(Heb. Dareya'vesh, דּ ריָוֶשׁ, Ezr 4:4; Ne 12:22; Da 9:1; Da 11:1; Hag 1:1,15; Hag 2:10; Zec 1:1,7; Zec 7:1; Chald. the same, Ezr 4:24; Ezr 5:5-15; Da 5:31; Da 6; Gr. Δαρεῖος, 1 Esdras 2:30; 3:1-8; 4:47; 5:2, 6, 73; 6:1, 6, 7, 23, 34; 7:1, 4, 5; 1 Maccabees 1:1; 12:7; Strabo Δαρειήκης, 16. p. 785; Ctesias Δαριαῖος), the name of several kings of Persia, three of whom are mentioned in the O.T. and the Apocrypha. The original form of the name, to which the Hebrew and Greek words are only approximations, has been read by Grotefend, in the cuneiform inscriptions of Persepolis, as Darheush or Darjeush (Heeren's Ideen, 2:350), and by Beer as Daryawush (Allg. Lit. Zeit. 1838, No. 5). Herodotus assigns to the name the sense of ἑρξίης, or, according to another reading, ἑρξείης ( 6:98): probably meaning coercer or conservator. The former accords with holding fast, which is the sense of Dara, the modern Persian name of Darius, the latter with the derivation (according to Lassen, Inschriften, p. 39,158) from Sanscrit dri, to preserve. (See Gesenius, Thes. Heb. p. 350.) According to Rawlinson (Herod. 3, 455), "It does not appear to mean either ἑρξείης, 'the worker,' as Herodotus states, or φρόνιμος, 'the wise,' as Hesychius, or πολεμικός, 'the wearlike,' as the author of the Etymologicum says. The root appears to be the Old Persian dar, 'to hold' or 'possess,' which is dere in Zend, dhri in Sanscrit, and dar in Modern Persian. The remainder of the word is thought to be a mere appellative suffix, elongated on euphonic grounds; but no very satisfactory account can be given of it." The name occurs both in the Assyrian and Egyptian inscriptions. This title appears to have been the proper name of the son of Hystaspes, who first won it, but was assumed as a throne-name by Ochus (i.e. Darius Nothus), son and successor of Artaxerxes Longimanus (Ctesias, Pers. 48:57), in like manner as Arsaces, successor of this Darius (ib. 53:57) and Bessus (Curt. 6:6), both took the royal name of "Artaxerxes" (q.v.). See Smith's Dict. of Class. Biog. s.v. SEE PERSIA.
I. "DARIUS THE MEDE" (דּ8הִמָּדַי, Da 11:1, Sept. ὁ Κῦρος; Chald. דּ8מָדָאָה, Sept. Δαρεῖος ὁ Μῆδος), "the son of Ahasuerus of the seed of the Medes" (ix. 1, Sept. Δαρεῖος ὁ υἱὸς Α᾿σουήρου), who succeeded to (קִבֵּל) the Babylonian kingdom on the death of Belshazzar, being then sixty-two years old (Da 5:31; Da 9:1), B.C. 538. Only one year of his reign is mentioned (Da 9:1; Da 11:1), but that was of great importance for the Jews. Daniel was advanced by the king to the highest dignity (Da 6:1 sq.), probably in consequence of his former services (compare Da 5:17); and after his miraculous deliverance, Darius issued a decree enjoining throughout his dominions "reverence for the God of Daniel" (Da 6:25 sq.). SEE MEDE.
The statement (Da 6:28) that "Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian," seems to represent him as the immediate predecessor of Cyrus. No Darius occupying this place, nor indeed any Darius anterior to the son of Hystaspes, is found either in profane history or (hitherto) on monuments. SEE AHASUERUS. Only the Scholiast on Aristoph. (Eccl. 602), followed by Suidas (s.v. Δαρεικός), and Harpocration, says that the daric took its name from "another Darius, earlier than the father of Xerxes" (D. Hystaspis). Herodotus and Ctesias, differing widely in other respects, agree in making Astyages last king of the Median dynasty, with no male heir, conquered and deposed by Cyrus, first king of the Medo-Persian dynasty at Babylon. Xenophon, however, in the Cyropoedia (i. 5, 2) introduces, as son and successor of Astyages, and uncle (mother's brother) of Cyrus, a second Cyaxares, acting under whose orders Cyrus takes Babylon, and receives in marriage his daughter, unnamed, with Media as her portion. Josephus (Ant. 10:11, 1) clearly means the Cyaxares II of Xenophon when he says that "Darius was the son of Astyages, but known to the Greeks by a different name;" and the statement of Aben Ezra, who reports from "a book of the kings of Persia" that this Darius was Cyrus's father-in-law, probably rests at last on the supposed authority of Xenophon. See CYRUS. Under these circumstances, the extreme obscurity of the Babylonian annals has given occasion to three different hypotheses as to the name under which Darius the Mede is known in history.
