amalgamate with one another, but under such conditions that the more recent and superior civilisation of the latter maintained the sole ascendant.

Now when once Cyrus had given the Judeans permission to return to Jerusalem and its immediate vicinity at any rate, there seems no reason why numbers of the descendants of the ancient kingdom of the Ten Tribes should not also have accomplished a similar return to the northern provinces. As a result of the great storms of the last two centuries, many cities and other places in this part of the country no doubt lay in ruins, and since the Chaldean supremacy had stepped into the place of the Assyrian throughout all these regions, all the exiles of Israel lived under essentially similar laws. Thus, when Cyrus had given them liberty to do so, many descendants of the Ten Tribes might gradually, and with no great display, come back; but if many of the tribe of Judah, even after the liberation, preferred to remain in the east, no doubt still more of the descendants of the Ten Tribes made the same choice. We have no longer any certain clue by which to trace this movement, but neither have we any reason to deny that after the great change in the political situation, individual descendants of the northern kingdom, formerly so extensive, may have assembled once more in the ancient fatherland. The Chronicler, the only historian of this period whose work has been preserved entire, passes over all this; but for him Jerusalem had already become the central point of all history so exclusively that his silence concerning these contemporary but remote events and changes need not surprise us. The expeditions of these returning exiles, however, cannot have been of any great importance, as not even the smallest reminiscence of them on which we can rely has been preserved.

It may, indeed, seem sad, at the point which we have now reached, to see quite clearly and indubitably how the last remains of the kingdom of the Ten Tribes, that chief section of ancient Israel which even attempted once to constitute itself the whole, vanish entirely from history. It is true that even in later times many of the inhabitants of the holy land continued to boast of their descent from one of the ancient tribes of this kingdom; but no such restoration as was now in store for the kingdom of Judah ever really fell to the lot of the sister kingdom, which had once been so much greater. On the other hand, from this time forward whatever vitality remained amid its ruins endeavoured to pass entirely

As from the tribe of Asher, Luke ii. 36.

into Judah, and in spite of the narrow and prejudicial opposition which proceeded from Judah itself, as we shall presently see, it succeeded in its efforts more and more completely. The name of the Judeans, which had already risen into importance during the last centuries before the destruction of Jerusalem, is the only one after its restoration which maintains a place in the great history of the world; and it supplants the venerable designation of Israel so completely that the latter retains no significance except in connection with the religion of the various fragments of the ancient people and their sacred traditions. From the correct feeling that it was in its religion alone that the ancient Israel, in its deepest life, could survive in anything like completeness, the community of the new Jerusalem clung fast to the ancient sanctity of the kingdom of twelve tribes, at any rate in its loftier thoughts and ultimate efforts, both in its sacred language and also, though only on rare occasions, in certain significant symbols.' Even the legends of the lives and exploits of distinguished descendants of the kingdom of the Ten Tribes, during the first period of the Assyrian captivity, at the court of Nineveh and elsewhere, subsequently tended more and more to pass into stories of the Babylonian exile and become Judaic. The legend of Daniel's wise behaviour at the court of a mighty king was older, according to every indication, than is assumed in the late book of Daniel; 2 and the struggle between Haman and

As in the case of the twelve sinofferings for all Israel' at the consecration of the new Temple, Ezr. vii. 17; cf. also remarks on Rev. vii. 5-8.

2 Later usages of language, which will be noticed below, forbid us to lay any stress, in this connection, on the fact that the three friends of Daniel are called Assyrians in 4 Macc. xiii. 9, cf. xvi. 3, 21, xviii. 12 sq.; but the reasons which I have already briefly indicated in the Propheten des A. Bs., vol. iii., leave no doubt that Daniel lived as early as the Assyrian captivity, and that an older book of Daniel preceded the one we now have; just as it was followed in its turn by still later books of a similar description, in which the ancient history is further obscured.-A splendid sepulchral monument to Daniel at Susa was highly reverenced in the Middle Ages (see Travels of Benjamin of Tudela, ed. cit., p. 105, and long before him Ibn Haukal; the legends in Carmoly's Itinéraires, pp. 335, 458, sound much less precise), and is revered even now on the spot, cf. Loftus'

