It will be seen that the evidence we have is sufficient to make it very probable that Judaea suffered at this time at the hands of Ochus or one of his generals. There is however no evidence that the suffering of Jerusalem was anything so great that it could be described as a national disaster, "the third of Israel's great captivities" as Cheyne called it. There is no other evidence to support Solinus' statement about the destruction of Jerusalem and Jericho.

Josephus1 relates a series of incidents as happening at the time of Alexander the Great. Sanballat, a Cuthean, of the same stock as the Samaritans, was sent by Darius III to Samaria, and gave his daughter Nicaso in marriage to Manasseh, brother of Jaddua the high-priest of Jerusalem. The Jewish elders were incensed at this union, and ordered Manasseh either to divorce Nicaso or not to approach the altar. Manasseh thereupon offered to divorce his wife, but Sanballat said he would build a temple on Mt Gerizim and make Manasseh high-priest there, besides giving him authority over all places under his rule. This arrangement suited Manasseh well, and other priests and Levites from Jerusalem went and joined him, and were given land in Samaria. Alexander defeated Darius at Issus and marched against Tyre. When he arrived outside Tyre he sent to the Jewish high-priest for auxiliaries and supplies, which Jaddua refused on the grounds of his oath of allegiance to Darius. Sanballat, seeing his opportunity, came to Tyre with eight thousand Samaritans whose services he offered to Alexander. Alexander received him and granted

1 Ant. XI. vii. 2-viii. 7, and XIII. ix. I.

him his request to build a temple on Mt Gerizim. After the capture of Tyre and Gaza Sanballat died. Alexander advanced against Jerusalem. Jaddua, following the instructions he had received in a dream, went out in procession with the priests and citizens of Jerusalem to meet Alexander. The great conqueror was so much impressed by the scene, remembering a dream he had had while yet in Macedonia, that he adored the name of God which was engraved on the high-priest's breast-plate and saluted the high-priest. He entered Jerusalem, and offered sacrifice in the temple according to the high-priest's directions, and granted the Jews to live under their own laws, and remitted from them all tribute on the seventh year. The Samaritans then asked Alexander to grant them also remittance of tribute on the seventh year, but he refused to grant it till he had made further enquiries. He then sent the troops which Sanballat had given him to Upper Egypt to garrison the country of the Thebaid.

Now it is recorded in Neh. xiii. 28 that Sanballat, the governor of Samaria in Nehemiah's time, gave his daughter in marriage to one of the sons of Joiada the son of Eliashib the high-priest. It is most unlikely that in two different periods there were governors of Samaria named Sanballat who gave their daughters in marriage to members of the high-priestly family at Jerusalem, and there can be little doubt that Josephus borrowed this incident from Neh. xiii. 28, only mistakenly connected it with the events of Alexander's time. This does not necessarily invalidate the rest of his narrative; and it is quite likely that the latter part

of the narrative is based upon facts. We may take it as probable, until further evidence for or against appears, that Alexander did not attack Jerusalem but treated the Jews leniently and permitted them to live under their own laws, and that he permitted the Samaritans to build a temple on Mt Gerizim. It is quite likely that the first high-priest of this temple was named Manasseh, for this is probably the force of the Massoretic tradition which substituted 'Manasseh' for 'Moses' as the ancestor of the line of priests at Dan in Judg. xviii. 30. A possible reference to the fact that Alexander stayed his hand and did not attack Jerusalem may be seen in Zech. ix. 8, "And I will encamp over against my house, an outpost, that none may pass to or fro." The preceding verses are a poetical prophecy announcing the imminent fall of Phoenicia and the Philistine towns before Alexander. This verse is in prose, and seems to be an addition by a later hand to make the prophecy tally more fully with the fulfilment.

If we follow Josephus provisionally in dating the Samaritan schism in the time of Alexander, this will also give us a provisional date for the completion of the Pentateuch. It is not very likely that after the schism they would have accepted a totally new book, but they might have accepted a revision of the Pentateuch if they had the book already. Montgomery says, "From all we know of Samaritanism there can be no doubt that it remained under the steady influence of Judaism, and that this spiritual patronage was so strong and so necessary that even after the

1 Samaritans, pp. 72, 73.

complete excommunication of the schismatics in the third and fourth Christian centuries Rabbinism still infiltrated into Samaria."..." In any case we know too little of the relations between the Jews and the Samaritans for at least 200 years to say that the Pentateuch could not have been further revised after the schism, on the ground that the Samaritan copy would give a much older and different text. It is possible that further revisions at Jerusalem, as in the case of Ex. xxxv.-xl., were readily accepted by the spiritually dependent community at Shechem. But with the Jewish promulgation of the Second Canon, that of the Prophets, about 200, a definite break must have separated the two sects on the question as to the extent of Scripture. The northern community could not accept the Second Canon with its pronounced proclivities for Juda, David, and Jerusalem."

CHAPTER XII

TENDENCIES AND CONTROVERSIES

IT is not intended in this last chapter to deal with every phase of thought which found prominent expression during our period. Some of them are more fitly dealt with in connexion with other periods. For instance, a writer on apocalyptic Judaism would not ignore the beginnings of apocalyptic thought that are to be found in Zechariah, but it is in the light of the great apocalyptic writers of later periods that the full significance is seen of the germs sown by Zechariah. Likewise with the Messianic idea. It is not convenient to treat separately that section of it which falls between the years 538 and 333 B.C. It was a process of thought commencing probably as early as Isaiah if not earlier, and continuing up to its culmination in the coming of Christ, and even after His advent filling an important place in Jewish and Samaritan thought, as well as becoming retrospectively a significant ele-. ment of Christian theology. To attempt to deal separately with the portion of Messianic thought that falls in the Persian period would be rather like trying to deal with the structure and functions of a tree trunk without at the same time dealing with the root and leaves. It is otherwise with the two tendencies, commonly described by the names Legalism and Particularism, which, though germinating earlier, reached

B. E. J.

14