preserved is a problem in itself. It is very noteworthy, however, that, while no care was taken to preserve the history of the Chaldean and Persian Empires-and consequently the most confused ideas subsequently arose-the days of the Assyrian supremacy leave a much clearer imprint (cf. even the apocryphal book of Tobit). It may perhaps be no mere chance that with the dynasties of Omri and Jehu the historical continuity is more firm, that older forms of prophetical narrative are preserved (the times from Ahab to Jehu), and that to the reign of the great Jeroboam (first half of the 8th century), the canonical writers have ascribed the earliest of the extant prophetical writings (Amos and Hosea).

External evidence for Palestine, in emphasizing the necessity for a reconsideration of the serious difficulties in the Old Testament, and in illustrating at once its agreement and still more Summary. perplexing disagreement with contemporary conditions, furnishes a more striking proof of its uniqueness and of its permanent value. The Old Testament preserves traces of forgotten history and legend, of strange Oriental mythology, and the remains of a semi-heathenish past. "Canonical" history, legislation and religion assumed their present forms, and, while the earlier stages can only incompletely be traced, the book stands at the head of subsequent literature, paving the way for Christianity and Rabbinical Judaism, and influencing the growth of Mahommedanism. In leaving the land of its birth it has been taken as a whole, and for many centuries has been regarded as an infallible record of divinely granted knowledge and of divinely shaped history. During what is relatively a very brief period deeper inquiry and newer knowledge have forced a slow, painful but steady readjustment of religious convictions. While the ideals and teaching of the Old Testament have always struck a responsive chord, scientific knowledge of the evolution of man, of the world's history and of man's place in the universe, constantly reveals the difference between the value of the old Oriental legacy for its influence upon the development of mankind and the unessential character of that which has had inevitably to be relinquished. Yet, wonderful as the Old Testament has ever seemed to past generations, it becomes far more profound a phenomenon when it is viewed, not in its own perspective of the unity of history from the time of Adam, but in the history of Palestine and of the old Oriental area. It enshrines the result of certain influences, the teaching of certain truths, and the acquisition of new conceptions of the relations between man and man, and man and God. Man's primary religious feeling seeks to bring him into association with the events and persons of his race, and that which in the Old Testament appears most perishable, most defective, and which suffers most under critical inquiry, was necessary in order to adapt new teaching to the commonly accepted beliefs of a bygone and primitive people. The place of the Old Testament in the general education of the world is at the close of one era and at the beginning of another. After a lengthy development in the history of the human race a definite stage seems to have been reached about 5000 B.C., which step by step led on to those great ancient cultures (Egyptian, Aegean, Babylonian) which surrounded Palestine. These have influenced all subsequent civilization, and it was impossible that ancient Palestine could have been isolated from contemporary thought and history. After reaching an astonishing height (roughly 2500-1500 B.C.) these civilizing powers slowly decayed, and we reach the middle of the first millennium B.C.-the age which is associated with the "Deutero-Isaiah" (Isa. xl.-lv.), with Cyrus and Zoroaster, with Buddha and Confucius, and with Phocylides and Socrates. This age, which comes midway between the second Egyptian dynasty (c. 3000 B.C.) and the present day, connects the decline of the old Oriental empires with the rise of the Persians, Greeks and Romans. In both Babylonia and Egypt it was an age of revival, but there was no longer any vitality in the old soil. In Palestine, on the other hand, the downfall of the old monarchies and the infusion of new blood gave fresh life to the land. There had indeed been previous immigrations, but the passage from the desert into the midst of Palestinian culture led to the adoption of the old semi-heathenism of the land, a declension, and a descent from the relative simplicity of tribal life. Now, however, the political conditions were favourable, and for a time Palestine could work out its own development. In these vicissitudes which led to the growth of the Old Testament, in its preservation among a devoted people, and in the results which have ensued down to to-day, it is impossible not to believe that the history of the past, with its manifold evolutions of thought and action, points the way to the religion of the future. (S. A. C.)

