The Old Testament In the Light of The Historical Records and Legends Part 35

It was in the year 559 B.C. that Evil-Merodach was murdered, and Neriglissar at once seized the throne of his brother-in-law. Berosus (as quoted by Josephus) gives no details as to his reign. In his inscriptions he states that he was (like Nabopola.s.sar and Nebuchadnezzar before him) patron of e-sagila and e-zida, the temple of Belus at Babylon and that of Nebo at Borsippa, and that the great G.o.ds had established his dominion.

After speaking of the G.o.d Nebo, he makes a reference to Ura, the G.o.d of death, which, under the circ.u.mstances, one can hardly regard as otherwise than significant-

"Nebo, the faithful son, a just sceptre has caused his hands to hold.

To keep the people, preserve the country, Ura, prince of the G.o.ds, gave him his weapon."

He then mentions his father, Bel-um-ikun, whom he calls "king of Babylon," and describes the restoration and decoration of e-zida and e-sagila, together with the palace which he built for himself at Babylon, and other architectural work.

But to describe his father as "king of Babylon" was a statement somewhat removed from the truth. In the contract-tablets of the time of Nebuchadnezzar and Evil-Merodach, where the name of Neriglissar occurs somewhat frequently as a purchaser of houses, land, etc., he is called simply "son of Bel-um-ikun," without any other t.i.tle whatever (see p.

438). But perhaps Neriglissar's statement is due to some historical event of which we are ignorant.

Neriglissar died in the month Nisan or Iyyar of the fourth year of his reign, and was succeeded by his son Labai-Marduk, the Labarosoarchod of the Greek writers. According to Berosus (Josephus against Apion, i. 20), he was no more than a child, and it may be supposed that he was a younger son of Neriglissar, though concerning this we have no information. He only reigned nine months, a plot having been laid against him by his friends, and he was tormented to death, "by reason of the very ill-temper and ill practices he exhibited to the world" (Berosus). After his death, according to the same historian, the conspirators met, and elected one of their number, Nabonnedus (Nabuna'id), as king. "In his reign it was that the walls of the city of Babylon were curiously built with burnt brick and bitumen," is all that Berosus has to say with regard to the sixteen years of his reign which preceded his overthrow.

Many inscriptions of the reign of this king exist, and we are able to gain from them an excellent idea of the state of the country and the historical events of this important period. All that Nabonidus tells us concerning his origin is, that he was the son or descendant of Nabu-bala?-su-iqbi, whom he calls _rubu emqu_, "the deeply-wise prince." Who he may have been is not known, but there exist two tablets of the nature of letters written by a certain Nabu-bala?-su-iqbi to Aur-bani-apli, whose faithful servant he professed to be, protesting against the treatment which he had received at the hands of certain men who were hostile to him. If both these letters were written by the same person, they must belong to about the year 652 B.C. (the eponymy of Aur-na?ir, which is mentioned in one of them). As that was about one hundred years before Nabonidus came to the throne, this personage, if related to him, must have been his grandfather or great-grandfather. Other persons of the same name are mentioned in the fifth, eleventh, eighteenth, and thirty-fourth years of Nebuchadnezzar, but it seems very unlikely that the father of Nabonidus should be one of these.

According to the Babylonian Chronicle, Nabonidus was at the beginning of his reign engaged in the west, to all appearance cutting down, among other things, trees on Mount Ama.n.u.s for building purposes at Babylon. Something also took place by the Mediterranean (_tamtim a mat Amurri_, "the sea of the land of Amoria"). Apparently he had also troops in this district, and sacrifices were performed there.

After this there is a gap until the sixth year of his reign, the entry for which, however, refers wholly to Astyages' operations against Cyrus, and its disastrous results, for he was made prisoner, Ecbatana sacked, and the spoil brought to Anan, Cyrus's capital.

Previous to this, as Nabonidus informs us in his cylinder-inscription found by Mr. Ra.s.sam at Abu-habbah (Sippar), the Medes had been very successful in their warlike operations, and had even besieged Haran, making it impossible for Nabonidus to carry out the instructions of his G.o.d Merodach, revealed to him in a dream, to restore the temple of Sin in that city. On the king of Babylon reminding the deity of the state of things in that part, and speaking of the strength of the Median forces, he was told that in three years' time their power would be destroyed, which happened as predicted. He now caused his "vast army" to come from Gaza and elsewhere to do the needful work, and when completed, the image of the G.o.d Sin was brought from Babylon, and placed in the restored shrine with joy and shouting. Naturally the Babylonian king was overjoyed at the release of Haran from the power of the Medes-could he have foreseen that Cyrus, their conqueror, would one day hurl him from his throne, his enthusiasm concerning the success of "the young servant of Merodach" (as he calls him) would have been greatly abated.

