The truth of this narrative has been severely attacked by Moyle, Works, ii. 26. and others, see Hudson’s note, p. 503; and defended by Chandler on Daniel, and Prideaux, An. 332, St. Croix, Examen Critique, ed. 2. p. 547. Besides the suspicion which is thrown upon it, by its being unnoticed by the historians of Alexander, it contains circumstances both improbable and contradictory. The high-priest, who shows to Alexander the prophecy of Daniel, in which he is foretold as the conqueror of Persia, refuses submission to him, because he had sworn allegiance to Darius. But can it be believed that if he had known that Alexander was the person predicted long before by Jehovah, as his instrument for overthrowing the dominion of Persia, he would have been withheld by an oath of allegiance to the sovereign, whose reign the prophetic word declared to be ended? So little scruple was there on this subject, that, according to Josephus, many Jews enrolled themselves in his army to fight against Darius. Alexander too is made to know at once, that the characters inscribed on the tiara of a high-priest were the names of Jehovah; and Parmenio asks him why he, who was adored by all, (προσκυνόυντων αὐτον ἁπάντων) adored the Jewish high-priest; though Alexander never received these honours till his overthrow of Darius at Arbela had intoxicated his mind. The circumstance of the dream certainly _may_ be true; but it has much the air of a romantic fiction. On the whole it appears most probable that the Jews made their submissions to Alexander as Justin says the princes of Syria generally did, (x. 10.) either during the siege of Tyre, or afterwards, when Curtius tells us that he reduced the neighbouring cities which refused his yoke, iv. 5. Page 162.—_Hecatæus of Abdera._] According to Josephus (Cont. Ap. i. 22.) he was a contemporary of Alexander the Great, and a friend of Ptolemy Lagi. He wrote a treatise expressly relating to the Jews, and mentioned especially the firmness with which they adhered to their laws in the midst of persecution. He shows so much more knowledge of Judaism, and speaks of it so much more respectfully, than the heathens commonly did, that the work has been suspected to have been the forgery of some Hellenistic Jew. See Origen, cont. Cels. lib. i. p. 13, ed. Spencer. This was the opinion of Scaliger. Spencer, in his note on the passage in Origen, defends its authenticity. The reader will observe the sarcasm, in Myron’s mention of Hecatæus as a native of Abdera, a town proverbial for the dulness of its inhabitants; _Abderitanæ pectora plebis habes_. Page 162.—_Antigonus of Socho._] See Prideaux, Conn. An. 263. He was the first of the Mishnical school of Jewish doctors, who taught that the law and the traditions were of equal obligation. The founder of the sect of Sadducees was his son. Socho, from which he took his name, was a small town half way between Jerusalem and Eleutheropolis. Reland, Palæst. 1018. 2 Chron. xi. 5.