1 Cf. P. Gardner, Hist. View of New Test. (1904) 26, 44, sqq. See Meyer's interesting remarks, Gesch. d. Alt. i. §§ 592 sqq. Cf. A. P. Stanley, Jewish Church (1865), Lectures xlv. seq.; A. Jeremias, Monoth. Strömungen (Leipzig, 1904), p. 43 seq. Among the developments in Greek thought of this period, especially interesting for the Old Testament is the teaching associated with Phocylides of Miletus; see Lincke, Samaria, pp. 47 seq.

4 Cf. G. A. Smith, Hist. Geog. pp. 85 sqq., also the Arab historian Ibn Khaldun on the effects of civilization upon Arab tribes (see e.g. R. A. Nicholson, Lit. Hist. of the Arabs (London, 1907], pp. 439 sqq.)

II.-From Alexander the Great to A.D. 70.

the Great.

After the taking of Tyre Alexander decided to advance upon Egypt. With the exception of Gaza, the whole of Syria Palaesline (as it was called) had made its submission. That-in summary form-is the narrative of the Alexander Greek historian Arrian (Anabasis, ii. 25). Apart from the facts contained in this statement, the phraseology is of some importance, as the district of "Palestinian Syria " clearly includes more than the territory of the Philistines, which the adjective properly denotes (Josephus, Antiquities, i. 6, 2, xiii. v. 10). From the military point of view and Arrian drew upon the memoirs of two of Alexander's lieutenants-the significant thing was that not merely was the coast route from Tyre to Gaza open, but also there was no danger of a flank attack as the expeditionary force proceeded. Palestinian Syria, in fact, is here synonymous with what is commonly called Palestine. Similarly Josephus quotes from Herodotus the statement that the Syrians in Palestine are circumcised and profess to have learned the practice from the Egyptians (C. Apionem, i. 22, §§ 169, 171, Ñiese); and he comments that the Jews are the only inhabitants of Palestine who do so. the wider use of the adjective and noun seem to testify to These two examples of the forgotten predominance of the Philistines in the land of Canaan.

But, in spite of the statement and silence of Arrian, Jewish tradition, as reported by Josephus (Ant. xi. 8, 3 sqq.), represents the high priest at Jerusalem as refusing Alexander's offered alliance and request for supplies. The Samaritans-the Jews ignored in their records all other inhabitants of Palestinecourted his favour, but the Jews kept faith with Darius so long as he lived. Consequently a visit to Jerusalem is interpolated in the journey from Tyre to Gaza; and, Alexander, contrary to resistance. He had seen his figure in a dream; and so he sacriall expectation, is made to respect the high priest's passive ficed to God according to his direction, inspected the book of Daniel, and gave them—and at their request the Jews of Babylon and Media-leave to follow their own laws. The Samaritans were prompt to claim like privileges, but were forced to confess that, though they were Hebrews, they were called the Sidonians of Shechem and were not Jews. The whole story seems to be merely a dramatic setting of the fact that in the new age inaugurated by Alexander the Jews enjoyed religious liberty. The Samaritans are the villains of the piece. But it is possible that Palestinian Jews accompanied the expedition as guides or exerted their influence with Jews of the Dispersion on behalf of Alexander.

It appears from this tradition that the Jews of Palestine occupied little more than Jerusalem. There were kings of Syria in the train of Alexander who thought he was mad when he bowed before the high priest. We may draw the inference that they formed an insignificant item in the population of a small province of the Persian Empire, and yet doubt whether they did actually refuse-alone of all the inhabitants of Palestine -to submit to the conqueror of the whole. At any rate they came into line with the rest of Syria and were included in the province of Cocle-Syria, which extended from the Taurus and Lebanon range to Egypt. The province was entrusted first of all to Parmenio (Curtius iv. 1, 4) and by him handed over to Andromachus (Curtius iv. 5, 9). In 331 B.C. the Samaritans rebelled and burned Andromachus alive (Curtius iv. 8, 9): Alexander came up from Egypt, punished the rebels, and settled Macedonians in their city. The loyalty of the Jews he rewarded by granting them Samaritan territory free of tribute according to a statement attributed by Josephus (c. Apionem, ii. § 43, Nicse) to Hecataeus.

