HISTORY OF THE JEWS.

CHAPTER I.

The Seventy Years' Captivity-Condition of the Hebrews in Exile-The Decree of Cyrus-Return of the Jews, and rebuilding of the City and Temple-Conquests of Alexander.

THE only sources of information concerning the condition and treatment of the Jews in their captivity are, the writings of the contemporary Prophets-Jeremiah, Daniel, and Ezekiel, and those Psalms which we have reason to believe were written during this period. (Psalms v. x. xiii. xiv. xv. xxv. xxvi. xxvii. xxxvi. xxxvii. xlix. liii. lxvii. lxxvii. lxxx. Ìxxxix. xcii. xciii. cxxx. cxxxvii. and perhaps cxxiii.) It is evident, from these authentic records, that the captive Hebrews were not all equally implicated in the guilt of idolatry. There was among them " a remnant" of the true spiritual worshippers of Jehovah, who, in the midst of the general corruption, had steadfastly adhered to the pure principles of the theocracy; though they, in common with the rest, suffered in the national calamity. To others, it is probable, this awful visitation was so sanctified, as to bring them to reflection, and induce them to renounce that predominant sin which had entailed upon them such accumulated miseries. Some, it would seem, wished to blend the rites of idolatry with the mandates of the Mosaic law; they would not wholly renounce the former, and yet retained some degree of reverence for Jehovah; (Ezek. xx.;) they "feared the Lord, but served their own gods." It is certain, however, that they never, like other transplanted nations, intermingled with the people among whom they were settled, but continued a separate

race.

There were, doubtless, individual exceptions, but the nation as such remained distinct. The amalgamation with y pagans, and the consequent extinction of the Hebrews as a peculiar people, was prevented by the rite of circumcision, by the prohibition of various kinds of food allowed among the heathen, by ceremonial impurities, and by other institutions which were designed to segregate and preserve the posterity of Israel as a distinct and prominent nation. The presence of Daniel and Ezekiel was doubtless highly beneficial to the captives in Babylon and by the river Chebar, and had a tendency to preserve among them the knowledge and practice of the true religion. Authority and force were given to the exhortations of these holy men by the prophecies which had been so signally fulfilled, or were in course of accomplishment at that very time; especially the predictions respecting the downfall of the Assyrian empire, and of the city of Nineveh, the rapid rise and extension of the Babylonian monarchy, the overthrow of Tyre, the destruction of Jerusalem, and consequent captivity of the Jews. The striking fulfilment of these prophecies, in their minutest details, was calculated to exalt Jehovah in their estimation, and check their idolatrous propensities. Consequently, many of the ten tribes in Assyria, Halah, Gozan, and Media, were the sincere repentant worshippers of Jehovah; and it is difficult to conceive how the Jews in Babylon and by the river Chebar could relapse into idolatry, with the severe dictates of experience to admonish them of its evils, and while such men as Daniel and Ezekiel were continually and earnestly reminding them of that God who claimed their homage. Indeed, during the subjection of the Hebrews to the wholesome chastisement of a foreign yoke, God pursued them, so to speak, with the efficacious dealings of his providence, with miracles and prophecies, with judgments and mercies, in order to compel them to preserve the true religion, and to place them in a situation in which it would hardly be possible for them to exchange the worship of the Creator and Governor of the world for the worship of idols.

The estimation in which Daniel was held at the court of

Babylon, in consequence of his extraordinary prophetic endowments, and the station which he and his three friends occupied in the counsels of Nebuchadnezzar soon after their settlement in exile, must have had a favorable influence on the physical and political condition of the captive nation. The image which Nebuchadnezzar set up to the idol Bel, gave occasion, indeed, to the enemies of the Jews to seek the destruction of Daniel's three pious friends; though he himself, probably from his elevation to the highest office of the empire, appears to have escaped attack. The miraculous deliverance, however, of these three captives from the flames to which they had been condemned, and the mysterious appearance of a fourth and superhuman form in the furnace, gave a signal triumph to the Jewish religion over idolatry. The interpretation of the hand-writing upon the wall, by Daniel, in the reign of Belshazzar, was an additional proof of the supernatural power conferred upon him; which was exemplified immediately afterwards in the overthrow of the Chaldee-Babylonian empire by Cyrus. So insecure, however, were the religious liberties of the Hebrews, that Daniel himself, notwithstanding his miraculous powers, at length became the victim of the envy of the courtiers, on the pretext of disobedience to a royal decree, which they had procured in order to ensnare him, and which prohibited prayer to any deity for thirty days. But the wonderful deliverance of Daniel from the lions' den, much to the satisfaction of the king, was another triumph gained to the religion of the Jews. Darius, like his predecessor Nebuchadezzar, publicly proclaimed the greatness and majesty of Jehovah, and commanded all the subjects of his empire to reverence him. Nor could the marvellous events which had occurred in connexion with the captive Hebrews, fail to produce their effect on the mind of such a prince as Cyrus, their destined deliverer.*

