king would be Judah itself. The infatuated Ahaz would not
listen. He 'sent messengers to Tiglath-pileser king of
Assyria, saying, I am thy servant and thy son: come up and
save me out of the hand of the king of Syria, and out of the
hand of the king of Israel, which rise up against me.'" The
king of Assyria responded to the call (B. C. 734). He defeated
Rezon in battle, laid siege to Damascus, swept the tribes east
of the Jordan into captivity, overran the territory of Israel,
captured Samaria and put to death Pekah the king. In place of
Pekah he set up a vassal-king Hoshea. Six years later,
Tiglath-pileser having died, and the Assyrian throne having
been seized by another strong soldier, Shalmaneser IV., Hoshea
attempted a revolt, looking to Egypt for help. But before
Sabako king of Egypt could move to his assistance, "Hoshea was
defeated by the Assyrian king or his satraps, and thrown into
chains. The ruling classes of Samaria, however, still held
out. An Assyrian army, accordingly, once more devastated the
land of Israel, and laid siege to the capital. For three years
Samaria remained untaken. Another revolution had meanwhile
broken out in Assyria; Shalmaneser had died or been put to
death, and a fresh military adventurer had seized the crown,
taking the name of Sargon, after a famous monarch of ancient
Babylonia. Sargon had hardly established himself upon the
throne when Samaria fell (B. C. 722). … He contented himself
with transporting only 27,280 of its inhabitants into
captivity, only the upper classes, in fact, who were
implicated in the revolt of Hoshea. An Assyrian satrap, or
governor, was appointed over Samaria, while the bulk of the
population was allowed to remain peaceably in their old
homes."
A. H. Sayce,
Life and Times of Isaiah,
chapter 3.
"Much light is thrown upon the conditions of the national
religion then and upon its subsequent development by the
single fact that the exiled Israelites were absorbed by the
surrounding heathenism without leaving a trace behind them,
while the population of Judah, who had the benefit of a
hundred years of respite, held their faith fast throughout the
period of the Babylonian exile, and by means of it were able
to maintain their own individuality afterwards in all the
circumstances that arose. The fact that the fall of Samaria
did not hinder but helped the religion of Jehovah is entirely
due to the prophets."
J. Wellhausen,
Sketch of the History of Israel and Judah,
chapter 6.
"The first generation of the exiles lived to see the fall of
their conquerors. … After this it is difficult to discover
any distinct trace of the northern tribes. Some returned with
their countrymen of the southern kingdom. … The immense
Jewish population which made Babylonia a second Palestine was
in part derived from them; and the Jewish customs that have
been discovered in the Nestorian Christians, with the
traditions of the sect itself, may indicate at any rate a
mixture of Jewish descent. That they [the 'lost Ten Tribes']
are concealed in some unknown region of the earth, is a fable
with no foundation either in history or prophecy."
Dean Stanley,
Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church,
lecture 34 (volume 2).
See, also, JERUSALEM.
{1905}
JEWS: B. C. 724-604.
The kingdom of Judah to the end of the Egyptian domination.
Three years before Sargon's destruction of Samaria, "Hezekiah
had succeeded his father Ahaz upon the throne of Jerusalem.
… Judah was tributary to Assyria, and owed to Assyria its
deliverance from a great danger. But the deliverer and his
designs were extremely dangerous, and made Judah apprehensive
of being swallowed up presently, when its turn came. The
neighbouring countries,—Phœnicia on the north, Moab, Ammon,
and the Arabian nations on the east, Philistia on the west,
Egypt and Ethiopia on the south,—shared Judah's
apprehensions. There were risings, and they were sternly
quelled; Judah, however, remained tranquil. But the scheme of
an anti-Assyrian alliance was gradually becoming popular.
Egypt was the great pillar of hope. By its size, wealth,
resources, pretensions, and fame, Egypt seemed a possible
rival to Assyria. Time went on. Sargon was murdered in 705;
Sennacherib succeeded him. Then on all sides there was an
explosion of revolts against the Assyrian rule. The first
years of Sennacherib's reign were spent by him in quelling a
formidable rising of Merodach Baladan, king of Babylon. The
court and ministers of Hezekiah seized this opportunity for
detaching their master from Assyria, for joining in the
movement of the insurgent states of Palestine and its borders,
and for allying themselves with Egypt. … In the year 701,
Sennacherib, victorious in Babylonia, marched upon Palestine."
M. Arnold,
Isaiah of Jerusalem,
introduction.
Sennacherib advanced along the Phœnician coast. "Having
captured Ascalon, he next laid siege to Ekron, which, after
the Egyptian army sent to its relief had been defeated at
Eltekeh, fell into the enemy's hand, and was severely dealt
with. Simultaneously various fortresses of Judah were
occupied, and the level country was devastated (Isaiah i.).
The consequence was that Hezekiah, in a state of panic,
offered to the Assyrians his submission, which was accepted on
payment of a heavy penalty, he being permitted, however, to
retain possession of Jerusalem. He seemed to have got cheaply
off from the unequal contest. The way being thus cleared,
Sennacherib pressed on southwards, for the Egyptians were
collecting their forces against him. The nearer he came to the
enemy the more undesirable did he find it that he should leave
in his rear so important a fortress as Jerusalem in the hands
of a doubtful vassal. Notwithstanding the recently ratified
treaty, therefore, he demanded the surrender of the city,
believing that a policy of intimidation would be enough to
secure it from Hezekiah. But there was another personality in
Jerusalem of whom his plans had taken no account. Isaiah had
indeed regarded the revolt from Assyria as a rebellion against
Jehovah Himself, and therefore as a perfectly hopeless
undertaking, which could only result in the utmost humiliation
and sternest chastisement for Judah. But much more distinctly
than Amos and Hosea before him did he hold firm as an article
of faith the conviction that the kingdom would not be utterly
annihilated; all his speeches of solemn warning closed with
the announcement that a remnant should return and form the
kernel of a new commonwealth to be fashioned after Jehovah's
own heart. … Over against the vain confidence of the
multitude Isaiah had hitherto brought into prominence the
darker obverse of his religious belief, but now he confronted
their present depression with its bright reverse;
faintheartedness was still more alien to his nature than
temerity. In the name of Jehovah he bade King Hezekiah be of
good courage, and urged that he should by no means surrender.