took place, Ptolemy became master of Palestine in 312 B.C., and though, as Josephus complains, he may have disgraced his title, Soler, by momentary severity at the outset, later he created in the minds of the Jews the impression that in Palestine or in Egypt he was-in deed as well as in name-their preserver. Since 315 B.C. Palestine had been occupied by the forces of Antigonus. Ptolemy's successful forward movement was undertaken by the advice of Seleucus (Diodorus xix. 80 sqq.), who followed it up by regaining possession of Babylonia. So the Seleucid era began in 312 B.C. (cf. Maccabees, i. 10) and the dynasty of Seleucus justified the "prophecy" of Daniel (xi. 2): "And the king of the south (Ptolemy) shall be strong, but one of his captains (Seleucus) shall be strong above him and have dominion" (see SELEUCID DYNASTY).

Abandoned by his captain and future rival, Seleucus, Ptolemy retired and left Palestine to Antigonus for ten years. In 302 B.C., by terms of his alliance with Seleucus, Lysimachus and Cassander, he set out with a considerable force and subdued all the cities of Coele-Syria (Diodorus xx. 113). A rumour of the defeat of his allies sent him back from the siege of Sidon into Egypt, and in the partition of the empire, which followed their victory over Antigonus at Issus, he was ignored. But when Seleucus came to claim Palestine as part of his share, he found his old chief Ptolemy in possession and retired under protest. From 301 B.C.-198 B.C. Palestine remained, with short interruptions, in the hands of the Ptolemies.

Of Palestine, as it was during this century of Egyptian domination, there is much to be learned from the traditions, reported by Josephus (Ant. xii. 4), in which the Joseph, Son career of Joseph, the son of Tobiah, is glorified as of Tobiah. the means whereby the national misfortunes were rectified. This Joseph was the nephew of Onias, son of Simon the Righteous, and high priest. Onias is described-in order to enhance the glory of Joseph-as a man of small intelligence and deficient in wealth. In consequence of this deficiency he failed to pay the tribute due from the people to Ptolemy, as his fathers had done, and is set down by Josephus as a miser who cared nothing for the protest of Ptolemy's special ambassador. Considering the character of Joseph as it was revealed by prosperity, one is tempted to find other explanations of his conduct than avarice. It is clearly indicated that the Jews as a whole were poor, and it is admitted that Onias was not wealthy. Perhaps it was the Sabbatical year, when no tribute was due. Perhaps Onias would not draw upon the sacred treasure in order to pay tribute to Ptolemy. In any case Joseph borrowed money from his friends in Samaria; and this point in the story proves that the Jews were supposed to have dealings with the Samari- | tans at the time and could require of them the last proof of friendship. Armed with his borrowed money, Joseph betook himself to Egypt; and there outbid the magnates of Syria when the taxes of the province were put up to auction. He had gained the ear of the king by entertaining his ambassador, and the representatives of the cities-the Greek cities of Syriawere discomfited. The king gave him troops and he borrowed more money from the king's friends. When he began to collect taxes he was met with refusal and insult at Ascalon and at Scythopolis, but he executed the chief men of each city and sent their goods to the king. Warned by these examples, the Syrians opened their gates to him and paid their taxes. For twentytwo years he held his office and was to all intents and purposes governor of Syria, Phoenicia and Samaria-"A good man (Josephus calls him) "and a man of mind, who rescued the people of the Jews from poverty and weakness, and set them on the way to comparative splendour (Ant. xii. 4, 10).

"

The story illustrates the rise of a wealthy class among the Jews of Palestine, to whom the tolerant and distant rule of the Ptolemics afforded wider opportunities. At the beginning it is said that the Samaritans were prosperous and persecuted the Jews, but this Jewish hero embracing his opportunities reversed the situation and presumably paid the tribute due from the Jews by exacting more from the non-Jewish inhabitants of his province. He is a type of the Jews who embraced the Greek way of life

as it was lived at Alexandria; but his influence in Palestine was insidious rather than actively subversive of Judaism. It was different when the Jews who wished to be men of the world took their Hellenism from the Seleucid court and courted the favour of Antiochus Epiphanes.

