- CAPTIVITIES. The word Captivity, as ap plied to the people of Israel, has been appro priated, 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 district, 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 any one ; since, in fact, it was a very mild proceeding, in comparison with that of selling a tribe or nation into slavery-. Every such destruction of national existence, even in modern times, is apt to be em bittered by the simultaneous disruption of religious bonds ; but in the ancient world, the positive sanctity attributed to special places, and the local attachment of Deity, made expatriation doubly severe. The Hebrew people, for instance, in many 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 circum stances.
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 organi zations or dangerous reminiscences of past great ness. Both might sometimes be combined in the same act. To attain the former object, the skilled artizans would in particular be carried off ; while the latter was better effected by transporting all the families of the highest birth, and all the well trained soldiery. The Greeks used the special epithet dm:lcrag-rot for a population thus removed (Herod. iii. 93 ; vi. 9, et passim).
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 nation 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 hook 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 authority of that book cannot indeed be pressed as to the chronology ; yet the notices given by Ezekiel (xiv. r ; xx. I) concur in the general fact, that they still held an internal jurisdiction over their own members. At a later time, under the Selencidie, we have distinct proof that in the principal cities the Jews were go. verned by an officer (eOpcipxns) of their own nation ; as also in Egypt under the Ptolemies. The book of Tobit exhibits Ismelities in Media possessed of slaves themselves (viii. 18) ; the book of Daniel tells us of a Jew, in eminent political station ; and that of Esther celebrates their power and conse quence in the Persian empire. Under the Seleu cidx they were occasionally impor tant as garrison-soldiers ; and it may be suspected that, on the whole, their lot was milder than that of the other conquered nations among which they dwelt.
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 150 years ; as the period of return reaches probably through Too. The first blow fell upon the more distant tribes of Israel, about 741 B.C.; when Tiglath. pileser, king of Assyria (2 Kings xv. 29), carried off the pastoral population which lived beyond the Jordan, with Zebulon and Naphtali. (To this event allusion is made in Isaiah ix. I ; 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 Nine veh was probably a great object of policy. It is therefore credible, as ne nad received no particular provocation from the Israelites, that he carried off these masses of population to stock his huge city with. His successor Shalmanezer made the Israel itish king Hoshea tributary. When the tribute was withheld, he attacked and reduced Samaria (B. c. 72T), and, by way of punishment and of pre vention, transported into Assyria and Media its king and all the most valuable population remain ing to the ten tribes (2 Kings xvii. 6). That he
did not carry off all the peasants is probable from the nature of the case ; Hengstenberg, however, maintains the contrary (Authentic des Pentateuches, ch. i. On the Samaritan'). The families thus re moved 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 Babylon and Susis (2 Kings xvii. 24). 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 narrated in the book of Kings, three in that of Jeremiah, while a fourth and earlier one appears in the book of Daniel. Jere miah dates by the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign (who came to the throne B.C. 6o6 or 605), and estimates that in his seventh year 3023 were carried off, in his eighteenth 832, and in his twenty-third only 745 ; making in all, as the writer is careful to note, 4600 (Jer. Ili. 28, etc.) The third removal he ascribes to Nebuzaradan, the Babylonian gene ral. That some error here exists, at least in the numbers, appears undeniable ; for 460o persons was a very petty fraction of the Jewish people ; and, in fact, 42,360 are stated to have returned im mediately upon the decree of Cyrus (Ezra ii. 64). In 2 Kings xxiv. 8-t6, we find 18,000 carried off at once, in the third month of king Jehoiachin, and. in the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar ; which 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 rebelled, his city is beleaguered, and finally in his eleventh year is reduced (B.c. 588) by Nebuchadnezzar in per son ; and in the course of the same year, • the nineteenth of Nebuchadnezzar' (2 Kings xxv. 8), Nebuzaradan carries away all the population ex cept the peasants. Perhaps we need not wonder that no mention is made in the Kings' of the third deportation ; for the account of the destruc tion was in a manner complete, upon the second invasion. There is a greater difficulty in the state ment with which the book of Daniel opens, which is generally interpreted to mean that in the third year of Jehoiakim, Nebuchadnezzar besieged and captured Jerusalem, partially plundered the tem ple, 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 obvious meaning ; but if this is the only interpretation, we find it in direct collision with the books of Kings and Chronicles (which assign to Jehoiakim an eleven years' reign), as also with Jer. xxv. 1. The statement in Daniel par tially rests on 2 Chron. xxxvi, 6 • which is itself not in perfect 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 Dan. i. 1-3. It seems on the whole the easiest supposition, that the third year of Jehoiakim' is there a mistake for the third month of Jehoiachin.' Hengstenberg, however, and Havernick defend the common reading, and think they reconcile it with the other accounts. 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, 1000 were craftsmen and smiths, all strong and apt for war,' and the rest are called mighty men of valour.' (Yet there is a difficulty about verses 14 and 16 in 2 Kings xxiv.) It was not until the rebellion of Zedekiah that Nebuchad nezzar 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. Previously Zedekiah was tributary ; but so were Josiah and Ahaz long be fore ; the national existence was still saved.