Chapter IV: Part 4

14. _Religion and the Prophets._--The elements of the thought and religion of the Hebrews do not sever them from their neighbours; similar features of cult are met with elsewhere under different names. Hebrew religious institutions can be understood from the biblical evidence studied in the light of comparative religion; and without going afield to Babylonia, Assyria or Egypt, valuable data are furnished by the cults of Phoenicia, Syria and Arabia, and these in turn can be illustrated from excavation and from modern custom. Every religion has its customary cult and ritual, its recognized times, places and persons for the observance. Worship is simpler at the smaller shrines than at the more famous temples; and, as the rulers are the patrons of the religion and are brought into contact with the religious personnel, the character of the social organization leaves its mark upon those who hold religious and judicial functions alike. The Hebrews shared the paradoxes of Orientals, and religious enthusiasm and ecstasy were prominent features. Seers and prophets of all kinds ranged from those who were consulted for daily mundane affairs to those who revealed the oracles in times of stress, from those who haunted local holy sites to those high in royal favour, from the quiet domestic communities to the austere mountain recluse. Among these were to be found the most sordid opportunism and the most heroic self-effacement, the crassest supernaturalism and--the loftiest conceptions of practical morality. A development of ideals and a growth of spirituality can be traced which render the biblical writings with their series of prophecies a unique phenomenon.[23] The prophets taught that the national existence of the people was bound up with religious and social conditions; they were in a sense the politicians of the age, and to regard them simply as foretellers of the future is to limit their sphere unduly. They took a keen interest in all the political vicissitudes of the Oriental world. Men of all standards of integrity, they were exposed to external influences, but whether divided among themselves in their adherence to conflicting parties, or isolated in their fierce denunciation of contemporary abuses, they shared alike in the worship of Yahweh whose inspiration they claimed. A recollection of the manifold forms which religious life and thought have taken in Christendom or in Islam, and the passions which are so easily engendered among opposing sects, will prevent a one-sided estimate of the religious standpoints which the writings betray; and to the recognition that they represent lofty ideals it must be added that the great prophets, like all great thinkers, were in advance of their age.

The prophets are thoroughly Oriental figures, and the interpretation of their profound religious experiences requires a particular sympathy which is not inherent in Western minds. Their writings are to be understood in the light of their age and of the conditions which gave birth to them. With few exceptions they are preserved in fragmentary form, with additions and adjustments which were necessary in order to make them applicable to later conditions. When, as often, the great figures have been made the spokesmen of the thought of subsequent generations, the historical criticism of the prophecies becomes one of peculiar difficulty.[24] According to the historical traditions it is precisely in the age of Jeroboam II. and Uzziah that the first of the extant prophecies begin (see AMOS and HOSEA). Here it is enough to observe that the highly advanced doctrines of the distinctive character of Yahweh, as ascribed to the 8th century B.C., presuppose a foundation and development. But the evidence does not allow us to trace the earlier progress of the ideas. Yahwism presents itself under a variety of aspects, and the history of Israel's relations to the God Yahweh (whose name is not necessarily of Israelite origin) can hardly be disentangled amid the complicated threads of the earlier history. The view that the seeds of Yahwism were planted in the young Israelite nation in the days of the "exodus" conflicts with the belief that the worship of Yahweh began in the pre-Mosaic age. Nevertheless, it implies that religion passed into a new stage through the influence of Moses, and to this we find a relatively less complete analogy in the specific north Israelite traditions of the age of Jehu. The change from the dynasty of Omri to that of Jehu has been treated by several hands, and the writers, in their recognition of the introduction of a new tendency, have obscured the fact that the cult of Yahweh had flourished even under such a king as Ahab. While the influence of the great prophets Elijah and Elisha is clearly visible, it is instructive to find that the south, too, has its share in the inauguration of the new era. At Horeb, the mount of God, was located the dramatic theophany which heralded to Elijah the advent of the sword, and Jehu's supporter in his sanguinary measures belongs to the Rechabites, a sect which felt itself to be the true worshipping community of Yahweh and is closely associated with the Kenites, the kin of Moses. It was at the holy well of Kadesh, in the sacred mounts of Sinai and Horeb, and in the field of Edom that the Yahweh of Moses was found, and scattered traces survive of a definite belief in the entrance into Palestine of a movement uncompromisingly devoted to the purer worship of Yahweh. The course of the dynasty of Jehu--the reforms, the disastrous Aramaean wars, and, at length, Yahweh's "arrow of victory"--constituted an epoch in the Israelite history, and it is regarded as such.[25]

The problem of the history of Yahwism depends essentially upon the
view adopted as to the date and origin of the biblical details and
their validity for the various historical and religious conditions
they presuppose. Yahwism is a religion which appears upon a soil
saturated with ideas and usages which find their parallel in
extra-biblical sources and in neighbouring lands. The problem cannot
be approached from modern preconceptions because there was much
associated with the worship of Yahweh which only gradually came to be
recognized as repugnant, and there was much in earlier ages and in
other lands which reflects an elevated and even complex religious
philosophy. In the south of the Sinaitic peninsula, remains have been
found of an elaborate half-Egyptian, half-Semitic cultus (Petrie,
_Researches in Sinai_, xiii.), and not only does Edom possess some
reputation for "wisdom," but, where this district is concerned, the
old Arabian religion (whose historical connexion with Palestine is
still imperfectly known) claims some attention. The characteristic
denunciations of corruption and lifeless ritual in the writings of the
prophets and the emphasis which is laid upon purity and simplicity of
religious life are suggestive of the influence of the nomadic spirit
rather than of an internal evolution on Palestinian soil. Desert
pastoral life does not necessarily imply any intellectual inferiority,
and its religious conceptions, though susceptible of modification, are
not artificially moulded through the influence of other civilizations.
Nomadic life is recognized by Arabian writers themselves as possessing
a relative superiority, and its characteristic purity of manner and
its reaction against corruption and luxury are not incompatible with a
warlike spirit. If nomadism may be recognized as one of the factors in
the growth of Yahwism, there is something to be said for the
hypothesis which associates it with the clans connected with the
Levites (see E. Meyer, _Israeliten_, pp. 82 sqq.; B. Luther, ib. 138).
It is, however, obvious that the influence due to immigrants could be,
and doubtless was, exerted at more than one period (see §§ 18, 20;
also HEBREW RELIGION; PRIEST).