The Assyrians would not be able to take the city, not even to
shoot an arrow into it, nor to bring up their siege train
against it. 'I know thy sitting, thy going, and thy standing,'
is Jehovah's language to the Assyrian, 'and also thy rage
against Me. And I will put my ring in thy nose, and my bridle
in thy lips, and I will turn thee back by the way by which
thou camest.' And thus it proved in the issue. By a still
unexplained catastrophe, the main army of Sennacherib was
annihilated on the frontier between Egypt and Palestine, and
Jerusalem thereby freed from all danger. The Assyrian king had
to save himself by a hurried retreat to Nineveh; Isaiah was
triumphant. A more magnificent close of a period of
influential public life can hardly be imagined."
J. Wellhausen,
Sketch of the History of Israel and Judah,
chapter 7.
"We possess in duplicate, on the Taylor Cylinder, found at
Nineveh in 1830, and now in the British Museum, and on the
Bull-inscription of Kouyunjik, Sennacherib's own account of
the stages of his campaign. Sidon and the cities of Phœnicia
were the first to be attacked; and, after reducing these, and
receiving homage from several of the kings of the countries
bordering on Palestine, who apparently were not this time
implicated in the plan of revolt, Sennacherib started
southwards, aiming to recover similarly Ashkelon, Ekron, and
Jerusalem. In Ashkelon he deprived Zedek of his crown, which
he bestowed upon Sarludari, the son of a former king,
doubtless on the ground that he was friendly to Assyrian
interests: at the same time four subject-cities belonging to
Zedek, Beth-dagon, Joppa, Bene-Barak, and Azuru were captured
and plundered. Sennacherib next proceeds to deal with Ekron.
The people of Ekron, in order to carry through their plan for
the recovery of independence without hindrance, had deposed
their king Padi, who remained loyal to Assyria, and sent him
bound in chains to Hezekiah. Upon news of the approach of the
Assyrians, they had summoned the Egyptians to their aid; they
arrive now 'with forces innumerable;' the encounter takes
place at Altaku (probably not far from Ekron); victory
declares for the Assyrian; and the Egyptians retire without
effecting the desired relief. After this Sennacherib soon
reduces Ekron; he obtains, moreover, the surrender of Padi
from Jerusalem, and restores him to his throne. Now follows
the account of the aggressive measures adopted by him against
Judah and Jerusalem. 'And Hezekiah of Judah, who had not
submitted to my yoke, forty-six of his strong cities,
fortresses and smaller towns round about their border without
number, with laying low of the walls, and with open (?)
attack, with battle … of feet, … hewing about and
trampling down (?), I besieged, I took 200,150 people, small
and great, male and female, horses, mules,' asses, camels,
oxen, and sheep without number, from the midst of them I
brought out, and I counted them as spoil.
{1906}
Himself, as a bird in a cage, in the midst of Jerusalem, his
royal city, I shut up. Siege-works against him I erected, and
the exit of the great gate of his city I blocked up. His
cities which I had plundered, from his domain I cut off; and
to Mitinti, king of Ashdod, to Padi, king of Ekron, and to
Zilbel, king of Gaza, I gave them; I diminished his territory.
To the former payment of their yearly tribute, the tribute of
subjection to my sovereignty I added; I laid it upon them.
Himself, Hezekiah, the terror of the splendour of my
sovereignty overwhelmed: the Arabians and his dependents, whom
he had introduced, for the defence of Jerusalem, his royal
city, and to whom he had granted pay, together with 30 talents
of gold, 800 talents of silver, bullion (?) … precious (?)
stones of large size, couches of ivory, lofty thrones of
ivory, elephant-skins, ivory, … wood, … woods of every
kind, an abundant treasure, and in addition, his daughters,
the women of his palace, his male and female
harem(?)-attendants unto Nineveh, my royal city, he caused to
be brought after me. For the payment of tribute, and the
rendering of homage: he sent his envoy.' Here the account on
the Inscription closes, the lines which follow relating to the
campaign of the subsequent year."
S. R. Driver,
Isaiah: His Life and Times,
chapter 7.
"Between the retreat of Sennacherib's army and the capture of
the capital by Nebuchadrezzar there was an interval of little
more than a century, yet, meanwhile, upon the basis of the
prophetical teaching, the foundations of Judaism were laid.
… But though Sennacherib had retreated from Palestine, Judah
still remained the vassal of Assyria. The empire of Assyria
was scarcely affected by the event which was to change the
face of the world, and for more than half-a-century its power
was undiminished and supreme. Yet, as regards the internal
condition of Judah, the great deliverance was the occasion of
a reform which at first may well have made Isaiah's heart beat
high. … Influential as he was at the court and with the
king, and with reputation enormously enhanced by the
fulfilment of his promise of deliverance, he probably urged
and prompted Hezekiah to the execution of a religious reform.
The meagre verse in the Book of Kings which describes this
reform is both inaccurate and misplaced. There is no hint in
the authentic writings of Isaiah or Micah that any religious
innovations had been attempted before the Assyrian war. It was
the startling issue of Sennacherib's invasion which afforded
the opportunity and suggested the idea. Moreover, wider
changes are attributed to Hezekiah than he can actually have
effected. … The residuum of fact contained in the 18th
chapter of the Second Book of Kings must be probably limited
to the destruction of the Nehushtan, or brazen serpent, that
mysterious image in which the contemporaries of Hezekiah,
whatever may have been its original signification, doubtless
recognized a symbol of Yahveh. Yet indirect evidence would
incline us to believe that Hezekiah's reform involved more
than the annihilation of a single idol; it is more probably to
be regarded as an attempt at a general abolition of images, as
well as a suppression of the new Assyrian star-worship and of
the 'Moloch' sacrifices which had been introduced into Judah
in the reign of Ahaz. Whether this material iconoclasm
betokened or generated any wide moral reformation is more than
doubtful. … Hezekiah's reign extended for about fourteen
years after the deliverance of Jerusalem in 701. To the early
part of this, its second division, the religious reformation
must be assigned. A successful campaign against the
Philistines, alluded to in the Book of Kings, probably fell
within the same period. Beyond this, we know nothing, though
we would gladly know much, of these fourteen concluding years
of an eventful reign. In 686 Hezekiah died, and was succeeded
by his son Manasseh, who occupied the throne for forty-five
years (686-641). The Book of Kings does not record a single
external incident throughout his long reign. It must have been
a time of profound peace and of comparative prosperity.