In his seventh and eighth years the king was in Tema, and the crown prince (apparently Belshazzar is meant), with the great men and the army, was in Akkad (the northern part of Babylonia, of which the city of Agad or Agade was the capital). The king did not go to Babylon, Nebo did not go to Babylon, Bel did not go forth, the festival _akitu_ (new year's festival) was not performed, though the victims seem to have been offered in e-sagila and e-zida as usual, and (the king) appointed a priest (_uru-gala_) of the weapon (?) and the temple. In the ninth year also the same state of things existed, and this year the mother of the king died, to the great grief of the people. It is also recorded for this year that Cyrus, apparently in the course of one of his military expeditions, crossed the Tigris above Arbela.

From the fact that the religious processions and ceremonies are given as being unperformed every year from the seventh to the eleventh of his reign, it is clear that a great deal of discontent was caused thereby, as is, in fact, indicated by the cylinder-inscription of Cyrus detailing under what conditions he himself entered Babylon. It was evidently one of the duties of the Babylonian kings (and, as we have seen, the a.s.syrian kings conformed to this when they became kings of Babylonia) to perform the usual ceremonies, and the ruler neglecting this was certain to fall into disfavour with the priesthood, and, by their influence, with the people as well.

Whatever may have been the sins of omission of Nabonidus-whether they were trivial or otherwise-there is no doubt that they made a bad impression on the people, and gave rise to all kinds of statements against him when the days of misfortune came. For the scribe who drew up Cyrus's record after the taking of Babylon, all Nabonidus's doings with regard to the temples and statues of the G.o.ds were to be quoted against him. The temple dues had been allowed to fail, and the G.o.ds quitted their shrines, angry at the thought that Nabonidus had brought foreign G.o.ds to u-anna (a part of Babylon). With regard to this last accusation, it may be remarked that a popular ruler would in all probability have been praised for bringing the G.o.ds of other places to Babylon-it would have been either a tribute to the power of Babylonia in war (a power conferred upon her, in their opinion, by her G.o.ds); or else the payment of homage by the G.o.ds of other cities to those of Babylon, acknowledging at the same time their (and her) supremacy.

The fact is, Nabonidus was either the most intelligent, or one of the most intelligent, men in Babylonia. To all appearance he was not a ruler, but a learned man, full of love for his country and its inst.i.tutions, and desirous of knowledge, which he obtained at all costs. Whenever he had to restore a temple, he at once excavated in its foundations for the records of early kings which he knew to be there, and he was often successful in finding what he wanted. As he always recorded what he found, his cylinder-inscriptions nearly always possess a value far beyond those of other kings of Babylon. He seems to have delighted in what he saw when engaged in this work-he not only tells you that he read the texts thus discovered, but he refers to their perfect condition, and nearly always says something about the ruler who caused them to be placed in the foundations. He, too, is worthy of a statue in every place where the language of his native land is studied.

Naturally, his antiquarian researches, necessitating, as they did, the destruction of a part of the fabric of the temple under repair at the time, were not looked upon altogether with favour by the priests and the people, hence the dissatisfaction to which the scribes, who were probably of the priestly caste, afterwards gave vent. Besides this, was it not necessary that they should justify themselves for accepting a foreign ruler, of a different religion from their own?

Nabonidus gives no hint in his inscriptions that he was aware of any dissatisfaction at what he was doing. In all probability he was as religious as any of his predecessors had been, and his son Belshazzar was as the second ruler in the kingdom. Records exist showing that Belshazzar sent offerings to the temple at Sippar whilst he was in that neighbourhood, and the king's own offerings are sometimes mentioned with them. The king had therefore a good deputy performing his work. With regard to the bringing of foreign G.o.ds to u-anna, Cyrus's scribe probably refers to the deities of Haran, which were taken thither before the siege of the place by the Medes. When the enemy had departed, Nabonidus restored the temple in that city, and replaced the deities referred to in their shrines. The transport of the idols may have been merely to place them for the time being in a place of greater security.