15. _The Fall of the Israelite Monarchy._--The prosperity of Israel was its undoing. The disorders that hastened its end find an analogy in the events of the more obscure period after the death of the earlier Jeroboam. Only the briefest details are given. Zechariah was slain after six months by Shallum ben Jabesh in Ibleam; but the usurper fell a month later to Menahem (q.v.), who only after much bloodshed established his position. Assyria again appeared upon the scene under Tiglath-pileser IV. (745-728 B.C.).[26] His approach was the signal for the formation of a coalition, which was overthrown in 738. Among those who paid tribute were Rasun (the biblical Rezin) of Damascus, Menahem of Samaria, the kings of Tyre, Byblos and Hamath and the queen of Aribi (Arabia, the Syrian desert). Israel was once more in league with Damascus and Phoenicia, and the biblical records must be read in the light of political history. Judah was probably holding aloof. Its king, Uzziah, was a leper in his latter days, and his son and regent, Jotham, claims notice for the circumstantial reference (2 Chron. xxvii.; cf. xxvi. 8) to his subjugation of Ammon--the natural allies of Damascus--for three years. Scarcely had Assyria withdrawn before Menahem lost his life in a conspiracy, and Pekah with the help of Gilead made himself king. The new movement was evidently anti-Assyrian, and strenuous endeavours were made to present a united front. It is suggestive to find Judah the centre of attack.[27] Rasun and Pekah directed their blows from the north, Philistia threatened the west flank, and the Edomites who drove out the Judaeans from Elath (on the Gulf of 'Akaba) were no doubt only taking their part in the concerted action. A more critical situation could scarcely be imagined. The throne of David was then occupied by the young Ahaz, Jotham's son. In this crisis we meet with Isaiah (q.v.), one of the finest of Hebrew prophets. The disorganized state of Egypt and the uncertain allegiance of the desert tribes left Judah without direct aid; on the other hand, opposition to Assyria among the conflicting interests of Palestine and Syria was rarely unanimous. Either in the natural course of events--to preserve the unity of his empire--or influenced by the rich presents of gold and silver with which Ahaz accompanied his appeal for help, Tiglath-pileser intervened with campaigns against Philistia (734 B.C.) and Damascus (733-732). Israel was punished by the ravaging of the northern districts, and the king claims to have carried away the people of "the house of Omri." Pekah was slain and one Hoshea (q.v.) was recognized as his successor. Assyrian officers were placed in the land and Judah thus gained its deliverance at the expense of Israel. But the proud Israelites did not remain submissive for long; Damascus had indeed fallen, but neither Philistia nor Edom had yet been crushed.

At this stage a new problem becomes urgent. A number of petty peoples, of whom little definite is known, fringed Palestine from the south of Judah and the Delta to the Syrian desert. They belong to an area which merges itself in the west into Egypt, and Egypt in fact had a hereditary claim upon it. Continued intercourse between Egypt, Gaza and north Arabia is natural in view of the trade-routes which connected them, and on several occasions joint action on the part of Edomites (with allied tribes) and the Philistines is recorded, or may be inferred. The part played by Egypt proper in the ensuing anti-Assyrian combinations is not clearly known; with a number of petty dynasts fomenting discontent and revolt, there was an absence of cohesion in that ancient empire previous to the rise of the Ethiopian dynasty. Consequently the references to "Egypt" (Heb. _Misrayim_, Ass. _Musri_) sometimes suggest that the geographical term was really extended beyond the bounds of Egypt proper towards those districts where Egyptian influence or domination was or had been recognized (see further MIZRAIM).

When Israel began to recover its prosperity and regained confidence, its policy halted between obedience to Assyria and reliance upon this ambiguous "Egypt." The situation is illustrated in the writings of Hosea (q.v.). When at length Tiglath-pileser died, in 727, the slumbering revolt became general; Israel refused the usual tribute to its overlord, and definitely threw in its lot with "Egypt." In due course Samaria was besieged for three years by Shalmaneser IV. The alliance with So (Seveh, Sibi) of "Egypt," upon whom hopes had been placed, proved futile, and the forebodings of keen-sighted prophets were justified. Although no evidence is at hand, it is probable that Ahaz of Judah rendered service to Assyria by keeping the allies in check; possible, also, that the former enemies of Jerusalem had now been induced to turn against Samaria. The actual capture of the Israelite capital is claimed by Sargon (722), who removed 27,290 of its inhabitants and fifty chariots. Other peoples were introduced, officers were placed in charge, and the usual tribute re-imposed. Another revolt was planned in 720 in which the province of Samaria joined with Hamath and Damascus, with the Phoenician Arpad and Simura, and with Gaza and "Egypt." Two battles, one at Karkar in the north, another at Rapih (Raphia) on the border of Egypt, sufficed to quell the disturbance. The desert peoples who paid tribute on this occasion still continued restless, and in 715 Sargon removed men of Tamud, Ibadid, Marsiman, Hayapa, "the remote Arabs of the desert," and placed them in the land of Beth-Omri. Sargon's statement is significant for the internal history; but unfortunately the biblical historians take no further interest in the fortunes of the northern kingdom after the fall of Samaria, and see in Judah the sole survivor of the Israelite tribes (see 2 Kings xvii. 7-23). Yet the situation in this neglected district must continue to provoke inquiry.