Manasseh remained the vassal of Assyria, and the Assyrian
inscriptions speak of him as paying tribute to the two kings,
Esarhaddon (681-669), Sennacherib's successor, and Asurbanipal
(669-626), till whose death the supremacy of Assyria in
Palestine was wholly undisputed. Uneventful as Manasseh's
reign was in foreign politics, it was all the more important
in its internal and religious history. In it, and in the short
reign of Amon, who maintained the policy of his father, there
set in a period of strong religious reaction, extending over
nearly half-a-century (686-638). Manasseh is singled out by
the historian for special and repeated reprobation. In the
eyes of the exilic redactor, his iniquities were the immediate
cause of the destruction of the national life. Not even
Josiah's reformation could turn Yahveh 'from the fierceness of
his great wrath, wherewith his anger was kindled against
Judah, because of all the provocations that Manasseh had
provoked him withal.' Jeremiah had said the same. Exile and
dispersion are to come 'because of Manasseh, the son of
Hezekiah, king of Judah, for that which he did in Jerusalem.'
… What were the sins of Manasseh? It has already been
indicated that the Assyrians made their influence felt, not
only in politics, but also in religion. It was the old
Babylonian worship of the luminaries of heaven which was
introduced into Judah in the eighth century, and which, after
receiving a short check during the reign of Hezekiah, became
very widely prevalent under his son. … There are many tokens
in the literature of the seventh century that the idolatrous
reaction of Manasseh penetrated deep, making many converts.
… Manasseh would apparently brook no opposition to the
idolatrous proclivities of his court; he met the indignation
of Isaiah's disciples and of the prophetical party by open and
relentless persecution. … The older historian of the Book of
Kings speaks of 'Manasseh shedding innocent blood very much,
till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another.' This
innocent blood must have mainly flowed from those who opposed
his idolatrous tendencies. … From the accession of Manasseh
to the death of Amon (686-638), a period of forty-eight years,
this internal conflict continued; and in it, as always, the
blood of martyrs was the seed of the Church. In 638, Amon was
succeeded by his son Josiah; then only eight years old.
{1907}
It is possible that his accession brought about some
amelioration in the condition of the prophetical party, and
that active persecution ceased. But the syncretistic and
idolatrous worship was still maintained for another eighteen
years, though those years are passed over without any notice
in the Book of Kings. They were, however, years of great
importance in the history of Asia, for they witnessed the
break-up of the Assyrian empire, and the inroads of the
Scythians. The collapse of Assyria followed hard upon the
death of Asurbanipal in 626: Babylon revolted, the northern
and north-western provinces of the empire fell into the hands
of the Medes, and the authority of Assyria over the vassal
kingdoms of the west was gradually weakened."
C. G. Montefiore,
Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion,
as illustrated by the Religion of the ancient Hebrews,
(Hibbert Lectures, 1892), lecture 4.
"The Assyrian empire was much weakened and the king could not
think of maintaining his power in the more distant provinces.
… In the year 610 B. C., Nineveh was again besieged, this
time by the Medes and Babylonians in league together. In the
same year Psammetichus, king of Egypt, died and was succeeded
by his son Necho. If Psammetichus had already tried to enlarge
his kingdom at the expense of Assyria, Necho was not the man
to miss the golden opportunity that now presented itself: he
proposed to seize Syria and Palestine, the Assyrian provinces
that bordered on his own kingdom, and thus to obtain his share
of the spoil, even if he did not help to bring down the giant.
By the second year after his accession to the throne he was on
the march to Syria with a large army. Probably it was
transported by sea and landed at Acco, on the Mediterranean,
whence it was to proceed overland. But in carrying out this
plan he encountered an unexpected obstacle: Josiah went to
meet him with an army and attempted to prevent his march to
Syria. … Josiah must have firmly believed that Jahveh would
fight for his people and defeat the Egyptian ruler. From what
Jeremiah tells us of the attitude of the prophets in the
reigns of Jehoiakim and Zedekiah, we must infer that many of
them strengthened the king in his intention not to endure an
encroachment such as that of the Pharaoh. The Chronicler
relates that Necho himself endeavored to dissuade Josiah from
the unequal contest. But [uselessly]. … The decisive battle
was fought in the valley of Megiddo: Judah was defeated;
Josiah perished. … After the victory in the valley of
Megiddo and the death of Josiah, Necho was master of the
kingdom of Judah. Before he arrived there, 'the people of the
land' made Jehoahaz, a younger son of Josiah, king, presumably
because he was more attached than his elder brother to his
father's policy. At all events, Necho hastened to depose him
and send him to Egypt. He was superseded by Eliakim,
henceforward called Jehoiakim. At first Jehoiakim was a vassal
of Egypt, and it does not appear that he made any attempt to
escape from this servitude. But it was not long before events
occurred elsewhere in Asia that entirely changed his position.
Nineveh had fallen; the Medes and the Chaldeans or Babylonians
now ruled over the former territory of the Assyrians; Syria
and Palestine fell to the share of the Babylonians. Of course,
the Egyptians were not inclined to let them have undisputed
possession. A battle was fought at Carchemish (Circesium), on
the Euphrates, between the armies of Necho and Nebuchadnezzar,
who then commanded in the name of his father, Nabopolassar,
but very shortly afterwards succeeded him. The Egyptians
sustained a crushing defeat (604 B. C). This decided the fate
of Western Asia, including Judæa."
A. Kuenen,
The Religion of Israel,
chapter 6 (volume 2).
JEWS: B. C. 604-536.
Fall of the kingdom of Judah.
The Babylonian captivity.
