After Zerubbabel's withdrawal, the leadership of the community was put into the hands of the high-priest Joshua, and after his death into those of his son Jehoiakim. Was this change a desirable one? True, no evil is reported of the first two high-priests, nor do they seem to have done anything specially praiseworthy towards uplifting and strengthening the community. The supreme command over the people does not seem to have been given to the high-priest, but to have been vested in a governor or administrator (Pechah), appointed over Judæa either by the Persian kings or by the satraps of Syria and Phœnicia. This official does not appear to have lived in Jerusalem, but to have visited the city from time to time, where, seated on a throne, he heard and decided disputes, but not infrequently rather caused dissensions and aggravated existing bad feelings, in order to raise complaints against the Judæans. For, as some Judæans nourished the hope, held out by the prophets, that Judah might yet become a mighty power, to whom kings and nations would bow, the suspicion that the people were plotting a defection from Persia was not removed with the retirement of Zerubbabel. Accusations on that ground commenced directly after the death of Darius, in the reign of his successor, Xerxes (Ahasuerus, 485-464). The enemies of the Judæans, particularly the Samaritans, did not fail to draw the governor's attention to the disloyalty of the Judæans, and thus caused unfavourable decrees to be issued against them at court. Added to this, the successive governors tried to oppress the landowners by excessive demands. The position of the Judæans in their own country, which they had entered with such buoyant hope, grew worse and worse in the second and third generations.