1800. 
approach the altar. Hereupon he told 
his father-in-law that, although fond of 
Nicafo, he was unwilling on her account 
to forego his facerdotal dignity. 
Jat promifed him an equivalent benefice ; 
offered to build him a temple on mount 
Gerizzim; and to fecure him, from the 
Great King, the reverfion of his own tem- 
poral authority. Thefe promifes won 
Manaffeh: he determined to retain Ni- 
cafo, and adhere to Sanballat.’’ VIII. 2. 
«© A great difturbance now arofe at Jeru- 
falem; becaufe many priefts and Jevites, 
who had made fimilar marriages, revolted 
to Manafieh. Sanballat fupported them 
with money, and divided among them 
lands and habitations.” 
«* During thefe tranlaétions, (continues 
Jofephus, XI. Ant. viii. 3.) Alexander 
had invaded the Perfian empire, won a 
victory in Cilicia, taken Damafcus, and 
invefted Tyre. ‘Thence he fent to the 
Jewith high-prieft, Jaddua, for provifions, 
recruits, and tribute; but was anfwered, 
that to Darius the oaths of allegiance had 
been fworn, and would be kept.”” 
VIII. 4. ‘* Sanballat, on the contrary, 
publicly renounced Darius ;- took with 
him feven thoufand of his fubjeéts, or ad- 
herents; {wore fealty to Alexander; ob- 
tained for his partifans the hereditary 
grants and immunities which he ambi- 
tioned ; and built for Manafleh the pro- 
mifed temple on mount Gerizzim.” 
No other anecdote of Jewith hiftory ac- 
cords fo nearly with the account of Dio- 
dorus, as this of Jofephus. Both Par- 
fodes and Sanballat, by giving a female 
relation in marriage to a mat eminent 
in Paleftine, acquire, although Perfian 
ftrangers*, a’ fattious influence in the 
province, and employ it in detaching the 
whole diftriét from its ancient allegiance. 
Ought it not, then, to be inferred that the 
hiftory of Sanballat has given occafion to 
the ftory of Parfodes? 
Chronological difficulties arife. How 
fhould Ctefiasy the phyfician of Artaxerxes 
Mnemon, (or even the forger of Ctefias, if 
his pretended hiftory was in faét a hafty 
fabulous compilation, got up to gratify 
the oriental curiofity excited by Alexan- 
der’s proje&ted expedition) make mention 
of events connegted with the progrefs of 
the Macedonian arms? Perhaps the am- 
bitious fancy of Jofephus has after-dated 

* Jofephus calls Sanballat a Cuthean, and 
makes the Cuthaa river of Perfia: it is pof- 
fibly the Doujend, which paffes by Houran, 
See Oufeley’s Ebn Haukal, p. 97. 
Chronology of an Anecdote in Fewifh Hiftory. 
Sanbal- ~ 
223 
this narrative; for there is improbability 
precifely and only in all that conneéts it 
with Alexander, whofe proper hiftorians 
do not record a vilit to Jerufalem, or any 
alliance with Sanballat. Still lefs do they 
authenticate the miraculous interpofition, 
that. Jaddua had appeared to the fon of 
Philip in a dream at Dios in Mace- 
donia. his part of the anecdote feems 
palpably contrived, or modified, in order 
to decorate a vacant period of the Jewith 
annals, with the intervention of Alexan- 
der, and to aggrandize the Jewifh religion 
by the tale of his fubmiffive reverence. 
The fufpicion that Jofepkus after-dates 
the apoftacy of Sanballat, in order to con- 
net with it the progrefs of Alexander, 
becomes a certainty on confulting the 
book of Nehemiah, who has given the 
earlier part of Sanballat’s hiftory, and 
was him/felf a main caufe in provoking the 
defeétion. Nehemiah defcribes (c. vi.) 
Sanballat, the Horonite, as denouncing 
the fortification of Jerufalem; an oppo- 
fition refulting, no doubt, from the per= 
fonal excommunication of Manaffeh, (xiii. 
28.) who had married the daughter of 
Sanballat, asd whom Nehemiah depofed 
from antipathy (ix. 2.) to marriages with 
ftrange women. Nehemiah was the co- 
temporary of Jaddua, whom he names 
(xit. r1.), but whofe fon Onias he does 
not name; and flourifhed under an ~Ar- 
taxerxes, (Vv. 14.) from whofe twentieth 
to whofe -two-and-thirtieth year he held 
an official fituatioa at Jerufalem. This 
Artaxerxes lived fubfequently to Darius, 
the Perfian, (that is, to Darius Nothus, 
or Darius II.; for Darius I. is always 
called ¢* the Mede”’ in the Jewith {crip- 
tures) unto whofe reign (xii. 22.) the re- 
gifters are faid to extend: and was, con- 
fequently, Artaxerxes Mnemon, and not 
Artaxerxes Longimanus. So that the 
commencement of Sanballat’s interference 
in Judza may with certainty be placed 
about or after the middle of the long reign 
(43 years) of Artaxerxes Mnemon; un- 
der whofe tyrannic fucceffor, probably, the 
formal revolt of Sanballat was frft declared 
and avowed. 
In corrobation of this date, it may be 
further obferved that under Simon, the 
fon of Onias, the fon of Jaddua, (Eccle- 
fiafticus, c. I. v. 1.and 2.—25. and 26.) 
Jerufalem was zot yet in the poffeffion of 
Alexander’s fucceffors: as the fortifica- 
tion of the town was {till fuperintended by 
a priefthood, toward whom the Greek 
idolaters were very intolerant, and of 
whom they were very jealous; and as the 
people who had deferted to Samaria, and 
to 