Antio

Halfway through this century (249 B.C.) the desultory warfare between Egypt and the Seleucid power came to a temporary end (Dan. xi. 6). Ptolemy II. Philadelphus gave his daughter Berenice with a great dowry to Antiochus II. Theos. When Ptolemy died (247 B.C.), Antiochus' divorced wife Laodice was restored to favour, and Antiochus died suddenly in order that she might regain her power. Berenice and her son were likewise removed from the path of her son Seleucus. In the vain hope of protecting his sister Berenice, the new king of Egypt, Ptolemy III. Eugeretes I., invaded the Seleucid territory, "entered the fortress of the king of the north" (Dan. xi. 7 sqq.), and only returned-laden with spoils, images captured from Egypt by Cambyses, and captives (Jerome on Daniel loc. cit.)-to put down a domestic rebellion. Seleucis reconquered northern Syria without much difficulty (Justin xxxvii. 2, 1), but on an attempt to seize Palestine he was signally defeated by Ptolemy (Justin xxvii. 2, 4). In 223 B.C. Antiochus III. the Great came to the throne of the Seleucid Empire and set about extending its boundaries in different directions. His first attempt on Palestine (221 B.C.) failed; the second succeeded by the chus III. treachery of Ptolemy's lieutenant, who had been recalled to Alexandria in consequence of his successful resistance to the earlier invasion. But in spite of this assistance the conquest of Coele-Syria was not quickly achieved; and when Antiochus advanced in 218 B.C. he was opposed by the Egyptians on land and sca. Nevertheless he made his way into Palestine, planted garrisons at Philoteria on the Sea of Galilee and Scythopolis, and finally stormed Rabbath-ammon (Philadelphia) which was held by partisans of Egypt. Early in 217 B.C. Ptolemy Philopater led his forces towards Raphia, which with Gaza was now in the hands of Antiochus, and drove the invaders back. The great multitude was given into his hand, but he was not to be strengthened permanently by his triumph (Dan. xi. 11 sqq.). Polybius describes his triumphal progress (v. 86): "All the cities vied with one another in returning to their allegiance. The inhabitants of those parts are always ready to accommodate themselves to the situation of the moment and prompt to pay the courtesies required by the occasion. And in this case it was natural enough because of their deep-seated affection for the royal house of Alexandria."

When Ptolemy Philopater died in 205 B.C., Antiochus and Philip of Macedon, his nominal friends, made a secret compact for the division of his possessions outside Egypt. The time had come of which Daniel (xi. 13 sqq.) says: "The king of the north shall return after certain years with a great army and with much riches. And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south; also the robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves to establish the vision; but they shall fall." Palestine was apparently allotted to Antiochus and he came to take it, while Philip created a diversion in Thrace and Asia Minor. Already he had allies among the Jews and, if Daniel is to be trusted, there were other Jews who rose up to shake off the yoke of foreign supremacy, Seleucid or Egyptian, and suc ceeded only in rendering the triumph of Antiochus easier of achievement. But in the year 200 B.C. Rome intervened with an embassy, which declared war upon Philip and directed Antiochus and Ptolemy to make peace (Polyb. xvi. 27). And in 198 B.C. Antiochus heard that Scopas, Ptolemy's hired commander-in-chief had retaken Coele-Syria (Polyb. xvi. 39) and had subdued the nation of the Jews in the winter. For these sufficient reasons Antiochus hurried back and defeated Scopas at Paneas, which was known later as Caesarea Philippi (Polyb. xvi. 18 seq.). After his victory he took formal possession of Batanaca, Samaria, Abila and Gadara; and after a little the Jews who dwelt round about the shrine called Jerusalem came over to him" (Polyb. xvi. 39). Only Gaza withstood him, as it withstood Alexander; and Polybius (xvi. 40) pauses to

and Rome.

