. Cheyne^ 
 mentions "the insane cruelties of that degenerate king, Ochus." 
 And Noldeke^ says "he was, it appears, one of those great despots 
 who can raise up again for 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 
 welfare of the state as a whole." 
 
 1 Noldeke op. cit. 80. * Op. cit. xii, chap. xcii. 
 
 2 Justi op. cit. 139. s E. B. III. 2,207. 
 
 3 Artax. 30. 6 Op. cit. 75. 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 AN EXAMINATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SOURCES 
 
 POSSIBLY DATING FROM THE REIGN OF OCHUS OR 
 
 REFLECTING LIGHT THEREON 
 
 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 
 and confirming information they will yield for this period. It is 
 evident that we have it to do not with traditional views but with a 
 scientific treatment of the records. Much has been said and written 
 on this subject during the last decade or two. And since there is an 
 element of uncertainty about the history of the period, there is a great 
 diversity of opinions among scholars concerning the Old Testament 
 sources finding a historical explanation in this period. There are 
 passages also which fit well here and equally so into one or another 
 earher or later period. So, for instance, there is a similarity between 
 the conditions in Palestine during the Assyrian and the late Persian 
 time, and again between this time and that under Antiochus IV, 
 Epiphanes, or of John Hyrcanus. There is no direct reference in the 
 Old Testament to Ochus or his reign by name, so that it becomes a 
 matter of interpretation through a comparison of the thought con- 
 tents of these sources with what is known of the external history of 
 the period. 
 
 A. THE SOURCES 
 
 Since the historical method of study found its way into the 
 circles of Old Testament students, the true meaning and message of 
 the Old Testament is sought in its historic background. Every 
 passage 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: 
 
 I. Passages from Isaiah: (i) 23: 1-14; (2) 19: 1-15; (3) 14: 
 28-32; (4) chaps. 24-27; (5) 32: 9-14; (6) sy. 1-24; (7) chaps. 56-66. 
 
 46 
 
OLD TESTAMENT SOURCES 47 
 
 II. Psalms 44, 74, 79, and 83. Also 89, 94, 132. 
 
 III. Passages from the Minor Prophets: (i) Joel, chap. 3 [4]; 
 (2) Obadiah, vss. 1-15; (3) Habakkuk 1:2 — 2:4, in part; (4) Zecha- 
 riah, chap. 14. 
 
 IV. Parts of Job. 
 
 V. The Apocryphal Books: (i) Judith; (2) Tobit. 
 Some of these have been shown by later scholarship to belong into 
 other periods, so that they can be passed over with a brief notice. 
 Some are generally accepted as coming from this time. Others are 
 still the subject of discussion. Still others are of such a nature that 
 their date can probably never be determined. The present purpose 
 is to examine anew each section and group together the arguments 
 for and against accepting them for the period under consideration. 
 
 B. THE LITERATURE 
 
 W. R. Smith, Article "Book of Psalms" in E. Br.'' XX, 1875. 
 Ihid. The Old Testament in the Jewish Church, 1892^ 207, 208, 
 437-40. Fr. Baethgen Die Psalmen iihersetzt und erkldrt, Hand- 
 kommentar zum A. T., 1892. Juhus Ley Historische Erkldrung 
 des zweiten Jesaia c. 40-66, 1893. W. H. Kosters Het Herstel van 
 Israel in het Perzische Tijdvak, 1894, Ger. Transl., 1895, 64-73. 
 G. Wildeboer De Letterkunde des Ouden Verbonds naar de Tijdsorde 
 van haar Ontstaan, 1893, 1903% Ger. Transl., 1895. T- •^- Cheyne 
 Introduction to the Book of Isaiah, 1895. K. Budde, Review of 
 Cheyne's Introduction in Th. L. Z., 1896, 286, 287. W. H. Kosters 
 "Deutero- en Trito-Jesaja" in Th. Tijdschr., 1896, 577-623. S. R. 
 Driver Introduction to the Literature of the O. T., 1891, 1897*^. H. 
 Gressmann Ueher die in Jesaia c. 56-66 vorausgesetzten Verhdltnisse, 
 1898. J. Skinner, "Isaiah" in Camb. Bib., i, 898. T. K. Cheyne 
 Jewish Religious Life after the Exile, 1898, 158-72. E. Littmann 
 Ueber die Abfassungszeit des Trito-Jesaja, 1899. B. Duhm Die 
 Psalmen erkldrt, K. H. C. A. T., 1899. K. Marti Das Buch Jesaja, 
 K. H. C. A. T., 1900. B. Duhm Das Buch Jesaja iibersetzt und 
 erkldrt, H. K. A. T., 1892, 1901'. T. K. Cheyne, "The Book of 
 Isaiah," in E. B. II, 1901. W. R. Smith and T. K. Cheyne, Article 
 " Psalms" in E. B. Ill, 1902, §§i8, 23, 28. W. Nowack Die Kleinen 
 Propheten iibersetzt und erkldrt, H. K. A. T., 1897, 19033. K. Marti 
 
48 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 
 
 Das Dodekapropheton, in K. H. C. A. T., 1904. C. von Orelli 
 Der Prophet Jesaja ausgelegi, 1887, 19043. C. H. Comill Ein- 
 leitung in die Bikher des A. T., 1891, 19055. G. Holscher Paldstina 
 in der Persischen und Hellenistischen Zeit, 1903, 46-50. H. Guthe, 
 Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 1904, 289-301. E. Schurer Geschichte 
 des Judischen Volkes iin Zeitaller Jesu Christi, 1902^. R. Kittel, 
 Article "Psalmcn" in Realenc. fUr Protestantische Theologie und 
 Kirche, 1905. Bd. 16. 
 
 C. EXAMINATION OF THE SOURCES 
 
 I. Passages from Isaiah — (i) Isa. 23: 1-14 [15-18]. IS IJ5TD13 The 
 Oracle concerning Sidon, one of the ten oracles forming the frame- 
 work of Isa., chaps. 13-27. That vss. 15-18, the promised restoration 
 of T)Te, do not form a part of the original section but are a later 
 addition, was pointed out already by Ewald, who is followed by most 
 later writers. These verses stand in strong contrast with vss. 1-14. 
 They are not like vss. 1-14, poetry, but prose with a quotation from 
 a song in vs. 16. Language, imagery, and subject matter are different 
 in the two parts. Ewald and Cheyne place the added verses in the 
 beginning of the Persian period.' Duhm^ places them after the 
 fall of Tyre under Alexander the Great in 332, and Marti^ in the 
 second century by a writer who recognized in vss. 1-14 the fulfilment 
 of a prophecy concerning the fall of Tyre in 332, and who saw the 
 rise of Tyre under the Seleucides. The promise of a restoration 
 of Tyre, after seventy years, is modeled after Jer. 25: 9-11, and 29: 10, 
 meaning after a change of dynasty as in case of the Pharaoh of Joseph, 
 Ex. 1:8. Tyre was really forgotten by reason of the prosperity of 
 Carthage and the rise of its rival, Alexandria. Not till the time of 
 the Seleucides did it rise again, yet long before the seventy years 
 after the conquests.^ Further evidence of the rise of Tyre is also 
 found in 2^ch. 9:3, "And Tyre did build herself a stronghold, and 
 hcai)cd up silver as the dust, and fine gold as the mire of the streets." 
 
 The date of vss. 1-14 has long perplexed the critics. It is evident 
 that the text has sufTered corruption in order to adapt the poem 
 
 » So also Eichhorn, Vatkc, Konig. 
 
 » Das Buch Jes. iiberseizt u. erhldrt, ad. loc. 
 
 3 Das Buch Jesaja, ad. loc. 
 
 4 Cf. Schurer Cesch. des Jud. Volkes II. 74. 
 
OLD TESTAMENT SOURCES 49 
 
 to another than its original purpose. The acceptance of the text as 
 it is, "li Tyre, and Q'^'niCi) Chaldaeans, in vss. i and 12, led W. R. 
 Smith' to consider the passage as a prophecy of Isaiah against Tyre 
 shortly before Sennacherib's invasion in 701, pointing to the punish- 
 ment recently inflicted upon Chaldaea by the Assyrians in 710-709 
 or in 701. But even by accepting vs. 13 as it stands, this is hardly 
 possible, for it describes a severer disaster than that which befell 
 Babylon through Assyria at that time. And, besides, Tyre is not 
 mentioned in the inscriptions among the cities besieged by Senna- 
 cherib. On the other hand, vs. 13, because of its meaninglessness, 
 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. 
 
 The introduction of D'''n^3 was thought to be too abrupt. 
 Ewald proposed to change it to D'^^^DS Canaanites. His con- 
 jecture was adopted by Schrader,^ Cheyne, Orelh, Dehtzsch, and 
 viewed favorably by Dillman and Driver. ^ Cheyne afterward 
 reverted to D'''ni2;3 on Assyriological grounds. If the emendation 
 would stand, then the verse would refer simply to the threatening 
 fate of Phoenicia, and the whole section could be considered as an 
 Isaianic prophecy and could plausibly be assigned to the period of 
 the five-year siege of Tyre by Shalmaneser IV between 727 and 723 
 related by Josephus.s But the text is as difficult with W^^TJp 
 as with D'^'n\p|). What could be the significance of "jll behold} 
 Certainly the devastation of Canaan was nothing 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 Isaiah. Others refer all of chap. 23 to the age if not to the author- 
 ship of Jeremiah.*^ Stade^ places the entire chapter in the age of 
 Alexander the Great. 
 
 E. Meyer, followed by Duhm and Marti, changes D'^'llflS of 
 vs. 13 to D''^ri3 Cyprians, and refers to vs. 12 for the reason. The 
 
 I The Prophets oj Israel 333. ^ Introd. to the Bh. oj Isa. 141. 
 
 3K. A. r.2 409 f. 
 
 A Introd. to the Literature oj the O. Tfi 219. 
 
 s Ant. ix. 14.2.; so Ewald, Schrader, Kuenen, Dillman, Orelli, Cheyne, Driver. 
 
 6 Hitzig, Bleek. ^ Gesch. des Volkes Isr. II. 208. 
 
50 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 
 
 emendation is not an easy one but probably correct. With a slight 
 change the verse then reads : TibB'zb M'^TD l^^CH D^FlS ynx -jH 
 Behold the land of the Kittim he has laid waste, to a heap of ruins he 
 made it (Marti), The rest of the verse is a gloss {vide supra). One 
 more emendation, first proposed by Duhm and adopted by Marti 
 and Cornill, and it seems to me we have the original meaning of 
 the passage. This is "I'S to "12 ("liTlS) Sidon in vss. i and 
 8. This is an easy emendation and is altogether probable since in 
 vss. 2, 4, 12 Sidon is certainly meant. This gives unity and meaning 
 to the section, finding its full explanation in the historic situation 
 of the destruction of Sidon by Ochus in 348, into which history it 
 fits perfectly {vide supra). Then we have not a prophecy but an 
 elegy composed upon the destruction of Sidon. It is easy to see how 
 a later writer, the one who added vss. 15-18, would adapt the elegy 
 to a prophecy against Tyre, He also changed "pcl to "i22 in vss. 
 I and 8, and so made out of the elegy upon Sidon a IS 5<iS'J burden 
 of Tyre. Vs. 5 is a prosaic gloss whose contents has no connection 
 with the poem.' That Tyre was not meant originally is clear from 
 the fact that it was thrice besieged, five years under Shalmaneser- 
 Sargon, again under Asarhaddon-Assur-banipal, and thirteen years by 
 Nebuchadrezzar, but not conquered till under Alexander in 332. 
 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 
 it destroyed. 3 The translation of "122 as "Phoenicia" is rendered 
 impossible by vs. 12.'' Likewise the view of Cheyne, Guthe, and 
 Kittel, 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 
 Isaiah (Duhm), Cheyne^ points out Isaianic ideas and phraseology 
 and then adds what seem to him non-Isaianic features, which, how- 
 ever, seem to predominate. The passage may be accepted without 
 hesitancy as an elegy upon the destruction of Sidon (Marti) in 348, 
 and may confidently be received as a reliable source for the reign 
 of Ochus. 
 