"In the fourth year of Jehoiakim (B. C. 604) the mightiest
monarch who had wielded the Assyrian power, Nebuchadnezzar,
was associated in the empire with his father, and assumed the
command of the armies of Assyria. Babylon now takes the place
of Nineveh as the capital of the Assyrian empire. …
Vassalage to the dominion of Egypt or of Babylon is now the
ignominious doom of the king of Judah. … Nebuchadnezzar,
having retaken Carchemish (B. C. 601), passed the Euphrates,
and rapidly overran the whole of Syria and Palestine.
Jerusalem made little resistance. The king was put in chains
to be carried as a prisoner to Babylon. On his submission, he
was reinstated on the throne; but the Temple was plundered of
many of its treasures, and a number of well-born youths, among
whom were Daniel, and three others, best known by their
Persian names, Shadrach, Meshech, and Abednego. From this date
commence the seventy years of the Captivity. Jehoiakim had
learned neither wisdom nor moderation from his misfortunes.
Three years after, he attempted to throw off the yoke of
Chaldea. … At length this weak and cruel king was slain (B.
C. 598). … Jehoiachin (Jeconias or Coniah), his son, had
scarcely mounted the throne, when Nebuchadnezzar himself
appeared at the gates of Jerusalem. The city surrendered at
discretion. The king and all the royal family, the remaining
treasures of the Temple, the strength of the army and the
nobility, and all the more useful artisans, were carried away
to Babylon. Over this wreck of a kingdom, Zedekiah
(Mattaniah), the younger son of Josiah, was permitted to enjoy
an inglorious and precarious sovereignty of eleven years,
during which he abused his powers, even worse than his
imbecile predecessors. In his ninth year, notwithstanding the
remonstrances of the wise Jeremiah, he endeavoured to assert
his independence; and Jerusalem, though besieged by
Nebuchadnezzar in person, now made some resistance. … At
length, in the city, famine reduced the fatal obstinacy of
despair. Jerusalem opened its gates to the irresistible
conqueror. The king, in an attempt to break through the
besieging forces, or meditating flight towards his ally, the
king of Ammon, was seized on the plain of Jericho. His
children were slain before his face, his eyes put out, and
thus the last king of the royal house of David, blind and
childless, was led away into a foreign prison. The capture of
Jerusalem took place on the ninth day of the fourth month: on
the seventh day of the fifth month (two days on which Hebrew
devotion still commemorates the desolation of the city by
solemn fast and humiliation) the relentless Nebuzaradan
executed the orders of his master by levelling the city, the
palaces, and the Temple, in one common ruin. The few remaining
treasures, particularly the two brazen pillars which stood
before the Temple, were sent to Babylon; the chief priests
were put to death, the rest carried into captivity. …
{1908}
The miserable remnant of the people were placed under the
command of Gedaliah, as a pasha of the great Assyrian monarch;
the seat of government was fixed at Mizpeh. … Nebuzaradan
(the general of Nebuchadnezzar) only left, according to the
strong language of the Second Book of Kings, xxv. 12, 'of the
poor of the land, to be vine-dressers and husbandmen.' … In
general it seems that the Jewish exiles [in Babylonia] were
allowed to dwell together in considerable bodies, not sold as
household or personal or prædial slaves, at least not those of
the better order of whom the Captivity chiefly consisted. They
were colonists rather than captives, and became by degrees
possessed of considerable property. … They had free
enjoyment of their religion, such at least as adhered
faithfully to their belief in Jehovah. We hear of no special
and general religious persecution. The first deportation of
chosen beautiful youths, after the earlier defeat of
Jehoiakim, for hostages, or as a kind of court-pages, was not
numerous. The second transportation swept away the king, his
wife, all the officers and attendants of his court, 7,000 of
the best of the army, 1,000 picked artisans, armourers, and
others, amounting to 10,023 men. The last was more general: it
comprehended the mass of the people, according to some
calculations towards 300,000 or 400,000 souls."
H. H. Milman,
History of the Jews,
books 8-9, with foot-note (volume 1).
The inhabitants left behind in Judæa "formed but a pitiful
remnant of the former kingdom of Judah. Part of them had grown
wild and led the lives of freebooters. Others busied
themselves with agriculture, but they had much to suffer from
the bands of Chaldean soldiers that roved about the land, and
from the neighbouring tribes, who took advantage of Israel's
abasement to extend their territories. … We do not know with
certainty the number of the exiles carried off by
Nebuchadnezzar: the returns given in the Old Testament are
evidently incomplete. But that their number was very
considerable, can be gathered from the number of those who
afterwards went back. For their intrinsic worth, even more
than for their numerical strength, these exiles had a right to
be regarded as the real representatives of the kingdom of
Judah and thus of all Israel. … It was … the kernel of the
nation that was brought to Babylonia. Our information as to
the social condition of the exiles is very defective. Even to
the question, where they had to settle, we can only return an
imperfect answer. We meet with a colony of exiles, companions
of Jeconiah, at Tel-abib, in the neighbourhood of the river
Chebar, usually supposed to be the Chaboras, which runs into
the Euphrates not far from Circesium, but considered by others
to be a smaller river, nearer to Babylon. It lay in the nature
of the case, that the second and third company of captives
received another destination. Even had it been possible,
prudence would have opposed their settling in the immediate
vicinity of their predecessors. We are not surprised therefore
that Ezekiel, who lived at Tel-abib, does not mention their
arrival there. Where they did go we are not told. The
historian says 'to Babylon,' to which place, according to him,
the first exiles (597 B. C.) were also brought; probably he
does not, in either passage, mean only the capital of the
Chaldean kingdom, but rather the province of that name to
which the city of course belonged. … Nebuchadnezzar's
purpose, the prevention of fresh disturbances, having been
attained by their removal from Judæa, he could now leave them
to develop their resources. It was even for the interest of
the districts in which they settled, that their development
should not be obstructed. Many unnecessary and troublesome
conflicts were avoided and the best provision was made for the
maintenance of order, by leaving them free, within certain
limits, to regulate their own affairs. So the elders of the
families and tribes remained in possession of the authority
which they had formerly exercised."