16. _Judah and Assyria._--Amid these changes Judah was intimately connected with the south Palestinian peoples (see further PHILISTINES). Ahaz had recognized the sovereignty of Assyria and visited Tiglath-pileser at Damascus. The Temple records describe the innovations he introduced on his return. Under his son Hezekiah there were fresh disturbances in the southern states, and anti-Assyrian intrigues began to take a more definite shape among the Philistine cities. Ashdod openly revolted and found support in Moab, Edom, Judah, and the still ambiguous "Egypt." This step may possibly be connected with the attempt of Marduk (Merodach)-baladan in south Babylonia to form a league against Assyria (cf. 2 Kings xx. 12); at all events Ashdod fell after a three years' siege (711) and for a time there was peace. But with the death of Sargon in 705 there was another great outburst; practically the whole of Palestine and Syria was in arms, and the integrity of Sennacherib's empire was threatened. In both Judah and Philistia the anti-Assyrian party was not without opposition, and those who adhered or favoured adherence to the great power were justified by the result. The inevitable lack of cohesion among the petty states weakened the national cause. At Sennacherib's approach, Ashdod, Ammon, Moab and Edom submitted; Ekron, Ascalon, Lachish and Jerusalem held out strenuously. The southern allies (with "Egypt") were defeated at Eltekeh (Josh. xix. 44). Hezekiah was besieged and compelled to submit (701). The small kings who had remained faithful were rewarded by an extension of their territories, and Ashdod, Ekron and Gaza were enriched at Judah's expense. These events are related in Sennacherib's inscription; the biblical records preserve their own traditions (see HEZEKIAH). If the impression left upon current thought can be estimated from certain of the utterances of the court-prophet Isaiah and the Judaean countryman Micah (q.v.), the light which these throw upon internal conditions must also be used to gauge the real extent of the religious changes ascribed to Hezekiah. A brazen serpent, whose institution was attributed to Moses, had not hitherto been considered out of place in the cult; its destruction was perhaps the king's most notable reform.

In the long reign of his son Manasseh later writers saw the deathblow to the Judaean kingdom. Much is related of his wickedness and enmity to the followers of Yahweh, but few political details have come down. It is uncertain whether Sennacherib invaded Judah again shortly before his death, nevertheless the land was practically under the control of Assyria. Both Esar-haddon (681-668) and Assur-bani-pal (668-c. 626) number among their tributaries Tyre, Ammon, Moab, Edom, Ascalon, Gaza and Manasseh himself,[28] and cuneiform dockets unearthed at Gezer suggest the presence of Assyrian garrisons there (and no doubt also elsewhere) to ensure allegiance. The situation was conducive to the spread of foreign customs, and the condemnation passed upon Manasseh thus perhaps becomes more significant. Precisely what form his worship took is a matter of conjecture; but it is possible that the religion must not be judged too strictly from the standpoint of the late compiler, and that Manasseh merely assimilated the older Yahweh-worship to new Assyrian forms.[29] Politics and religion, however, were inseparable, and the supremacy of Assyria meant the supremacy of the Assyrian pantheon.

If Judah was compelled to take part in the Assyrian campaigns against Egypt, Arabia (the Syrian desert) and Tyre, this would only be in accordance with a vassal's duty. But when tradition preserves some recollection of an offence for which Manasseh was taken to Babylon to explain his conduct (2 Chron. xxxiii.), also of the settling of foreign colonists in Samaria by Esar-haddon (Ezra iv. 2), there is just a possibility that Judah made some attempt to gain independence. According to Assur-bani-pal all the western lands were inflamed by the revolt of his brother Samas-sum-ukin. What part Judah took in the Transjordanic disturbances, in which Moab fought invading Arabian tribes on behalf of Assyria, is unknown (see MOAB). Manasseh's son Amon fell in a court intrigue and "the people of the land," after avenging the murder, set up in his place the infant Josiah (637). The circumstances imply a regency, but the records are silent upon the outlook. The assumption that the decay of Assyria awoke the national feeling of independence is perhaps justified by those events which made the greatest impression upon the compiler, and an account is given of Josiah's religious reforms, based upon a source apparently identical with that which described the work of Jehoash. In an age when the oppression and corruption of the ruling classes had been such that those who cherished the old worship of Yahweh dared not confide in their most intimate companions (Mic. vii. 5, 6), no social reform was possible; but now the young Josiah, the popular choice, was upon the throne. A roll, it is said, was found in the Temple, its contents struck terror into the hearts of the priests and king, and it led to a solemn covenant before Yahweh to observe the provisions of the law-book which had been so opportunely recovered.