Travels in Chaldaea and Susiana, pp. 317 sqq., 338, 415, where illustrations will also be found. But the case of this sanctuary is similar to that of Ezekiel's, already mentioned, p. 14. These magnificent edifices were really raised by Jews in the first instance as synagogues, and were afterwards assigned to their great saints. Quite at variance with this is the mention made by Josephus, Ant. x. 11, 7, of a magnificent Baris built by Daniel at Ecbatana, as the burial-place of the Persian and Parthian kings, where a Judean priest still kept watch. From what source Josephus got this story about Ecbatana, we cannot tell; in Dan. viii. 2 Jerome simply reads Susa instead of Ecbatana, without any further remark (Comment. on Dan.), but this is in opposition not only to all our MSS., but to all probability as well, although, amongst other modern authorities, Quatremère too (Mémoires de l'Acad. des Inser. tom. xix. pp. 423, 445) would read Susa in Josephus on the strength of this. The question is rather whether the whole story

1

Achiachar at the court of Nineveh was finally transformed into one between Haman and Mordecai at that of the Persians; and the Book of Tobit is the only work left to us which attempts to perpetuate the renown earned during the exile by the holy men of old among the Ten Tribes also. But yet this extinction of all genuine remains of the kingdom of the Ten Tribes did but accomplish the fate to which this kingdom had been destined from the first,2 though we have been unable to mark its fulfilment under the clear light of events till now. Afterwards, indeed, as we shall see, when a new community was gradually formed in Samaria, partly through the fault of the new Jerusalem, which was driven by the spirit of rivalry between the two to greater and greater extremes and ended by claiming to be the true continuation of the ancient Israel and the kingdom of the Ten Tribes, its very late historians invented an actual return of three hundred thousand men from the Assyrian captivity, and a fresh foundation of the ancient Israel under this great host of thoroughly genuine Israelites, in the centre of the country so sacred in their early history, and especially on Mount Gerîzîm. It is easy to see, however, that this is not only pure invention, but very late invention too.3

about Ecbatana and the Judean watchman is anything more than a result of the importance of Ecbatana mentioned above, p. 49, note 1, coming from the hand perhaps of the narrator already mentioned on

p. 48.

On this subject, see the account of the Book of Tobit further on. 2 Vol. iv.

The detailed account of a return of the Samaritans may be found in Paulus's Memorabilien, vol. ii. pp. 54-100, extracted from Abulfatch's Arabian Chronicle (but very inaccurately and incorrectly translated by Schnurrer). A kind of abstract of this, which wanders still further from history, appears in the Samaritan Liber Josua, c. xlv., published at Leyden in 1848. The careful study of such passages clearly proves that the Samaritans, in essential matters, used none but Judean authorities for their own ancient history, but if they found anything prejudicial to their own fame in them, they entirely reversed it, and, assuming nothing but untruth among the Judeans, they invented their own ancient history from that of the Judeans, but made it the exact opposite. Abulfatch, it is true, calls the king of Haran,' i.e. of Mesopotamia, who gave the permission to return and granted many immunities, Saverdi, no doubt the

Sacherdon of the Book of Tobit, and in this, according to vol. iv. p. 214, note 5, we still have a relic of an ancient tra

dition; but he makes his successor Anushirvan, thus confusing the New-Persian Khosrev with Cyrus; and his successor the Magian Zerádest, confounding Zarathustra with Smerdis; and finally his successor Achashverosh, a name which he only knew from the Book of Esther, while he transfers the history of this book to the Samaritans. For the rest, Abulfatch's book deserves to be published in a complete and accurate form far more than the Liber Josua, for the author has made use, though only here and there, of more ancient records of genuine Samaritan origin. More especially, a valuable list of the places inhabited by the Samaritans as existing some time in the age of the later Persian kings, is to be found on p. 88. Besides Nabolos (i.e. Shechem) the following names occur:-(1) Daphna (not to be derived from the ancient Gophna); (2) ‘Atârah Tarafain, no doubt the 'Atâra [Ataroth] of Jos. xvi. 7, north of Bethel and Gophna; (3) Bâdân, no doubt the Beth-shean, or Scythopolis, p. 89, often mentioned in this connexion; (4) Beth Fâghûr, perhaps an ancient ; (5) se, probably a corruption of

