(2.) That the country should be swept clean of its inhabitants on the downfall of Samaria seems most im- probable. It is true Eastern conquerors did sometimes utterly destroy cities, and occasionally extirpate whole islands (Herod, iii, 149). And some have thought that such was the general treatment of the conquered bj' the Assyrians (Layard, Nineveh and its Remains, ii, 374); but, as Rawlinson justly remarks, "it appears by the inscriptions that towns were frequently spared, and that the bulk of the inhabitants were generally left in the place" {Five Great Monarchies, i, 304, note). Should it be argued that the conduct of the residents of the city of Samaria was of a character to draw upon them the severest chastisement of their conquerors — an indis- criminate slaughter, with impalement or slavery await- ing the prisoners — there is no reason to suppose that the cities and towns of the provinces met with the same fate. According to the Assyrian inscriptions of Sargon, this removal consisted of only 27,280 families — amount- ing, let us say, to 200,000 individuals — which certainly would not exhaust the land.
It is popularly said and credited that those Assyrians were placed in Samaria by Shalmaneser soon alter the fall of the kingdom ; but this is a mistake. It arose probably from Josephus's statement, who, it seems, was led into this error from the juxtaposition in which the two events are related in the Hebrew text. It is doubt- ful whether Shalmaneser conducted the siege to its end, for there is a supposition that he was treacherously slain by the emissaries of Sargon, who had usurped the throne during his master's absence, and that the siege was terminated under the command of one of his lead- ers. The following expression is remarkable, and would tend to ccmfirm this opinion: "Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, came up against Samaria and besieged it. And at the end of three years they took it" (2 Kings xviii, 9. 10). Sargon, according to the Assyrian inscriptions, claims the victory to himself, as well as the removal of the Samaritans to Assyria (Rawlinson, Jlerodotns, i, 472; comp. Isa. xx, 1). It is a curious and interesting fact, for the knowledge of which we are indebted to Sir H. Rawlinson, that Sargon penetrated far into the inte- rior of Arabia, and, carrying off several Arabian tribes, settled them in Samaria. This explains how (ieshem tlie Arabian came to be associated with Sanballat in the govprumont of .luihva, as well as the mention of Ara- liiaus in the army of Samaria {Illustrations of Egyptian History, etc., in the Trans, of the Roy. Soc. Lit. I860, i, 148, 149). See Saugon. Be this as it may, it is quite certain that some time elapsed from the fall of Samaria to the removal of the Assyrians into its cities. In the Assyrian inscriptions we have a list — probably a complete one — of the monarchs of the latter half of the
SAMARITAN
285
SAMARITAN
Sth and the first half of the 7th century B.C., namely, 'I'iaflath-pileser II, Shalmaiieser II, Sargon, Sennache- rilj, and Esar-haddon. Now the Samaritans themselves attribute their removal to this last-named monarch, " Esar-haddon, king of Assur," " the great and noble As- napper" (Ezra iv, 2, lOj; and of this there can be no reasonable doubt. He invaded Judah in the reign of Manasseh, about B.C. G77, and probably it was this ex- pedition that moved him to place these his subjects in Samaria. As he is conjectured to have died in B.C. G(jO, the transmigration must have taken place some time between these dates. Let us suppose that it oc- curred B.C. 070, and that king .Josiah began his refor- mation B.C. 628. This would have given the strangers a residence of forty-two years. The question now arises. Were these colonists so numerous as to repeople the cit- ies of Israel, from Bethel even to Naphtali? and was it over these that Josiah exercised his authority? Now, we have no means of arriving at any estimate of the number of these aliens ; but, whatever it may have been, it is highh' improbable that king Josiah would have had the imprudence to interfere with any subjects of the king of Assyria, especially as that government had already laid a heavy hand upon Judah (2 Kings xviii, 13-15). Neither had he any religious jurisdiction over them. It seems far more likely that Josiah carried out his reform ostensibly among the remaining Israelites, the majority of whom not unlikely placed themselves under his rule. Israel was not at any time all given to idolatry. In one of its unholiest periods (under Ahab) there were 7000 faitliful men who had not bowed their knees unto Baal (I Kings xix, 18). Again, when Hez- ekiah sent his delegates to visit the nation, although the majority of the people " mocked them, nevertheless divers of Asher and Manasseh and of Zebulon humbled themselves and came to Jerusalem" (2 Chron. xxx, 11). The residue of the ten tribes would be still more at- tached to the government of Judah after the destruc- tion of their own.
(3.) On the whole, therefore, notwithstanding the force of the counter-arguments, we conclude that, al- though the cifij of Samaria itself was probably razed to the ground, and its population wholly carried away, yet a considerable remnant of the inhabitants of the adjoin- ing country vvas left. Consequently in later times the people, in their origin, were a mixed race. Doubtless the heathen element prevailed, because the colonists were greatly superior in numbers. When they came, they found none but the dregs of the populace, whom the victors had left. All power was in the hands of the colonists. All that the words in 2 Kings xvii, 24 prove is that the colonists who had been transplanted thither took the place of the deported Israelites as own- ers of the soil. The Israelites were no longer the chief inhabitants. The petition of the heathen colonists does not show that the last remnant had been removed by the Assyrians. From the removal of all the priests, it does not follow that all the inhuhitants had been carried away ; and the petition of the inhabitants merely speaks of sending a pi-iest, of whom it was thought that he alone could offer worship acceptable to a local deity. The people wanted priests to teach them the right wor- ship of the (iod of the land ; nor is aught said of giving the inhabitants the rudest idea of the maimer of wor- shipping such a deity. According to the analogy of similar deportations, such as that of Judah by Nebu- chadnezzar, we must suppose that the principal inhab- itants of Israel — those fit for war, the priests, and others — were carried away ; leaving the poor, weak, and aged, in the country districts, who had little or nothing to do with war. The prophetic expressions in Jeremiah and Zechariah speak only of the Israelites as a whole, of their rejection and banishment. The fact that the Sa- maritans in Ezra iv, 1, etc., do not mention tlieir Isra- elitish origin is easily explained, because heathen blood had overpowered the Israelitish element. Had the latter retained its distinctive existence, they would