 « Duhm, Cheyne, Marti. ' Herodotus vii, 98; viii. 67. 
 
 3 Cf. Pietschmann Gesch. der Phoenizier 302-6; M.tyex Cesch. des AUerlums I. 595. 
 
 4 Guthe in Kautzsch Bibel'. s Op. cit. 143. 
 
OLD TESTAMENT SOURCES 5 1 
 
 (2) Isa. 19:1-15 [16-25]. O'!'^^''? t^iS'J The Oracle concerning 
 Egypt, another of the ten oracles of Isa., chaps. 13-27. As in chap. 23, 
 so we have here an original section, vss. 1-15, and a later addition, 
 vss. 16-25. Tradition indeed accepted the entire chapter as Isaianic. 
 Scholars long accepted this view and sought to find a place in history 
 for the chapter. Ewald' accepted the chapter as Isaianic but noticed 
 difficulties in the differences. He described it as Isaiah's last and 
 noblest "testament to posterity," probably because of the grand 
 cathohcity of the picture with which the chapter closes, namely that 
 both Assyria, the life-long oppressor of Judah, and Egypt should turn 
 to Jahwe and be on an equality with Israel in the kingdom of God. 
 Ewald thinks the chapter consistent with the period after 701, after 
 Egypt was defeated by Sennacherib.^ Driver considers it a plausible 
 conjecture to place it in connection with the defeat of Egypt by 
 Sargon at Raphia in 720.^ 
 
 That vss. 16-25 ^o ^ot form a part of the original section, vss. 
 I -1 5, was shown already by Hitzig, who thought them to come from 
 the hand of Onias in his own interest, at the time of the founding 
 of the Onias temple in LeontopoHs, ca. 160 b. c, according to Jo- 
 sephus." The alHance of Syria, Israel, and Egypt the writer hoped 
 to be realized through the successes of Judas Maccabaeus. Hitzig 
 later considered vss. 21-25 ^^ purely imaginative. His earher view 
 was adopted by Duhm. The section cannot be Isaianic, for vs. 16 
 would be a direct denial of 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 cities speaking the language of Canaan, among them Leontopohs, 
 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 
 and Syria, and which shall include Judah, the marriage of Alexander 
 Balas with the daughter of Ptolemy Philometer at which Jonathan 
 clothed in purple was present (I Mac. 10: 51-56). The glorification 
 of the temple of Leontopolis and of the Jewish generals indicates 
 
 I Hist, of Isr. II. 267 f. 2 So also Stade, Dillman, Kuenen. 
 
 3 Guthe in Kautzsch Bibel places it at 715. 
 
 4 Ant. xiii. 3. i. 
 
52 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 
 
 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 
 the gentiles. That the history of the time is put into the form of 
 prediction is in harmony with the Hterary style of the time. Marti 
 agrees with Duhm that the time of the founding of the Onias temple, 
 1 60 B. c, affords the best historic explanation of these verses. He 
 regards vss. 16-25 ^^ a unity, intended to limit or to cancel the im- 
 pression of vss. 1-15 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 
 triple alliance with Judah and Syria. 
 
 Cheyne is certain that vss. 16-25 ^^^ "^^ Isaianic, for (a) the 
 prophecy, vss. 1-15, is from a literary point of view complete without 
 an appendix, (b) The tone of these verses is entirely different from 
 the first part. There is a strong contrast between the two parts. 
 The first is the sternest threatening, the second has a more sym- 
 pathetic tone toward Egypt than is found in any other part of the 
 Old Testament, even a conversion of Egypt to the true God. (c) 
 To a Jew of Isaiah's time the conversion of Assyria, not of Egypt, 
 was of primary interest. The conversion of the less dangerous 
 neighbor is not a conceivable idea of Isaiah, (d) The circumstantial 
 description in vss. 18-25 (^ss. 16 and 17 Hnk the original prophecy 
 with the addition) is contrary to the prophetic genius of Isaiah. 
 (e) There are no stylistic indications of Isaiah. The style is prosaic. 
 The Isaianic expressions only indicate that the writer was acquainted 
 with Isaiah.' But Cheyne, and with him Cornill, thinks it impossible 
 that vss. 16-25 c^^ come from so late a date as 160, since such an 
 addition could not have been accepted into the text of the Palestinian 
 synagogue so late. This objection is, however, not insurmountable 
 since the canon was not closed till after that time. While the pro- 
 phetic collection already existed pretty much in its present form 
 about 200 B. c, still the possibility of much later additions is not 
 ruled out.' The group of prophecies, Isa., chaps. 13-27, can hardly 
 have been collected before the close of the second century b. c.^ 
 
 > Op. cit. 99-101. 
 
 ' K. Budde Art. "Canon" in E. B. I. §39 and n. i. 
 
 3 Marti op. cit. p. xvi. 
 
 » 
 
OLD TESTAMENT SOURCES 53 
 
 Cheyne thinks the author considered HlTp D^'pli^ the cruel 
 lord, as Ochus, or with LXX Kvpiwv a-KXrjpcov hard lords, as 
 Ochus and the other Persian kings who conquered Egypt, namely 
 Cambyses and Xerxes. The passage can be explained only by the 
 history of the Greek period under the first four Ptolemies. When the 
 empire of Alexander was divided, Egypt fell to Ptolemy Lagi who 
 in 320 added to it Phoenicia and Coelo-Syria with the territory of 
 Judah. Antigonus received Syria and Asia Minor. Southern 
 Syria remained disputed ground. The people of Judah suffered 
 harsh treatment from Ptolemy. Many captives from Judah and 
 Samaria were carried away to Egypt. ^ Many Jews also went of 
 their own accord, invited by the goodly country and the liberality 
 of Ptolemy toward them in Alexandria. So far the verses contain 
 recent history. Now follows a look into the future. Egypt shall 
 turn to Jahwe. A highway from Egypt to Syria shall be opened. 
 Israel shall be the link between the Seleucides and the Ptolemies. 
 All shall serve Jahwe and from the three allied peoples spiritual light 
 will radiate. Hence he concludes that the addition is the work of 
 an Egyptian Jew ca. 275. Cornill^ considers it inconceivable that 
 the verses could date from an earlier time than the settling of Jews 
 in Egypt by Ptolemy Lagi, 323-285. 
 
 From the examination of vss. 16-25 we may confidently affirm 
 that they are not Isaianic and that they are from a later writer than 
 vss. 1-15. It remains yet to examine vss. 1-15 to find as nearly as 
 possible their origin and date. While Hitzig dated vss. 16-25 ^^ ^^^ 
 he held firmly to the Isaianic authorship of vss. 1-15. Eichhorn 
 first denied the authorship of Isaiah. The non-Isaianic authorship 
 is now held by Duhm, Smend, Kittel, Cornill, and Marti. But for 
 what reason? First let us ascertain whether vss. 1-15 are a unity. 
 As in chapter 23 so we have here three strophes, vss. 1-4, 5-10, and 
 11-15, and not of regular formation. Neither is each strophe a 
 unit idea. The first 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 
 hand, form a unit idea together: vss. 5-10, the drying up of the Nile 
 and the woe of fishermen and weavers, and vss. 1 1-15, the insufficiency 
 
 I Jos. Anl. xii. i. » Einl. in das A. T. 171. 
 
54 ARTAXERXES III OCHDS AND HIS REIGN 
 
 and helplessness of the Egyptian wisdom. Cheyne therefore sepa- 
 rates vss. 5-10 as obstructing the connection, and considers them 
 from a later hand.' The evidence, however, is not convincing since 
 the connection between the first and third strophe is scarcely any 
 closer.^ We may therefore accept the entire section as a unit. 
 
 That the section cannot come from Isaiah is evident (a) from a 
 lack of any historic connection with Judah, any political motive for 
 the threats uttered, for the older prophets always connected their 
 messages with some contemporary event in history, (b) Many 
 ideas are not Isaianic: The ride of Jahwe on a swift cloud to Egypt, 
 vs. I, is almost unique in prophecy. The theoretically estabUshed 
 monotheism and the comparison of the Jewish religious teaching 
 with the Egyptian wisdom, vss. 3 and 12, is unhke Isaiah. The 
 plan of Jahwe is already a subject of learned wisdom, vs. 12 (Marti). 
 Would Isaiah have spoken of D']"'22p n^l") the spirit of Egypt, vs. 3, 
 and have shown the anxiety for the fishermen and weavers of Egypt, 
 vss. 5-10, a calamity in no way political (Duhm)? (c) The arrangement 
 and style is not Isaianic. Would Isaiah have used D'^'^^p six times 
 in the first five hnes ? Cheyne^ at first pronounced the section the 
 work of 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 
 to the Isaianic basis, and thought the niflp Cjli^ none other than 
 Sargon who defeated the Egyptians at Raphia in 720. Later he 
 asserts "I can now find no sure traces of an Isaianic substratum." 
 
 That Isaiah cannot have been the author of vss. 1-15 is certainly 
 evident. Into what other period then does the section belong? 
 Cheyne-' thinks of Cambyses who conquered Psammetich III in 
 525, and of Xerxes who reconquered Egypt. Either one can rightly 
 be called n'JJ|D D-wiyi . The section belongs in "the long Persian 
 period, but nothing compels us to descend as far as Artaxerxes 
 Ochus." Vss. 5-10 are not later than 485. Judging from the 
 cruelty of Ochus in Phoenicia and Judea, he thinks it difficult to 
 see how a Jew could have written so coldly and so indififercntly of 
 the final campaign against Egypt. Duhm, on the other hand, and 
 with him Marti and Cornill, rightly think of Artaxerxes III, Ochus, 
 
 ' op. cit. no, HI. 3 Op. cit. 113, 114. 
 
 » Marti op. cit. 155. 4 Op. cit. 118, 119. 
 
OLD TESTAMENT SOURCES 55 
 
 who conquered Nectanebus II in 343 {vide supra). Into this period 
 the separate allusions fit correctly. Civil strife and sudden change 
 of dynasties, vs. 2, discord in military operations, revolts and con- 
 fusion, all were common in those days. The epithet riTDp 0"'^^? 
 fits Ochus better than anyone else in the history of Persia (vide 
 supra, pp. 44, 45). The section was probably written in Egypt 
 sometime between the destruction of Sidon in 348 and the recon- 
 quest of Egypt, 343, as "an elegy upon the punishment of Egypt 
 through Ochus" (Marti), and may be accepted as another rehable 
 source for the history of the reign of Ochus. 
 
 (3) Isa. 14:28-32, t^'Jpbs iX^'D The Oracle concerning Philistia. 
 This prophecy of four strophes of four lines each bears the heading, 
 "In the year of the death of king Ahaz' was this Oracle." Were 
 this reliable, then both authorship and date would be fixed, namely 
 that we have a prophecy from Isaiah in the year 721. But the late 
 l^iD^n points to the redactor of Isa., chaps. 13-27, which contains 
 the ten oracles concerning foreign nations. To substitute l^'nn the 
 word for l^iS^ll , following prf^a of the LXX (Cheyne) does not 
 stand, for prjyia is found for J^iS^fl also in 15:1 and 17:1 where 
 ^y^T\ could not stand. That the heading cannot be correct as it 
 now reads is admitted even by those who claim the Isaianic author- 
 ship of the prophecy. 
 
 Two dates within the time of Isaiah were thought of as forming 
 a reasonable background for the prophecy. One of these is the year 
 720, where the prophecy would refer to the disturbances in Syria 
 and Palestine, which followed the defeat of Sargon by the Elamites, 
 the alhes of Merodach Baladan, in which Assyria lost its most prized 
 possession, Babylon.^ This is an attempt to bring the event as near 
 as possible into harmony with the heading. The inference rests 
 upon the Babylonian chronicle,^ The inscriptions of Sargon are 
 silent on this point. The other date is 705, ^ the year of Sargon's 
 death. In this case ^TO a serpent, vs. 29, would refer to Sargon, and 
 r|B'i3'p rp^, a fiery flying serpent, to Sennacherib. The Philistines 
 
 ' 733-721. 
 