There is, then, every probability that Belshazzar, son of Nabonidus, was the real ruler. What an excellent understanding existed between him and his father may be gained from the inscription which Nabonidus caused to be composed to place in the foundations of the temple of the Moon (the G.o.d Sin) at Ur (identified with Ur of the Chaldees), the concluding lines of which run as follows-

"As for me, Nabonidus, king of Babylon, from sin against thy great divinity save me, and a life of remote days give as a gift; and as for Belshazzar, the eldest son, the offspring of my heart, the fear of thy great divinity cause thou to exist in his heart, and let not sin possess him, let him be satisfied with fulness of life."

The text being undated, there is no means of ascertaining in what year the restoration of the temple of the Moon at Ur took place.

The story of the downfall of the Babylonian empire and the end of native rule in Babylonia is told by the Babylonian Chronicle as follows-

"(Year 17th), Nebo to go forth (?) from Borsippa ... the king entered the temple E-tur-kalama. In the month (?) ... and the lower sea, revolted ...

went (?). Bel went forth, the festival Akitu (new year's festival) they held as usual (?). In the month ... the G.o.ds (?) of Marad, Zagaga and the G.o.ds of the city of Ki, Beltis and the G.o.ds of ?ursag-kalama, entered Babylon. At the end of the month Elul the G.o.ds of the land of Akkad who were above the atmosphere and below the atmosphere entered Babylon, the G.o.ds of Borsippa, Cutha, and Sippar did not enter. In the month Tammuz Cyrus made battle at Opis on the Tigris among the soldiers of Akkad. The people of Akkad raised a revolt; people were killed; Sippar was taken on the 14th day without fighting. Nabonidus fled. On the 16th day Ugbaru (Gobryas), governor of the land of Gutium, and the soldiers of Cyrus entered Babylon without fighting-after Nabonidus they pursued (?), he was captured in Babylon. At the end of the month the regiment (?) of the land of Gutium surrounded (?) the gates of e-sagila (the temple of Belus). A celebration (?) of anything, in e-sagila and the shrines, was not being made, and a (lunar ?) festival was not proceeding. Marcheswan, the third day, Cyrus descended to Babylon; they filled the roads before him. Peace was established to the city-Cyrus promised peace to Babylon, all of it.

Gubaru (Gobryas), his governor, appointed governors in Babylonia, and from the month Kisleu to the month Adar the G.o.ds of the land of Akkad, whom Nabonidus had sent down to Babylon, returned to their places. The month Marcheswan, the night of the 11th day, Ugbaru (Gobryas) (went?) against ... and the son (?) of the king died. From the 27th of the month Adar to the third of the month Nisan, there was weeping in Akkad, all the people bowed down their heads. On the 4th day Cambyses, son of Cyrus, went to e-nig-?ad-kalama-ummu ('the house where the sceptre of the world is given,' the temple of Nebo). The man of the temple of the sceptre of Nebo...."

(The remainder is mutilated, and the sense not clear-to all appearance it refers to religious ceremonies and sacrifices in which Cambyses took part.)

Here, again, the suggestion seems to be, that because the king thought fit to send the statues of the various G.o.ds of the land to other cities than their own "on a visit," as it were, the priesthood was justified in renouncing allegiance to him (and in this the people naturally followed them), and in delivering the kingdom to a foreigner. It has been said that the success of Cyrus was in part due to the aid given to him by the Jews, who, sympathizing with him on account of his monotheism, helped him in various ways; but in all probability he could never have achieved success had not the Babylonian priests (as indicated by their own records) spread discontent among the people.

More important, however, are the details of the conquest by Cyrus. He must have entered Babylonia on the north-east, and met the Babylonian army at Opis. That the conflict went against the Babylonians may be taken for granted, though it is not stated. Apparently the country was divided into two parties-those for resistance, and those who were probably discontented on account of the king's reputed unorthodoxy. A conflict between these took place, and there was bloodshed, the result being that no resistance could be offered to the army of Cyrus, who entered Sippar, the seat of the worship of the Sun-G.o.d, without fighting. To all appearance Nabonidus was at his post, but recognizing that all was lost, fled. Two days later Gobryas (not Cyrus, be it observed) entered Babylon with the army of Cyrus without fighting, and apparently captured Nabonidus there. This took place about the end of June, and it was October before Cyrus entered the city.