That the writer (2 Kings xxii. seq.) meant to describe the discovery
of Deuteronomy is evident from the events which followed; and this
identification of the roll, already made by Jerome, Chrysostom and
others, has been substantiated by modern literary criticism since De
Wette (1805). (See DEUTERONOMY; JOSIAH.) Some very interesting
parallels have been cited from Egyptian and Assyrian records where
religious texts, said to have been found in temples, or oracles from
the distant past, have come to light at the very time when "the days
were full."[30] There is, however, no real proof for the traditional
antiquity of Deuteronomy. The book forms a very distinctive landmark
in the religious history by reason of its attitude to cult and ritual
(see HEBREW RELIGION, § 7). In particular it is aimed against the
worship at the numerous minor sanctuaries and inculcates the sole
pre-eminence of the one great sanctuary--the Temple of Jerusalem. This
centralization involved the removal of the local priests and a
modification of ritual and legal observance. The fall of Samaria,
Sennacherib's devastation of Judah, and the growth of Jerusalem as the
capital, had tended to raise the position of the Temple, although
Israel itself, as also Judah, had famous sanctuaries of its own. From
the standpoint of the popular religion, the removal of the local
altars, like Hezekiah's destruction of the brazen serpent, would be an
act of desecration, an iconoclasm which can be partly appreciated from
the sentiments of 2 Kings xviii. 22, and partly also from the modern
Wahhabite reformation (of the 19th century). But the details and
success of the reforms, when viewed in the light of the testimony of
contemporary prophets, are uncertain. The book of Deuteronomy
crystallizes a doctrine; it is the codification of teaching which
presupposes a carefully prepared soil. The account of Josiah's work,
like that of Hezekiah, is written by one of the Deuteronomic school:
that is to say, the writer describes the promulgation of the teaching
under which he lives. It is part of the scheme which runs through the
book of Kings, and its apparent object is to show that the Temple
planned by David and founded by Solomon ultimately gained its true
position as the only sanctuary of Yahweh to which his worshippers
should repair. Accordingly, in handling Josiah's successors the writer
no longer refers to the high places. But if Josiah carried out the
reforms ascribed to him they were of no lasting effect. This is
conclusively shown by the writings of Jeremiah (xxv. 3-7, xxxvi. 2
seq.) and Ezekiel. Josiah himself is praised for his justice, but
faithless Judah is insincere (Jer. iii. 10), and those who claim to
possess Yahweh's law are denounced (viii. 8). If Israel could appear
to be better than Judah (iii. 11; Ezek. xvi., xxiii.), the religious
revival was a practical failure, and it was not until a century later
that the opportunity again came to put any new teaching into effect (§
20). On the other hand, the book of Deuteronomy has a characteristic
social-religious side; its humanity, philanthropy and charity are the
distinctive features of its laws, and Josiah's reputation (Jer. xxii.
15 seq.) and the circumstances in which he was chosen king may suggest
that he, like Jehoash (2 Kings xi. 17; cf. xxiii. 3), had entered into
a reciprocal covenant with a people who, as Micah's writings would
indicate, had suffered grievous oppression and misery.[31]

17. _The Fall of the Judaean Monarchy._--In Josiah's reign a new era was beginning in the history of the world. Assyria was rapidly decaying and Egypt had recovered from the blows of Assur-bani-pal (to which the Hebrew prophet Nahum alludes, iii. 8-10). Psammetichus (Psamtek) I., one of the ablest of Egyptian rulers for many centuries, threw off the Assyrian yoke with the help of troops from Asia Minor and employed these to guard his eastern frontiers at Defneh. He also revived the old trading-connexions between Egypt and Phoenicia. A Chaldean prince, Nabopolassar, set himself up in Babylonia, and Assyria was compelled to invoke the aid of the Askuza. It was perhaps after this that an inroad of Scythians (q.v.) occurred (c. 626 B.C.); if it did not actually touch Judah, the advent of the people of the north appears to have caused great alarm (Jer. iv.-vi.: Zephaniah). Bethshean in Samaria has perhaps preserved in its later (though temporary) name Scythopolis an echo of the invasion.[32] Later, Necho, son of Psammetichus, proposed to add to Egypt some of the Assyrian provinces, and marched through Palestine. Josiah at once interposed; it is uncertain whether, in spite of the power of Egypt, he had hopes of extending his kingdom, or whether the famous reformer was, like Manasseh, a vassal of Assyria. The book of Kings gives the standpoint of a later Judaean writer, but Josiah's authority over a much larger area than Judah alone is suggested by xxiii. 19 (part of an addition), and by the references to the border at Riblah in Ezek. vi. 14, xi. 10 seq. He was slain at Megiddo in 608, and Egypt, as in the long-distant past, again held Palestine and Syria. The Judaeans made Jehoahaz (or Shallum) their king, but the Pharaoh banished him to Egypt three months later and appointed his brother Jehoiakim. Shortly afterwards Nineveh fell, and with it the empire which had dominated the fortunes of Palestine for over two centuries (see § 10). Nabonidus (Nabunaid) king of Babylonia (556 B.C.) saw in the disaster the vengeance of the gods for the sacrilege of Sennacherib; the Hebrew prophets, for their part, exulted over Yahweh's far-reaching judgment. The newly formed Chaldean power at once recognized in Necho a dangerous rival and Nabopolassar sent his son Nebuchadrezzar, who overthrew the Egyptian forces at Carchemish (605). The battle was the turning-point of the age, and with it the succession of the new Chaldean or Babylonian kingdom was assured. But the relations between Egypt and Judah were not broken off. The course of events is not clear, but Jehoiakim (q.v.) at all events was inclined to rely upon Egypt. He died just as Nebuchadrezzar, seeing his warnings disregarded, was preparing to lay siege to Jerusalem. His young son Jehoiachin surrendered after a three months' reign, with his mother and the court; they were taken away to Babylonia, together with a number of the artisan class (596). Jehoiakim's brother, Mattaniah or Zedekiah, was set in his place under an oath of allegiance, which he broke, preferring Hophra the new king of Egypt. A few years later the second siege took place. It began on the tenth day of the tenth month, January 587. The looked-for intervention of Egypt was unavailing, although a temporary raising of the siege inspired wild hopes. Desertion, pestilence and famine added to the usual horrors of a siege, and at length on the ninth day of the fourth month 586, a breach was made in the walls. Zedekiah fled towards the Jordan valley but was seized and taken to Nebuchadrezzar at Riblah (45 m. south of Hamath). His sons were slain before his eyes, and he himself was blinded and carried off to Babylon after a reign of eleven years. The Babylonian Nebuzaradan was sent to take vengeance upon the rebellious city, and on the seventh day of the fifth month 586 B.C. Jerusalem was destroyed. The Temple, palace and city buildings were burned, the walls broken down, the chief priest Seraiah, the second priest Zephaniah, and other leaders were put to death, and a large body of people was again carried away. The disaster became the great epoch-making event for Jewish history and literature.