 ' Cheyne op. cit. 80, 81; cf. Winckler Uniersuchungen 135-137- 
 
 3 B, col. I, 11. 33-35. 
 
 4 Guthe Kautzsch Bibel wavers between this date and 711. 
 
56 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 
 
 might naturally rejoice over the death of Sargon, who had defeated 
 Hanno of Gaza at Raphia in 720, and captured Ashdod in 711. That 
 Sennacherib severely punished the Philistines is clear from his in- 
 scriptions.' Others have thought of the time of Tiglath-Pileser III 
 (745-727) and Shalmaneser IV (726-722),^ 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 
 the dates mentioned 705 seems the most likely to be the correct one. 
 The inviolabihty of Zion, vs. 32, certainly is an Isaianic idea. So 
 also is the sympathy for the poor, \'s. 30, so that the prophecy finds 
 a reasonable explanation in the Assyrian period and may plausibly 
 be claimed for Isaiah. 
 
 But is there not another period in which the prophecy finds even 
 a more perfect explanation ? Duhm thinks of the period after the 
 battle of Issos, 333, and before the capture of Tyre and Gaza by 
 Alexander the Great, as the situation best explaining the prophecy, 
 and refers to the suffering of the Philistines during the reign of the 
 last Persian kings, in their conflict with Egypt, as sufficient ground 
 for rejoicing over the downfall of Persia. The phrase i^^ "^^D^, 
 the poor of his people, is decidedly postexilic in appearance. Marti 
 agrees with Duhm and thinks the allusion points to the reign of 
 Ochus as the cause of the hatred against the Persians on part of the 
 Philistines. Cheyne also holds this view now.^ But did Philistia 
 suffer such severe violence at the hand of the Persians ? And, if so, 
 did not, as we have seen before, Judah suffer mistreatment at that 
 time so that Zion was not any more a place of refuge for the afflicted ? 
 Yet the predominating evidence points toward this time. If accepted, 
 then the prophecy throws confirming light upon the historic evidence 
 of the cruelty of Ochus in his western campaigns. 
 
 (4) Isa., chaps. 24-27, a singular production without any head- 
 ing, which later critics agree in assigning to another age than Isaiah's. 
 Already Ewald** claimed only a part of it for Isaiah, namely 26:6-8, 
 chaps. 10 and 11, 27:9-13, as Isaianic. Delitzsch,^ in the first three 
 
 ' Driver Life and Times oj Isa. 67 f. 
 
 ' So W. R. Smith The Proph. oj Isr. 319, and Kucnen and Driver. 
 
 3 Art. "Isaiah" in E. B. II. 2,197. 
 
 4 Die Lehre der Bibel von Gott III. 444. 
 
 J 1866 f. For his latest view vide infra, p. 58. 
 
OLD TESTAMENT SOURCES 57 
 
 editions of his commentary, says that it is arbitrary to deny the author- 
 ship of Isaiah of an entire section fundamentally, and in a thousand 
 details Isaianic, simply because of its peculiarities. J. Bredencamp^ 
 regards the main portion Isaianic with some lyrical parts as later 
 insertions. As late as 1891 W. E. Barnes thought it necessary to 
 publish a learned " Examination of the Objections brought against 
 the Genuineness of Isa., chaps. 24-27." Two years later C. H. H. 
 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:^ (a) The section lacks a 
 suitable historical occasion in Isaiah's time. There is no period in 
 the Ass^Tian history into which it really fits well. The situation 
 is certainly not that of any of the acknowledged prophecies of Isaiah. 
 
 (b) The social and rehgious circumstances described are those of a 
 time in which priests constitute the most important class, 24:2, 
 pointing to the time after the priestly law-book had become canonical. 
 
 (c) The ideas and ideals are not those of Isaiah. In Isaiah the 
 remnant which escapes is saved in Judah or Jerusalem, 4:3; here 
 the voices of the redeemed are first heard from distant quarters of 
 the earth, 24: 14-16.'* The extension of religious privileges to all 
 peoples, 25:6, is characteristic of Deutero-Isaiah and later times. 
 The hope of the resurrection of individual Israelites, 26:19, is cer- 
 tainly not Isaianic. (d) The linguistic and stylistic representation 
 is in many respects unhke that of Isaiah. It is more artificial 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 
 these chapters and the undoubted authentic speeches of Isaiah. "5 
 Not only do these arguments point to a post-Isaianic period, but as 
 well to a postexilic time. It only remains to determine how far down 
 we are to go. 
 
 The question of the literary unity must first be considered before 
 that of authorship can be settled. Already Ewald rightly recog- 
 nized that 25:1-5 breaks the connection between 24:23 and 25:6. 
 
 I Commentar, 1886, 1887, ad. he. 
 
 ' Art. "Isaiah" in Smith's B. D. 18932. 4 Driver Introd. 221. 
 
 3 Cf. Cheyne op. oil. 147-54. s Cornill op. cit. 173. 
 
58 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 
 
 Then the problem was left to rest for a long time, until Duhm rightly 
 continued in the same direction and reached the conclusion that 
 24:1-23, 25:6-8, 26:20-21, 27:1, 12-13, form an apocalypse which 
 constitutes the groundwork of chaps. 24-27. 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 
 storm has destroyed the three world-powers, 27:1, after which the 
 Syrian and Egyptian diaspora will join her. The remaining portions 
 he considers as late accretions and of a lyrical nature. Chap, 25, 
 vss. 1-5, is a song in commemoration of the destruction of a strong 
 citadel on account of which a city of strong people will honor and 
 fear God; 25:9-11, an isolated taunting song of Moab; 26: 1-19, with 
 25:12, a unique artistic poem; and 27: 2-5, a Httle song. Concerning 
 the hortatory verses, 27:7-11, he has some hesitancy. Cheyne and 
 Cornill agree with Duhm in this analysis. So also does Marti, who 
 estabhshes more definitely 27:7-11 as an accretion. 
 
 Hence we have not a single work written in twelve strophes of the 
 same hexameter movement as C. A. Briggs' states, but "a mosaic of 
 passages in different styles by several writers,"* as Duhm has con- 
 clusively shown. A further division was attempted by J. Boehmer^ 
 into two different groups, namely, 24:1-23; 25:6-8 and 26:9-21; 
 27:1, 12,13. This, however, increases the difficulty of finding a 
 suitable situation, especially for the second group, and affords no 
 advantage. From what has been said it is clear that chaps. 24-27 
 are not Isaianic and that they are not a unity. It remains to find a 
 later period of history for a suitable background, both for the ground- 
 work and for the accretions. 
 
 At least three postexihc periods were thought of before a literary 
 analysis was worked out. (a) The early Persian period. So Ewald, 
 Delitzsch,* and Dillmann, 1890. Driver formerly claimed the 
 Isaianic authorshij), but now places the chapters between 536 and 
 440. Oort5 ])leads for a date in the fifth century but before the 
 
 ' Messianic Prophecies 295. 
 
 ' Cheyne op. cii. 295. 4 M essianische Weissagungen, 1890, 143 f. 
 
 3 1897. 5 Theol. Tijdschr., 1886, 186-94. 
 
 1 
 
OLD TESTAMENT SOURCES 59 
 
 governorship of Nehemiah, chiefly on the ground that by the time of 
 Nehemiah the land of Moab must have become Nabataean. This 
 argument, however, affects only 25:9-11 and not the groundwork. 
 Guthe" thinks there is no certainty of time to be ascribed, but feels 
 certain that it is at all events postexilic, and inclines to the reign of 
 Ochus. This period has some points in its favor. The fact that 
 historical data in the chapters are so few, makes it difficult to decide 
 definitely. If placed here, then the references are to the troubles of 
 the warhke reigns of Cambyses and Darius I {vide supra). In this 
 case "the city," 24:10, 12; 25:2; 26:5, 6; 27:10, is Babylon, a con- 
 clusion which is by no means self-evident. Moreover it is difficult, 
 if at all possible, to find anywhere between 536 and 464 any historical 
 situation which will at all adequately explain the representation of 
 chap. 24 and much in chap. 26. Cheyne^ adds this decisive argu- 
 ment that in 24:5 there is an allusion to Gen. 9:3-6, 15, 16 and in 
 24:18 to Gen. 7:11, both of which passages belong to P, so that 
 chaps. 24-27 must be later than the reformation of Nehemiah and 
 Ezra, (b) The late Persian period. This was the later view of 
 Kuenen^ who formerly held that the author lived during the first 
 part of the exile and that he predicted the fall of Babylon. Vatke,"* 
 who had decided for the Maccabaean period, later placed the chapters 
 after 348, the destruction of Sidon through Ochus. Kirkpatrick^ 
 less definitely regards the fourth century as the time of the origin 
 of the chapters, (c) In close connection with this period is the early 
 Greek, where Stade^ finds an adequate background for the chapters. 
 Smend^ inclines with Hilgenfeld^ to the time of the wars of Alexander 
 after the conquest of Tyre in 332. The wars of Ochus, 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 
 Sidon, Jerusalem, and Tyre. The long struggle of Egypt for in- 
 dependence, beginning already under Artaxerxes Mnemon and con- 
 
 ^ Gesch. des Volkes Isr. 291 f. and Kautzsch Bibel. 
 » Op. cit. 154. 3 Onderzooh^ II. 99. 
 
 * Bibl. TheoL, 1835, 550; Einl. in das A. T., 1886, 623. 
 
 5 The Doctrine of the Prophets, 1892, 475, f. 
 
 6 Op. cit. I. 586. 7 Z. A. T. W., 1884, 161-224. 
 8 Z. W. Th., 1866, 398-448. 
 
6o ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 
 
 tinuing till the complete reconqucst under Ochus in 343, could scarcely 
 go on 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 
 with him the problem of a correct date becomes a double one, first 
 for the apocalypse and then for the later portions. That the ground- 
 work is an apocalypse and not a pro])hecy may be accepted as cor- 
 rect.' Duhm thinks the external situation is that of despair; Jerusa- 
 lem lies in ruins; the three world-powers, "the gliding serpent," "the 
 winding serpent" and "the monster that is in the sea," 27:1, are the 
 Parthians, the Syrians, and the Egyptians. The author of the 
 apocalypse lived during the time of John Hyrcanus, 134-104. He 
 saw the siege of Jerusalem, and the devastation of Judah through 
 Antiochus VII, Sidetes; the beginning of the war with the Parthians 
 in which the Jews were forced to take part, 129; the defeat and death 
 of Antiochus, 128, who is obscurely mentioned in 24:1 4-1 6a. The 
 lyrical portions are later. In 25 : 1-5 Duhm sees the exultation of the 
 Jews over the destruction of Samaria by John Hyrcanus between 
 113 and 105, and the demolition of the temple on Mount Gerizim.' 
 "The city of terrible nations" is Rome. The same background is 
 assumed for 26:1-19. Chap. 25, vss. 9-1 1, belongs in the time of 
 Alexander Jannaeus, 135-105, who made the Moabites pay tribute.^ 
 
 To this view of Duhm, Cheyne and Cornill see a grave objection 
 in the history of the prophetic canon which they consider practically 
 closed at 200 b. c. Cheyne^ argues that a strong reason is required 
 for making any considerable part of Isaiah later than 200 b. c.^ 
 But the history of the canon rests upon the internal or textual evidence 
 largely and not the existence of the text on the canon. Other portions 
 of Isaiah arc evidently as late as the last years of the second century 
 B.C. (vide supra). Cheyne finds a satisfactory background for the 
 apocalyi)se in the period of the long-continued desolating wars over 
 Syria and Palestine during the reigns of Artaxerxes Mnemon and 
 of Ochus in the long struggles of Egypt for independence, ending 
 
 « So Duhm, Cheyne, Marti, Cornill. ' Cf. Schiirer op. cit. I. 277. 
 