The condition of the Hebrews while in captivity, was far from being one of abject wretchedness. This is

* Hoppus's Lectures on the Polity and History of the Hebrews.

manifest from the circumstance that a pious Hebrew prophet held the first office at the court of Babylon,—that three devout friends of this prophet occupied important political stations, and that Jehoiachin, the former king of Judah, in the forty-fourth year of the captivity, was released from an imprisonment which had continued for thirty-six years, and was preferred in point of rank to all the kings who were then at Babylon, either detained as hostages, or present for the purpose of paying their homage to the Chaldee monarch. He was treated as the first of the kings; he ate at the table of his conqueror; and received an annual allowance corresponding to his regal dignity. From these circumstances of honor a splendor must have been reflected back on all the exiles, so that they could neither be ill treated, nor despised, nor very much oppressed. They were probably viewed as respectable colonists, who enjoyed the peculiar protection of the sovereign. In the respect paid to Jehoiachin, his son Shealtiel, and his grand-son Zerubbabel undoubtedly partook. If that story of the discussion before Darius, in which Zerubbabel is said to have won the prize, be a mere fiction, it is at least very probable that the young prince, if he held no office, had free access to the court,—a privilege which must have afforded him many opportunities of alleviating the unhappy circumstances of his countrymen. It is, therefore, not at all surprising that when Cyrus gave the Hebrews permission to return to their own country, many, and perhaps even a majority of the nation, chose to remain behind, believing that they were more pleasantly situated where they were than what they would be in Judea. It is not improbable that the exiles (as is implied in the story of Susannah, and as the tradition of the Jews affirms,) had magistrates and a prince from their own number. Jehoiachin, and after him Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, might have been regarded as their princes, in the same manner as Jozadak and Jeshua were, as their high-priests.

At the same time it cannot be denied that their humiliation, as a people punished by their God, was always extremely painful, and frequently drew on them expressions

of contempt. The peculiarities of their religion afforded many opportunities for the ridicule and scorn of the Babylonians and Chaldeans, a striking example of which is given in the profanation of the sacred vessels of the temple. (Daniel v.) By such insults they would be made to feel so much the more sensibly the loss of their homes, their gardens, and fruitful fields, the burning of their capital and temple, and the cessation of the public solemnities of their religion. Under such circumstances, it is not strange that an inspired minstrel breaks out into severe imprecations against the scornful foes of his nation. (Psalm cxxxvii.)

If the Israelites were ill-treated in Assyria after the overthrow of Sennacherib in Judea, as the book of Tobit intimates, this calamity was of short duration, for Sennacherib was soon after assassinated. The Israelites of Media appear to have been in a much better condition, since Tobit advised his son to remove thither. (Tobit xiv. 4, 12, 13.) This is the more probable, as the religion of the Medes was not grossly idolatrous, and bore considerable resemblance to the Jewish. Even allowing that the worship of Ormuzd and of guardian angels is not more ancient than Zoroaster, this celebrated reformer made his appearance between sixty and a hundred years after the arrival of the Israelites in Media. In the Zend-Avesta it is often mentioned that the reformation of Zoroaster took place under Guspasp, that is, Cyaxeres I., who reigned from 642 to 603 B. C., and the Israelites first went to Media, 722 B. C. But the first principles of the religion of Zoroaster are undoubtedly far more ancient, for he himself does not announce his doctrines as new, but as the ancient religion purified from abuses. This seems to be confirmed by the fact, that in the army of Nebuchadnezzar there was found a Rabmag, the Desturan Destur of Zoroaster, that is, a chief of the magi or mobeds. (Jer. xxxix. 3.) Consequently this religion had extended to Babylon as early as 587 B. C. Moreover, at this early period it had penetrated even to Jerusalem, and in the reign of Josiah, who came to the throne 642 B. C. and, consequently, before Zoroaster began to publish his doctrines in