1. The first of these, which identifies him with Darius Hystaspis, rests on no plausible evidence, and may be dismissed at once (Lengerke, Dan. p. 219 sq.). See below, No. 2.
2. Another identification is that maintained by Iarcus von Niebuhr (Gesch. Ass. u. Bab. p. 45), by which Darius is represented as the personal name of "Astyages," the last king of the Medes. It is contended that the name "Alstyages" was national and not personal, and that Ahasuerus represents the name Cyaxares, borne by the father of "Astyages" (Tob. 14:15). On the contrary, however, Ahasuerus (Heb. Achashverosh) is Xerxes (cuneiform Khshyarsha), and not Κυαξάρης (cuneiform Uvakshatra). The description of the unnamed king in AEschylus (Pers. 763 sq.) as one whose "feelings were guided by wisdom," is moreover assumed, on this view, to be applicable to the Darius of Scripture and the Astyages of Herodotus. Assuming the immediate fulfillment of the announcement of Da 5:28, in the catastrophe of 6:1, Niebuhr (ib. p. 91 sq.) determines that Belshazzar is Evil-merodach, son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar; that, on his death (slain by Neriglissar, his sister's husband), B.C. 559, Astyages, who is Daniel's Darius the Mede, reigned one year at Babylon, which year in the Canon is 1 Neriglissar; in the following year he was conquered by Cyrus, B.C. 558. in exact accordance with the apparent incompleteness of the political arrangements which Darius "purposed" to make (Da 6:3, עֲשַׁית). For the short duration of his supreme power may have caused his division of the empire (Da 6:1) — a work congenial to his character — to fall into abeyance, so that it was not carried out till the time of his namesake Darius Hystaspis: a supposition that may go for what it is worth. Daniel himself passed from the service of Darius to that of Cyrus, and did not again return to Babylon; so Da 6:28 is explained. The mention, Da 8:1, of the third year of Belshazzar makes a difficulty — not as Von Niebuhr puts it, because Evil-merodach has but two years in the Canon, for the actual reign may — very well have reached its third year, but from the mention of Susa as the scene of the vision; for Susa, being Median, was not subject to any Chaldaean king. The explanation gravely proposed by Niebuhr is, that Daniel, while at Susa in the service of Darius the Mede, continued to date by years of Belshazzar's reign, and this though he is related to have been present in Babylon the night in which Belshazzar was slain. The difficulty is not confined to Niebuhr's scheme: Belshazzar, whoever he was, was a Chaldaean; and the explanation may be, that the prophet is at Susa, not in bodily presence, but transported in spirit to the city which was to be the metropolis of the Persian monarchy, the fate of which, under the emblem of the ram, is portrayed in the ensuing vision. SEE DANIEL. After the fall of this Darius Astyages, Babylon recovered its independence under Nabonned, to fall finally under the arms of Cyrus, B.C. 538. SEE BABYLON.
The chronological difficulties which have been raised (Rawlinson, Herodotus, 1:331) against the identification of Darius with Astyages on the assumption that the events in Daniel 5 relate to the taking of Babylon by Cyrus (B.C. 538), in which case he would have ascended the throne at seven years of age, are indeed set aside by the view of Niebuhr; but it is clogged with other objections (in addition to those already alluded to), which render it as untenable as it is ingenious and intricate, to say nothing of the fact that it is made up of a series of assumptions throughout. In the first place, the supposition that Belshazzar was Evil-merodach is inadmissible; for it is now pretty well determined that he was the son of Nabonned, the actually last king of the Babylonian line. SEE BELSHAZZAR. Secondly, this hypothesis sets up a Medo-Persian prince at Babylon during the very time assigned by well-approved history to a native sovereign, and even then leaves a blank of eighteen years between him and Cyrus, whom Daniel's history and prophecies evidently make immediately contiguous. SEE ASTYAGES.