 3 Jos. AnI. xiii. 13. 5. 4 Art. "Isaiah" in E. B. II. 2,202. 
 
 5 Cf. Budde Art. "Canon" in E. B. I, §39 and n. i- 
 
 I 
 
OLD TESTAMENT SOURCES 6l 
 
 in the consolidation of the powers of the Ptolemies in Palestine in 301. 
 The frequent march of Persian armies to Egypt must have caused 
 much distress to the Jews. He sees in chap. 24 a monument of the 
 prolonged misery of the time. The city or cities of destruction, 
 vs. 10, may allude to Sidon and Jerusalem. In 27:10, 11 is a des- 
 cription of the condition of Jerusalem in or soon after 347. The 
 hope that is held out to the Jews is the overthrow of the Persian power 
 through Alexander the Great ; the ghttering weapons of whose troops 
 were already appearing on the distant horizon. Hence the date of 
 the apocalypse would be about the year 334. Cornill regards the 
 apocalypse to date from ca. 330, only a few years later than Cheyne, 
 following Stade and Smend. 
 
 The lyrical portions Cheyne assigns to the early years of Alexander 
 the Great, immediately after the fall of Tyre, as the most probable 
 date. The hturgical poem, 26: 1-19, may describe the feelings of the 
 pious community of Jews, when their city had been spared by the 
 army of Alexander, deeply grateful for this, yet painfully conscious 
 of the ruin wrought by the tyrant Ochus. The gap made by the 
 deportation to Hyrcania was still felt.' 
 
 It must be admitted that much in the apocalypse finds an ex- 
 planation in the closing years of the Persian empire. In the way of 
 accepting this date stands 24: 10, for to take "the city" to mean Sidon 
 and Jerusalem is difficult. Evidence is lacking for any humiliation 
 of Moab at this time such as 25:9-11 represents {vide supra). Was 
 Tyre ever "the lofty city," 26:5, over whose bringing low the Jews 
 would have any occasion to rejoice? From what we know of the 
 time of John Hyrcanus and of the closing years of the Persian period, 
 the predominating evidence seems to point in favor of the former 
 for the chapters under consideration. Perhaps if we knew what we 
 do not know of each period the order might be reversed. 
 
 Not only the latest but as well the clearest treatment of the chapters 
 is that of Marti, ^ who in the main follows Duhm. He considers the 
 apocalypse to embrace {a) 24:1-23, the revolution of the globe, the 
 judgment over the powers in heaven and on earth, and Jahwe estab- 
 hshing his throne in Zion; (Jb) 25 : 6-8, the feast of Jahwe for all people 
 
 1 Op. cit. 155-160; cf. Art. "Isaiah" in E. B. II. 
 
 2 Op. cit. 182-202. 
 
62 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 
 
 in Zion; (c) 26: 20 — 27 : i, the security of the Jews during the judgment 
 of the worid; and {d) 27:12-13 the gathering of all Jews to the 
 homage of Jahwe in Zion and to the participation in the kingdom of 
 God. The apocalypse is characterized by its deep ethical grasp and 
 its human feeUng. It is a humane spirit that expresses itself here: 
 the people experience in contrast with the worid-rulers coming into 
 judgment (24:21, 22; 27:1) divine compassion, 25:6-8; yet this mag- 
 nificent universahsm is not altogether free from the particularism 
 of the ordinary Judaism which, however, receives a certain prerogative. 
 
 That the apocalypse originated in a late time cannot be denied. 
 Aside from the Aramaic form "^nri hide thyself, 26:20, the theological 
 conceptions which have their parallels in the latest portions of the 
 Old Testament, in the Jewish literature of the last two centuries of 
 the pre-Christian era, as also in the later centuries, and in the New 
 Testament, point to a late time. This appears (a) from the taking 
 prisoner of the host on high and the rulers on earth, 24:21-22; {h) 
 from the appearance of Jahwe in splendor and glory in Zion, 24: 23; 
 (c) from the feast of the peoples in Zion 25:6-8; {d) from the security 
 of the Jews, in the judgment of the world, 26:20; and {e) from the 
 great trumpet with which the signal for assembling will be given, 27 : 
 13. The more definite time of origin can be determined from the 
 reference of the apocalyptist to the situation of the world: Jeru- 
 salem has not yet recovered from the conquest of Antiochus VII, 
 Sidetes, at the beginning of the reign of John Hyrcanus I (134- 
 114), 24:7-12; the death of Antiochus Sidetes in the campaign 
 against the Parthians, 128, 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," 
 i. e., the Parthians and, in connection therewith, the judgment of 
 the world long since predicted by the prophets, in which first of all 
 the three world-powers, the Parthians, the Syrians, and the Egyptians, 
 will be destroyed. From all this Marti concludes with Duhm that 
 the apocalypse originated shortly after 128 B. c. and that the author 
 is to be sought in the ranks of the Chasidim who expected help alone 
 from (iod. 
 
 The secondary elements Marti enumerates as follows: (a) 25:1-5, 
 the hymn on the destruction of Samaria, dating from ca. 107; (6) 
 
OLD TESTAMENT SOURCES 63 
 
 25:9-11, a song of thanksgiving for achieved victory and the hope 
 of the certain overthrow of Moab, from the last years of John Hyr- 
 canus or of the reign of Alexander Jannaeus; (c) 26:1-19, ^^e praise 
 of God for the victory granted the righteous in the overthrow of 
 Samaria and for the salvation promised for the future, from the same 
 time as (a); (d) 25:2-5, a poem: Israel the vineyard of Jahwe, 
 probably from the same time as (a) and (c); and (e) 27:7-11, the last 
 condition for the approach of the day of salvation, an incitement 
 for the complete destruction of Samaria, hence from the time between 
 the wTiting of the apocalypse and the fall of Samaria, 1 28-1 11, by an 
 author to be sought among the Sadducees.^ 
 
 These chapters consequently cannot be accepted as historical 
 sources for the reign of Ochus. 
 
 (5) Isa. 32: 1-20, a part of the group of prophecies, chaps. 28-33, 
 the bulk of which dates from the closing years of Isaiah, namely from 
 the years of the league between Hezekiah and Egypt. This chapter, 
 accepted by Hitzig and Ewald as Isaianic, was by Kuenen assigned 
 with hesitancy to the reign of Josiah or somewhat later. Driver holds 
 to the Isaianic authorship, and likewise Duhm, except for vss. 6-8 
 which he considers as very general sayings spoken by a theolgian, 
 not by a pohtician. Both place the chapter in the closing years of 
 Isaiah. Stade^ first declared the chapter non-Isaianic, and was 
 followed by Guthe, Cheyne, Marti, and Cornill. Cheyne pointed 
 out in vss. 1-8 alone, among other reasons, eighteen or nineteen words 
 which do not occur at all or at least not in the same sense, in the 
 generally acknowledged prophecies of Isaiah, and places them in the 
 fifth century. He agrees with Duhm in separating vss. 9-14 and 
 15-20 as by a different writer and inchnes to find the historic back- 
 ground for both groups in the oppression of the Jews by Artaxerxes 
 Ochus, though he admits that it is not necessary to come down so 
 far. Duhm considers no argument yet produced sufiicient to call the 
 chapter, except vss. 6-8, non-Isaianic. Marti takes vss. 1-5 and 
 156-20 together as a portrayal of the prosperity of the Messianic time 
 parallel with Isa. 11:1-8, with which the collector of chaps. 28-31 
 wished to close the group. Because of the similarity with the prover- 
 
 I Op. cit. 201-2, a free rendering. 
 => Z. A. T. W., 1884, 256-71. 
 
64 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 
 
 bial literature he dates the sections in the Greek period. Vss. 9-14 
 are parallel with 3 : 16 — 4 : i and, like that, should precede the portrayal 
 of the Messianic happiness before 32:1, and probably date from the 
 same time as the other sections, while vss. 6-8 evidently come from 
 the years 168-165, the time of Antiochus IV, Epiphanes. 
 
 (6) Isa. 33:1-24, the future happiness of the capital Jerusalem 
 rescued from danger. Already Ewald pronounced the chapter non- 
 Isaianic and ascribed it to a disciple of Isaiah in the last years of 
 Hezekiah. Kuenen, with hesitation, inchned to the reign of Josiah or 
 a httle later. But there was no church at that time such as is imphed 
 in chap. 33. Driver dates the chapter a year later than chap. 32, 
 namely 701, while all other later critics accept the postexihc date. 
 Cheyne gives the argument for this at some length,' and ascribes 
 the chapter to the second half of the Persian period, possibly though 
 not necessarily in the reign of Ochus. The educated Jews of that 
 time, he says, "had two special consolations or recreations: first, 
 they dwelt in imagination in the glorious future which the deepening 
 gloom did but bring nearer, and, next, they enriched the extant 
 prophetic records with insertions and appendices, expressive of their 
 own hopes and aspirations."^ 
 
 A better solution is that of Duhm and Marti who call the chapter 
 an apocalyptic poem and place it, the one in the year 162 under 
 Antiochus Eupator, the other a year earlier. Marti calls the chapter 
 " a poem of consolation from that unfortunate time." Comill agrees 
 that the chapter is apocalyptic, later than chap. 32, and sees in it a 
 fitting close for the group of prophecies reflecting the time of Senna- 
 cherib. BickcU^ found by rearranging the text two Maccabaean 
 poems, one a prayer to Jahwe for help after a defeat, the other an 
 acrostic poem on Simon, probably of the year 142, after the entrance 
 into Jerusalem delivered by the Syrians. While such a rearrangement 
 is not at all impossible, the gain therefrom is scarcely sufhcient to 
 justify it. 
 
 Hence there is nothing of sufTicient defmiteness in chaps. 32 and 
 33 bearing on the reign of Artaxerxes Ochus to justify their accept- 
 ance as historic sources for that period. 
 
 (7) Isa., chaps. 56-66, the so-called Trito-Isaiah. It is only 
 
 » Op. cit. 163-73. J Ibid. 172. 3 Z. K. M., 1897. 
 
OLD TESTAMENT SOURCES 65 
 
 within recent years that these chapters were separated from chaps. 
 40-55, That they form a separate group of prophecies from those 
 of chaps. 40-55 is now rightly the prevaiHng opinion. A brief 
 general summary of the history of the criticism of chaps. 56-66 will 
 be helpful in determining their true place in history. There are 
 essentially four periods to which the chapters have been assigned, 
 not to mention the writers who claim them for Isaiah.' 
 
 a) First in connection with Isa., chaps. 40-55, known as Deutero- 
 Isaiah, in the last years of the exile, not as a separate group of 
 prophecies, but as a part of Deutero-Isaiah, or, at the utmost, as 
 additions by the same or another author or authors. Thus Ewald 
 considered chaps. 58-59 as borrowed by Deutero-Isaiah from a con- 
 temporary of Ezekiel, and 63 : 7 — 66 : 1-24 as added by the same author 
 after the return from the exile. Dillman placed chaps. 40-48 at 
 ca. 545, chaps. 49-62 from 545-538, and chaps. 63-66 as an appendix 
 at the time of the edict of Cyrus. Kuenen regarded chaps. 40-49, 
 52:1-12 and perhaps also 52:13 — 53:12 as the prophecy of the 
 restoration, and the rest he ascribed on internal grounds to an author 
 or authors in Palestine after the return from the exile, either Deutero- 
 Isaiah himself or subsequent writers belonging to the same school. 
 Stade* accepted the chapters as from one author writing at the close 
 of the exile, but recognized the incongruity of chaps. 54 f . with the 
 preceding. These were worked over and additions from the same 
 and later times were made : 
 
 Dass diese Capitcl auf einen und denselben am Ende des Exils weissagenden 
 Mann zuriickzufuhren seien, trifft wenigstens im Wesentlichen das Richtige, 
 da die Weissagungen dieses Mannes des Abschnittes Jes Capp 40-66 bilden. 
 Einzelne der in ihm stehende Abschnitte erklaren sich jedoch nicht aus den 
 Zeitverhaltnissen am Ausgange des Exils oder sprengen den Zusammenhang. 
 