Throughout these stormy years the prophet Jeremiah (q.v.) had realized that Judah's only hope lay in submission to Babylonia. Stigmatized as a traitor, scorned and even imprisoned, he had not ceased to utter his warnings to deaf ears, although Zedekiah himself was perhaps open to persuasion. Now the penalty had been paid, and the Babylonians, whose policy was less destructive than that of Assyria, contented themselves with appointing as governor a certain Gedaliah. The new centre was Mizpah, a commanding eminence and sanctuary, about 5 m. N.W. of Jerusalem; and here Gedaliah issued an appeal to the people to be loyal to Babylonia and to resume their former peaceful occupations. The land had not been devastated, and many gladly returned from their hiding-places in Moab, Edom and Ammon. But discontented survivors of the royal family under Ishmael intrigued with Baalis, king of Ammon. The plot resulted in the murder of Gedaliah and an unsuccessful attempt to carry off various princesses and officials who had been left in the governor's care. This new confusion and a natural fear of Babylonia's vengeance led many to feel that their only safety lay in flight to Egypt, and, although warned by Jeremiah that even there the sword would find them, they fled south and took refuge in Tahpanhes (Daphnae, q.v.), afterwards forming small settlements in other parts of Egypt. But the thread of the history is broken, and apart from an allusion to the favour shown to the captive Jehoiachin (with which the books of Jeremiah and Kings conclude), there is a gap in the records, and subsequent events are viewed from a new standpoint (§ 20).

The last few years of the Judaean kingdom present several difficult
problems.

(a) That there was some fluctuation of tradition is evident in the
case of Jehoiakim, with whose quiet end (2 Kings xxiv. 6 [see also
Lucian]; 2 Chron. xxxvi. 8 [Septuagint]) contrast the fate
foreshadowed in Jer. xxii. 18 seq., xxxvi. 30 (cf. Jos. _Ant._ x. 6, 2
seq.). The tradition of his captivity (2 Chron. xxxvi. 6; Dan. i. 2)
has apparently confused him with Jehoiachin, and the latter's reign is
so brief that some overlapping is conceivable. Moreover, the prophecy
in Jer. xxxiv. 5 that Zedekiah would die in peace is not borne out by
the history, nor does Josiah's fate agree with the promise in 2 Kings
xxii. 20. There is also an evident relation between the pairs:
Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin and Zedekiah (e.g. length of
reigns), and the difficulty felt in regard to the second and third is
obvious in the attempts of the Jewish historian Josephus to provide a
compromise. The contemporary prophecies ascribed to Jeremiah and
Ezekiel require careful examination in this connexion, partly as
regards their traditional background (especially the headings and
setting), and partly for their contents, the details of which
sometimes do not admit of a literal interpretation in accordance with
our present historical material (cf. Ezek. xix. 3-9, where the two
brothers carried off to Egypt and Babylon respectively would seem to
be Jehoahaz and his nephew Jehoiachin).

(b) Some fluctuation is obvious in the number, dates and extent of the
deportations. Jer. lii. 28-30 gives a total of 4600 persons, in
contrast to 2 Kings xxiv. 14, 16 (the numbers are not inclusive), and
reckons three deportations in the 7th (? 17th), 18th and 23rd years of
Nebuchadrezzar. Only the second is specifically said to be from
Jerusalem (the remaining are of Judaeans), and the last has been
plausibly connected with the murder of Gedaliah, an interval of five
years being assumed. For this twenty-third year Josephus (_Ant._ x. 9,
7) gives an invasion of Egypt and an attack upon Ammon, Moab and
Palestine (see NEBUCHADREZZAR).

(c) That the exile lasted seventy years (? from 586 B.C. to the
completion of the second temple) is the view of the canonical history
(2 Chron. xxxvi. 21; Jer. xxv. 11, xxix. 10; Zech. i. 12; cf. Tyre,
Isa. xxiii. 15), but it is usually reckoned from the first
deportation, which was looked upon as of greater significance than the
second (Jer. xxiv. xxix.), and it may be a round number. Another
difficulty is the interpretation of the 40 years in Ezek. iv. 6 (cf.
Egypt, xxix. 11), and the 390 in _v._ 5 (Septuagint 150 or 190; 130 in
Jos. x. 9, 7 end). A period of fifty years is allowed by the
chronological scheme (1 Kings vi. 1; cf. Jos. c. _Ap._ i. 21), and the
late book of Baruch (vi. 3) even speaks of seven generations. Varying
chronological schemes may have been current and some weight must be
laid upon the remarkable vagueness of the historical information in
later writings (see DANIEL).