A. Kuenen,
The Religion of Israel,
chapter 7 (volume 2).
"About the middle of the sixth century before Christ, Cyrus,
King of Elam, began the career of conquest which left him
master of Western Asia. Greek writers of history have done
full justice to the character of this extraordinary man, but
what they tell of his origin, his early adventures and rise to
power, is for the most part mere fable. … Within recent
years a new light has been thrown on one of the dimmest
figures of the old world by the discovery of contemporary
documents, in which the Conqueror of Babylon himself records
his victories and the policy of his reign. … It appears from
the Inscriptions that the founder of the Persian Empire was by
no means the parvenu prince described by Herodotus. Cyrus was
a king's son, and in early youth, by legitimate succession,
himself became a king. From Susa (Shushan) on the Choaspes,
his capital city, he ruled over the fertile and populous
region lying eastward of the Lower Tigris which bore the name
of Elam or Susiana. This realm was one of the most ancient in
Western Asia. … Nabonidus became king of Babylon in the year
555 B. C. He had raised himself to the throne by conspiracy
and murder, and his position at first was insecure. The
eastern provinces, Syria and Phœnicia, rose in revolt against
the usurper, while the Medes on the north began a harassing
warfare and threatened an invasion of Babylonia. This latter
danger was averted for the time by an unlooked-for
deliverance. In the sixth year of Nabonidus (550 B. C.) Cyrus
led his army against Astyages, the Median king. The
discontented soldiery of Astyages mutinied on the eve of
battle, seized the person of their sovereign, and delivered
him up to the enemy. … This bloodless victory added Media to
the dominions of Cyrus, gave him Ecbatana as a second capital
and place of arms, and more than doubled his military
strength. … The real aim of Cyrus was the overthrow of
Babylon, and the construction of a new and still wider empire
on the ruins of the old. … Within the two years following
his conquest of the Medes he had extended his sway over the
kindred race of the Persians, from which he himself had
sprung. The wild tribes of Iran had long looked greedily on
the rich Chaldæan plains and cities, and only waited a leader
before swooping down like ravenous birds on their prey. This
leader appeared in Cyrus. … Forty years had passed since the
destruction of Jerusalem and the deportation of the great mass
of the Jewish people to Babylonia (588 B. C.). During this
period, under Nebuchadnezzar and his immediate successors on
the throne, the exiles had lived in peace, following without
interference their own customs, religious and social. …
Nothing hindered them from leading a quiet and comfortable
life among the Chaldæans, if only they were content to break
with their past and give up hope for the future.
{1909}
But this was impossible for all true Israelites. They could
not forget what they had been, or reconcile themselves to be
what they now were. They had the means of livelihood in
abundance, but to them their drink was as vinegar, their meat
as gall. … The home-sickness of the people finds manifold
expression in the literature of the Exile. … Now, as at
every crisis in the national history, the Prophets stood
forth, the true leaders of Israel. They kept the people
constantly in mind of their high destinies, and comforted and
encouraged them in their darkest hours. … Among the Jewish
exiles, enlightened by the prophetic word, the name Koresh
passed from lip to lip, and the movements of this new
Conqueror were followed with straining eyes. … In the month
Nisan (March) of the year 547 B. C., the ninth year of
Nabonidus, Cyrus crossed the Tigris at the fords of Arbela,
eastward of the modern Mosul, and began his first invasion of
Babylonia. … Meanwhile the fainéant king Nabonidus lingered
in his palace near Babylon, leaving the defence of the empire
to his eldest son, the Prince Royal Belshazzar. Whether
worsted in battle or, as is more likely, baffled by the
difficulties in the way of an invader—the country seamed
with water-courses, the numerous fortified towns, the Median
Wall—Cyrus was forced to retreat. … In the seventeenth
year of Nabonidus (539 B. C.) the King of Elam once more took
the field against Babylon. This time the attack was made from
the southeast. An opportune revolt of the southern provinces,
probably fomented by Cyrus himself, opened the way for him
into the heart of the land. … On all sides the disaffected
subjects of Nabonidus went over to the invader, who passed on
at the head of his 'vast army, innumerable, like the waters of
a river,' without meeting any serious resistance. The last
hope of Nabonidus rested on his Army of the North. In the
month Tammuz (June) a pitched battle was fought near Routou, a
town in Accad, and ended in the defeat of the Babylonians. A
revolution followed at once. … Some days later the
victorious army, under a lieutenant of the King, appeared
before the walls of Babylon. The collapse of all authority
made useless defences which were the wonder of the world;
friendly hands threw open the brazen gates, and without a
struggle the great city fell. … Four months later Cyrus
entered Babylon in triumph. … The hitherto accepted opinion
that Cyrus was an Aryan monotheist, a worshipper of Ormazd,
and therefore so far in religious sympathy with the Jews, is
seriously shaken if not overthrown by the Inscriptions which
record his Babylonian conquest. Even if allowance be made for
the fact that these are state documents, and reveal only what
the monarch professed, not necessarily what he believed, there
still remains the strong probability that Cyrus was not
Zoroastrian in creed, but polytheist like his people of Elam.
The Cyrus of the Inscriptions is either a fanatical idolater
or simply an opportunist in matters of religion. The latter
alternative is the more probable."
P. H. Hunter,
After the Exile,
part 1, chapters 1-2.
JEWS: B. C. 537.
The return from Babylon.
"The fall of the metropolis had decided the fortune of the
Babylonian kingdom, and the provinces. The most important of
these was Syria, with the great trading places of the
Phenicians on the Mediterranean. … The hopes of the Jews
were at last fulfilled. The fall of Babylon had avenged the
fall of Jerusalem, and the subjugation of Syria to the armies
of Babylon opened the way for their return. Cyrus did not
belie the confidence which the Jews had so eagerly offered
him; without hesitation he gave the exiles permission to
return and erect again their shrine at Jerusalem. The return
of the captives and the foundation of a new state of the Jews
was very much to his interest; it might contribute to support
his empire in Syria. He did not merely count on the gratitude
of the returning exiles, but as any revival of the Babylonian
kingdom, or rebellion of the Syrians against the Persian
empire, imperilled the existence of this community, which had
not only to be established anew, but would never be very
strong, it must necessarily oppose any such attempts.