 Zuweilen liegt auch beides vor Deshalb wird zunachst an Ueberar- 
 
 beitungen oder Einschaltungen fremder, friihestens gleichzeitiger Stiicke zu 
 denken sein, und erst, wo hierdurch die vorhandenen Ratsel nicht gelost warden, 
 an Einschaltungen alterer. (S. 70). 
 
 Wildeboer^ agrees that chaps. 40-48 were written in Babylon but 
 claims that the greater part of chaps. 49-62 presupposes a writer 
 
 1 Hengstenberg, Havernitz, Drechsler, Delitzschs, Stier, Keil, Lohr, Rutgers, 
 Himpel, Nagelsbach, Douglas, W. H. Cobb. 
 
 2 Op. cit. II. 68-94. 3 De Letterkunde, Ger. Transl. §17. 
 
66 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 
 
 living in Palestine, at the same time as the author of chaps. 40-48. 
 In chaps. 63-66 alone does he find the marks of a later hand. Even 
 these loosely connected fragments may as far as their contents are 
 concerned come from the same prophet, but not in their present 
 form. A pecuhar view, and one which remained practically his own, 
 is that of Bredencamp who takes a middle ground, claiming a nucleus 
 of genuine Isaianic passages in chaps. 40-66 which were ampUfied 
 and published by a prophet of the period of the exile. J. Ley' con- 
 siders chaps. 40-66 as one continuous work dominated by a unity of 
 spirit, hence from one author, and written during a period of from 
 thirty to thirty-five years from the advances of Cyrus toward 
 western Asia till the second year of Darius Hystaspis. Driver^ and 
 Orelli^ call chaps. 40-66 one continuous prophecy from toward the 
 close of the exile, dealing throughout with a common theme, namely 
 Israel's restoration from exile in Babylon, and all from one author. 
 With this view J. Skinner"* agrees in the main, though not without 
 due recognition of the possibihty of a later date for chaps. 56-66, 
 inclining to the eve of the great reformation under Nehemiah. 
 
 b) The second period is that between the return and the building 
 of the temple, 538-520. It will be remembered that none of the 
 authorities mentioned in (a) hold to a separation of chaps. 40-55 and 
 56-66. This division was first made by Marti^ in an investigation 
 suggested to him in a conversation with Duhm, who afterwards 
 worked out the problem fully.*^ E. SeUin' considers this division 
 absolutely established and feels certain that chaps. 56-66 were 
 written in Palestine. In an earlier work^ he thought to have estab- 
 lished the fall of Zerubbabel and a destruction of the second temple 
 between 515 and 500, and thought of the period following this as the 
 time of origin for these chapters. In his later investigation he aban- 
 dons this view and finds the period 538-520 the best background 
 
 ' Hisl. Erkldrung 157. 2 Introd. 230 f. 
 
 3 Dcr Prophet Jesaia, 19043, 141-45. 
 
 * Isa., chaps. 40-66 in Camb. Bible, 1898. 
 
 s Der Proph. Sack, der Zeilgenosse Serubbabels, 1892, 40, 41, n. 
 
 6 "Jesaia" H. K. A. T. 
 
 7 Die Restauration der Jiid. Gemeinde in den Jahren 538-516, 1901, 124-53. 
 
 • Serubbabel, 1899. 
 
OLD TESTAMENT SOURCES 67 
 
 for the prophecy as a whole, and bases his conclusion upon the refer- 
 ences: 63:18, 64:9, and 66:1-5. He finds nothing in the entire 
 book that points with certainty to the existence of the temple before 
 the composition of the prophecy. "So ist unser Resultat, dass zwar 
 drei ganz konkrete Anhaltepunkte die Entstehung von Jes. Kap. 
 56-66 zwischen 537 und 520 beweisen, dass aber kein eniziges Argu- 
 ment existiert, welches die Abfassung nach dieser Zeit wahrscheinlich 
 macht" (S. 147). As to the author he ventures no decision, but 
 inclines to Deutero-Isaiah returned from the Babylonian exile, and 
 thinks we are not yet justified to speak of a Trito-Isaiah (i 50-1 51). 
 Sellin stands alone in placing the entire prophecy in this period. 
 Others place certain portions here, e. g., 63: 7 — 64: 12. So for instance 
 H. Gressmann' and E. Littmann^ {vide infra). Cornill^ in earUer 
 editions of his Einleitung in das A. T. placed the prophecy before 
 520, claiming that Haggai (2:7-9) borrowed from Trito-Isaiah, 
 but in his sixth edition this view is abandoned {vide infra). 
 
 c) The third period is the eve of the great reformation of Nehe- 
 miah, shortly before 444. It is here where Duhm has rendered 
 lasting services, for his placing the chapters in this period at once 
 furnished the key to the interpretation of many otherwise dark and 
 meaningless passages. Trito-Isaiah is for him a postexiHc 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 
 avail nothing, the rich oppress the poor, on fast days there is con- 
 tention and strife, the pious are no more. Jahwe has no instrument 
 like Cyrus: he must with his own hand execute vengeance upon his 
 enemies. These enemies are the heretics, the false brethren of the 
 Jerusalem community upon whom the day of vengeance will come. 
 They will be made an example before the pious for whom the day of 
 salvation will 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 
 nations will unite themselves with the Jews. 
 
 I Ueher die in Jes. 54-66 vorausgesetzten zeitgeschichtlichen Verhdltnisse, 1898. 
 * Uehar die Abjassungszeit des Tritojesaia, 1899. 3 Op. cit. 1984, 161 3. 
 
68 AKTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 
 
 Duhm considers the entire prophecy, except some minor additions, 
 as the work of one author who was at the same time the redactor 
 of chaps. 40-55, a theologian, and an apocalyptist, thoroughly imbued 
 with theocratic ideas. The contrast between chaps. 40-55 and 
 56-66 is ver}' marked. The text of chaps. 55-66 is not well preserved 
 and is full of glosses and additions. The original order is uncertain 
 but it is probable that chaps. 61-66 preceded chaps. 56-60, since 
 chap. 61 would make as good a beginning as chap. 60 would a close. 
 It is possible that chaps. 56-66 were composed as an appendix to 
 Dcutero-Isaiah. Trito-Isaiah is at once a supplement to Malachi 
 and a forerunner of the priest codex. 
 
 Duhm soon had a large following. Smend' first of all declared 
 his full acceptance of the hypothesis. Cheyne calls the work the most 
 important on the subject since the appearance of Ewald's Prophets, 
 and accepts in the main the conclusion as to date. Chaps. 56-66, 
 he says, contain no works of the second Isaiah, but, with the possible 
 or probable exception of 63:7 — 64:12, which belong in the time of 
 Artaxerxes Ochus {vide infra), belong to nearly the same period — 
 that of Nehemiah. He rejects, however, the view that the book has 
 anything Hke 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 hterary spell of Deutero-Isaiah and loved to perpetuate 
 his teaching and develop his ideas. He considers it practically 
 certain that chaps. 60-62 are an appendix to chaps. 40-55, of which 
 the original order probably was 61, 62, 60. While 56:9 — 57:13a 
 belongs to the same period as the main portions, it shows in a special 
 degree the influence of Ezekiel. To a still later time than 63 : 7 — 64 : 1 2 
 belongs the outburst of bitter animosity in 66: 23, 24. It was signifi- 
 cant that Wellhausen^ likewise accepted the conclusions of Duhm. 
 " Dass Isa., Kap. 56 ss. nicht zu Kap. 40 ss. gehoren, sondern aus 
 spalerer Zeit stammen, halte ich fur erwiesen." Kosters^ agrees 
 with Cheyne as to the position of chaps. 56-66, and with Duhm leaves 
 63: 7 — 64: 12 in the same time. Marti, who has first called attention 
 to the division between chaps. 40-55 and 56-66, agrees essentially, 
 
 • Altteslamentiiche Religionsgeschichle 339, n. 2. 
 ' Isr. u. Jiid. Gesch.^ 151, n. i; cf. 1904S 159, n. i. 
 3 Thcol. Tijdschr., 1896, 577-623. 
 
OLD TESTAMENT SOURCES 69 
 
 both in his earlier works' and in his Isaiah, with Duhm's treatment 
 of the subject. Marti considers the chapters, aside from minor 
 additions, as coming from one author who Hved in Jerusalem in the 
 middle of the fifth century before the arrival of Nehemiah. E. 
 Meyer^ considers this view from a historical standpoint correct. 
 "Das Verstandniss des Schlusstheils des Jesaiabuches von Kap. 
 56 an, des 'Tritojesaia' hat Duhm .... erschlossen" (120). 
 H. Gressmann^ agrees with Duhm that chaps. 56-66 are on ground 
 of thought content and language a separate work from Deutero- 
 Isaiah and that all parts are postexiHc (30, 26), and with Cheyne 
 that the chapters are not a hterary unity. "Tritojesaia ist keine 
 einheitliche Schrift, sondern besteht aus vielen meistens zusammen- 
 hanglosen Stiicken" (26). Both Cheyne and Gressmann made a 
 careful linguistic analysis and came to the same conclusion, namely, 
 that these chapters are of dififerent origin from chaps. 40-55. Gress- 
 mann considers chaps. 56-66 as originating from Judea but no part 
 as coming from Deutero-Isaiah. A more exact time than post- 
 exilic is scarcely probable, even impossible (6), except for 66:1-4, 
 which he places immediately before the building of the temple, 
 where also 63 .-7 — 64:12 probably belongs. Of essentially the same 
 opinion as Duhm is E. Littmann'* for whom the work is for the most 
 part a unity, and from one author and from the years 457-455, 
 except 63:7 — 64:12 which probably come from the years 538-520. 
 As not belonging to Trito-Isaiah 59:5-8; 66:23, 24 are certain and 
 56:1-8 probable, besides minor additions. Cornill^ who held a 
 more conservative view earlier 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 Nehemiah (181-182). 
 
 d) The fourth and last period to which our chapters have been 
 assigned is the second half of the Persian period. Cheyne^ con- 
 siders 63 : 7 — 64 : 1 2 as probably belonging in this time, a conclusion 
 which Guthe^ is inclined to accept. G. Holscher^ places not only 
 
 ' Theol. des A. T., 1894*, and Gesch. der Isr. Religion, 1897, 361 f. 
 
 » Entst. des Judentums 1 20 f . 3 Op. cit. 4 Op. cit. s Op. cit. 
 
 ^ Op. cit. 349-63; cf. Art. "Isaiah" in E. B. II. 
 
 T Gesch. des Volkes Isr. 291. ^ Paldstina in der Pers. u. Hel. Zeit 37-43. 
 
yo ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 
 
 these chapters here but the entire Trito-Isaiah. He agrees with 
 Duhm and others that these chapters are a literary unity, the work 
 of an author who lived in Palestine, and that his work is a polemic 
 directed against the Samaritans. "Die Polemik richtet sich also 
 gegcn Leute, die zum Kultus von Jerusalem gehalten haben aber 
 im Begriflfe sind, Jahwe zu verlassen und einen eigenen Tempel 
 sich bauen wollen" (40). But he dates the prophecies a century 
 later, namely in the time of Artaxerxes Ochus. He reverses the 
 argument. Instead of dating the Samaritan schism according to 
 Neh. 13:28, 29 he dates it according to Isa., chaps. 55-66 and denies 
 that Neh. 13:28, 29 has any reference to the schism of Shechem, 
 since it only refers to a priest guilty of mixed marriage who continued 
 in his office.' Josephus Ant. xi. 7.2; 8.2.4 is best explained as 
 a false exegesis of the Nehemiah passage, and is not, as is usually 
 done, to be accepted as correct in event but wrong in date. 
 
 The references to the ruins of the walls, 60:10, 15, 62:4, 6, 7, 
 he admits, but claims also the ruin of the temple, which does not at 
 all fit into the time of Nehemiah. He finds no compelling reason 
 for regarding 64:9-11 as a later addition, as Marti does {vide infra). 
 Yet he does not use these verses according to which Jerusalem was 
 desolate and the temple ruined in flames for an argument, but he 
 refers to 63:18, which Duhm and Marti retain, with sUght emenda- 
 tions. This does not necessarily mean a radical destruction of the 
 temple but at any rate a severe damage to it. These words do not 
 sound as if the destruction of Jerusalem through Nebuchadrezzar, 
 a century or more before, were meant, but evidently one much 
 closer. In 60: 18 the writer comforts his readers with the words: 
 
 Violence shall no more be heard in thy land, 
 Desolation nor destruction within thy borders. 
 
