When Israel began to regain confidence, its policy halted be tween obedience to Assyria and reliance upon Egypt—though whether Mizraim (q.v.) refers to Egypt proper or includes some more easterly area is open to dispute. The situation is illustrated in the writings of Hosea (q.v.). Tiglath-pileser died in 727 and 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 V. The alliance with So (Seveh, Sibi) of "Egypt," upon whom hopes had been placed, proved futile, and the fore bodings 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 inhabi tants and 5o chariots. Other peoples were introduced, officers were placed in charge, and 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 Rapiti (Raphia) on the border of Egypt, suf ficed to quell the disturbance. The desert peoples who paid trib ute on this occasion still continued restless, and in 715 Sargon removed men of Tamild, Marsiman, Hayapa (cf. the Midianite Ephah, Gen. xxv. 4), "the remote Arabs of the desert," and placed them in the land of Beth-Omri. Sargon's statement is significant for the later history of Samaria ; but the biblical historians take no further interest in the fortunes of the northern kingdom, and see in Judah the sole survivor of the Israelite tribes (see 2 Ki. xvii. 7-23). Yet the situation in this neglected district must continue to provoke enquiry.
II. Judah and Assyria.—Amid these changes the history of Judah was intimately connected with the south Palestinian peoples. Ahaz had recognized the sovereignty of Assyria and visited Tig lathpileser at Damascus. The Temple-records describe the in novations 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 "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 Ki. xx. 12) ; at all events Ashdod fell after a three years' siege (710) 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 Sennacherib's empire in the west was threatened. In both Judah and Philistia the anti Assyrian party was not without opposition, and those who ad hered 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. Hezekiah was besieged and compelled to submit (7oo). 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 further HEZEKIAH).
In the long reign of his son, Manasseh (c. 692), later writers saw the deathblow to the Judaean kingdom. Much is said of his wickedness, but few details have come down. The land was practically under the control of Assyria. Both Esar-haddon (681-669) and Assur-bani-pal (669–c. 626) number among their tributaries Tyre, Ammon, Moab, Edom, Ascalon, Gaza and Manasseh himself, and cuneiform dockets unearthed at Gezer suggest the presence of Assyrian garrisons there, and no doubt also elsewhere. The situation favoured the spread of foreign customs, and the condemnation passed upon Manasseh thus, per haps, becomes more significant. It is possible that Manasseh merely assimilated the older Yahweh-worship to Assyrian f orm; politics and religion were inseparable, and the supremacy of Assyria weakened that of Yahweh.
If Judah was compelled to take part in the Assyrian cam paigns against Egypt, Arabia (the Syrian desert) and Tyre, this would only be in accordance with a vassal's duty. But since 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), it is possible that Judah attempted to regain its liberty. According to Assur-bani-pal all the western lands were inflamed by the revolt of his brother, Shamash-shum ukin. What part Judah took in the Transjordanic disturbances, in which Moab fought invading Arabian tribes on behalf of Assyria, is unknown. Manasseh's son, Amon, fell in a court intrigue and "the people of the land," after avenging the mur der, set up in his place the infant Josiah (637). The circumstances imply a regency; but upon this the records are silent. The decay of Assyria doubtless awoke the national feeling of independence and an account is given of Josiah's religious reforms, based upon a source partly identical with that which describes the work of Jehoash (2 Kings xi. seq.). 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 (cf. Mi. vii. 5), no reforms were possible; but now the young Josiah, the popular choice, was upon the throne. A roll, it was said, had been found in the Temple; its contents terrified 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. The writer, as has been recognized since the days of Jerome, is describing the discovery of Deuteronomy (q.v.). It is, however, very doubtful whether it was the book in its present form; although the bibli cal writer believed that Josiah successfully put down the high places and centralized the religion. In any case Josiah's reforms were of no lasting effect, to judge from Jeremiah (xxv. 3-7, xxxvi. seq.) and Ezekiel (xvi., xxiii.). On the other hand Deuteronomy has a characteristic social-religious side ; its humanity, philan thropy 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 Ki. xi. 17 ; cf. xxiii.3), had entered into a reciprocal covenant with a people who, as Micah's writings would indicate, had suffered grievously.