such thing; and hence the Jews, while aware of the exalted character of his writings, were oblivious of his personality. We cannot then be surprised that, in speaking of the ancestry of Zerubbabel, Jeshua, and Ezra, they omitted all mention of their near ancestors, and went straight to the ancestor who connected these important persons with the great kings and priests who were of old.

What other objections are there to putting Zerubbabel under Darius Nothus, Ezra and Nehemiah under Artaxerxes Mnemon? It is confidently said that the Aramaic papyri of Assuan give evidence of the earlier date; that the Sinuballit of the papyri, who was governor of Samaria in the latter part of the fifth century B.C., must be the same as the Sanballat of the book of Nehemiah (who in this case must have lived in the fifth century B.C.); that the high priest Jehohanan of the papyri, whose date was 411 B.C., must be the same as the Johanan, who was grandson of the high priest Eliashib, and who is mentioned in Nehemiah xii. 22 as among the high priests; from which it would follow that Eliashib lived in the fifth century B.C., and therefore that Ezra and Nehemiah, his contemporaries, lived in that century. But with respect to Sinuballit, those who use this argument forget that the Sinuballit of the papyri was friendly to the Jews, as is proved both by the fact that the Jews of Syene (or Assuan) addressed an appeal to him, and also by the fact that Delaja, the son of this Sinuballit, joined with Bagohi, the governor of Judæa, in answering this appeal, and moreover answering it in such a way as to save the religious feelings of the Jews of Jerusalem in the highest degree. Surely the Sinuballit of the Aramaic papyri was not the Sanballat of the book of Nehemiah! But with respect to Jehohanan, I admit that this name, in itself, would be an argument for the earlier date; for according to my view of the chronology, there is no known Jehohanan, or Johanan, to fill the place of high priest at the date indicated by the Assuan papyri, whereas there is such a Johanan according to the chronology which puts Ezra in the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus. My view of the chronology requires that there shall have been a high priest Johanan, or Jehohanan, at about that place where the twelfth chapter of Nehemiah (verses 10 and 26) puts Joiakim. It is possible that a name may have slipped out of the list; or it is possible that the priest Jehohanan (whom we know from Nehemiah xii. 13 to have lived in the days of Joiakim) may have temporarily discharged the functions of

high priest; and it is even possible that in Ezra x. 6, where the present reading is "Jehohanan the son of Eliashib," there has been a wrong addition of these latter words, and that "Jehohanan ” alone should be read; in which case Jehohanan might naturally be understood to be the high priest at that time and for some years previously. I cannot say with certainty what precise answer is to be given to this objection to my view; but I think the objection is practically upset by the observation which I will now proceed to make. In the twelfth chapter of Nehemiah, verses 10 and 11, the list of high priests is given in the following terms: And Jeshua begat Joiakim, and Joiakim begat Eliashib, and Eliashib begat Joiada, and Joiada begat Jonathan, and Jonathan begat Jaddua. The last four of these high priests are mentioned again (Johanan taking the place of Jonathan) in verse 22, which I will quote :

The Levites in the days of Eliashib, Joiada, and Johanan, and Jaddua, were recorded heads of fathers' houses: also the priests, in (or to) the reign of Darius the Persian. Nehemiah xii. 22.

Why "Darius the Persian," and not " Darius king of Persia," which is the phrase everywhere else (except where it is simply Darius the king")? I answer, because it was intended to contrast him with the Greek kings who came after the Persian kings; under one of which Greek kings the compiler of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah lived. It was natural to use this expression, implying such a contrast as this, with respect to the last Persian king, Darius Codomannus; it would not have been natural to apply it to Darius Nothus, who reigned in the middle of the series of Persian kings. The only other instances that I can find of a similar expression are in the book of Daniel, and in each of these a similar reason exists; there is an intention of contrasting a king of one race with a king, directly sequent or precedent in time, of another race. Let me quote the passages; the first is Daniel v. 30, 31:

In that night Belshazzar the Chaldean king was slain. And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old.

I need not discuss the history of this passage; all that I am concerned with now is the phrase "Darius the Mede," which evidently is introduced because a change in the nationality of the king was to be marked; and the same is the case in the 30th verse of the same chapter, where another change in the nationality of the dynasty occurs:

So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian.

Exactly in a similar way "Darius the Persian" is used in Nehemiah xii. 22, because the writer has in his mind the change in the nationality of the dynasty which ensued after the reign of this king Darius, who therefore must be Darius Codomannus, whose reign lasted from 336 B.C. to 331 B.C., after which date Alexander of Macedon obtained sovereignty over the Persian empire.

Now in view of this meaning of "Darius the Persian" in Nehemiah xii. 22 (quoted above), it becomes clear that Jaddua, the last of the high priests mentioned in this verse, lived in the reign of Darius Codomannus, which is exactly what Josephus tells us; and this makes it plain also that the Johanan who was the high priest immediately preceding Jaddua, and who was the grandson of Eliashib, was not the Jehohanan who was high priest in 411 B.C. of whom the papyri of Assuan tell us. The last objection then to putting the high priests Eliashib, Joiada, and Johanan in the fourth century before Christ, rather than in the fifth century, is thus removed; and the whole chronology for which I have been contending is vindicated.