Judging from the text, he was well received, and the result of the conference between him and Gobryas was, that the latter "appointed governors in Babylon," or "in Babylonia," as the words may be also read.

Another stroke of policy was the return to their habitations of the images of the G.o.ds which Nabonidus had transferred to other places, thus appeasing the priests.

At this point come some very important and difficult phrases. On the night of the 11th of Marcheswan, Gobryas descended (or went) upon or against something, and the king, or the son of the king, died. The combination of these two statements, taken in connection with the record in Daniel v. 30, suggests that the latter reading is the correct one, though the first, which would make it to mean that the king was slain, is not excluded, and would make very little difference in the record, it being possible that Belshazzar, as the successor of Nabonidus, might be meant. An earlier explanation was, that the doubtful group stood for "the wife" of the king, but in this case it would be difficult to explain how it is that the verbal form (which is ideographically written, and may be read either _imat_, "he dies," _tamat_, "she dies," or _metat_, "she died") should differ from that used in the case of the king's mother, where _imtut_, the historical tense of the secondary form of the kal, is the form used. The use of _imat_ for _imut_, "he died," would be paralleled by the use of _irab_ or _irub_, "he entered," in other parts of the inscription.

Naturally, in a case of doubt, the seeker after truth in the matter of Babylonian history consults the record of the Babylonian historian Berosus. In the case of the taking of Babylon, however, there are such noteworthy differences, that one may well be excused for doubting his statements, notwithstanding his trustworthiness in other matters. He says that when Nabonnedus saw that Cyrus was coming to attack him, he met him with his forces, was beaten, and fled with a few of his troops to Borsippa. Cyrus then took Babylon, and gave order that the outer walls should be demolished, the city having proved very troublesome to him, and cost him much pains to capture. He then proceeded to besiege Nabonnedus in Borsippa, but the Babylonian king decided not to attempt to resist, and yielded. Cyrus therefore treated him kindly, and though he would not allow him to remain in Babylonia, he gave him Carmania as a place where he might dwell. "Accordingly Nabonnedus spent the rest of his time in that country, and there died."

The Babylonian Chronicle, however, says nothing about Nabonidus having taken refuge in Borsippa, nor of his being besieged there, nor of his having submitted at that place. On the contrary, he was taken in Babylon, which city had been captured without fighting, and there was on that account no immediate excuse for demolishing the walls, which, as native records tell us, were dismantled in the time of the Seleucidae. The fact is, Berosus did not wish it to be thought that the Babylonians had allowed their country to pa.s.s into the hands of a foreign ruler without resistance, hence this statement as to the capital holding out. To all appearance, Berosus is truthful where it is not to his interest to be otherwise.

The probability is, therefore, that "the son of the king," Belshazzar, held out against the Persians in some part of the capital, and kept during that time a festival on the 11th of Marcheswan, when Gobryas pounced upon the place, and he, the rightful Chaldean king, was slain, as recorded in Daniel. In this case, Darius the Mede ought to be "Gobryas of Gutium,"

who, like the former, appointed governors in Babylonia, and "received the kingdom" for Cyrus. If this be the case, Daniel would seem to have been in Belshazzar's power, though his knowledge of what was going on on the Persian side gave him courage to reject that prince's favours with scorn.

Officially, Belshazzar is never mentioned as king, though the Jewish captives must have regarded him as such, and probably spoke of him humorously as being the true ruler. This alone can account for his being called "king of the Chaldeans," and for his appointing Daniel to be the "_third_ ruler in the kingdom," as has been already suggested. That he was also confused with his father is shown by the statement in Josephus, where he is spoken of (_Antiq._ x. xi. 2) as being called Nabonidus by the Babylonians ("Baltasaros, who by the Babylonians was called Naboandelos"), though Josephus's transcription of the names is as incorrect as a Greek's.

Cyrus now found himself master of Babylonia, without any pretender to molest him; and being the acknowledged ruler of the land, he made himself as popular as he could by protecting the various religions which were to be found in his new dominions. The Jews are said to have sympathized with him on account of his being a monotheist, but to the Babylonians he seemed to be of the same religion as themselves, and his inscriptions show that, whether with his consent or not, the G.o.ds of the Babylonians were spoken of and invoked on his behalf just as if this were the case, and we know that he allowed his son to take part in the Babylonian religious ceremonies.

