[50] The Samaritans, for their part, claimed the traditions of their land and called themselves the posterity of Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh. But they were ready to deny their kinship with the Jews when the latter were in adversity, and could have replied to the tradition that they were foreigners with a _tu quoque_ (Josephus, _Ant._ ix. 14, 3; xi. 8, 6; xii. 5, 5) (see SAMARITANS). [51] The statement that the king desired to avoid the divine wrath may possibly have some deeper meaning (e.g. some recent revolt, Ezra vii. 23). [52] It must suffice to refer to the opinions of Bertholet, Buhl, Cheyne, Guthe, Van Hoonacker, Jahn, Kennett, Kent, Kosters, Marquart, Torrey, and Wildeboer. [53] C. F. Kent, _Israel's Hist. and Biog. Narratives_ (1905), p. 358 seq. The objections against this very probable view undervalue Ezra iv. 7-23 and overlook the serious intricacies in the book of Nehemiah. [54] There are three inquiries: (a) the critical value of 1 Esdras, (b) the character of the different representations of post-exilic internal and external history, and (c) the recovery of the historical facts. To start with the last before considering (a) and (b) would be futile. [55] For example, to the sufferings under Artaxerxes III. (§ 19) have been ascribed such passages as Isa. lxiii. 7-lxiv. 12; Ps. xliv., lxxiv., lxxix., lxxx., lxxxiii. (see also LAMENTATIONS). In their present form they are not of the beginning of the 6th century and, if the evidence for Artaxerxes III. proves too doubtful, they may belong to the history preceding Nehemiah's return, provided the internal features do not stand in the way (e.g. prior or posterior to the formation of the exclusive Judaean community, &c.). Since the book of Baruch (named after Jeremiah's scribe) is now recognized to be considerably later (probably after the destruction of Jerusalem A.D. 70), it will be seen that the recurrence of similar causes leads to a similarity in the contemporary literary productions (with a reshaping of earlier tradition), the precise date of which depends upon delicate points of detail and not upon the apparently obvious historical elements. [56] See H. Winckler, _Keil. u. Alte Test._, 295, and Kennett, _Journ. Theol. Stud._ (1906), p. 487; _Camb. Bib. Essays_, p. 117. The Chaldeans alone destroyed Jerusalem (2 Kings xxv.); Edom was friendly or at least neutral (Jer. xxvii. 3, xl. 11 seq.). The proposal to read "Edomites" for "Syrians" in the list of bands which troubled Jehoiakim (2 Kings xxiv. 2) is not supported by the contemporary reference, Jer. xxxv. 11.