 For such comfort there must have been occasion at that time. Hence 
 Holscher concludes against Marti that at the time of Trito-Isaiah 
 some calamity through war must have befallen the Jews in which 
 both the walls and the temple were greatly damaged, an event which 
 docs not fit into the time of Nehemiah (41). To establish tliis 
 conclusion he adds the following arguments: (a) the mention of a 
 
 • For another view cf. Stade, Gesch. II. 188 f. 
 
OLD TESTAMENT SOURCES 7 1 
 
 Jewish Diaspora, 60:9; 66:19, unknown before Nehemiah; (b) the 
 acceptance of proselytes, 56:3 f., the very opposite of Ezra and 
 Nehemiah, finding its best explanation in the time of Ruth and 
 Jonah; (c) the Nabataeans are elsewhere mentioned only in passages 
 after Nehemiah ;' (d) Isa. 65 : 10 marks a boundary in the east com- 
 prehensible only after the destruction of Jericho through Artaxerxes 
 Ochus in 352, during whose reign the separation of the Samaritans 
 from the Jews took place. Trito-Isaiah would then have a twofold 
 purpose: To comfort the pious over the calamity that came upon 
 them through the campaign of Artaxerxes Ochus, and a polemic 
 against the schismatics who are about to build their own temple (42) . 
 A more detailed examination of 63 : 7 — 64 : 12 will help to determine 
 the problem before us. The section offers difficulties for the period 
 just before Nehemiah and has been assigned to the time of Arta- 
 xerxes Ochus by several authorities. Various different views have 
 been advanced concerning the origin of the passage: (a) As we 
 have already seen. Ley, Gressmann, Littmann and Sellin think of 
 the time after the return of the exile and before the rebuilding of the 
 temple, hence between 538 and 520. They take 64:9-11 to refer 
 to the destruction of the temple in 586, and 63: 18 and 66: i f. to the 
 condition of the returned exiles, namely, oppression by enemies, and 
 before the temple was rebuilt, (b) To this Duhm, Marti, and with 
 them Kosters and Cornill, answer that the Kahal was organized, 
 Jerusalem inhabited, and the temple built, but the walls in ruins, 
 and assign the section to the time immediately before Nehemiah, 
 somewhere between 458 and 444. Duhm emends and translates 
 63:18: 
 
 For a short time have we possessed thy holy city, 
 Our oppressors have trodden down thy sanctuary, 
 
 and sees in it a reference to the conditions referred to in Neh. 1:3. 
 The oppressors are the Samaritans. He calls 63: 7 — 64:12 "without 
 doubt the best that Trito-Isaiah has written." The second temple 
 exists, but the writer ignores it because of its inferiority to the first, 
 just as the old men who had seen the first temple wept at the founda- 
 tion-laying of the second temple, Ezr. 3:12, 13. "Our holy and 
 our beautiful house, where our fathers praised thee," vs. 11, refers 
 
 I Cf. Cheyne in E. B. III. 3,254; Holscher op. cit. 23-25. 
 
72 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 
 
 to the Solomonic temple. Marti sees in 63:18 an unmistakable 
 reference to the second temple and thinks the author must have 
 lived while it existed. That the author of 64:9-11 ignored the 
 second temple and referred to the first can hardly be correct, and so 
 he calls the verses a later addition, from the same hand as the gloss 
 in 63:15, 16, dating from the time of the Syrian persecution under 
 the Maccabees in the second century, (c) Cheyne, to whose view 
 Guthe inclines, and Holscher, as we have already seen, find the most 
 satisfactory explanation in the history of the reign of Artaxerxes 
 Ochus, and think of some calamity that befell Jerusalem and the 
 temple at that time, of which traces are found in secular history 
 (vide supra). Cheyne considers these verses a unique composition 
 dififerent from the rest of chaps. 56-66 which he also places shortly 
 before Nehemiah, while Holscher regards the chapters as a unity 
 and brings them all into this period. Cheyne' calls the text of 
 63:18 "notoriously doubtful" and emends and translates: 
 
 Why do the wicked trample thy dwelling place ? 
 Our adversaries tread down thy sanctuary. 
 
 Marti answers this by pointing out that the verse speaks not of a 
 destruction of the temple but of despising it. So he emends and 
 translates : 
 
 Why do the ungodly despise (belittle, ridicule) thy temple? 
 
 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 64:9-11 as an 
 addition where Duhm is driven to an unwarranted interpretation. 
 The date of Cheyne and Holscher makes the interpretation simpler 
 if otherwise justifiable. Marti's rendering of 63:18 could then be 
 accepted for this period as well as a century earlier, since it is not 
 definitely known what calamity befell the temple in the days of 
 Ochus. Was it literally burned? Was it only polluted? Or 
 merely despised and behttled 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 furnishing 
 
 • Art. "Isaiah" in E. B. II. 2,307. 
 
OLD TESTAMENT SOURCES 73 
 
 a clearer and more satisfactory explanation of these chapters, why 
 can we not take these chapters to strengthen and confirm the external 
 history ? As long as these chapters lose nothing on the one hand by 
 placing them in this later period, and on the other gain in clearness 
 and historic meaning, is there any reason why they should not be 
 placed here ? 
 
 e) One other period was thought of, namely, by G/otius and 
 Hubigant, who assign the chapters to the Maccabaean time, but 
 scarcely with sufficient probability. The period would indeed furnish 
 the explanation of 64:9-11 as Marti has shown, but the remainder 
 of the section does not require so late a date and these verses find 
 a reasonable explanation earUer. 
 
 If now 63 : 7 — 64 : 1 2 finds reasonable explanation in the late Persian 
 period, how about the remainder of chaps. 56-66 ? In answer to the 
 five different views advanced with reference to the prophecy as a 
 whole the following may be said: (a) That chaps. 40-55 and 56-66 
 are not one work but two groups of prophecies from different authors 
 and at different times may, thanks to the services of Marti and Duhm, 
 and their followers, be accepted as established, on ground of differ- 
 ences in thought content, historic background, and as Cheyne and 
 Gressmann have satisfactorily shown, also on ground of difference 
 in language, (b) The period of 538-520, aside from the fact that its 
 advocate, Sellin, stands alone, is improbable if not impossible for 
 reasons already stated. The references to the existence of the second 
 temple are too definite, the whole development of the Kahal too 
 evident, and the difference in language too great to accept this, 
 (c) That the prophecy was written in Jerusalem shortly before the 
 arrival of Nehemiah, as Duhm, Marti and others claim, has much 
 in its favor. Attention has rightly been called to the existence of the 
 Kahal and the temple with its cult, the habitation of Jerusalem, 
 Sabbaths and fast-days, the presence of enemies and the coming day 
 of revenge upon them, the expectation of a brighter future for Jeru- 
 salem and the return of the Diaspora. Points in common with 
 Malachi may also be admitted. On the other hand there are diffi- 
 culties in the way of this date. First of all is the section 63 : 7 — 64: 11, 
 a part of which at least cannot belong here. Duhm tries to retain 
 it but is driven to a forced interpretation for 64:9-11, and Marti is led 
 
74 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 
 
 to consider it a later addition. In either case the unity is broken. 
 The mention of a Jewish Diaspora returning from the islands of the 
 sea, 60:9; 66: 19, and the acceptance of Proselytes 56:3 f. (Holscher) 
 does not fit into the time of Nehemiah, The time of Nehemiah was 
 still concerned with the return of more exiles, but here the gentiles 
 are to come, chap. 60. The similarity w^ith Malachi is not as great 
 as we would expect. Sabbaths and fast-days are mentioned but not 
 in the same sense. Here there is no emphasis laid on the sins of 
 mixed marriages, corrupt priests, and faulty sacrifices as in Malachi. 
 {d) Do the closing years of the Persian period (Holscher) ofifer a 
 better background for the prophecy as a whole ? The unity estab- 
 lished by Duhm would remain and be strengthened, since that which 
 breaks it for a century earlier, 64:9-11, finds a reasonable explana- 
 tion here. The existence of the temple is consistent. In fact all 
 points in favor of that period also apply here, and the difficulties 
 become less. The Diaspora, on the islands of the sea, and the coming 
 of the gentiles clearly find a place in this time. The mention of the 
 Nabataeans, 6c . 7, finds an easier explanation in the later date since 
 their kingdom was not estabUshed till the close of the fifth century, 
 and perhaps not till later. The great difference in language also 
 finds an easier explanation here since the difference in two centuries 
 would be greater than in one. The apocalyptic element present here 
 likewise points to the later rather than the earlier date, (e) To put 
 the entire selection into the Maccabaean period is out of the question 
 altogether. 
 
 There is another consideration upon which much depends in this 
 investigation, namely, the origin of the Samaritan church and their 
 temple.' We know that the Samaritans were the remnant of the 
 land, very probably mixed with the peoples planted in the northern 
 kingdom by the Assyrian kings. In the days of Josiah they united 
 with the Jews in the use of the temple in Jerusalem, II Chron. 34:9. 
 The eighty men from Shcchem, Shiloh, and Samaria, mentioned in 
 Jer. 41 : 5, can only have been Samaritans. Then for a century we 
 have no information concerning them. After the Jews returned 
 from the exile the Samaritans were refused a share in the new temple, 
 
 ' See Kautzsch Art. "Samaritans" in Realenc., 1906, Vol. 17; Stade Gesch. II. 
 188 £.; A. E. Cowley Art. "Samaritans" in E. B. III. 
 
OLD TESTAMENT SOURCES 75 
 
 Ezra 4:5. But the real cause of the mutual estrangement and the 
 implacable hatred between the two must he deeper than this. It 
 was the old spirit of opposition between Israel and Judah which had 
 asserted itself in the days of Jeroboam I. It was in reahty a revolt 
 against centrahzation. Even under David the two kingdoms were 
 never fully blended into one. The separation between Jews and 
 Samaritans in the later time was pohtical rather than rehgious. 
 The Samaritans would have worshipped at Jerusalem in the days 
 of Ezra, Ezra 6:21, but the Jews were exclusive and would have no 
 deahngs with them. In their condition of social and rehgious dis- 
 organization they found it necessary to pursue the same poHcy as the 
 Jews, and to avoid danger to themselves they sought to hinder the 
 Jews. This strife continued till they had their own temple on Mount 
 Gerizim, after which separation was complete and reunion impossible. 
 " Of the Samaritan temple we have no mention in the Old Testament 
 and the occasion and date of its erection are ahke difficult."* Jose- 
 phus,^ who places the schism and the erection of the temple under 
 Alexander the Great in 332, is generally thought to be incorrect. 
 Stade thinks Josephus confuses the events of Neh. 13:28, 29 and 
 brings them a century later into the time of Alexander the Great. 
 It is probably best to consider the passage in Josephus as a misin- 
 terpretation of Neh. 13:28, 29.3 The answer as to the time of the 
 Samaritan schism cannot be determined from it nor from Neh. 
 13:28, 29 which has no connection with the schism of Shechem. 
 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 
 built. And the building of the temple, even though the Samaritans 
 had the rehgion of the Jews except the results of the exile, depended 
 no doubt on the possession of the written Pentateuch. For rehgious 
 documents are not produced by temples, but the hfe gendered by 
 rehgious teachings results in temples. Since the Pentateuch was 
 not completed before the beginning of the fourth century, the Samari- 
 tans could not have come into possession of it till after that time, 
 and consequently the schism came after 400 b. c, and not in the time 
 
 1 Cowley E. B. 4,259. z Cowley E. B. 4,259; Holscher op. cil. 39. 
 
 2 Ant. xi. 7.2; 8.2, 4. 
 
76 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 
 
 of Nehcmiah, but rather as Holscher has shown at the time of the 
 destruction of Jericho in 352. The schism reached its culmination 
 with the building of the temple. And the temple, according to 
 Josephus' was built early in the reign of Alexander the Great, since 
 it was destroyed in 128 b. c. after existing two centuries. 
 
