INTRODUCTION
another theory of the history, the chapters are once more treated as virtually a whole, either relatively early (c. 537–520; Sellin, Stud. 160; Rothstein) or relatively late (H. P. Smith, 371 n. 1, 379 n. 3; Torrey, 288 n. 8, 314; Kennett). In contrast to these efforts to overcome the difficulties are the views of those scholars who do not admit the intricacies but continue to maintain the essential trustworthiness of E-N, the unhistorical character of Chron. itself being, nevertheless, almost unanimously realized. In so far as this is based upon the manner in which the narratives appear to be mutually confirmatory—cf. the conservative attitude to the criticism of the Pentateuch—and superficially, at least, consistent, it is necessary to observe that the chronicler's history is singularly simple compared with the forms taken in E, or in Jos., or in the traditions that prevailed elsewhere in ancient times.
(c) Some ancient views. Jos., who is well-informed on the last Babylonian kings, asserts that the kingdom fell to Cyrus the Persian and Darius the Mede; the two were kinsmen and the latter, whose father was Astyages, had another name among the Greeks (x. 11, 2, 4). Cyrus, son of Cambyses, was the father of the better-known Cambyses; his mother, according to tradition, was the sister of Cyaxares and daughter of Astyages. Astyages, the last Median king, was the son of Cyaxares and was defeated by Cyrus. But this name is also given by Alexander Polyhistor and others to Cyaxares (c. 624–584), the founder of the Median empire, who took part with Nabopolassar in the attack upon Assyria.[1] When the father of Darius is called Ahasuerus (Dan. ix. 1; cf. the synopsis, Lag. 15, where he is born of Vashti), and the latter and Nebuchadrezzar capture Nineveh (Tobit xiv. 15), the names Ahasuerus and Cyaxares have evidently been confused (Rawlinson). The Ahasuerus of Esther was certainly placed soon after the deportation of Jehoiachin by Nebuchadrezzar (so ii. 5 seq.), but in Judith iv. 1–6 the last-mentioned reigns over the Medes at a time when the Jews had recently returned from captivity and the high-priest was one Joiakim. The historical foundation for Esther's king can only be Xerxes, although Jos., LXX, and early writers identify him with Artaxerxes. Jos., moreover, states that he was also called Cyrus—in Dan. v. 31, vi. 28, Darius the Mede becomes king after the fall of Babylonia and is followed by Cyrus—and gives the name Xerxes to the Artaxerxes of the stories of E and N. The difficulty of distinguishing the names would obviously be increased by the fact that Darius I was actually followed by Xerxes (485–465), and D. II (423–404) by Art. II (404–359), and that D. II had a son Cyrus, famous for the unsuccessful expedition against his elder brother Art. II. Not to pursue the confusing details further, it is enough to notice that the later historians had behind them a series of events of vital importance. During a relatively brief period the power of Assyria was broken up, Scythians and Medes entered into W. Asiatic politics, a new Babylonian empire was restored only to fall before the Persian regime under Cyrus; a little more than a century later another Cyrus created a turmoil in W. Asia (400), and finally the Greeks, who had been gradually coming into closer touch with the Oriental world, established a new age under Alexander the Great. How soon history became enwrapped in legend is obvious from Herodotus and Xenophon (fifth century B.C.) and from Ctesias, who is even said to have drawn upon Persian records. Jos., for his part, endeavoured to reduce the confusion into some order; the Seder Olam (ch. xxx) ingeniously identifies all the Persian kings: Cyrus, Darius, Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes—Dan. xi. 2 knows only of four—and the whole of the Persian age from the restoration of the Temple to the time of Alexander the Greek was even compressed into a few decades. The appearance of simplicity in the chronicler's history of the period is misleading; see further § 6 e.
§ 5. Data for Reconstruction.
The foregoing survey of the intricacies of E-N,the prevailing confusion in regard to the period, and the efforts made by ancient and modern writers to present the historical facts, will perhaps be convincing proof that the difficulties in E-N are genuine. They concern both E-N and E, and any attempt to discuss the origin and structure of E must form some preliminary conception of the underlying history. For this the story of N seems most fruitful.
(a) The Samaritans. N's age was one of intermarriage and close intercourse between the Jews, Samaritans, and other neighbours (vi. 18, xiii. 3, 4, 23, 24, 28). The elliptical repulse of the Samaritans in N ii. 20 implies that they, as in E iv. 2 seq., had some claim 'to a share in the fortunes of Jerusalem' (Ryle, 171), and that they 'would have had no quarrel with the Jews if they had been permitted to unite with the latter in their undertakings and privileges' (Davies, 177). These details, the character of the intermarriages, the efforts to compromise with N (vi. 2–4), the close relationship presupposed by the subsequent bitterness after the schism, the fact that Samaritanism was virtually a sister-sect of Judaism—these preclude the present position of E's return and marriage-reforms and make it extremely doubtful whether there had as yet been any serious Samaritan hostility. They also suggest that the records of E-N have been written and revised under the influence of a bitter anti-Samaritan feeling, the date of which can hardly be placed before N xiii. Indeed, it is not improbable that the Samaritan schism should be placed (with Jos. xi. 7 seq.) at the close of the Persian period (see further Marq., 57 seq.; Jahn, 173 seqq.; Torrey, 321 seqq., 331 seq.).
(b) Place of Ez. iv. 7–23. This undated record of the reign of Artaxerxes, in spite of some
- ↑ See Ency. Brit., 11th ed., on these names.
11
