Egypt's triumph was short. Nebuchadrezzar, the son of Nabopola-ssar, swept Necoh out of Syria, and made Judah transfer its allegiance to Babylon. Twice Judah proved faithless to its new lord. The first revolt was punished heavily enough. Jeru- salem was taken, the golden vessels of tlie temple were made a spoil, and Jehoiakini's son and suc- cessor Jehoiachin was carried into captivity to Babylon with his oflicers, his mighty men, and all the skilled artilicers — 10,000 captives in all (cf. Jer 24'"'). Nebuchadrezzar appointed as king in Judah Zedekiah (a son of Josiah), and Imund him with an oath of fealty (cf. Ezk I"'"-). B»t Zede- kiah was too unstable to keep an oath, and too weak to resist the temptation of an alliance with Egypt. After a disordered reign of eleven years, during which the princes ruled rather than the king (Jer 38°- ■^), the Babylonians took Jerusjilera by blockade, blinded Zedekiah, slew his ollicers, burned the temple, broke down the city walls, and carried away a number of captives (.ler 52*'*", Heb. nut L>lX B). A poor remnant of the people was left to prevent the lami from relapsing into desert, and Gedaliah, son of Ahikam (the {uitron of .leremiah), was ap|)ointcJ 'overseer' ('governor' would have been too grand a title) over them (Jer 40"'-).
This— the catastrophe of Jerusalem — took place r. .SST li.C, hut it must l>e rcmcniliered that Judah had been falling ever since the days of Ahaz. In fact the Southern kingdom slowly blol to death from the moment when its isolation wan broken down by the dying struggles of the Northern king- dom under IVkah (2 K IS" 16», cf. Is 7'"). In
514
ISRAEL, HISTORY OF
ISRAEL, HISTORY OF
particular, Judah never recovered from the brutal devastation wrouglit by Scnnaclierib, when 46 fortilied towns were tivken and 200, loO persons led captive (A'/iJ p. 94 f. ; cf . 2 K I8'»- ^). We cannot form any satisfactory estimate of tlie numbers carried oil' at various times by the CliaKhcans, for the passage (Jer o^^'*") which contains the most precise statements on this point is absent from LXX BsA, and is in conflict with 2 K 24" ; but it seems probable tliat the Cliald.'can ravages were less extensive than the Assyrian, because tlie popu- lation had dwindled, and prosperity had diminished in the meantime. (See, further, Kosters, ThT xxxi. (1897) 518 ir.).
10. The Exile and the Return. — The captivity of Judah, reckoned from the fall of Jehoiatliin (B.C. 597), lasted 59 years, or from the fall of Zedekiah (B.C. 587), 49 years, reckoning B.C. 538 as the prob- able terminus ad nnem. The ' seventy ' j'ears of Jer 25'- is a round number. Of theconditionof the Jews in exile we have contradictory indications, from which we may conclude that the circumstances varied in dili'erent places and at ditl'erent times. The first band of exiles were allowed to ' build houses and plant gardens' (Jer 29"), and to live in communities of their own (Ezr 8", Ezk 1') under their own elders (Ezk 8' 14' 20'). Jehoiachin, after thirty-six years of captivity, received special marks of favour from Evil - Merodach (Amil- Marduk), the successor of Neuucliadrezzar (2 K 25'"''-). On the other hand, seditious prophets from time to time provoked theChaldaeans to cruel acts of repression (Jer 29-"-), and it is probable that some at least of the Jews were put to task- work, for the ' hard service ' (Is 14*') wherein Israel wius made to serve, looks like an allusion to Nebu- chadrezzar's canal-works or temple-restoration, or to like undertakings of his successors, especially Nabuna'id (Nabonidus) (KIB iii. 2, p. 60 tl'., p. 9611'.). Yet that the lot of many Jewish families (after the first bitterness of expatriation was past) was at least tolerable in Babylonia, is clear from the fact that a considerable number of Jews (the vast majority, according to some critics) did not take part in the First Return under Sheshbazzar.
With reftard to the Return a good deal has been written of late years (particularly since 1889) tend- ing towards a reconstruction of the whole narra- tive. It will, however, be most convenient in this article to reproduce the account given in Ezra- Nehemiah, while pointing out from time to time how critics propose to correct and supplement it. In the first year, then, of Cyrus (Ezr 1'), i.e. c. 538 B.C., the ' Persian ' (see Cyeus, vol. i. p. 541 f.) king issued an edict for the rebuilding of the temple at Jerusalem, and invited the Jews to undertake the work. [We may compare with this the mutilated inscription in which Cyrus speaks of his restoration to the cities of Babylonia of gods which Nabonidus had carried off to Babylon (KIB iii. 2, p. 126 f.)]. The heads of Judah and Benjamin, together with the Levites, responded to the invitation, and Cyrus gave up the golden vessels of the temple, which had been carried away by Nebuchadrezzar, to Sheshbazzar (t^ Za^avaaap LXX B, tu -acra^aaaifxf A, Ezr 1» ; Za^a^aircrdpy, 1 Es 2" LXX B, but Zoio- ^laoipifi, LXX A'), 'prince(K"i;ina«)of Judah, 'who brought them back to Jerusalem, together with a band of returning exiles. This — the First Return — resulted, we learn indirectly, in the laying of the foundation of the temple (Ezr 5", but cf. 3*'-), but we do not know the number of those who accom- panied Sheshbazzar, nor any other particulars. It IS, however, negatively clear that the movement was not a success. In Babylonia the edict (in spite of the prophecies of Leutero-Isaiah) probably took the Jews bv surprise, while in Judah (cf. Ezr 4*'-, a misplaced passage) there were ' many ad-