Samaria had experienced several changes in its original popula tion. Settlement upon new soil involved dependence upon its god, and a priest was sent to instruct the colonists in the fear of Yahweh. Thenceforth they continued the worship of the Israelite Yahweh along with their own native cults (2 Ki. xvii. 24-28, 33). Their descendants claimed participation in the privileges of the Judaeans (cf. Jer. xli. 5), and must have identified themselves with the old stock (Ezra iv. 2). Whatever recollection they pre served of their origin and of the circumstances of their entry would be retold from a new standpoint. To the prophets the religious position was lower in Judah than in the "sister" Samaria (Jer. iii. I 1 sqq., xxiii. I 1 sqq.; Ezek. xvi. 51). The prevalence of heathen elements in Jerusalem, as detailed in the reforms of Josiah or in the writings of the prophets (cf. Ezek. viii.), would at least suggest that the destruction of the State was not entirely a disaster. The political disasters not only meant a shifting of population, they also brought into prominence the old popular and non-official religion, the character of which is not to be con demned off-hand. When there were sects like the Rechabites (Jer. xxxv.), when the Judaean fields could produce a Micah (q.v.), and when Israel had men who inherited the spirit of a Hosea, the nature of the underlying conditions can be more justly appreciated. The writings of the prophets were cherished, not only in the unfavourable atmosphere of courts (see Jer. xxxvi., 21 sqq.), but also in the circles of their followers (Isa. viii. i6). In the smaller sanctuaries the old-time beliefs were maintained, and the priests, often perhaps of the older native stock, were the recognized guardians of the religious cults. The stories of earlier days en circle places which are not regarded as illegitimate, and in the form in which the dim traditions of the past are now preserved they reveal an attempt to purify popular belief and thought. It may be, therefore, that Deuteronomy and the popular narratives J. and E. (in their present form), belong here. (See HEBREW RELIGION, sec. I I sqq.) 14. Restoration of Judah.—The course of events from the middle of the 6th century B.C. to the close of the Persian period is extremely obscure, although much indirect evidence indicates that this age holds the key to the growth of written biblical his tory. It was an age of literary activity, which manifested itself, not in contemporary historical records—only a few of which have survived—but rather in the special treatment of previously existing sources (see EZRA and NEHEMIAH). In 561 B.C. the cap tive Judaean king, Jehoiachin, received special marks of favour from Nebuchadrezzar's son, Amil-marduk (2 Ki. xxv. 27 sqq.; Jer. lii. 31-34). A little later Tyre received as its king, Merbaal (555-552), who had been fetched from Babylonia. If Babylon was assured of the allegiance of its vassals further acts of clem ency may well have followed. But the later recension of Judaean history—our only source—entirely ignores the elevation of Je hoiachin, and, passing over the exile, proceeds at once to the first years of Cyrus, who proclaims as his Divine mission the rebuild ing of the Temple (538) (2 Chron. xxxvi.). The Judaean Shesh bazzar (a corruption of some Babylonian name) brought back the Temple vessels which Nebuchadrezzar had carried away and pre pared to undertake the work at the expense of the royal purse. A large body of exiles is said to have returned to Jerusalem under Zerubbabel, who was of Davidic descent, and the priest Jeshua or Joshua, the grandson of the murdered Seraiah (Ezra i.–iii.; v. 5). When these refused the proffered help of the people of Samaria, men of the same faith as themselves (iv. 2), their troubles began, and the Samaritans retaliated by preventing the rebuilding.
The next historical notice is dated in the second year of Darius (520), when two prophets, Haggai and Zechariah (qq.v.) kindled the Judaeans to new efforts. Despite opposition, the work went steadily onwards, thanks to the favour of Darius, and the Temple was completed four years later, 516 B.c. (Ezra v. 2, vi. 13 sqq.).
On the other hand, from the independent writings ascribed to these prophets, it appears that no considerable body of exiles could have returned—it is still an event of the future (Zech. ii. 7, vi.