But to show clearly the way in which Cyrus ruled, a portion of his cylinder-inscription, found by Mr. Ra.s.sam at Babylon, is given here-

(To all appearance Nabonidus had tried to make various religious changes and reforms, the words "in the likeness of e-sagila" suggesting that he had at least thought of building another temple similar to that venerable fane.)

"The G.o.ds, who dwelt in the midst of them (_i.e._ the temples), forsook their dwellings in anger that he (Nabonidus) had made (them) enter within u-anna.(121) Marduk in the presence of ... was going round to all the states whose seat had been founded, and the people of umer and Akkad, who had been like the dead,(122) became active(123) ... he had mercy upon the whole of the lands-all of them found (and) looked upon him. He sought also a just king, the desire of his heart, whose hand he might hold, Cyrus, king of the city Anan, he called his t.i.tle, to all the kingdoms together (his) na(me) was proclaimed.

"The land of Qutu, the whole of the troops of the Manda, he (Merodach) placed under his feet, he caused his hands to capture the people of the dark head,(124) in righteousness and justice he cared for them. Merodach, the great lord, the protector of his people, looked with joy upon his fortunate work and his just heart. He commanded that he should go to his city Babylon, he caused him to take the road to Tindir,(125) like a friend and a companion he walked by his side. His vast people, which, like the waters of a river, cannot be numbered,(126) had their weapons girded, and marched by his side. Without fighting and battle he caused him to enter into u-anna. His city Babylon he protected in (its) trouble. Nabonidus, who did not fear him (_i.e._ Merodach), he delivered into his hand. The people of Tindir, all of them, the whole of the land of umer and Akkad, princes and high-warden, bowed down beneath him, and kissed his feet-they rejoiced for his sovereignty, their countenances were bright.

"The lord who, in trust that he (Merodach) gives life to the dead, spared on every side from destruction and injury. Well did they do him homage-they held in honour his name. I am Cyrus, king of the host, the great king, the powerful king, king of Tindir, king of the land of umer and Akkad, king of the four regions, son of Cambyses, the great king, king of the city of Anan, grandson of Cyrus, the great king, king of the city of Anan, great-grandson of ipi (Teispes), the great king, king of the city of Anan, the all-enduring royal seed whose reign Bel and Nebo love, for the contenting of their heart they desired his rule.

"When I entered in peace into (the midst) of Babylon, I founded in the king's palace a seat of dominion with pleasure and joy. Merodach, the great lord, broad-hearted for ... the sons ... Tindir and ... me, and daily I looked upon his image (?). My vast army marches in the midst of Babylon peacefully, the whole of (the people of umer and) Akkad I made to have no opposition. Within Babylon and all its districts in peace I had care for the sons of Tindir ... as without heart (?) ... and a yoke (which was) unseemliness for them was imposed (?). I comforted their sighing, I did away with their distress. For the work Merodach, the great lord, established the command-to me, Cyrus, the king his worshipper, and Cambyses, the son (who is) the offspring of my heart ... all of my army graciously he approached, and in peace before it kindly did he lead (?).

(By his) supreme (command) the whole of the kings dwelling in the royal abodes of every region from the upper sea to the lower sea, (those) dwelling ... the kings of the Amorites(127) (and) the dwellers in tents, all of them, brought their valuable tribute and kissed my feet within u-anna. From ... -a, the city of Aur,(128) and Susa, Agade, the land of Enunak (Umlia), Zamban, Me-Turnu, (and) Dur-ilu to the border of Qutu, the districts (on the banks) of the Tigris-from old time had their seats been founded-the G.o.ds dwelling within them I returned to their places, and caused eternal seats to be founded, all their people I collected and returned to their dwellings. And the G.o.ds of umer and Akkad, which Nabonidus, to the anger of the lord of the G.o.ds, had caused to enter within u-anna, by the command of Merodach, the great lord, I set in peace in their shrines-seats of joy of heart. May the whole of the G.o.ds whom I caused to enter into their places pray daily before Bel and Nebo for the lengthening of my days, may they announce the commands for my happiness, and may they say to Merodach that 'Cyrus, thy worshipper, and Cambyses, his son, ... (in) the countries (?), all of them, he has founded a seat of rest'...."

(Here follow the ends of nine more lines, from which, however, no certain sense can be gained.)

It will be seen, that this interesting and valuable inscription is in substantial agreement with the Chronicle. The grievance concerning the transference of the statues of the divinities is repeated and amplified, and the fact that Cyrus entered Babylon without fighting is confirmed (against Berosus, Xenophon, and the other Greek authors who describe the taking of Babylon).

