1823.1 



Orinital Accounts of the Ancient Iliitory oj Persia. 517 



Ihe reigns of Cvriis and Cambyses 

 were both terminated. Cambyses, 

 therefore, was tlie contemporary of 

 Zedekiah. 



Besides, if Palestine was overrun 

 by the armies of one Babylonian em- 

 peror, ami taken at the close of 

 Hophra's reit^n from tiie Egyptians, 

 there could be no need for the Babylo- 

 nians to reconquer it from his succes- 

 sor. The siege against Zedekiah hav- 

 ing decided tlie submission of Jerusa- 

 lem to Babylon, there could be no sub- 

 sequent revolt for Cambyses to quell. 

 Two successive sovereigns of Babylon 

 could not both have to undertake the 

 conquest of Syria, and the invasion of 

 Egyjjt, when no interruption of allegi- 

 ance had intervened. 1 therefore infer 

 a duplicity of narrative in Josephus ; 

 and maintain, that his Cambyses, and 

 liis Nebuchadnezzar, are one and the 

 same person. He first relates the 

 campaigns of the Nebuchadnezzar, a 

 son and associate of Cyrus in the em- 

 pire, according to those Syrian writers 

 who abhorred him. lie next relates 

 the proper history of the reign of 

 Cyrus, according to those Greek 

 writers who admired him. He does 

 not perceive that tiie Syrian campaigns 

 oup;ht to have formed a mere episode 

 of the reign of Cyrus. And this confu- 

 .sion is not surprising, for all conque- 

 rors have two characters. Among the 

 generals of the armies who share their 

 booty, in the metropolis of the country 

 which acquires dominion by their vic- 

 tories, they are naturally extolled for 

 generosity and wisdom. Among the 

 captives displaced by their violence, 

 among the cities plundered by their 

 rapacity, they are as naturally reviled 

 for tyranny and cruelty. The Nebu- 

 chadnezzar who desolates Jndea, and 

 is there a gcourgc of God, may be the 

 hero of Babylon, and there the right 

 hand of the Almighty. The same 

 l)rince may command the siege of a 

 rebellious eily, who would recolonize 

 it with the loyal portion of its ancient 

 inhabitants: he may be abhorred by the 

 victims of his first severity, and 

 applauded by the clients of his subse- 

 fpient ))atronage. Greek writers may 

 have copied the metropolitan flat- 

 terers, and Hebrew writers have pre- 

 served the lamentations of provincial 

 sufl'ering. 



With such a preconception the nar- 

 rative of Herodotus, and the para- 

 •mf)unt authority of the Jewish Scrip- 

 tiirej, will lie found every where to 



correspond. Ezra, for instance, (i. 8,) 

 represents Cyrus as ordering a restora- 

 tion to the temple of those vessels 

 which the Nebuchadnezzarhadbrought 

 home, and of which Barueh (i. 2,) 

 dates the restoration in the fifth year 

 from the siege : so that Cyrus retained 

 an overawing authority over the 

 captor of Jerusalem, exactly compati- 

 ble with his known relation to Cam- 

 byses. This restoration of the tem- 

 ple-plate was made through Shesh- 

 bazzar. 



A second more important recoloni- 

 zation of Jerusalem took place, as we 

 learn from Haggai (i. 5,) in the second 

 year of Darius, which colony was 

 superintended by Zerubbabel (Ezra 

 e. iii. and iv.) and by the high priest 

 Joshua, a nephew of Ezra. 



A third re-colonization was patro- 

 nized by the Persian court under 

 Artaxerxes Longimanus, (Ezra vii. 8,) 

 when an independent government was 

 conferred on Jerusalem. This hap- 

 pened in the seventh year of that 

 king; and, as it was the most eminent 

 exertion of local attachment, and en- 

 tirely restored to the Jews their an- 

 cient privileges, it was considered as 

 terminating the captivity. And in 

 fact, since the siege of Cambyses, a 

 period of exactly seventy years had 

 tiien elapsed : of which six years 

 passed under the sway of Cyrus, 

 thirty-six under that of Darius, twenty- 

 one under that of Xerxes, and seven 

 under that of Artaxerxes Longima- 

 nus: for Darius, be it observed, dated 

 his accession from the death of Cyrus. 



That the Jews reckoned the end of 

 their bondage from the seventh year 

 of Artaxerxes, is manifest from this 

 circumstance, that, at the time of the 

 crucifixion of Christ, they considered 

 Daniel's seventy weeks of years on 

 the brink of elapse, and therefore ex- 

 pected a new Messiah. Now the 

 seventh of Artaxerxes precedes the 

 Christian era by 457 years ; and, con- 

 sequently, precedes the crucifixion by 

 exactly 490 years. Notwithstanding 

 this, the authors of the blundering 

 chronology too commonly appended to 

 the received version of the Bible, 

 make the captivity terminate at the 

 )>ro(;Iamation of Cyrus, preserved in 

 the first chapter of Ezra, which, ac- 

 cording to Barueh, was issued tinly five 

 years after the commencement of the 

 captivity. Seventy years before this 

 proclamation, Manasseh, indeed, \»n» 

 carried to Babylon. 



I hav* 