3. There remains, therefore, but one other view, which was adopted by Josephus (Ant. 10:11, 4), and has been supported by many recent critics (Bertholdt, Von Lengerke, Havernick, Hengstenberg, Auberlen, and others). According to this, the "Darius" in question was Cyaxares II, the son and successor of Astyages, who is commonly regarded as the last king of Media. It is supposed that the reign of this Cyaxares has been neglected by historians from the fact that through his indolence and luxury he yielded the real exercise of power to his nephew Cyrus, who married his daughter, and so after his death received the crown by direct succession (Xen. Cyrop. 1:5, 2; 4:5, 8; 8:5, 19). It is true that the only direct evidence for the existence of a second Cyaxares is that of Xenophon's paedagogic romance. The title "Cyrus [filius] Cyaxaris," which has been quoted from an inscription (Auberlen, Daniel u. d. Ofenbarung, p. 18), is either a false reading or certainly a false translation (Niebuhr, Gesch. Ass. u. Bab. p. 214, 1:4); and the passage of Eschylus (Pers. p. 766) is not very consistent with the character assigned to Cyaxares II. On the other hand, Herodotus expressly states that "Astyages" was the last king of the Medes, that he was conquered by Cyrus, and that he died without leaving any male issue (Herod. 1:73, 109, 127 sq.); and Cyrus appears as the immediate successor of "Astyages" in the Chronicle of Eusebius (Chron. ad 01. 54; Syncell. p.
188; comp. Bel and Dragon, 1). These objections, however, are not insuperable, and must give way before the manifest exigencies of the case (see Bertholdt's able excursus on the subject in his Commentatar zu Dan.). We may add that an important chronological difficulty is best adjusted by assuming the existence and reign of this Cyaxares (Clinton's Fasti Hellenici, p. 301 sq.). . SEE CYAXARES.
II. "Darius, king of Persia," in whose second year the building of the Temple was resumed, and completed in his sixth (Ezr 4:5,24; Ezr 6:15), under the prophesying of Haggai and Zechariah, is understood by most writers, ancient and modern, to be Darius son of Hystaspes, whose reign in the Canon extends from B.C. 521 to 485. Scaliger, however, makes him Darius Nothus (B.C. 424-405), and this view has been advocated by the late Dr. Mill (The Evangelical Accounts of the Birth and Parentage of our Savior, etc., 1842, p. 153-165), who refers for further arguments to Hottinger (Pentas Dissertationum, p. 107-114). Before we examine the grounds on which this conclusion rests, it will be convenient to consider the difficulties with which it is attended.
Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel, as prince of the house of David, and Jeshua, son of Jozadak, as high-priest, headed the first colony of exiles from Babylon in the first year of Cyrus (Ezr 3:2), at which time neither can have been less than twenty years old. By these same two persons the work of rebuilding the Temple was resumed and completed after its suspension. Now from the first year of Cyrus, in the Biblical reckoning (B.C. 536), to the second of Darius Nothus (B.C. 423), are 113 years; so that, if he be the Darius of this history, both Zerubbabel and Jeshua must then have reached the age of 130 years at least. This is incredible, if not in itself, certainly under the entire silence of the history and the contemporary prophets as to a fact so extraordinary. Moreover, that the work of rebuilding the Temple should have been abandoned for a century and more is scarcely conceivable. Its suspension during fifteen or sixteen years is sufficiently accounted for by the history and the representations of the prophets. The adversaries weakened the hands of the people of Judah, and troubled them in building, and hired counsellors against them to frustrate their purpose all the days of Cyrus, even until the reign of Darius" (Ezr 4:4-5). Besides molesting the builders in their work, they prevailed by their machinations at the court of Cyrus, or of his viceroy, to bring it to a stand-still, by interposing official obstacles, stopping the grants from the royal treasury (vi. 4), and the supply of materials from the forest and the