praise their fidelity to Ptolemy. The siege of Gaza was famous; but in the end the city was taken by storm, and Antiochus, secure at last of the province, which his ancestors had so long coveted, was at peace with Ptolemy, as the Roman embassy directed. From Palestine Antiochus turned to the Greek cities of Asia Minor, and by 196 B.C. he was in Thrace. There he was confronted by the ambassadors of Rome, who expressed their surprise at his actions. Antiochus replied that he was recovering the territory won by Seleucus his ancestor, and inquired by what right did the Romans dispute with him about the free cities in Asia (Polyb. xviii. 33 seq.). The conference was Antiochus broken off by a false report of Ptolemy's death, but war between Rome and Antiochus was clearly inevitable and Antiochus was joined by Hannibal. After much diplomacy, Antiochus advanced into Greece and Rome declared war upon him in 191 B.C. (Livy xxxvi. 1). He was defeated on the seas and driven first out of Greece and then out of Asia Minor. His army was practically destroyed at Magnesia, and he was forced to accept the terms of peace, which the Romans had offered and he had refused before the battle. By the peace of Apamea (188 B.C.) he abandoned all territory beyond the Taurus and agreed to pay the whole cost of the war. He had stood in the beauteous land-the land of Israel-with destruction in his hand. He had made agreement with Ptolemy. He had turned his face unto the isles and had taken many. But now a commander had put an end to his defiance and had even returned his reproach unto him (Dan. xi. 16-18). After Magnesia men said "King Antiochus the Great was " (Appian, | Syr. 37); and the by-word was soon justified in fact, for he | plundered a temple of Bel at Elymais to replenish his exhausted treasury and met the fitting punishment from the gods at the hands of the inhabitants (Diodorus xxix. 15). He stumbled and fell and was not found (Dan. xi. 19).

Seleucus IV.

"

The need which drove Antiochus to this sacrilege rested heavily upon his successor Seleucus IV. (reigned 187-175 B.C.). The indemnity had still to be paid and Daniel designates Seleucus as "one that shall cause an exactor to pass through the glory of the kingdom (xi. 20). A tradition preserved in 2 Macc. iii. describes the attempt of Heliodorus, the Seleucid prime minister, to plunder the temple at Jerusalem. The holy city lay in perfect peace and the laws were very well kept because of the piety of Onias the high priest. But one Simon, a Benjamite, who had become guardian of the temple, quarrelled with Onias about the city market, and reported to the governor of Cocle-Syria and Phoenicia that the treasury was full of untold sums of money. The priests and people besought Heliodorus to leave this sacred treasure untouched, but he persisted and-in answer to their prayers-was overthrown by a horse with a terrible rider and Scourged by two youths. Onias, fearful of the consequences, offered a sacrifice for his restoration, and the two youths appeared to him with the message that he was restored for the sake of Onias. The description of the previous tranquillity may be exaggerated, though it is clear that the Jews, like the other inhabitants of Palestine, must have been left very much to themselves; but the enmity between the adherents of Simon and the pious Jews, who supported and venerated Onias, seems to be a necessary precondition of the state of affairs soon to be revealed. There were already Jews who wished to make terms with their overlord at all costs.

chus IV.

When Antiochus IV. Epiphanes (175-164 B.C.) succeeded to the throne, Jason-whose name betrays a leaning towards Antio- Hellenism-the brother of Onias, offered the king a bribe for the high-priesthood and another for leave and Jason. to convert Jerusalem into a Greek city (2 Macc. iv. 7 sqq.). Antiochus had spent his youth at Rome as a hostage, and the death of Seleucus found him filling the office of war minister at Athens. The Hellenistic Jews were, therefore, his natural allies, and allies were very necessary to him if he was to establish himself in Syria. Onias had proceeded to Antioch to explain the disorder and bloodshed due to Jason's followers, and so Jason, high priest of the Jews by grace of Antiochus,