 The conclusion reached is that the prevailing evidence points to 
 the second half of the fourth century, namely, to the reign of Ochus, 
 for the origin of Trito-Isaiah. As such it may be accepted as an 
 additional source for the history of this dark period, and in turn find 
 its most reasonable interpretation in the light of the history of this 
 period. 
 
 II. Psalms. — The historic background in the Psalms is far less 
 clear and definite than in the prophetic writings. The elements of 
 uncertainty we have found in the passages of Isaiah are greatly 
 intensified here. Of the Psalms claimed for our period there are 
 chiefly four: 44, 74, 79, and 83. Besides these, also 89, 94, and 132 
 were thought of but scarcely with sufficient reason to merit their con- 
 sideration here. The four Psalms first mentioned have, besides many 
 others, long been claimed for the Maccabaean period. From the 
 days of Theodore of Mopsuestia^ different Psalms were assigned to 
 that late period. Without entering into a discussion of that long 
 and much disputed problem it may be asserted that the prevailing 
 consensus of opinion concerning the four Psalms named has been, 
 and is today, that they are Maccabaean. Among later critics who 
 adhere to this view, for some or all of them, may be mentioned Delitzsch, 
 74 and 79, Giesebrecht,3 Konig, 74, Reuss, Smend, Driver,'* with some 
 hesitancy, particularly for 83, Schurcr,^ Wildeboer,^ Baethgcn,' 
 Duhm,* Marti, 74" Cornill,'° Kittel,'' and others. 
 
 The chief argument advanced in favor of the Maccabaean time 
 is the historic situation, for which fuller sources are at hand than for 
 most of the postexilic time. The desolation of Jerusalem, Psa. 83, 
 the burning of the temple, 74:3-7, and of the synagogues, 74:8, the 
 
 > Ant. xiii. 9.1. 7 Die Ps. ilbersetzt u. erkldrt, ad he. 
 
 ' Ca. 350-429. 8 Die Ps. erkldrt, ad loc. 
 
 3 Z. A. T. W., 1881, 276-332. 9 Das Buck Jes. 218, 400. 
 
 4 Introd. 387 f. »o Op. cit. 252 f. 
 
 5 Op. cit. III. 148-50. " Art. "Psalmen" Realenc, Bd. 16, 209. 
 
 6 Op. cit. 399 f. 
 
OLD TESTAMENT SOURCES 77 
 
 religious persecution, 44:18, 19, 23, the shedding of blood, 79:2, 3, 
 the captivity of many Jews, 79:11, their feeling of rejection from 
 Jahwe, 74: 1, their being mocked and derided, 79: 10, 12, 13, are said 
 to be calamities experienced only when Jerusalem was captured by 
 Nebuchadrezzar, 586, and in the days of the Maccabaean rule. 
 The general tone of the Psalms of Solomon is also claimed to point 
 to this period. The similarity of II Mace. 8:2-4 with Psa. 74 and 79, 
 and of I Mace. 5:2 with Ps. 83:4-6, are cited as proof. It must 
 be admitted that the Psalms mentioned do fit into the historic situa- 
 tion of the Maccabaean time as known in history. Perhaps if we 
 knew what we do not know of other periods, the same Psalms could 
 be claimed for other periods with equal definiteness. Even this 
 period whose history is known is not without difficulties. 
 
 W. R. Smith' called attention to the difficulties of dating Psa. 
 44, 74, 79, and probably also 83, later than the Persian period, and 
 sought the occasion for them in the history of Ochus. This view 
 had earlier been advanced by Ewald.^ The reason for placing 
 the Psalms here was found in the external history of the time of 
 Ochus (vide supra). The view of W. R. Smith has much in its 
 favor. Already the position of these Psalms in the collection is 
 difficult for a later period. The canon of the Elohistic Psalter, 
 42-83, was likely closed about the year 300, so that it is difficult to 
 think of any later insertions of Psalms into the collection. And if 
 inserted by a Maccabaean redactor, we must suppose that he entered 
 thoroughly into the spirit of the Elohistic collector,^ which again is 
 difficult and improbable. Yet our knowledge of the formation of 
 the collections is too indefinite to enable us to speak with anything of 
 absolute certainty.-* 
 
 Ben Sira^ 36:1-17 presupposes exactly the same conditions as 
 Psa. 74 and 79. Yet there is no cogent reason advanced for claiming 
 this part of Ben Sira as a later addition. More than this, Psa. 
 79:2-3 is quoted in I Mace. 7:17 as scripture, Kara tov \6<yov ov 
 eypaylre vs. 16. If I Mace, dates from about the year 100 b. c. and 
 
 I Art. "Psalms" in E. B.<> XX. 31; O. T. J. C.^ 207-8, 437-40. 
 
 ' Dichier des Alten Bundes, 1835, 353; Hist. 0} Isr. V. 120, n. 
 
 3 Cheyne Introd. 100. 4 Schiirer op. cit. 148; Driver op. cit. 387-8. 
 
 5 Generally dated at ca. 180. 
 
78 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 
 
 Psa. 79 from about the year 165, then the writer of I Mace, would 
 scarcely quote so recent a writing and call it ov eypa^fre, since he 
 could easily have a personal recollection of the event. All this is not 
 indeed decisive but is confirming evidence for the more probable 
 earher date. That there was no rehgious persecution in the days 
 of Ochus, as Schiirer and Cornill claim, corresponding to Psa. 44: 18, 
 19, 23, is hardly consistent with what is known of Ochus in his 
 devastation of Egypt and Palestine (vide supra). That there was 
 no more a prophet in the land, Psa. 74:8-9, was true long before the 
 days of Ochus, for the later writing-prophets were not considered 
 as prophets in their own time. blSS'^'iy'l^ in Psa. 74:8 is a very 
 improbable phrase for the synagogues, and should perhaps read 
 b^^lifl'^ Dip the name of Israeli Cheyne, who in his Origin of the 
 Psalter, 1891, still held to the Maccabaean origin of Psa. 74 and 79, 
 and considered Psa. 89 as probably also belonging in the same time, 
 was the first to accept W. R. Smith's argument as historically prob- 
 able.^ In his Introduction to the Book of Isaiah 160 f. he compares 
 these Psalms with Isa. 63 : 7 — 64: 12 and finds many points in common. 
 The language used of the mistreatment of the Jews, of the profaning 
 of their temple, of the ruin of their city, and of the desolation of their 
 land is indeed more intense in the Psalms than in Trito-Isaiah. And 
 this is just what one would expect in subjective poetic hterature where 
 the feelings are first considered and historic facts are secondary 
 matters. 
 
 The conclusion of W. R. Smith was also accepted by G. Beer^ 
 and by K. Budde-* in his review of Cheyne's Introduction to the Book 
 of Isaiah where he says: Es ist hohe Zeit mit der Meinung auf- 
 zuraumen, dass die Psalmen, die von tiefstem nationalem Ungluck 
 reden, der Makkabaerzeit angehorten." Guthe^ thinks it probable 
 yet not certain that Psa. 44, 74, 79, and also 89, belong in the late 
 Persian period. It is unfortunate that Cheyne now seeks to explain 
 all these Psalms, as also the passages in Isaiah which he earlier 
 claimed for the late Persian period, by his JerahmeeHte theory.^ 
 
 I Cheyne E. B. III. 3,949 and n. i. 
 
 a New World, September 1891, Review of J. C. O. T.'; Founders, 1892, 220-23. 
 
 3 Individual u. Gemeinde psalmen, 1894, LIV-LVI. 
 
 4 Th. L. Z., 1886, 287. s Gesch. des Volhes Isr. 291. 
 
 6 Art. "Psalms" in E. B. Ill, §28; Art. "Prophetic Literature," §43- 
 
OLD TESTAMENT SOURCES 79 
 
 It may indeed not be possible to determine with absolute certainty 
 where these Psalms had their origin and into what historic back- 
 ground they best fit. As in many other instances in the postexilic 
 history of the Jews, and concerning the literature of that period, we 
 may have to be content to remain in uncertainty. If at all possible 
 the solution seems to me to lie in the direction of a better acquaintance 
 with the apocalyptic literature. All that can be asserted with any 
 confidence is that the prevailing evidence points to this period and 
 that the Psalms probably belong here and reflect the experiences 
 of the Jewish community at this time. With due allowance for the 
 poetic way of expression the contents do not vary greatly from those 
 of Trito-Isaiah. If the Psalms are accepted for the reign of Ochus 
 we have valuable additions to the fist of sources, and, as well, an 
 enlarged and clearer conception of the historic conditions of the time. 
 
 III. Passages from the Minor Prophets. — Among the different 
 portions of the Minor Prophets which were thought to have originated 
 from the late Persian period the following may be mentioned: 
 (i) Joel, chap. 3 [4]; (2) Obad. vss. 1-15; (3) Hab. 1:2 — 2:4, in 
 part; and (4) Zech., chap. 14. In no case were any definite de- 
 cisive arguments advanced, perhaps because this was impossible, 
 perhaps also because the historic background is not yet definitely 
 enough defined and the historical data in the passages not yet suffi- 
 ciently understood, (i) Joel, chap. 3 [4], is assigned to this period 
 by C. F. Kent' shortly before the deportation of Jews to Hyrcania 
 in 353. Others agree that not only chap. 3 but chaps, i and 2, as 
 well, fall into the second half of the Persian period but not so far 
 down. The year 400 or soon after is thought to be more nearly 
 correct by Wildeboer,^ Nowack, Marti, and Cornill. (2) Obad., 
 vss. 1-15, was at one time assigned to the time of the deportation to 
 Hyrcania by Cheyne,^ who now Hmits their date between 586 and 
 312, wdthout any definite period within that time. Nowack agrees 
 with this conclusion. Marti places the section at about 500, Wilde- 
 boer after 586, and Winckler between this date and 164. No definite 
 claims for the reign of Ochus can be made. For (3), Hab. 1:2 — 
 2:4, in part, no definite claim was made for this period; and (4), 
 
 I A Hist, of the Jewish People 236 f. 
 
 ^ Op. cit. 345 f. 3 Art. "Obadiah" in E. B. III. 3,661. 
 
So ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 
 
 Zech,, chap. 14, undoubtedly falls with chaps. 12 and 13 into a later 
 period. 
 
 Hence the Minor Prophets yield us no definite additional historic 
 information for the reign of Ochus. The possibihty, however, 
 remains for such portions yet to be determined. 
 
 IV. Parts of the Book of Job. — Perhaps no book of the Old Testa- 
 ment has been assigned to so wide a range of time as the book of 
 Job, through every period from Abraham down to the second century 
 
 B. c, yet with an increasing tendency toward a late date. Naturally 
 then someone would find a place for it in the late Persian period. 
 Cheyne' advanced the thought that the original Job story was a 
 poetic version of a perfectly righteous man, a second Abraham or 
 Noah. Isa. 52 : 13 — 53 : 12 was modeled after this. During the close 
 of the Persian or the beginning of the Greek period this treatment 
 of the problem of righteous suffering, as presented by the original 
 narrator of Job, was found inadequate for practical uses. Hence it 
 was adapted to meet the needs of the new age. But this was not yet 
 the present form of the book which comes from a date still later. 
 
 C. F. Kent^ follows this view in the main. He considers the prin- 
 cipal sections of the book, chaps. 3-31 and 38:1 — 42:6, based on an 
 old Job story, to have been written at this time. 
 
 The book of Job in its present form very probably comes from a 
 late date, at all events from a postexilic period. The historic data 
 in the book are too few to allow any definite assignment of an exact 
 date. Whatever the date of the book, the gain from it for the history 
 of any period is rather for the inner religious development, and only 
 indirectly for the external history. 
 