(d) The attitude of the neighbouring peoples constitutes another
serious problem (cf. 2 Kings xxiv. 2 and 2 Chron. xxxvi. 5, where
Lucian's recension and the Septuagint respectively add the
Samaritans!), in view of the circumstances of Gedaliah's appointment
(Jer. xl. 11, see above) as contrasted with the frequent prophecies
against Ammon, Moab and Edom which seem to be contemporary (see EDOM;
MOAB).

(e) Finally, the recurrence of similar historical situations in
Judaean history must be considered. The period under review, with its
relations between Judah and Egypt, can be illustrated by prophecies
ascribed to a similar situation in the time of Hezekiah. But the
destruction of Jerusalem is not quite unique, and somewhat later we
meet with indirect evidence for at least one similar disaster upon
which the records are silent. There are a number of apparently related
passages which, however, on internal grounds, are unsuitable to the
present period, and when they show independent signs of a later date
(in their present form), there is a very strong probability that they
refer to such subsequent disasters. The scantiness of historical
tradition makes a final solution impossible, but the study of these
years has an important bearing on the history of the later Judaean
state, which has been characteristically treated from the standpoint
of exiles who returned from Babylonia and regard themselves as the
kernel of "Israel." From this point of view, the desire to intensify
the denudation of Palestine and the fate of its remnant, and to look
to the Babylonian exiles for the future, can probably be recognized in
the writings attributed to contemporary prophets.[33]

18. _Internal Conditions and the Exile._--Many of the exiles accepted their lot and settled down in Babylonia (cf. Jer. xxix. 4-7); Jewish colonies, too, were being founded in Egypt. The agriculturists and herdsmen who had been left in Palestine formed, as always, the staple population, and it is impossible to imagine either Judah or Israel as denuded of its inhabitants. The down-trodden peasants were left in peace to divide the land among them, and new conditions arose as they took over the ownerless estates. But the old continuity was not entirely broken; there was a return to earlier conditions, and life moved more freely in its wonted channels. The fall of the monarchy involved a reversion to a pre-monarchical state. It had scarcely been otherwise in Israel. The Israelites who had been carried off by the Assyrians were also removed from the cult of the land (cf. 1 Sam. xxvi. 19; Ruth i. 15 seq.). It is possible that some had escaped by taking timely refuge among their brethren in Judah; indeed, if national tradition availed, there were doubtless times when Judah cast its eye upon the land with which it had been so intimately connected. It would certainly be unwise to draw a sharp boundary line between the two districts; kings of Judah could be tempted to restore the kingdom of their traditional founder, or Assyria might be complaisant towards a faithful Judaean vassal. The character of the Assyrian domination over Israel must not be misunderstood; the regular payment of tribute and the provision of troops were the main requirements, and the position of the masses underwent little change if an Assyrian governor took the place of an unpopular native ruler. The two sections of the Hebrews who had had so much in common were scarcely severed by a border-line only a few miles to the north of Jerusalem. But Israel after the fall of Samaria is artificially excluded from the Judaean horizon, and lies as a foreign land, although Judah itself had suffered from the intrusion of foreigners in the preceding centuries of war and turmoil, and strangers had settled in her midst, had formed part of the royal guard, or had even served as janissaries (§ 15, end).

Samaria had experienced several changes in its original population,[34] and an instructive story tells how the colonists, in their ignorance of the religion of their new home, incurred the divine wrath. _Cujus regio ejus religio_--settlement upon a new soil involved dependence upon its god, and accordingly priests were sent to instruct the Samaritans in the fear of Yahweh. Thenceforth they continued the worship of the Israelite Yahweh along with their own native cults (2 Kings 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 preserved of their origin and of the circumstances of their entry would be retold from a new standpoint; the ethnological traditions would gain a new meaning; the assimilation would in time become complete. In view of subsequent events it would be difficult to find a more interesting subject of inquiry than the internal religious and sociological conditions in Samaria at this age.

To the prophets the religious position was lower in Judah than in Samaria, whose iniquities were less grievous (Jer. iii. 11 seq., xxiii. 11 sqq.; Ezek. xvi. 51). The greater 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. To this catastrophe may be due the fragmentary character of old Judaean historical traditions. Moreover, the land was purified when it became divorced from the practices of a luxurious court and lost many of its worst inhabitants. In Israel as in Judah 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 condemned because of the attitude of lofty prophets in advance of their age. When there were sects like the Rechabites (Jer. xxxv.), when the Judaean fields could produce a Micah or a Zephaniah, and when Israel no doubt 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. 16). In the quiet smaller sanctuaries the old-time beliefs were maintained, and the priests, often perhaps of the older native stock (cf. 2 Kings xvii. 28 and above), were the recognized guardians of the religious cults. The old stories of earlier days encircle places which, though denounced for their corruption, were 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. In the domestic circles of prophetic communities the part played by their great heads in history did not suffer in the telling, and it is probable that some part at least of the extant history of the Israelite kingdom passed through the hands of men whose interest lay in the pre-eminence of their seers and their beneficent deeds on behalf of these small communities. This interest and the popular tone of the history may be combined with the fact that the literature does not take us into the midst of that world of activity in which the events unfolded themselves.