3. But here we must recollect that the northern districts of Canaan had already learned to look to Jerusalem as their capital more and more during the centuries immediately preceding its destruction. The fall of the kingdom of Samaria had at any rate produced one immediate good result, viz. the removal of an obstacle which had stood in the way of uniting the severed members of the Davidic kingdom to the greatest extent possible. The rulers in Jerusalem were again at liberty to attempt to extend their authority over the northern districts; and all the inhabitants of those parts who desired to worship the true God, were still more ready once more to cling exclusively to the sanctuary at Jerusalem. This had even then been the case to a great extent; the clearest proof of it is furnished by the strong attraction thither of residents in Shechem, Shiloh, and Samaria. These were the very cities which had always before been rivals of Jerusalem; but immediately after the destruction of the Temple numbers of persons in deep mourning made a pilgrimage from them to the ruins of Jerusalem, in order at least to offer their sacrifices of sorrow on the site of the fallen sanctuary. If, then, this sanctuary of Jerusalem rose again, and the beams of this new victorious glory streamed round its august and ancient splendour, it would spontaneously step once more into the position of a holy metropolis for the northern districts of Canaan also; and if henceforth all the worshippers of Jahveh who lived in even the most distant countries of heathendom looked to this concentrated centre with joy and pride, made pilgrimages thither, and found there the place where they were most firmly united, how much more, in the northern half of Canaan, must they all have clung to this sacred rock, how much more must all the descendants of the kingdom of the Ten Tribes also, who had perhaps assembled there in somewhat greater numbers now, have regarded Jerusalem alone as their holy city! There are, in fact, many signs

o, i.e. Maßoplá, Jos. Bell. Jud. iv. 8, 1; Plin. Hist. Nat. v. 15; cf. vol. vii. p. 107 [Ed. Germ.]; (6) Rafidia (as must be read here for Dafidia), west of Shechem, see Seetzen's Reisen, vol. ii. p. 169; (7) Beth-Fûrîk, east of the same; (8) did); (9) Kafar,, for which it is certainly better to read 'Avertâ, south of the last, ny in Carmoly's Itinéraires, pp. 186, 212, 386, 415, where, however, it is always incorrectly spelt, as it is also in Seetzen's Reisen, VOL. V.

which enable us to recognise this state of things clearly enough; but the jealousy of the Persian government would not permit any closer connection between the southern and northern portions of the country. Thus, all the worshippers of the true God dwelling north of Jerusalem were obliged to content themselves for the present with recognising Jerusalem simply as the spiritual capital of their country. They could not be prevented from voluntarily offering sacrifices there; but no more intimate union of any other description was thought of under the Persians. The sequel of the history will show, however, the infinite importance which the closer connection of Galilee and Judea assumed when the pressure of the times allowed it to put out its strength more boldly.

In this direction, then, everything might henceforth take a form very favourable to Jerusalem as the renovated centre of true religion, although the advantages of the new situation could only disclose themselves fully in the course of the following centuries. If a religion be true, it is good for its own activity that it should have a local centre as widely and generally recognised as possible. At that time no old unexpiated guilt clung to the ancient sanctity of Jerusalem, and it even rose from its ruins in fresh and marvellous life; so that it soon looked for a grand new future favoured by its own fitness for its task and the charm peculiar to it, as well as by the condition of the age, and it might even hope once more to regain its ancient greatness and power, even though in a very different way. But this great advantage was counterbalanced by a disadvantage almost as great. The ancient holy land had been so cruelly and so frequently conquered and desolated by powerful heathens, owing even its restoration, as far as it went, to them, that the strongest and most permanent traces of their action necessarily still remained; and although the Idumeans of the south were gradually pushed back again somewhat further, and the ancient kingdom of Judah was enabled to collect itself round Jerusalem more and more completely, yet many heathen inhabitants had long ago found their way into the northern and central districts, and maintained their footing there far more stubbornly. In the remoter northern district, as its very name of Galilee, i.e. march (shortened for heathen-march),

2

1 From Ps. lxviii. 28 [27] we may conclude that at the consecration of the second Temple envoys at least from the most northern district, or Galilee, were present. Moreover the use of the name Joseph

for Israel in certain songs of the second Temple, lxxvii. 16 [15], lxxx. 2 sq. [1 sq.], lxxxi. 6 [5], cannot have been simply accidental.

2 P. 80 sq.