Andent Assyrian Prooeesion of Captives.
ment of tribute. But if in such a eaae the Ungs le- belled, they were treated with the greatest severity (Gen. xiv, 4-11; 2 Kings xxiu, 84; xxiv, 1-14; Isa. xxiv, 2 ; Jer. xx, 5, 6). See Tkiumph.
CaptiTrity (properly some form of the root Ttys}, ikabah', to tdl» captwe ; but frequently expressed by other Heb. words). The following account is chiefly compiled ttom the articles in Kitto and Smith, a. v. The bondage (q. v.) of Israel in Egypt, and their sub- jugation at diflerent times by the Philistines and other nations [see Judges], are sometimes included under the above title; and the Jews themselves, perhaps with reference to Daniel's visloii (ch. vii), reckon their national captivities as four— the Babylo- nian, Median, Grecian, and Ro- man (Eisenmenger, Enideckte$ Judentkttm, i, 748). But the pop- ular distinction usually confines the term to the conquest and dispersion of the ** ten northern" tril>es by the Assyrians, the sob- sequent deportation of the re- maining "two tribes" by the Babylonians, and the final dismp. tion of the entire Jewish polity by the Romans. See Captia-e. The word Ccqaikntff^ as applied to the people of Isra- el, has been appropriated, contrary to the analogy of our language, to mean Expatriation. The violent re- moval of the entire population of a city, or sometimes even of a district, is not an uncommon event in an- cient history. As a measure of policy, no obj€<;tion to it on the ground of humanity was felt by any one, since, in fact, it was a very mild proceeding, in com- parison with that of selling a tribe or nation into sla- very. Every such destruction of national existence, even in modem times, is apt to be embittered by the simultaneous disruption of religious bonds ; but in the ancient world, the positive sanctity attributed to spe- cial 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 circumstao- ces. Two principal motives impelled conquering pow- ers thus to transport families in the mass : first, the desire of rapidly filling with a valuable population now cities, built for pride or for policy ; next, the de- termination to break up hostile organizations, or dan- gerous reminiscences of past greatness. Both mi^t sometimes be combined in the same act. To attain the former object, the skilled artisans would in partio- ular be carried off; while the latter was better eflfected by transporting all the families of the highest buth, and all the well-trained soldiery. The Greeks nsed the special epithet avaffvatrroi for a population thos removed (Herod, vi, 98, passim).
I. Assyrian Captivity of "Israel." — 1. Ttg Oc- currence.— ^The kingdom of Israel was invaded by three or four successive kings of Assyria. Pul or Sardan»- palus, according to H. Raw- linson (Otdime of A9mfriam History^ p. 14 ; but comp. G. Rawlinson, fTerodotea, i, 466),imposed a tribute, B.C. cir. 762, upon Menahem (1 Chron. v, 26, and 2 Kfaigs XV, 19). TigUth-Pfleser carried away, B.C. cir. 788, the trans-Jordanic tribes (1 Chron. V, 26) and the inhab- itants of Galilee (2 Kings XV, 29 ; compare Isa. ix, 1)
CAPTIVITT
109
CAPTIVITT
to Anyria. Shalmamwer twice iiiTBded (2 Kinj:^ xyii, 8) 5) the kingdom which lemAined to Hoshea, took S»- oariA, B.C. 720, alter a siege of three yean, and car- liBd Israel awaj into Aasjria. See Hoshka. In an iDMription interpreted by Bawlinson {Herodohu, i, 472), tbs captore of Samaria is claimed by king Sargon (Isa. zz, 1) as his own achioTement. The cities of Sama- ria were occupied by ]>eople sent from Babylon, Co- thah, Ara, Hamath, and Sq)harvaim ; andHalah,Ha- bor, Hara, and the river of Gosan became the seats of the ezOed Israelites. See Isbabl, kuvodom of.
The theofj of this history is, that in the time of these conquering nionarchs Assyria was rapidly rising into power, and to aggrandise Nineveh was probably a great object of policy. It is therefore credible, as Tiglstb-Pileser had recelred no particular provocation from the Israelites, that he carried off those masses of population to stock his huge city with. His success- or Shalmaneser made the Israelitish king Hoshea trib- utary. When the tribute was withheld, he attacked and reduced Samaria, and, by way of punishment and of prevention, transported into Assyria and Media its king and all the oHwt valuable population remaining to the ten tribes (9 Kings xvii, 6). That he did not carry off all the peasants is probable from the nature of the case ; Hengstenberg, however, maintains the ooBtrary (G&Munatest qftkt Penlateuch, i, 71 sq. Edinb. tr.). The fiunilies thus removed were in a great meas- ure fettled in very distant cities, many of them proba- bly not fkr fnm the Caspian Sea, and their place was npplied by colonies fixim Babylon and Susis (2 Kings xvii, 24). See Asstbia.
1 Condition of the Asmftim Capthei. -^Tbh was probably not essentially diffarent in its external cir- niirwtancea frxmi that of their Judatte brethren sub- Beqaently during the exOe in Babylon. (See below.) We know nothing, except by inference ft^ the book of Tobit (q. v.), of the religious or social state of the Israelitish exiles in Assjrria. Doubtleas the constant policy of seventeen successive kings had effectually estranged the people frtmi that religion which centred in the Temple, and had reduced the number of ikithfnl BMn below the 7000 who were revealed for the conso- lation of Elijah. Some priests at least were among them (2 Kings xvii, 28), though it is not certain that these were of the tribe of Levi (1 Kings xii, 81). The people had been nurtured for 250 years in idolatry in their own land, where they departed not (2 Kings xvii, 23) from the sins of Jeroboam, notwithstanding the proximity of the Temple, and the succession of in- spired prophets (2 Kings xvii, 18) among them. De- prived of these checks on their natural inclinations (2 Kmgs xvii, 15), torn from their native soil, destitute ef a henditary king, they probably became more and more dosely assimilated to their heathen neighbors in Media. And when, after the lapse of more than a eeotory, they were joined by the first exiles from Je- rasalein, very few ftmilies probably retained sufficient fiuA in the God of their fkthers to appreciate and fol- low the instruction of Ezektel. But whether they veie many or few, their genealogies were probably lest, a fiision of tiiem with the Jews took place, Israel oeasmg to envy Jadah (Isa. xi, 18) ; and Ezekiel may have aeen his own symbolical prophecy (xxxvii, IS- 19) partly fhlfflled.