Although the records preserve complete silence upon the period now
under review, it is necessary to free oneself from the narrow outlook
of the later Judaean compilers. It is a gratuitous assumption that the
history of (north) Israel ceased with the fall of Samaria or that
Judah then took over Israelite literature and inherited the old
Israelite spirit: the question of the preservation of earlier writings
is of historical importance. It is true that the situation in Israel
or Samaria continues obscure, but a careful study of literary
productions, evidently not earlier than the 7th century B.C., reveals
a particular loftiness of conception and a tendency which finds its
parallels in Hosea and approximates the peculiar characteristics of
the Deuteronomic school of thought. But the history which the Judaean
writers have handed down is influenced by the later hostility between
Judah and Samaria. The traditional bond between the north and south
which nothing could efface (cf. Jos. _Ant._, xi. 8, 6) has been
carried back to the earliest ages; yet the present period, after the
age of rival kingdoms, Judah and Israel, and before the foundation of
Judaism, is that in which the historical background for the inclusion
of Judah among the "sons" of Israel is equally suitable (§§ 5, 20,
end). The circumstances favoured a closer alliance between the people
of Palestine, and a greater prominence of the old holy places (Hebron,
Bethel, Shechem, &c.), of which the ruined Jerusalem would not be one,
and the existing condition of Judah and Israel from internal and
non-political points of view--not their condition in the
pre-monarchical ages--is the more crucial problem in biblical
history.[35]

19. _Persian Period._[36]--The course of events from the middle of the 6th century B.C. to the close of the Persian period is lamentably obscure, although much indirect evidence indicates that this age holds the key to the growth of written biblical history. 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. The problems are of unusual intricacy and additional light is needed from external evidence. It will be convenient to turn to this first. Scarcely 40 years after the destruction of Jerusalem, a new power appeared in the east in the person of Cyrus the Great. Babylon speedily fell (539 B.C.) and a fresh era opened. To the petty states this meant only a change of masters; they now became part of one of the largest empires of antiquity. The prophets who had marked in the past the advent of Assyrians and Chaldeans now fixed their eyes upon the advance of Cyrus, confident that the fall of Babylon would bring the restoration of their fortunes. Cyrus was hailed as the divinely appointed saviour, the anointed one of Yahweh. The poetic imagery in which the prophets clothed the doom of Babylon, like the romantic account of Herodotus (i. 191), falls short of the simple contemporary account of Cyrus himself. He did not fulfil the detailed predictions, and the events did not reach the ideals of Hebrew writers; but these anticipations may have influenced the form which the Jewish traditions subsequently took. Nevertheless, if Cyrus was not originally a Persian and was not a worshipper of Yahweh (Isa. xli. 25), he was at least tolerant towards subject races and their religions, and the persistent traditions unmistakably point to the honour in which his memory was held. Throughout the Persian supremacy Palestine was necessarily influenced by the course of events in Phoenicia and Egypt (with which intercourse was continual), and some light may thus be indirectly thrown on its otherwise obscure political history. Thus, when Cambyses, the son of Cyrus, made his great expedition against Egypt, with the fleets of Phoenicia and Cyprus and with the camels of the Arabians, it is highly probable that Palestine itself was concerned. Also, the revolt which broke out in the Persian provinces at this juncture may have extended to Palestine; although the usurper Darius encountered his most serious opposition in the north and north-east of his empire. An outburst of Jewish religious feeling is dated in the second year of Darius (520), but whether Judah was making a bold bid for independence or had received special favour for abstaining from the above revolts, external evidence alone can decide. Towards the close of the reign of Darius there was a fresh revolt in Egypt; it was quelled by Xerxes (485-465), who did not imitate the religious tolerance of his predecessors. Artaxerxes I. Longimanus (465-425), attracts attention because the famous Jewish reformers Ezra and Nehemiah flourished under a king of this name. Other revolts occurred in Egypt, and for these and also for the rebellion of the Persian satrap Megabyzos (c. 448-447), independent evidence for the position of Judah is needed, since a catastrophe apparently befell the unfortunate state before Nehemiah appears upon the scene. Little is known of the mild and indolent Artaxerxes II. Mnemon (404-359). With the growing weakness of the Persian empire Egypt reasserted its independence for a time. In the reign of Artaxerxes III. Ochus (359-338), Egypt, Phoenicia and Cyprus were in revolt; the rising was quelled without mercy, and the details of the vengeance are valuable for the possible fate of Palestine itself. The Jewish historian Josephus (_Ant._ xi. 7) records the enslavement of the Jews, the pollution of the Temple by a certain Bagoses (see BAGOAS), and a seven years' punishment. Other late sources narrate the destruction of Jericho and a deportation of the Jews to Babylonia and to Hyrcania (on the Caspian Sea). The evidence for the catastrophes under Artaxerxes I. and III. (see ARTAXERXES), exclusively contained in biblical and in external tradition respectively, is of particular importance, since several biblical passages refer to disasters similar to those of 586 but presuppose different conditions and are apparently of later origin.[37] The murder of Artaxerxes III. by Bagoses gave a set-back to the revival of the Persian Empire. Under Darius Codomannus (336-330) the advancing Greek power brought matters to a head, and at the battle of Issus in 333 Alexander settled its fate. The overthrow of Tyre and Gaza secured the possession of the coast and the Jewish state entered upon the Greek period. (See § 25.)