Forty-nine years—seven Sabbatical years, instead of the ten
announced by Jeremiah—had passed since the destruction of
Jerusalem, and more than sixty since Jeremiah had first
announced the seventy years of servitude to Babylon. Cyrus
commissioned Zerubbabel, the son of Salathiel, a grandson of
Jechoniah, the king who had been carried away captive, and
therefore a scion of the ancient royal race, and a descendant
of David, to be the leader of the returning exiles, to
establish them in their abode, and be the head of the
community; he bade his treasurer Mithridates give out to him
the sacred vessels, which Nebuchadnezzar had carried away as
trophies to Babylon, and placed in the temple of Bel; there
are said to have been more than 5,000 utensils of gold and
silver, baskets, goblets, cups, knives, etc. But all the Jews
in Babylon did not avail themselves of the permission. Like
the Israelites deported by Sargon into Media and Assyria some
180 years previously, many of the Jews brought to Mesopotamia
and Babylonia at the time of Jechoniah and Zedekiah, had found
there a new home, which they preferred to the land of their
fathers. But the priests (to the number of more than 3,000),
many of the families of the heads of the tribes, all who cared
for the sanctuary and the old country, all in whom Jehovah
'awoke the spirit,' as the Book of Ezra says, began the march
over the Euphrates. With Zerubbabel was Joshua, the high
priest, the most distinguished among all the Jews, a grandson
of the high priest, Zeraiah, whom Nebuchadnezzar had executed
after the capture of Jerusalem. … It was a considerable
multitude which left the land 'beyond the stream,' the waters
of Babylon, to sit once more under the fig-tree in their
ancient home, and build up the city of David and the temple of
Jehovah from their ruins; 42,360 freemen, with 7,337 Hebrew
men-servants and maid-servants; their goods were carried by
435 camels, 736 horses, 250 mules, and 6,720 asses (537 B.
C.). The exodus of the Jews from Babylon is accompanied by a
prophet with cries of joy, and announcements filled with the
wildest hopes. … 'Go forth from Babylon,' he cries; 'fly
from the land of the Chaldæans! Proclaim it with shouts of
joy, tell it to the end of the earth and say: "Jehovah hath
redeemed his servant Jacob."'
{1910}
'How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that
bringeth glad tidings, that publisheth peace, that saith unto
Zion, Thy God reigneth. Up, up, go forth, touch no unclean
person; go forth from among them. Cleanse yourselves, ye that
bear Jehovah's vessels. Ye shall go forth in joy, and be led
in peace; the mountains and the hills shall break forth before
you into singing, and all the trees shall clap their hands.
Jehovah goes before you, and the God of Israel brings up the
rear. … Jehovah calls thee as an outcast sorrowful woman,
and thy God speaks to thee as to a bride who has been put
away; thy ruins, and deserts, and wasted land, which was
destroyed from generation to generation—thy people build up
the ruins, and renew the ancient cities. Behold, I will make
thy desert like Eden, and thy wilderness like the garden of
the Lord; I will lay thy stones with bright lead, and thy
foundations with sapphires, and make thy towers of rubies and
thy gates of carbuncles. Joy and delight is in them,
thanksgiving and the sound of strings. The wealth of the sea
shall come to thee, and the treasures of the nations shall be
thine; like a stream will I bring salvation upon Israel, and
the treasures of the nations like an overflowing river. Thy
sons hasten onward; those that laid thee waste go forth from
thee. Lift up thine eyes and see; thy sons come from far, and
I will gather them to those that are gathered together. The
islands and the ships of Tarshish wait to bring thy children
from afar, their gold and their silver with them. The land
will be too narrow for the inhabitants; widen the place for
thy tent, let the carpets of thy habitation be spread—delay
not. Draw out the rope; to the right and to the left must thou
be widened. I will set up my banner for the nations, that they
bring thy sons in their arm, and thy daughters shall be
carried on the shoulders. Kings shall be thy guardians, and
queens thy nursing-mothers; I will bow them to the earth
before thee, and they shall lick the dust of thy feet, and
thou shalt know that I am Jehovah, and they who wait patiently
for me shall not be put to shame.' Such expectations and hopes
were far from being realised. The Edomites had, in the
mean-time, extended their borders and obtained possession of
the South of Judah, but the land immediately round Jerusalem
was free and no doubt almost depopulated. As the returning
exiles contented themselves with the settlement at Jerusalem,
the towns to the North, Anathoth, Gebah, Michmash,
Kirjath-Jearim, and some others—only Bethlehem is mentioned
to the South—they found nothing to impede them. Their first
care was the restoration of the worship, according to the law
and the custom of their fathers. … Then voluntary gifts were
collected from all for the rebuilding of the temple;
contributions even came in from those who had remained in
Babylonia, so that 70,000 pieces of gold and 5,000 mimæ of
silver are said to have been amassed. Tyrian masons were
hired, and agreements made with Tyrian carpenters, to fell
cedars in Lebanon, and bring them to Joppa, for which Cyrus
had given his permission. The foundation of the temple was
laid in the second year of the return (536 B. C.). … The
fortunate beginning of the restoration of the city and temple
soon met with difficulties. The people of Samaria, who were a
mixture of the remnant of the Israelites and the strangers
whom Sargon had brought there after the capture of Samaria,
… and Esarhaddon at a later date, … came to meet the
exiles in a friendly spirit, and offered them assistance, from
which we must conclude that in spite of the foreign admixture
the Israelitish blood and the worship of Jehovah were
preponderant in Samaria. The new temple would thus have been
the common sanctuary of the united people of Israel. But the
'sons of captivity' were too proud of the sorrows which they
had undergone, and the fidelity which they had preserved to
Jehovah, and their pure descent, to accept this offer. Hence
the old quarrel between Israel and Judah broke out anew, and
the exiles soon felt the result. After their repulse the
Samaritans set themselves to hinder the building by force;
'they terrified the exiles that they built no more, and hired
counsellors to make the attempt vain during the
whole of the remainder of the reign of Cyrus.'"