To conclude. Let the reader consider how in the chapter to which this Appendix belongs, and in this Appendix itself, I have placed various Biblical books, two important chapters in the Antiquities of Josephus, and the Aramaic papyri of Assuan, in an order which makes them eloquent of the history of the Jewish nation; that I have presented more than two centuries of that history, from 538 B.C. to 320 B.C., in clear light, whereas those who maintain that Zerubbabel returned in the reign of Cyrus wander in unintelligible labyrinths of darkness, and cannot say anything at all of what happened to the Jews in the fourth century before Christ (for they have to give up Josephus as wholly untrustworthy). Can there be any doubt that the history as I have narrated it is the true history? The Biblical books that I have placed in proper order, and interpreted in clear and natural historical sequence, are these: First, the last twentyseven chapters of the book which is called the book of Isaiah, which show the faithful Jews, animated by the extraordinary fervour and grandeur of conception shown by this great prophet, beginning to reestablish themselves in Jerusalem, under extraordinary difficulties; for the surrounding nations looked upon them with disfavour, they were few in number, and many of the Jews themselves looked upon this enterprise of a return to Jerusalem as quixotic and impossible. Moreover, some of the Jews were

still prone to idolatry. The only historical passage of the Bible which relates to this particular time is the first chapter of Ezra, which is quite credible but very scanty in its information; it is to be noted that it does not say that Cyrus gave the Jews material help; and such help as was given the returning exiles was given them by their own fellow-countrymen who were not yet prepared to return. This indeed is not expressly said, but must be understood to be the meaning of verses 4 and 6 of this chapter. After this, to understand the difficulties which the Jews underwent in their partially recovered country, we have to take the book of Psalms, all the early part of which book (with some exceptions) is full of suffering and conflict, though we perceive that the Jews had rebuilt their temple; but the temple so rebuilt was destroyed, as we see from Psalms lxxiv. and lxxix. It is natural to connect this event with the troubles which are faintly referred to in one verse of the book of Ezra (iv. 6) and of which the book of Esther professes to be the account, though that book represents the final triumph of the Jews as far more signal and complete than we can suppose it to have been. However, the Jews did survive; and this event took place in the reign of Ahasuerus (or Xerxes), that is at some date between 485 B.C. and 465 B.C. After this, Ezra iv. 7-24 carries us through the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus; after which a greater collection of authorities awaits us. Not only have we the book of Ezra, chapters v. and vi. (and the parallel passages in the first book of Esdras have to be referred to), but we have also the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, and a large number of the psalms, beginning with the 84th and 85th and then most of those in the series from the 90th to the 138th inclusive; all these books refer largely to the temple which Zerubbabel built with full permission of the Persian king Darius Nothus. Moreover, the Aramaic papyri of Assuan give us further evidence of the interest which this king took in the Jews (as I have stated on page 353 above), a fact which falls in with the general course of the evidence here given, that Darius Nothus was the king under whom Zerubbabel rebuilt the temple. After this come the curious facts made known to us by the main body of the Assuan papyri, from which it is clear that the Samaritans were not at this time, i.e. in the year 407 B.C., on the whole, hostile to the Jews. But the eleventh chapter of the prophet Zechariah shows us trouble impending, and the good feeling which was beginning to exist between the Jews and the surrounding

nations (and especially the Samaritans) suddenly endangered by the narrow party among the Jews. This narrowing tendency was brought to a head by Ezra ; and now from 397 B.C. to nearly the middle of the fourth century we have as our authorities the book of Ezra from the seventh chapter onwards, and also the book of Nehemiah. The twelfth chapter of the book of Nehemiah does indeed, in its mention of the high priests Johanan and Jaddua, carry us past the middle of the fourth century; but on the whole our authority for the latter part of the fourth century lies in the eleventh book of the Antiquities of Josephus, in the last two chapters of that book.

Such are our authorities, stated in order, for the period from 538 B.C. to 320 B.C.; and then for the third century we have to depend historically on Josephus; but the third century was a great literary period apart from its detailed history.

I hope that my elucidation of these historical events, and of the literary works which illustrate them, has not been tedious. But in any case, the conclusion which I have reached is one in which every man ought to take an interest. That conclusion is, the vindication of the honour of the bravest and most enlightened people of all antiquity, namely the Jews. Never, up to the present day, have the ancient Jews received their proper honour. It is true that they were excelled in some respects by Greeks and Romans, perhaps by some other ancient nations; but no other people penetrated as they did into the very heart of divine things. It is true, also, that they became narrow; but the difficulty of preserving their unity, and the unity of their faith, without becoming narrow, was very great; we cannot help marking their fault, but they well deserve that we should pardon it.

APPENDIX II TO CHAPTER XIV

CONCERNING THE TITLES TO THE PSALMS

What is the value of the titles prefixed to the psalms in our Bible; what inferences can be drawn from them; at what date were they prefixed; and why is it that 116 of the psalms have titles, while the remaining 34 have not got them? To take the last question first: the omission of titles is in a few cases accidental, but generally the psalms without a title would

25

M. D. A.