quarry (3, 7). So the people were discouraged: they said, "The time is not come for the house of the Lord to be built," and turned to the completion of their own houses and the tilling of their lands (Hag 1:3). This is intelligible on the supposition of an interval of fifteen or sixteen years, during which, there having been no decree issued to stop it, the work was nominally in progress, only deferred, as the builders could allege at the time of its resumption, "Since that time (2d of Cyrus), even until now, hath it been in building, and yet it is not finished" (Ezr 5:16). But in no sense could the Temple be said to have "been in building" through the entire reigns of Cambyses, Darius, Xerxes, and Artaxerxes I: there is no testimony to the fact, nor any means of accounting for it. Again, the persons addressed by Haggai are "the residue of the people" who came from Babylon with Zerubbabel and Jeshua, some of whom had seen the first house in its glory (ii. 2, 3), i.e. who might be some 80 years old on the usual view, but on the other must have been 170 at the least. The prophet further admonishes his countrymen that the blights, droughts, and mildews which year by year disappointed their labors in the fields were the chastisement of their want of faith in letting the house of God lie waste, while they dwelt in their "ceiled houses" (Hag 1:4-15); so long as they had been guilty of this neglect, so long had they been visited with this punishment. On the one supposition, this state of things had lasted from twelve to fifteen years at most; on the other, we are required to imagine that the curse had been on the land for three successive generations, an entire century. Lastly, in the same second year of Darius, Zechariah distinctly intimates what length of time had elapsed from the destruction of the first Temple — "threescore and ten years" (Zec 1:12). So in Zec 7:5, mention is made of a period of 70 years, during which the people had "fasted and mourned in the fifth and'seventh month." The events commemorated by those fasts were the destruction of the Temple in the fifth, and the murder of Gedaliah in the seventh month of the same year. From that year to the second of Darius I are almost, if not exactly, 70 years. To the corresponding year of Darius II the interval is more than 160 years, and the mention of "those 70 years" is quite unintelligible, if that be the epoch of Zechariah's prophesying. Certainly, if the prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah, and the first five chapters of Ezra, are worth anything as testimony, "the second year of Darius" must lie within one generation from the decree of Cyrus, and not more than 70 years from the destruction of the first Temple.
The reasons alleged on the other side may be thus stated:
1. In Ezra 4, between the edict of Cyrus for the return of the exiles and rebuilding of the Temple, and that of Darius for the completion of the work after its discontinuance, two Persian kings are named, Achashverosh and Artachhshashta, "which the names on the Zendic monuments will not permit us to apply to other kings than Xerxes and his son" (Dr. Mill, u. s. 153, note). The Persian history, as related by the Greeks and the Astronomical Canon, give three names in succession, Xerxes, Artaxerxes I, Darius II; Ezra, in like manner, three, Achashverosh, Artachshashta, and Dareyavesh. By those who hold this last to be Darius, son of Hystaspes, the first two are commonly supposed to be Cambyses and the impostor Smerdis, whom Justin (i. 9) calls Oropasta, Ctesias (de reb. Pers. 10) Sphendadates, who reigned under the name of Cambyses's younger brother Tany-oxarces (see Ewald, Gesch. des V. I. 4:81 and 118). But nowhere on monuments is Cambyses called Khshyarsha, or Smerdis Artakashasha; the former is constantly Kabujiya (Pers.), Kambudsiya (Bab.), Kembath (hierogl.); the latter, Bart'iya (Pers.), Bardsija (Bab.). Moreover, as Artachshashta (or —shasht) elsewhere in Ezra and Nehemiah is constantly Artaxerxes, and it scarcely admits of a doubt that Achashverosh in Esther is Xerxes, it would be strange if these two names were here applied to other quite different kings.