Cyrus, however, here appears before us in quite a new character, namely, as the champion of Babylonian religious orthodoxy against Nabonidus's heterodoxy! That Cyrus was ignorant of the contents of this inscription (which must have been written by his orders) is in the highest degree improbable. That he may have been affected by Zoroastrian monotheism is likely, but if so, it was but a thin varnish, for he was to all appearance a polytheist at heart, as his Anzanian fathers (who, as we know from recent discoveries at Susa, were largely influenced by the religion of Babylonia) had been from the earliest times. He had chosen well the time of his invasion, as is shown by the revolt (apparently against Nabonidus) which is referred to in the Chronicle. It is strange how the Babylonians were in the main ready to accept a new ruler. In the earliest times we have mention of the Arabic dynasty which the native records call the dynasty of Babylon; later on came Ca.s.sites, Elamites and a.s.syrians, and now the country received an Elamite king who ruled over Persia. In the course of time other aliens would come and rule over them, but their acceptance of these was much less a matter of choice, or, rather, of apathetic acquiescence than on the occasion when they accepted Cyrus king of Anan.

We see, moreover, from this inscription, that Cyrus did restore the various exiles to their homes, thus securing as far as possible the fidelity of those whom he wished to secure as his supporters. Among these were the Jews, and it is on account of this that his name is so favourably mentioned in the Old Testament. Cyrus himself says, that he caused all the G.o.ds whose statues had been brought to Babylon to be returned to the places whence they had come, and it is clear that, as the Jews had no divine statues, Cyrus did what he could for them, and sent back to Jerusalem the sacred vessels (Ezra i. 7), and also gave a grant for the rebuilding of the Temple (Ezra iii. 7). In the decree quoted in Ezra (i. 2 ff.), where he is represented as saying that "the Lord G.o.d of heaven" had given him all the kingdoms of the earth, it is best to see in that, as in his Babylonian cylinder-inscription, a desire, for policy's sake, to be "all things to all men." His success must have been largely due to the fact, that he had learned the art of ruling men.

It is to be supposed that he continued as he had begun, and that his rule was tolerated by the people. According to the contract-tablets, he a.s.sociated his son with him on the throne during part of his first year, Cambyses becoming king of Babylon, whilst Cyrus retained the wider t.i.tle of "king of countries." Probably Gobryas had died, hence this change.

Cyrus died in 529 B.C., and Cambyses took the throne. During his reign the Babylonians seem to have become discontented, desiring, perhaps, to have a ruler elected by themselves. Whilst, therefore, Cambyses was absent in Egypt, which country he conquered in the year 527 B.C., a Median, who was a Magian named Gomates, taking advantage of the dissatisfaction which prevailed, gave out that he was Bardes or Smerdis (called by the Babylonians Barzia), declared himself the son of Cyrus, whom Cambyses had murdered, and mounted the throne. Media, Persia, and Babylonia at once went over to him, and Cambyses hastened from Egypt to meet the pretender.

Whilst in Syria, on the way home, he killed himself (521), perhaps by accident, though it is not impossible that it was a case of suicide, and the pretender retained for a very short period possession of the throne.

Another prince of the same family, Darius son of Hystaspes, now came forward, and after defeating Bardes and a number of other pretenders, among them Nidintu-Bel, son of Aniru, who claimed to be Nebuchadnezzar the son of Nabonidus, mounted the throne. In fact, almost every province of the Persian empire had a pretender of its own, so that Darius found plenty of work ready to his hand. One by one, however, they were defeated, and "the lie" was put down in all the countries acknowledging Persian rule-Darius was sole and undisputed king.

It is unfortunate that no historical records referring to the reigns of Cyrus and Cambyses exist, except the Chronicle, which, however, ends with the accession year of the former. We have, therefore, no independent records of what took place in Syria, though it must be confessed, that there is great doubt whether the composer of the Chronicle at the time would have considered the return of the Jews and the rebuilding of the Temple as of sufficient importance to place on record there. The Bible and Josephus give circ.u.mstantial accounts of what occurred, but the official view of the circ.u.mstances of the granting of the permission to rebuild the Temple and the city by Cyrus, and its countermanding, at the instance of the Samaritans, during the reign of Cambyses, would be interesting in the extreme.