had his way. The existing privileges, which the Jews owed to their ambassador to Rome, were thrust aside. In defiance of the law a gymnasium was set up under the shadow of the citadel. The young men of the upper classes assumed the Greek hat, and were banded together into a gild of ephebi on the Greek model. In fact Jason established in Jerusalem the institutions which Strabo expressly describes as visible signs of the Greek way of life-" gymnasia and associations of ephebi and clans and Greek names borne by Romans " (v. p. 264, referring to Neapolis)and that on his own initiative. The party who wished to make a covenant with the heathen (1 Macc. i. 11 sqq.) were in the majority; and so far and so long as they were in the ascendant Antiochus was rid of his chief danger in Palestine, the debatable land between Syria and Egypt. At first Egypt was well disposed to him, as Cleopatra his sister was regent. But she died in 173 B.C.

The struggle for the possession of Palestine began in 170 B.C., when Rome was preoccupied with the war against Perseus of Macedonia. Antiochus sent an ambassador to Rome to protest that Ptolemy, contrary to all law and equity, was attacking him (Polyb. xxvii. 17). In self defence, therefore, Antiochus advanced through Palestine and defeated the Egyptian army near Pelusium on the frontier. At the news the young king, Ptolemy Philometor, fled by sea, only to fall into his uncle's hands; but his younger brother, Ptolemy Euergetes II., was proclaimed king by the people of Alexandria (Polyb. xxix. 8). Thus Antiochus entered Egypt as the champion of the rightful king and laid siege to Alexandria, which was held by the usurper. When he abandoned the siege and returned to Syria, Philometor, whom he had established at Memphis, was reconciled with his brother, being convinced of his protector's duplicity by the fact that he left a Syrian garrison in Pelusium. In 168 B.C. Antiochus returned and found that the pretext for his presence there was gone. Morcover the defeat of Perseus at Pydna set Rome free to take a strong line in Egypt. As he approached Alexandria Antiochus met the Roman ambassador, and, after a brief attempt at evasion, accepted his ultimatum on the spot. He evacuated Egypt and returned home cowed (Dan. xi. 30; cf. Polyb. xxix. 11). Later he could attend the celebration of the Roman triumph over Macedonia, and surpass it by a festival at Antioch in honour of his conquest of Egypt (Polyb. xxxi. 3−5); but the loss of Pelusium made it imperative that he should be sure of Palestine. His friends the Hellenizing Jews had split up into factions. Menelaus, the brother of Simon the Benjamite, had bought the high-priesthood over the head of Jason, who fled into the country of the Ammonites, in 172 B.C. (2 Macc. iv. 23 sqq.). To secure his position (for he was not even of the priestly tribe) Menclaus persuaded the deputy of Antiochus, who was dealing with a revolt at Tarsus, to put Onias to death. Antiochus, on his return, had his deputy executed and wept for the dead Onias. But Menelaus managed to retain his position, and his accusers were put to death. Antiochus could pity Onias, who had been tempted from the sanctuary at Daphne, but he needed an ally in Jerusalem-and money. Then, during the first or second invasion of Egypt, Jason, hearing that Antiochus was dead, returned suddenly and massacred all the followers of Menelaus who did not take refuge in the citadel. He had some claim to the loyalty of such pious Jews as remained, because he was of the tribe of Levi-in spite of the means he, like Menelaus, had employed to get the high-priesthood. His temporary success reveals the strength of the party who wished to adopt the Greek way of life without consenting to the complete substitution of the authority of Antiochus for the prescriptions of the Mosaic Law. It was also a warning to Antiochus, who returned to exact a bloody vengeance and to loot the Temple (169 or 168 B.C.). After the evacuation of Egypt, Antiochus followed out the policy which Jason had suggested to him at the first. Jerusalem was suddenly occupied by one of his captains, and a garrison was planted in a new fortress on Hellenism. Mount Zion. Then to coerce the Jews into conformity, the Law was outraged in the Holy Place. The worship of Zeus Olympius replaced the worship of Yahweh, and swine