The true explanation of this difficulty, proposed long ago by Mr. Howes, and adopted by Dr. Hales, has been recently put forward by Bartheau (in the Kurzgefast. exeget. Hdb. on Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, 1862, p. 69- 73). This writer had formerly upheld the more usual view (Beitrsige zu der Gesch. der Isr. p. 396); so had Vaihinger (in the Studien u. Kritiken, 1854, p. 124), who (i5. 1857, p. 87) abandons it for the other. (See also Schultz, Cyrus der Grosse, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1853, p. 624, and Bunsen, Bibelwerk). It is clear that, as in 4:24, the narrative returns to the point at which it stood in verse 5; in the interposed portion it either goes back to times before Darius, for the purpose of supplying omitted matter, or goes forward to record the successful machinations of the people of the land under subsequent kings, Xerxes and Artaxerxes I. But nothing in the contents of ver. 6-23 intimates a reverting to an earlier time. After reading of Darius we naturally take for granted that Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes are later than he. It appears that the adversaries had succeeded in hindering the building of the Temple till the second year of Darius. In the beginning of the next reign (Xerxes) they "wrote an accusation, "the purport and issue of which are not recorded. In the following reign mention is made of another letter addressed to Artaxerxes, its contents not specified; but a second letter to the same king is given in extenso, together with the royal rescript. It is represented to the king that the Jews are building the city, and have "set up the walls thereof, and joined (excavated) the foundations." The rescript orders that this work be made to cease. Not a word is said of the Temple. It may indeed be alleged that the "walls'" are part of it, intended for its defense; but with their straitened resources the builders would hardly attempt more than was essential to the fabric itself. Besides, in the representations given by Haggai and Zechariah from their own observation, nothing implies that quite recently the people had been actively engaged in the work of rebuilding either city walls or Temple, as according to these documents they had been, if Artachshashta be the impostor Smerdis with his brief reign of a few months; nor, again, is it possible to reconcile the statement in Ezr 5:16, "Since that time even until now (2 Darius) hath it (the Temple) been in building, and yet it is not finished," with the assumption that the work had been peremptorily stopped by command of Smerdis. But it is certain that at some time between the 7th and the 20th year of Artaxerxes some great reverse befell the colonists, in consequence of which "the wall of Jerusalem was broken down, and the gate thereof burned with fire," Ne 1:3 (for it is absurd to imagine that this can relate to the desolation effected by Nebuchadnezzar a hundred and forty years before), and the documents under consideration show what that reverse was. It was the result of that rescript of Artaxerxes, in virtue of which "Rehum and Shimshai and their companions went up to Jerusalem to the Jews," and made them to cease by force and power" (Ezr 4:23); to cease from walling the city (ver. 21), not from building the Temple, which was finished long before. So far, all is plain and consistent. But at ver. 24, with the word בֵּאדִיַן,"at that time," prop. "at the same time," arises the difficulty. Were the last clause of verse 5, "until the reign of Darius," absent, the obvious import would be, that at the time when the order from Artaxerxes caused the building of the wall to cease, the work of rebuilding the Temple ceased also, and consequently that Darius (ver. 24) reigned after Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes. But as this view is beset with insuperable difficulties, in whichever way it is taken, i.e. alike whether Darius be supposed to be the first or the second of that name, we are forced by the necessity of the case to conclude that ver. 24 refers not to what immediately precedes, but to the time spoken of above ver. 4, 5, and that the whole passage from ver. 6 to 23 is digression. Having shown how the machinations of "the people of the land" prevailed for a time to delay the rebuilding of the Temple, the narrative breaks off at that point to notice their subsequent, also for a while successful, plottings against the building of the city and its walls. If the בֵּאדִיַן can only refer to the matter immediately preceding, we must either accept the consequences, part incredible and absurd, part directly opposed to statements of the contemporary prophets, or charge it as an error upon the redactor of this book, that he inserted ver. 6-23 in the wrong place (so Kleinert in the Dorpat Beitrdge zu den Theol. Wissensch. 1832). Considered as a prolepsis, it is, as Bertheau remarks, less striking than that which occurs in 6:14: "and they builded and finished (the Temple, viz. in 6 Darius) . . . according to the commandment of Cyrus and Darius, and Artaxerxes, king of Persia."