 V. The Apocryphal Books.— (i) The Book of Judith. Ewald^ 
 already observed that the story of the book of Judith has its back- 
 ground in the history of the reign of Artaxerxes Ochus. 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. 
 W. R. Smith,-* following Gutschmied and Noldeke, thinks it " probable 
 
 • Jewish Rel. Life ajter the Exile 158-72. 3 Geschichte des Volkes Israel. 
 
 ' Op. cit. 236 f. 4 Op. cit. 439. 
 
OLD TESTAMENT SOURCES 8l 
 
 that the wars under Ochus form the historic background of the book 
 of Judith and that the name Holophernes is taken from that of a 
 general of Ochus who took a prominent part in the Egyptian cam- 
 paign." Schiirer' thinks this probable and Holscher^ considers it 
 established beyond a doubt. He sees in Holophernes and Bagoas 
 historic personages whereas Judith is Judaism personified. Mar- 
 quart,3 Winckler'* and Willrichs find the solution here as in so many 
 other instances in a change of names. Holophernes is not Holo- 
 phernes but for one it is Aristazanes, for the other Assurbanipal, 
 and for the third Odoarras, with nothing but confusing results. 
 
 The most satisfactory view seems to me that the book, though 
 written late, has its background in the history of the reign of Ochus. 
 Then we have not indeed additional history of that period but con- 
 firming evidence that the history as constructed is correct. 
 
 (2) The Book of Tobit, which Ewald'' thought probably to date 
 from this period, has been satisfactorily shown to come from nearly 
 two centuries later, and consequently needs no further consideration 
 here. 
 
 D. SUMMARY RESULT 
 
 The summary will evidently be a bringing together of that which 
 has already been given in the separate investigations. As certainly 
 dating from the reign of Ochus are Isa. 23:1-14 and Isa. 19:1-15. 
 Trito-Isaiah very probably also comes from the same time. Not 
 certain, yet probable, are Psa. 44, 74, 79, and 83 as subjective 
 presentations of the same historic situation as that which Trito- 
 Isaiah gives us. The Book of Judith does not come from this time 
 but has its background in the history of the reign of Ochus and re- 
 flects confirming hght upon it. In Isa. 14:28-32 there are probably 
 also to be found reflections of the campaigns of Ochus in Palestine, 
 though the passage does not date from that reign. Of the remaining 
 passages considered none yield sufficiently clear evidence to justify 
 their acceptance for sources of the history of the reign of Ochus, 
 
 I Op. cit. III. 170 and n. 19. 2 Op. cit. 35. 
 
 3 Philologus liv, 1895, 507-10. 
 
 4 Altorientalische Forschungen II, 1899, 266-76. 
 
 5 Juden und Griechen vor der Makkabdischen Erhebung, 1895, 88-90. 
 
 6 Op. cit. 
 
82 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 
 
 although in the case of some it is equally impossible to say that 
 they do not date from this period. 
 
 Isa. 23:1-14 corroborates the histor)' of the campaign of Ochus 
 against Sidon, and Isa. 19:1-15 the impending campaign against 
 Eg\'pt, as we have found them recorded in extra-biblical histor}'. 
 Isa., chaps. 56-66, shows us the relation between Jews and Samaritans 
 during the close of the Persian period, their long-continued hatred, 
 and their final separation resulting from the building of the temple 
 on Mount Gerizim soon after the close of the reign of Ochus. Not 
 only have we in Trito-Isaiah confirming e\idence of the history of 
 the reign of Ochus as we found it elsewhere, but it gives us a clearer 
 picture of what the Jews suffered at the hands of Ochus. This 
 suffering is presented more intensely in the Psalms probably dating 
 from this time. The presentation is more intense because it is 
 subjectively contemplated. A later reflection of the same history 
 appears in the Book of Judith. 
 
 Every portion of the Old Testament finds its true and larger mean- 
 ing when it is interpreted in the hght of its true history. To find 
 this larger meaning, and to interpret it to others, is the supreme arm 
 of the student of the Old Testament. That many of the passages 
 treated in this discussion have been meaningless until they were 
 interpreted historically, every Old Testament student will admit. 
 If in any way the writer has succeeded in bringing to light a larger 
 meaning, or at least has directed the attention of others, as he has 
 for himself, to the beauty and deeper significance of the historic 
 truth and tlie religious message contained in some of these passages, 
 then his purpose is accomphshed. 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 CHRONOLOGICAL TABLES 
 
 A. CHRONOLOGY OF THE REIGN OF OCHUS 
 
 B. C. 
 
 358 Nectanebus II, King of Egypt, 361-343. 
 
 Philip II, King of Macedon, 359-336. 
 
 Death of Artaxerxes II, Mnemon, King of Persia, 404-358. 
 
 Accession of Artaxerxes III, Ochus, to the throne of Persia, 358-338. 
 
 Death of Agesilaus, King of Sparta, 398-358. 
 357 First war between Philip and Athens, 357-346. 
 
 War of the separate League of Rhodes, Chios, and Byzantium against 
 Athens, 357-355. 
 356 Ochus commands the coast satraps to dismiss their mercenary troops. 
 
 Revolt of Artabazus, and Orontes who fortifies Pergamon. 
 355 Outbreak of the Phocian war, 355-346. 
 
 Ochus makes preparations for the campaign in the west. 
 
 Orontes subdued by Autophradates. 
 354 Artabazus seeks help from the Thebans. 
 353 Conflict of the Persians with revolting Jews. Jericho conquered. 
 
 Second campaign of Ochus against Egypt, under the command of his 
 generals. 
 
 Pammenes sent by Thebes to assist Artabazus. 
 
 Athens supports the revolting Egyptians. 
 
 Orontes subdued by Ochus. 
 
 Demosthenes' speech, " De Rhodiorum Libertate." 
 
 Independence of the Rhodians. 
 352 League between Orontes and Athens. 
 
 Disagreement between Artabazus and Pammenes. Artabazus flees to 
 Macedon. 
 
 Peace between Ochus and Orontes. Orontes made satrap of western 
 Asia Minor. 
 351 Ochus makes preparations against Egypt. 
 
 Revolt in Sidon and entire Phoenicia against Persia. 
 
 Revolt in Cyprus. Euagoras II, of Salamis, banished. Pnytagoras made 
 king in his stead. 
 
 League between Phoenicia and Egypt. 
 
 Idrieus satrap of Karia, 351-344. 
 
 Mizaeus of Celicia and Belesys of Syria sent by Ochus to suppress the 
 revolt in Cyprus. Repulsed. 
 350 Phocion and Euagoras II land in Egypt and blockade Salami. 
 349 Ochus seeks aid from the cities of Greece. Athens and Sparta neutral. 
 Thebes and Argos send aid. 
 
 83 
 
84 
 
 ARTAXERXES III OCHUS AND HIS REIGN 
 
 349 
 348 
 
 346 
 345 
 
 344 
 
 343 
 
 340 
 339 
 
 338 
 
 336 
 
 Pnytagoras recognized by the Persians as king of Salarais. 
 
 Ochus in Syria. Sidon destroyed. Phoenicia conquered. Euagoras II 
 
 satrap in Sidon. 
 The Jews oppressed by Bagoas. 
 
 First attempt by Ochus in his third campaign against Egypt, 346-343. 
 Peace between Athens and Philip II. 
 
 Second attempt of Ochus against Egypt. Nectanebus II flees to Memphis. 
 Mentor appointed by Ochus over the satrapies of western Asia Minor. 
 League between Philip and Ochus. 
 Conquest of Egypt. Nectanebus II flees to Ethiopia. 
 Pharendates appointed satrap of Egypt. 
 Ochus returns to Persia. 
 
 Ochus refused to enter into a league with Athens against Philip. 
 Nectanebus II dies. 
 
 Persian troops in Thrace fighting against Macedon. 
 Battle of Chaeronea. 
 Peace between Philip and Athens. 
 
 Philip commander-in-chief over Hellenic troops against Persia. 
 Death of Ochus. Succeeded by Arses, 338-335. 
 Death of Philip II. Succeeded by Alexander the Great. 
 
 — Compiled 
 
 B. CHRONOLOGY OF THE PERSIAN EMPIRE 
 
 B. C. 
 
 Cyrus 55^^529 
 
 Cambyses 529-522 
 
 Gaumata 
 
 Darius I, Hystaspis . . 521-485 
 
 Xerxes I 485-464 
 
 Artaxerxes I, Longimanus . 464-424 
 
 Xerxes II 424-423 
 
 Sogdianus 
 
 Darius II 423-404 
 
 Artaxerxes II, Mnemon . 404-358 
 
 Artaxerxes III, Ochus . 
 
 Arses 
 
 Darius III, Codomannus 
 Alexander the Great 
 The divided Empire 
 The Parthian Empire 
 
 242 B. C.-224 A. D 
 
 B. c. 
 
 358-338 
 338-335 
 335-331 
 33^-323 
 323-242 
 
 The Sasanian Empire 
 Modem Persia 
 
 A. D. 
 
 224-652 
 652- 
 
 -After NoLDEKE 
 
 Persian Province 
 Amyrtaios 
 Nepherites I 
 Akoris 
 Psammut . 
 Muthes 
 Nepherites II 
 
 CHRONOLOGY OF EGYPT 
 
 B. C. 
 
 525-408 Nectanebus I 
 
 408-402 Tachos .... 
 
 402-396 Nectanebus II 
 
 396-383 Artaxerxes III, Ochus 
 
 383-382 Arses .... 
 
 382-381 Darius III, Codomannus 
 
 381 Alexander the Great 
 
 B. c. 
 
 381-363 
 363-361 
 361-343 
 343-338 
 338-33S 
 335-331 
 33^-3^3 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 85 
 
 D. CHRONOLOGY OF THE SELEUCIDAE. CAPITAL AT ANTIOCH 
 
 Seleucus I, Nicator . 
 Antiochus I, Soter . 
 Antiochus II, Theos 
 Seleucus II, Callinicus . 
 Seleucus III, Ceraunus or 
 
 Antiochus III, The Great 
 Seleucus IV, Philopater 
 Antiochus IV, Epiphanes 
 Antiochus V, Eupator . 
 Demetrius I, Soter . 
 Alexander I, Balas . 
 Demetrius II, Nicator . 
 
 B. c. 
 
 . 312-280 
 
 281-261 
 
 261-246 
 
 246-226 
 
 Soter 
 
 226-223 
 222-187 
 
 187-175 
 175-164 
 164-162 
 162-150 
 153-145 
 145-139 
 —After W, 
 
 B. C. 
 145-142 
 
 139-129 
 
 138-129 
 
 129-125 
 
 Antiochus VI, Dionysus 
 Demetrius in Parthia 
 Antiochus VII, Sidetes . 
 Demetrius II, Nicator . 
 Alexander II and Seleucus V 
 Antiochus VIII, Grj'pus 125-96 
 
 Antiochus IX, Cyzicenus . 116-95 
 Seleucus \T, Epiphanes Nicator 96-95 
 
 Antiochus X 94-83 
 
 Philippus I and Demetrius III 
 Antiochus XIII, Asiaticus . . 69-65 
 Syria a Roman Province . . 63- 
 
 J. WooDHOUSE in E. B. IV. 4,347 f. 
 
 E. CHRONOLOGY OF THE PTOLEMIES 
 
 Ptolemy I, Lagi . 
 Ptolemy II, Philadelphus 
 Ptolemy III, Euergetes . 
 Ptolemy IV, Philopator 
 Ptolemy V, Epiphanes . 
 Ptolemy VI, Philometor 
 
 B. C. 
 • 323-285 
 
 B. C. 
 
 Ptolemy VII, Physkon . 170-164 
 
 . 285-246 
 
 .... 145-117 
 
 246-222 
 
 Ptolemy Lathurus 117-107 
 
 222-205 
 
 Ptolemy Alexander . . 107- 89 
 
 . 205-181 
 
 Ptolemy Lathurus (second time) 
 
 • 181-I45 
 
 89- 81 
 
 — After GuTHE, Gesch. des Volkes Isr. 311. 
 
^iVt 
 
 ^^^y