During these two centuries the Jews in Palestine had been only one of
an aggregate of subject peoples enjoying internal freedom provided in
return for a regular tribute. They lived in comparative quietude;
although Herodotus knows the Palestinian coast he does not mention the
Jews. The earlier Persian kings acknowledged the various religions of
the petty peoples; they were also patrons of their temples and would
take care to preserve an ancient right of asylum or the privileges of
long-established cults.[38] Cyrus on entering Babylon had even
restored the gods to the cities to which they belonged.[39]
Consequently much interest attaches to the evidence which illustrates
the environment of the Jews during this period. Those who had been
scattered from Palestine lived in small colonies, sometimes mingling
and intermarrying with the natives, sometimes strictly preserving
their own individuality. Some took root in the strange lands, and, as
later popular stories indicate, evidently reached high positions;
others, retaining a more vivid tradition of the land of their fathers,
cherished the ideal of a restored Jerusalem. Excavation at Nippur
(q.v.) in Babylonia has brought to light numerous contract tablets of
the 5th century B.C. with Hebrew proper names (Haggai, Hanani,
Gedaliah, &c.). Papyri from Elephantine in Upper Egypt, of the same
age, proceed from Jewish families who carry on a flourishing business,
live among Egyptians and Persians, and take their oaths in courts of
law in the name of the god "Yahu," the "God of Heaven," whose temple
dated from the last Egyptian kings. Indeed, it was claimed that
Cambyses had left the sanctuary unharmed but had destroyed the temples
of the Egyptians. In Elephantine, as in Nippur, the legal usages show
that similar elements of Babylonio-Assyrian culture prevailed, and the
evidence from two such widely separated fields is instructive for
conditions in Palestine itself.[40]

20. _The Restoration of Judah._--The biblical history for the Persian period is contained in a new source--the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, whose standpoint and period are that of Chronicles, with which they are closely joined. After a brief description of the fall of Jerusalem the "seventy years" of the exile are passed over, and we are plunged into a history of the return (2 Chron. xxxvi.; Ezra i.). Although Palestine had not been depopulated, and many of the exiled Jews remained in Persia, the standpoint is that of those who returned from Babylon. Settled in and around Jerusalem, they look upon themselves as the sole community, the true Israel, even as it was believed that once before Israel entered and developed independently in the land of its ancestors. They look back from the age when half-suppressed hostility with Samaria had broken out, and when an exclusive Judaism had been formed. The interest of the writers is as usual in the religious history; they were indifferent to, or perhaps rather ignorant of, the strict order of events. Their narratives can be partially supplemented from other sources (Haggai; Zechariah i.-viii.; Isa. xl.-lxvi.; Malachi), but a consecutive sketch is impossible.[41]

In 561 B.C. the captive Judaean king, Jehoiachin, had received special marks of favour from Nebuchadrezzar's son Amil-marduk. So little is known of this act of recognition that its significance can only be conjectured. A little later Tyre received as its king Merbaal (555-552) who had been fetched from Babylonia. Babylonia was politically unsettled, the representative of the Davidic dynasty had descendants; if Babylon was assured of the allegiance of Judah further acts of clemency may well have followed. But the later recension of Judaean history--our sole source--entirely ignores the elevation of Jehoiachin (2 Kings xxv. 27 sqq.; Jer. lii. 31-34), and proceeds at once to the first year of Cyrus, who proclaims as his divine mission the rebuilding of the Temple (538). The Judaean Sheshbazzar (a corruption of some Babylonian name) brought back the Temple vessels which Nebuchadrezzar had carried away and prepared to undertake the work at the expense of the royal purse. An immense body of exiles is said to have returned at this time 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. 13-vi. 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, came forward to kindle the Judaeans to new efforts, and in spite of opposition the work went steadily onwards, thanks to the favour of Darius, until the Temple was completed four years later (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 vineyards, 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 is still upon the unfortunate city and that Persia is 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 (_Stud. u. Krit._, 1867, pp. 460-504), that the compiler's representation of the history is untrustworthy. His main object is to make the new Israel, the post-exilic community at Jerusalem, continuous, as a society, with the old Israel.[42] Greater weight must be laid upon the independent evidence of the prophetical writings, and the objection that Palestine could not have produced the religious fervency of Haggai or Zechariah without an initial impulse from Babylonia begs the question. Unfortunately the internal conditions in the 6th century B.C. can be only indirectly estimated (§ 18), 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. 24 with Jer. xxii. 23). Zechariah, 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 questions of inference.

A work which inculcates the dependence of the state upon the purity of
its ruler is the unfinished book of Kings with its history of the
Davidic dynasty and the Temple. Its ideals culminate in Josiah (§ 16,
end), and there is a strong presumption that it is intended to impress
upon the new era the lessons drawn from the past. Its treatment of the
monarchy is only part of a great and now highly complicated literary
undertaking (traceable in the books Joshua to Kings), inspired with
the thought and coloured by language characteristic of Deuteronomy
(especially the secondary portions), which forms the necessary
introduction. Whatever reforms Josiah actually accomplished, the
restoration afforded the opportunity of bringing the Deuteronomic
teaching into action; though it is more probable that Deuteronomy
itself in the main is not much earlier than the second half of the 6th
century B.C.[43] It shows a strong nationalist feeling which is not
restricted to Judah alone, but comprises a greater Israel from Kadesh
in Naphtali in the north to Hebron in the south, and even extends
beyond the Jordan. Distinctive non-Judaean features are included, as
in the Samaritan liturgical office (Deut. xxvii. 14-26), and the
evidence for the conclusion that traditions originally of (north)
Israelite interest were taken over and adapted to the later standpoint
of Judah and Jerusalem (viz. in the Deuteronomic book of Kings)
independently confirms the inferences drawn from Deuteronomy itself.
The absence of direct testimony can be partially supplied by later
events which presuppose the break-up of no inconsiderable state, and
imply relations with Samaria which had been by no means so unfriendly
as the historians represent. A common ground for Judaism and
Samaritanism is obvious, and it is in this obscure age that it is to
be sought. But the curtain is raised for too brief an interval to
allow of more than a passing glimpse at the restoration of Judaean
fortunes; not until the time of Nehemiah, about 140 years after the
fall of Jerusalem, does the historical material become less imperfect.