15) ; little, if anything, had been done to the Temple (Hag. ii. 15) ; and Zerubbabel is the one to take in hand and complete the great undertaking (Zech. iv. 9). The prophets address themselves to men living in comfortable abodes with olive-fields and vine yards, suffering from bad seasons and agricultural depression, and, though the country is unsettled, there is no reference to any active opposition on the part of Samaritans. So far from drawing any lesson from the brilliant event in the reign of Cyrus, the prophets imply that Yahweh's wrath was still upon the unfortunate city, and that Persia was still the oppressor. Consequently, although small bodies of individuals no doubt came back to Judah from time to time, and some special mark of favour may have been shown by Cyrus, the opinion has gained ground since the early arguments of E. Schrader (Studen and Kritiken, 1867, pp. 460 504), that the compiler's representation of the history is less trustworthy than the independent evidence of the prophetical writings. His main object is to make the new Israel, the post exilic community at Jerusalem, continuous, as a society, with the old Israel.
Unfortunately, the internal conditions in the 6th century B.C. can be only indirectly estimated, and the political position must remain for the present quite uncertain. In Zerubbabel the people beheld once more a ruler of the Davidic race. The new temple heralded a new future ; the mournful fasts commemorative of Jerusalem's disasters would become feasts; Yahweh had left the Temple at the fall of Jerusalem, but had now returned to sanctify it with his presence; the city had purged its iniquity and was fit once more to become the central sanctuary. So Haggai sees in Zerubbabel the representative of the ideal kingdom, the trusted and highly favoured minister who was the signet-ring upon Yahweh's hand (contrast Hag. ii. 23 with Jer. xxii. 24). Zecha riah, in his turn, proclaims the overthrow of all difficulties in the path of the new king, who shall rule in glory supported by the priest (Zech. vi.). What political aspirations were revived, what other writers were inspired by these momentous events are ques tions of inference. Again there is a gap in the history. (For the view that there was an important movement of semi-Edomite clans to north Judah after the fall of Jerusalem, see Camb. Anc. Hist., vi. ch. vii. ; see also KINGS, BooK OF.) 15. Nehemiah.—The history passes abruptly from the time of Zerubbabel to the reign of Artaxerxes I. (but A. II. according to Torrey). The enthusiastic hopes have melted away, the Davidic scion has disappeared and Jerusalem has been—as it would seem —the victim of another disaster. The country is under Persian officials, the nobles and priests form the local government, and the ground is being prepared for the erection of a hierocracy. It is the work of rebuilding and reorganization, of social and of religious reforms, which we encounter in the last pages of biblical history, and in the records of Ezra and Nehemiah we stand in Jerusalem in the very centre of epoch-making events. Nehemiah, the cup bearer of Artaxerxes at Susa, distressed at the news of the desola tion of Jerusalem, obtained permission from the king to rebuild the ruins. Provided with an escort and with the right to obtain supplies of wood for the buildings, he returned to the city of his fathers' sepulchres (the allusion may suggest his royal ancestry). He aroused the people to the necessity of fortifying and repopu lating the city. Sanballat of Horon, Tobiah the Ammonite, and Gashmu the Arabian ( ? Edomite) unceasingly opposed him. Tobiah and his son, Johanan, were related by marriage to Judaean secular and priestly families, and active intrigues resulted, in which nobles and prophets took their part. It was insinuated that Nehemiah had his prophets to proclaim that Judah had again its own king, and that he was intending to rebel against Persia! Nehemiah naturally gives us his version ; the earlier enthusiasm of Haggai and Zechariah for Zerubbabel would illustrate the feel ings of Nehemiah's partisans. But Tobiah and Johanan them selves were worshippers of Yahweh (as their names show), and consequently, with prophets taking different sides and with the Samaritan claims summarily repudiated (Neh. ii. 20; cf. Ezra iv.