2. A second reason alleged by Dr. Mill (u. s. p. 165, note) is "the circumstance that, in the next ascent from Babylon, that of Ezra himself, . . . the chief of David's house was removed from Zorobabel by at least six generations . . . thus proving . . . the impossibility of the descendant's ascent from Babylon being earlier than the reign next to that of Darius Nothus, viz. that of Artaxerxes II." This argument is derived from the Davidic genealogy, 1Ch 3:19-22, compared with Ezr 8:2. It is assumed that Hattush in both places is the same person; now, in the genealogy, it is alleged there are at least six generations between his ancestor Zerubbabel and him, yet he accompanied Ezra from Babylon; of course this is impossible, if between the ascent of Zerubbabel and that of Ezra are but eighty years (1 Cyrus to 7 Artaxerxes Longimanus). Dr. Mill (p. 152, note) mentions "four ways of exhibiting the offspring of Hananiah, son of Zerubbabel;" the first, that of the common Hebrew text and our version, which, "if intelligible, yet leaves the number of generations undetermined;" and three others, followed by ancient interpreters, and versions, which result severally in making Hattush sixth, eighth, and ninth from Zerubbabel. There is no absolute necessity for departing from the Hebrew text, which is both "intelligible"' and consistent with the customary chronology. The genealogy, perhaps, proceeds thus: 1. Zerubbabel; 2. his children, Meshullam, Hananiah, Shelomith (sister), and five others; 3. the sons of this Hananiah are Pelatiah and Jeshaiah; and there the pedigree of Zerubbabel ends, i.e. with the two grandsons. Then, "the sons of Rephaiah, the sons of Arnan, the sons of Obadiah, the sons of Shechaniah; and the sons of Shechaniah, Shemaiah; and the sons of Shemaiah, Hattush" and five others. That is to say, the genealogist, having deduced the Davidic line through Solomon, and the regal succession down to the grandsons of Zerubbabel, proceeds to mention four other branches of the house of David, and gives a particular account of the fourth, namely, of Shemaiah, the father of that Hattush who went up from Babylon with Ezra, and was in his generation the representative of the Davidic house of Shechaniah. (So likewise Movers, Ueber die bibUische Chronik, p. 29: Havernick, Handb. der Einleit. in das A. T. 2:1, 266; Herzfeld, Gesch. des V. I. von der Zerstirung des ersten Tempels an, 1:379; Keil, Apolog. Versuch fiber die Biicher der Chronik, p. 43. On the other hand, Ewald, Gesch. des V. I . 1:219, note, makes Shechaniah son of Hananiah and father of Shemaiah, so that Hattush is fourth from Zerubbabel; and so Bertheau in the Kgyf exeget. Hdb. on 1Ch 3:21; which view is consistent with the usual chronology, as of course it is quite possible that a grandson of Zerubbabel's grandson may have been adult at the time of Ezra's mission, eighty years after the 1st of Cyrus. See, however, a different explanation in Strong's Harm. and Expos. of the Gospels, p. 17, note m.) SEE ZERUBBABEL. So, in fact, the Hattush who accompanied Ezra is described (according to the reading, proposed by some, of the passage, 8:2, 3), "of the sons of David, Hattush, of the sons of Shechaniah;" for the last clause is out of place as prefixed to the following enumeration "of the sons of Parosh," etc. So the Sept. read it (ἀπὸ υἱῶν Δαυίδ, Α᾿ττοὺς ἀπὸ υἱῶν Σαχανία); and the apocryphal version more plainly still (1 Esdras 8:29, ἐκ τῶν υἱῶν Δαυίδ, Λαττοὺς ὁ Σεχενίου). But still more probably a different Hattush (q.v.) is meant.
3. The concluding argument on the same side is derived from "the circumstance that in the next ascent from Babylon after that of Ezra, and in the same reign, the principal opponent of Nehemiah in his work 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 Gerizim, Joseph. Ant. 11:8, 2-4" (Dr. Mill, u. s.). Josephus's story is that Sanballat, satrap in Samaria of Darius 3, had given his daughter in marriage to a brother of the high-priest Jaddua, named Manasses, who, refusing to put her away, took refuge with his father-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 Tyre. All this, with perhaps the marvelous romance that follows 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 Manasses 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 Nehemiah, 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 130 years later, would have' been too absurd. SEE SANBALLAT. So is the assumption of Petermann (s.v. "Samaria," in Herzog's Real-Encyklop. 13:1, p. 367) that there were two Sanballats, one contemporary with Nehemiah, the other with Alexander, and that both had daughters married into the family of the high-priest (Eliashib and Jaddua), whose husbands were therefore expelled. As to Jaddua, the fact may be, as Josephus represents it, that he was still high-priest in the time of Alexander. The six who are named in lineal succession in Ne 12:10-11; Jeshua, Joiakim, Eliashib, Joiada, Johanan, and Jaddua, will fill up the interval of 200 years from Cyrus to Alexander. Of these, Eliashib was still high-priest 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 from the first of Cyrus by more than 160 years, which is far too much for a succession of three high-priests. It does not follow from the mention of the successors of Eliashib down to Jaddua in 12:10 sq., that Nehemiah lived to see any of them in the office of high-priest, but only that these genealogies and lists were brought down to his own times by the compiler or last redactor of this book (see under No. 3 below). SEE NEHEMIAH.