CAPTIVITY (kSp-tIvl-ty), (Ileb.
exile, removal).
(1) Expatriation. The word captivity, as ap plied to the people of Israel, has been appropriated, contrary to the analogy of our language, to mean expatriation The violent removal of the entire population of a city, or sometimes even of a dis trict, is not an uncommon event in ancient history. As a measure of policy, no objection to it on the ground of humanity was felt by anyone; since in fact, it was a very mild proceeding, in compari son with that of selling a trile or nation into slavery. Every such destruction of national ex istence. even in modern times, is apt to he em bittered by the simultaneous disruption of relig ions bonds; hut in the am-kat world. the positive sanctity attributed to special places, and the local attachment of Deity. made expatriation doubly severe. The Hebrew people. for instance, in most vital points, could no longer obey their sacred law at all, when personally removed from Jerusalem; and in many others they were forced to modify it by reason of their change of cir cumstances.
Two principal motives impelled conquering powers thus to transport families in the mass: first, the desire of rapidly filling with a valuable population new cities, built for pride or for policy ; next, the determination to break up hostile or ganizations, or dangerous reminiscences of past greatness.
The expatriation of the Jewish people belongs to two great eras, commonly called the first and second Captivity ; yet differing exceedingly in character. It is to the former that the above re marks chiefly apply. In it, the prime of the na tion were carried eastward by the monarchs of Assyria and Babylon, and were treated with no unnecessary harshness, even under the dynasty that captured them. So far were they from the condition of bondsmen, which the word 'captive' suggests, that the book of Susanna represents their elders in Babylon as retaining the power of life and death over their own people (i:28), when Daniel was as yet a very young man. The au thority of that book cannot, indeed, be pressed, as to the chronology; yet the notices given by Eze kiel (xiv :1 ; xx :I) concur in the general fact, that they still held an internal jurisdiction over their own members.
(2) First Captivity. That which we name the first Captivity, was by no means brought about by a single removal of the population. In fact, from beginning to end, the period of deportation occupied full 15o years; as the period of return reaches probably through too. The first blow fell upon the more distant tribes of Israel, about B. C.; when Tiglath-pileser, king of Assyria (2 Kings xv :29), carried off the pastoral popula tion which lived beyond the Jordan, with Zebulun and Napluali. To this event allusion is made in Isaiah Ix:1; a passage very ill translated in our received version. In the time of this conquering monarch, Assyria was rapidly rising into power, and to aggrandize Nineveh was probably a great object of policy. His successor, Shalmaneser, made the Israelitish king Hoshea tributary. When the tribute was withheld, he attacked and reduced Samaria (B. C. 721), and by way of pun ishment and of prevention, transported into As syria and Media its king and all the most population remaining to the ten tribes (2 Kings xvii :6). The families thus removed were, in great measure, settled in very distant cities; many of them probably not far from the Caspian Sea ; and their place was supplied by colonies from Baby lon and Susis (2 Kings xvii:24)• (3) Second Captivity. Such was the end of Israel as a kingdom. An interval of more than a century followed before Judah was to suffer a similar fate. Two separate deportations are nar rated in the book of Kings, three in that of Jeremiah, while a fourth and earlier one appears in the hook of Daniel. Jeremiah dates by the
years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign (who came to the throne B. C. 6o5 or 6041, and estimates that in his seventh year 3,023 were carried off, in his eighteenth 832, and in his twenty-third only 745; making in all, as the writer is careful to note, 4,600 (Ter. lii :28, etc.). The third removal he ascribes to Nebuzaradan, the Babylonian general. That some error here exists, at least in the num bers, appears undeniable; for 4,60o persons was a very petty fraction of the Jewish people ; and, in fact, 42.36o are stated to have returned im mediately upon the decree of Cyrus (Ezra ii :64). In 2 Kings xxiv :8-16, we find 18.000 carried off at once, in the third month of king Jehoiachin, and in the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar ; w'iich evidently is the same as the first removal named by Jeremiah, and may be placed in B. C. 598. After this, the vassal king Zedekiah having re belled, his city is beleaguered, and, finally, in his eleventh year, is reduced (B. C. 588) by Nebu chadnezzar in person; and in the course of the same year, the nineteenth of Nebuchadnezzar' (2 Kings xxv :8). Nebuzaradan carries away all the population except the peasants. Perhaps we need not wonder that no mention is made in the 'Kings' of the third deportation; for the ac count of the destruction was in a manner com plete upon the second invasion. There is a greater difficulty in the statement with which the book of Daniel opens, which is generally inter preted to meanthat in the thbd year of Jehoiakim Nebuchadnezzar besieged and captured Jerusalem, partially plundered the temple and carried off the first portion of the people into captivity, among whom was Daniel. The text, however, does not explicitly say so much, although such is the ob- vious meaning; but if this is the only interpreta tion, we find it in direct collision with the books of Kings and Chronicles (which assign to Jehoia kiln an eleven years' reign), as also with Jeremiah xxv:1). The statement in Daniel partially rests on 2 Chron. xxxvi :5, which is itself not in per fect accordance with 2 Kings xxiv. In the earlier history, the war broke out during the reign of Jehoiakim, who died before its close; and when his son and successor, Jehoiachin, had reigned three months, the city and its king were captured. But in the Chronicles, the same event is made to happen twice over, at an interval of three months and ten days (2 Chron. xxxvi :6 and 9), and even so, we do not obtain accordance with the received interpretation of Daniel It seems, on the whole the easiest supposition, that the third year of Jelioiaki-e is there a mis take for the third month of Jehoiachin. On the whole, it is pretty clear that the people of Judah, as of Israel, were carried out of their land by two principal removals. The former, B. C. 598, was directed to swell the armies and strengthen the towns of the conqueror ; for of the 18,000 then carried away, t,000 were 'craftsmen and smiths, all strong and apt for war,' and the rest are called 'mighty men of valor.' (Yet there is a difficulty about verses 14 and 16 in 2 Kings xxiv). It was not until the rebellion of Zedekiah that Nebuchadnezzar proceeded to the extremity of breaking up the national existence, B. C. 588. As the temple was then burnt, with all the palaces and the city walls, and no government was left but that of the Babylonian satrap, this latter date is evidently the true era of the captivity. Pre viously Zedekiah was tributary ; but so were Jo siah and Aliaz long before; the national existence was still saved.