M. Duncker,
History of Antiquity,
book 8, chapter 8 (volume 6).
The duration of the Captivity, strictly speaking, "was only
forty-seven years, if we reckon by the Canon of Ptolemy, from
the 19th year of Nabuchodrozzor to the first of Cyrus; or,
better, forty-nine years, if we add on, as we probably ought
to do, the two years' reign of the Median king whom Cyrus set
on the throne of Babylon."
H. Ewald,
History of Israel,
book 5, introduction.
"The decree of Cyrus, at the close of the captivity, extended
only to the rebuilding of the Temple. 'Thus saith Cyrus, king
of Persia, The Lord God of heaven … hath charged me to build
him an house at Jerusalem.' And under this decree Jeshua and
Zerubbabel 'builded the altar of the God of Israel. … But
the foundation of the Temple of the Lord was not yet laid.'
Afterwards they 'laid the foundation of the Temple of the
Lord,' including, apparently, the outer wall, for their
enemies made a representation to the king of Persia that the
Jews were rebuilding the walls of their city: 'The Jews which
came up from thee to us are … building the rebellious and
the bad city, and have set up the walls thereof, and joined
the foundations.' And as the wall of the Temple, which was
about twelve feet thick, gave a colour to the charge, a decree
was issued by Artaxerxes to prohibit the further prosecution
of the work. 'Then ceased the work of the house of God, which
is at Jerusalem.' On the accession of Darius to the throne of
Persia, Jeshua and Zerubbabel recommenced the restoration of
the Temple, including the wall of the Outer Temple, for they
'began to build the house of God,' when their enemies again
stepped forward, saying, 'Who hath commanded you to build this
house, and to make up this wall?' And on a renewed complaint
to the king of Persia, search was made for the decree of
Cyrus, and when it was found, Darius permitted the Jews to
proceed with the Temple; 'Let the governor of the Jews and the
'elders of the Jews build this house of God in his place;' and
thereupon the structure and the outer walls thereof (the
square of 600 feet) were completed: 'They builded and finished
it … on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the
sixth year of the reign of Darius the king.' Thus far the
rebuilding extended to the Temple only, and not to the walls
of the city. Ezra afterwards obtained a decree to restore the
nationality of the Jews, viz., to 'set magistrates and judges,
which might judge all the people;' and afterwards Nehemiah,
the cupbearer to the king, was enabled in a favourable moment
to win from him express permission to rebuild the Baris, or
Vestry, afterwards Antonia, and also the city: 'Send me unto
Judah, unto the city of my fathers' sepulchres, that I may
build it;' and a direction was given to the governors beyond
the Euphrates to forward Nehemiah and his company to
Jerusalem; and the king's forester was required to supply the
necessary timber."
T. Lewin,
Jerusalem,
chapter 2.
{1911}
"The Jews returned home sobered and improved by their
sufferings in exile, and entirely cured of their early
hankering after idolatry. Having no political independence,
and living under a governor, they devoted themselves all the
more to religion, the only source and support of their
nationality, and became zealots for the law, and for a devout
carrying out of all its precepts, as far as practicable. All,
indeed, could not be again restored, The most holy of the new
temple was empty, for it was without the lost and
irreplaceable ark of the covenant; the oracular ornaments of
the high-priest had disappeared. As Jerusalem was now, far
more than formerly, the head and heart of the nation, the
high-priesthood … was the authority to which the nation
willingly submitted; it served as the representative and
pillar of unity, and the sons of David were forgotten. Another
of the abiding consequences of their exile was, the altered
mode of life which the nation led. At first they had been
exclusively devoted to agriculture; but after mixing with
strangers they learnt to engage in trade, and this inclination
went on always increasing; it contributed essentially to their
being spread far beyond the borders of Palestine, and to their
multiplying their settlements in foreign lands."
J. J. I. Dollinger,
The Gentile and the Jew
in the Courts of the Temple of Christ,
book 10, section 1 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
H. H. Milman,
History of the Jews,
book 9.
JEWS: B. C. 536-A. D. 50.
The Babylonian Jews.
"There is something very remarkable in the history of this
race, for the most part descendants of those families which
had refused to listen to the summons of Zorobabel, Ezra, and
Nehemiah, and to return to the possession of their native
country. … The singular part of their history is this, that,
though willing aliens from their native Palestine, they
remained Jews in character and religion; they continued to be
a separate people, and refused to mingle themselves with the
population of the country in which they were domiciliated.
While those who returned to the Holy Land were in danger of
forming a mixed race, by intermarriages with the neighbouring
tribes, which it required all the sternest exercise of
authority in their rulers to prevent, the Babylonian Jews were
still as distinct a people as the whole race of Israel has
been since the final dispersion. … Nor did they, like the
Jews of Alexandria, become in any degree independent of the
great place of national worship; they were as rigid Jews as if
they had grown up within sight of the Temple. … The Temple
became what the Caaba of Mecca is to the Mohammedans, the
object of the profoundest reverence, and sometimes of a pious
pilgrimage; but the land of their fathers had lost its hold on
their affections; they had no desire to exchange the level
plains of Babylonia for the rich pastures, the golden
cornfields, or the rocky vineyards of Galilee and Judæa. This
Babylonian settlement was so numerous and flourishing, that
Philo more than once intimates the possibility of their
marching in such force to the assistance of their brethren in
Palestine, in case the Roman oppression was carried to excess,
as to make the fate of the war very doubtful. Their chief city
Nearda, was strongly situated in a bend of the river
Euphrates, which almost surrounded the town." About the middle
of the first century (of the Christian era) a band of
freebooters, formed by two brothers of this Jewish community,
gave great provocation to the Babylonians, and to the Parthian
king whose subjects they then were. They were finally, but
with much difficulty, destroyed, and the Babylonians then
"began to commit dreadful reprisals on the whole Jewish
population. The Jews, unable to resist, fled in great numbers
to Seleucia; six years after many more took refuge from a
pestilence in the same city. Seleucia happened to be divided
into two factions: one of the Greeks, the other of the
Syrians. The Jews threw themselves into the scale of the
Syrians, who thus obtained a superiority, till the Greeks came
to terms with the Syrians; and both parties agreed to fall
upon the unhappy Jews. As many as 50,000 men were slain. The
few who escaped fled to Ctesiphon. Even there the enmity of
the Seleucians pursued them; and at length the survivors took
refuge in their old quarters, Nearda and Nisibis."
