2. A second reason alleged by Dr. Mill (a. jl p.l& note) is *^ the circumstance that, in the next aae^ from Babylon, tiiat of Ezra himself, . . . tiie di^ of David*s house was removed tnan Zorobabel ^ c least sm; generations . . . thus proving . . . t2ei^«»> sibility of the descendant's ascent firom Bahyko b^ e%iiier than the reign next to that of Darius HUf^ viz. that of Artaxerxes II.'* This argoment is dcrh-e: firom the Davidic g^iealogy, 1 Chron. iii, 19-21 cos- pared with Ezra viii, 2. It is assumed thai Hsttad in both places is the same person ; now, in the gesai- ogy, it is alleged there are at least six generatioss be- tween his ancestor Zerubbabel and him, jet he scoee- panied Ezra from Babylon ; of coarse this is fanpssa- ble, if between the ascent of Zerubbabd and llait d Ezra are but eighty years (1 Cyrus to 7 Aitsscfs* Longimanus). Dr. Mill (p. 152, note) mention ^ &r ways of exhibiting the offspring of TTmn^wm^ ^/^ 4 Zerubbabel;'* the first, that of the oommon Hetcrv text and our version, which, ^*- if intelligible, yet ksva the number of generations undetermined ;'* and tbn others, followed by ancient interpreters, smd verese* which result severally in making Hattosh nxtk eighth, and ninth from ZerubbabeL There is so a^ solute necessity for depsrting fh>m the Hebtew teil which is both "intelligible** and conristent with tb- customary chronology. The genealogy, perhapi. pro> ceeds thus : 1. Zerubbabel ; 2. his children, V^^ lam, ffanamah, Shelomith (sister), and fire otii»s; 1 the sons of this Hananiah are Pelatiah and Jeshiiak ; and there the pediyree of Zerwbbabei eitd»t Le.wTthtbc two grandsons. Then, **the sons of B^ihaiah, tk sons of Aman, the sons of Obadiah, the sons of Shecb- aniah; and the sons of Shechaniah, Shenaaiab; t:^' the sons of Shemaiah, ffaUuth" and five oChecs. Tloi is to say, the genealogist, having deduced the DareS: line through Solomon, and the regal succession dovt to the grandsons of Zerubbabel, proceeds to meetKS four other branches of the house of David, and give* a particular account of the fourtZi, namely, of Shesi- lab, the father of that Hattush who went up from B»2v ylon with Ezra, and was in his generation the ref ?• sentative of the Davidic house <^ Shedianiah. (v likewise Movers, Ueber die 1nbli9(^ Ckrvmii, p. ^
DARIUS
679
DARIUS
tftvernick, H<mdb. der Emleii. mda* A. 7.^,1,266; [eraf^ld, Getck. dei V, I. wm der Zentdnmff da eraten ^ea^d$ on, i, 879; Keil, Apolog, Vertuch aber die .90- \er der Chromkj p. 48. On the other hand, Ewald, ^««cA. dee V. L i, 219, note^ makes Sheohaniah son of fananish and fitther of Sbemaiah, so that Hattosh is >urth firom Zerabbabel ; and so Berthean in the Kgf, vtgtL Hdb, on 1 Chron. iii, 21 ; which view is consist- nt -with the usual chronology, as of coarse it is quite ossible that a grandson of Zenibbabel's grandson maj lave been adult at the time of Ezra's mission, eigh^ -ears after the Ist of Cyrus. See, however, a differ- nt explanation in Strong's Harm, and Eitpoe, of the roepelsy p. 17, note la.) See Zssubbabbu So, in kct, the Hattush who accompanied Ezca is described according to the reading, proposed by some, of the pas- iage, Tiii, 2, 8), *' of the sons of David, HaOu^ of the ons ofShechtmiahf" for the last clause is out of place \a prefixed to the following enumeration **of the sons )f Paroeh," etc. So the Sept read it {dirb vlutv Aav By 'Arroig iarb vluiv ^axayid) ; and the apocryphal rersion more plainly still (1 Eedras viii, 29, U rCiv vi&v lavidf Aarroifs b ^x^^^^^)* ^^^ ^^ ^^^ probably 2 different HaUtuih (q. v.) is meant.
8. The concluding argument on the same side is de- rived from "the circumstance that in the next ascent from Babylon after that of Esra, and in the same reign, the principal opponent of Kehemiah in his worlL of rebuilding Jerusalem was a man [Sanballat] who can be demonstrated to have continued an active chief of the Samaritans till the time of Alexander the Great, and to have then founded the temple on Mount Geri- dm, Joseph. Ant, xi, 8, 2-4" (Dr. Mill, «. «.). Jose- phus's story is that Suiballat, satrap in Samaria of Darius III, had given his daughter in marriage to a brother of the l%h-priest Jaddua, named Manasses, who, refusing to put her away, took refuge with his fSuher-in-law, and became the first high-priest of the rival temple built on Mount Gerizim by permission of Alexander, then engaged in the siege of T^. All this, with perhaps the marvellous romance that fol- lows about Alexander's reception by the high-priest Jaddua, needs a better voucher than Josephus before it can be accepted as history. The story about Ma- nasses and Sanballat is clearly derived from the last recorded act of Nehemiah, his expulsion of a son of Joiada, and grandson of the then high-priest Eliashib, who was son-in-law to Sanballat the Horonite. It is remarkable that Josephus, in his account of Nehemi- ah, makes no mention of this act, and does not even name Sanballat ; the reason of which may be that, after referring the mission of Nehemiah, as also of Ezra, to the reign of Xerxes, to extend the life of this active chief of the Samaritans from that time to the time of Alexander, full 180 years later, would have been too absurd. See Sanballat. So is the as- sumption of Petermann (s. v. " Samaria," in Herzog's Real-EncyHop. xiii, 1, p. 867) that there were two San- ballats, one contemporary with Nehemiah, the other with Alexander, and that both had daughters married into the fitunily of the high-priest (Eliashib and Jad- doa), whose husbands were therefore expelled. As to Jaddua, the fy^t may be, as Josephus represents it, that he was still high-priest in the tune of Alexander. The six who are named in lineal succession in Neh. zii, 10, 11 ; Jeshua, Joiakim, Eliashib, Joiada, Johanan, and Jaddua, will fill up the interval of 200 years from Cyrus to Alexander. Of these, Eliashib was still h^^I»iest in the thirty-second year of Nehemiah's Artachshashta, and later (xiii, 6, 28); it is scarcely possible that this could be Artaxerxes Mnemon, whose thirty-second year is removed finom the first of Cyrus by more than 160 years, which is &r too much for a succeesion of three high-priests. It does not follow ftt>m the mention of the successors of Eliashib down to Jaddua in xii, 10 sq., that Nehemiah lived to see any of them in the ofiice of high-priest, but only that