H. H. Milman,
History of the Jews,
book 12 (volume 2).
JEWS: B. C. 433-332.
The century of Silence.
"The interval between the Testaments has been called 'The
Centuries of Silence.' The phrase is most untrue; for, as a
whole, this time was vocal with the cry of a battle in which
empire contended with empire, and philosophy with philosophy:
it was an age of earnest and angry contention. But the hundred
years succeeding the death of Nehemiah are for us, so far as
any record remains of that Judæan history, a century of
silence. For some reason which does not appear, the period
from the death of this sturdy old captain at Jerusalem to the
time of the Greek conquest of Persia has no Jewish history.
That it was a period of growth and development with the
Judæans—especially in their theological and ecclesiastical
life—is evident from the changes which the close of the
century shows. The stress of external events made it a time of
heavy taxation and distress,—a time of struggle with Samaria,
and of internal conflict for the control of the high priest's
office."
T. R Slicer,
Between the Testaments
(The New World, March, 1892).
JEWS: B. C. 413-332.
The rule of the High Priests.
"After the death of Nehemiah and the high priest, Eliashib
(413 B. C.), the Persian Court did not appoint governors of
Judea. Samaria was the seat of the Persian Satrap for Syria,
Phœnicia and Palestine. The sons of David had lost prestige
under Nehemiah (Psalm lxxxix.). The ruler acknowledged by the
Law, the prophet (Deuteronomy xviii. 15), was no more; the
last prophets under Nehemiah, with the exception of Malachi,
had proved unworthy of their illustrious predecessors.
Therefore, the high priest was now the first man in the
theocracy, and, contrary to the Laws of Moses (Leviticus x.
3), he was acknowledged the chief ruler of the nation,
although he was no longer the bearer of the Urim and Thumim
(Ezra ii. 63). He presided over the Great Synod, was the
representative of the people before the king and his satrap,
and gradually he established himself in the highest dignity of
the nation."
I. M. Wise,
History of the Hebrews' Second Commonwealth, 1st period,
chapter 4.
{1912}
JEWS: B. C. 332-167.
The Greek domination.
Jewish dispersion.
Hellenism.
On the fall of the Persian monarchy, Judea, with all the rest
of western Asia, was gathered into the empire of Alexander the
Great (see MACEDONIA: B. C. 334-330, and after), Jerusalem
submitting to him without a siege, and so avoiding the fate of
Tyre. In the wars between Alexander's generals and successors,
which followed his death, Palestine changed masters several
times, but does not seem to have been much disturbed. The High
Priests continued to be the chiefs of the nation, and neither
the religion nor the internal government of the Hebrew state
suffered much interference. The final partition made among the
new Macedonian kings (B. C. 302), gave Palestine to Ptolemy of
Egypt, and it remained subject to Egypt for a century. This
period was a happy one, on the whole, for the Jews. The
Ptolemies were friendly to them, with one exception,
respecting their religion and laws. Large numbers of them
settled in Egypt, and especially in the rising new capital and
emporium of trade—Alexandria. But in 201 B. C. Antiochus the
Great, king of the Syrian or Seleucid monarchy, wrested
Cœlosyria and Palestine from the Ptolemies and added it to his
own dominions.
See SELEUCIDÆ: B. C. 224-187.
Antiochus dealt favorably with the Jews, but his successors
proved harder masters than the Egyptian Greeks.
H. Ewald,
History of Israel,
book 5, section 2 (volume 5).
"These kings promoted the settlement of Greeks and Syrians in
Palestine, so that it was by degrees all covered with cities
and towns of Grecian nomenclature. The narrow territory of
Judea alone kept free of them, but was surrounded with
settlers whose speech, customs, and creed were Greek. On the
other hand, the Jews went on spreading in lands where Greek
was spoken. A good many of these were planted in Egypt, in the
newly founded capital Antioch, in Lydia and Phrygia. Led on by
their love of trade, they soon became numerous in the
commercial cities of western Asia, Ephesus, Pergamus, Miletus,
Sardis, &c. From Egypt and Alexandria, in which city, at a
later period, they formed two-fifths of the inhabitants, they
drew along the coast of Africa to Cyrene and the towns of the
Pentapolis, and from Asia Anterior to the Macedonian and Greek
marts; for the national love of commerce became more and more
developed, till it absorbed all other occupations, and to this
certainly the general inclination for commercial intercourse,
prevalent at that period, greatly contributed. Thus it
happened that two movements, identical in their operation,
crossed each other, viz., an influx of Greek, or of Asiatic
but hellenised, settlers into Palestine, and an outpouring of
Jews and Samaritans into the, cities speaking the Greek
tongue. In olden times, while the Israelites still possessed a
national kingdom, they felt their isolation from other people
as a burden. It was as an oppressive yoke to them, which they
bore impatiently, and were always trying to shake off. They
wanted to live like other nations, to eat, drink, and
intermarry with them, and, together with their own God, to
honour the gods of the stranger also; for many raw and
carnally-minded Jews only looked upon the one special God and
protector of their nation as one god amongst many. But now
there was a complete change in this respect. The Jews
everywhere lived and acted upon the fundamental principle,
that between them and all other nations there was an
insurmountable barrier; they shut themselves off, and formed
in every town separate corporations, with officers of their
own; while at the same time they kept up a constant connexion
with the sanctuary at Jerusalem. They paid a tribute to the
temple there, which was carefully collected everywhere, and
from time to time conveyed in solemn procession to Jerusalem.
There alone, too, could the sacrifices and gifts which were
demanded by the law be offered. In this wise they preserved a
centre and a metropolis. And yet there followed from all this
an event, which in its consequences was one of the most
important in history, namely, the hellenising of the Jews who
were living out of Judea, and even, in a degree, of those who
remained in their own land. They were a people too gifted