israelites

IV. THE EXODUS AND THE WANDERINGS

The final expulsion of the Hyksos by the native princes deprived the Israelites of

their natural protectors; "nevertheless, the kings of the eighteenth dynasty, who

came upon the scene about this time, did not interfere with them. On the

contrary, these kings were themselves Asiatic in tone, marrying Syrian wives and

introducing foreign customs. One of them, Amenhotep III, married Tyi, a Syrian

princess and sun-worshipper, and their son, Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV),

abandoned the national religion for the worship of the solar disc; and when this

led to friction with the priesthood of Thebes, he changed his capital to Tell

el-Amarna, and surrounded himself both in his temples and in the government of

the country with foreigners. After his death, there was a reaction, the foreigners

were ejected, and the national religion and party triumphed The next kings,

therefore, those of the nineteenth dynasty, gave no quarter to foreigners, and

these were the kings who knew riot Joseph, but made the lives of the Hebrews

'bitter with hard bondage, in mortar and in all manner of service in the field.' There

was good reason why tyrannical kings like those who now arose should view with

alarm the rapid increase of the Hebrews, seeing that they were aliens, and lived

in a quarter where, if inclined to be disloyal, they could lend invaluable aid to

Asiatic invaders" (Souttar "A Short History of Ancient Peoples", New York, 1903,

200 sq.). The particular Pharaoh of the nineteenth dynasty who treated the

Israelites with special rigour was Rameses II, who became king at about the age

of eighteen and reigned upwards of sixty years (about 1300-1234 B.C.). He

employed them on field labour (Ex., i, 14); engaged them upon the store cities of

Phithom (the ruins of which, eleven or twelve miles from Ismailia, show that it

was built for that monarch) and Ramesse, thus called after his name; and finally

made a desperate attempt to reduce their numbers by organized infanticide. Had

not God watched over His people, Israel's ruin would have been simply a question

of time. But He raised up Moses and commissioned him to free them from this

harsh and cruel oppression. This Divine call reached Moses while he was living in

the Peninsula of Sinai, whither he had fled from Pharaoh's wrath, residing among

the Madianites or Kenites, who, like himself, traced their descent from Abraham.

With the help of his brother, Aaron, and by means of the various scourges known

as the plagues of Egypt, Yahweh's envoy finally prevailed upon Rameses' son

and successor, Merneptah I (1234-14 B. c.; cf. Ex. ii, 23), to let Israel go free. In

haste and by night, the Israelites left the land of bondage, turned eastward, and

directed their course towards the Isthmus of Suez and the Red Sea, thus

avoiding contact with the Egyptian troops which then occupied, at least in part,

the Mediterranean coast, and making from the first for the encampments of their

kindred, the Madianites, near Sinai.

While this general direction can hardly be doubted, the localities through which

Israel passed cannot now be identified with certainty. The first movement of the

Israelites was from " Ramesse to Socoth (Ex., xii, 37). The former of these two

places has often been regarded as the same as Zoan (Tanis) which is called in

many papyri

Pa-Ramessu Meriamum (the Place of Rameses II), but it is more probably to be

located at Tell er-Retabeh, "in the middle of the length of the Wady Tumilat,

about twenty miles from Ismailia on the East (Flinders Petrie), and only eight

miles distant from Phithom. The name of the second place, Socoth, is probably a

Semitic adaptation of the Egyptian word thku[t] which designated the district

where the city of Phithom was situated. Proceeding thence, Israel encamped in

Etham (Ex., xiii, 20; Num., xxxiii, 6), a term which is supposed to refer to the

southern fortress (Egypt. Htem) of Thku (Socoth), on the eastern frontier of

Egypt, upon the edge of the Wilderness of Etham, or Sur (cf. Ex., xv, 22; Num.,

xxxiii, 8). At this point the children of Israel changed their easterly direction, and

journeying southward reached Phihahiroth, which is described in Exodus, xiv., 2,

as "between Magdal and the sea over against Beelsephon". None of the places

just spoken of have been identified; indeed, even the portion of the Red Sea

which the Hebrews crossed miraculously, is a matter of controversy. Various

writers maintain that at the time of Exodus the western arm of the Red Sea, now

called the Gulf of Suez, from the modem town near its northern extremity,

extended some thirty or forty miles farther north, and they admit for the actual

place of crossing some point of this extension of the Red Sea. Others, on the

contrary, apparently with greater probability, think that in the time of Moses the

northern limit of the Gulf of Suez did not vary much, if at all, from what it is at the

present day, and they maintain that the crossing took place at some point of the

present head of the gulf, not far north of the present Suez, the ancient Greek

name of which (Clysma) appears to embody a tradition of the Egyptian disaster.

It is often and ably argued that after the Red Sea, the Israelites, resuming their

journey in an easterly direction, took the haj route now followed by pilgrims going

from Cairo to Mecca, running eastward across the Peninsula of Sinai to Elath at

the northern point of the eastern arm of the Red Sea -- the Gulf of Akabah, as it

is called. To most writers, however, there does not seem to be sufficient reason

for giving up the time-honoured view which holds that the Hebrews proceeded

southward until they reached the traditional Mount Sinai.

On the basis of this latter view, Israel's intervening stations between the place of

crossing and Mount Sinai have been identified as follows. After three days' march

through the Wilderness of Sur, on the narrow and comparatively level coast-track

of the Gulf of Suez, the Israelites came to a spring named Mara (Exod., xv, 22

sq.), probably the 'Ain Hawara, with its bitter waters. They next reached the

oasis of Elim, usually identified with Wady Gharandel, where there are, even at

the present time, wells and palms (Exod., xv, 27). Proceeding southward, they

followed the road which winds by the Wady Tayibeh until it strikes the seashore,

at which point the encampment by the sea (Numb., xxxiii, 10) is naturally

placed. Before turning inland the coast-track expands into a plain four or five

miles broad, called el-Markha, and probably to be identified with the Wilderness

of Sin (Exod., xv, 1), wherein the stations of Daphea and Alus (Numb., xxxiii, 12,

13) were presumably situated. Thence Moses led his people in the direction of

the sacred mount of Sinai, the next station being at Raphidim (Exod., xvii, 1),

which is commonly regarded as identical with Wady Feiran, a long and fertile

plain overhung by the granite rocks of Mount Sherbal, probably the Horem of Holy

Writ. From Feiran the road winds through the long Wady es-Scheykh and leads

to the extensive plain er-Rahah, which is directly in front of Mount Sinai, and

which offered more than sufficient standing ground for all the children of Israel. It

is true that none of the foregoing identifications enjoys more than a certain

amount of probability and that, consequently, their aggregate cannot be

considered as an unquestionable proof that the traditional road along the Gulf of

Suez is the one actually followed by the Hebrews. Yet, as may readily be seen,

it is a fact of no small importance in favour of the route described that its

distance of some 150 miles between the place of crossing and Mount Sinai

admits of a natural division into stages which on the whole correspond well to the

principal marches of the Hebrews; for nothing of the kind can be put forth in

support of their position by the contemporary scholars who prefer to the

traditional road an eastward one running across the Peninsula of Sinai to the

northern shore of the Gulf of Akabah.

On leaving Sinai, under the guidance of Moses' brother-in-law, the Israelites

proceeded in a northerly direction towards the Wilderness of Pharan, the barren

region of et-Tih which lies south of Chanaan and west of Edom. They seem to

have approached it the shore of the eastern arm of the Red Sea, now called the

Gulf of Akabah. Of the various places mentioned as being on their route only two

have been identified with some degree of probability. These are Kibroth Hattawah

(graves of lust), regarded as identical with Erweis el-Ebeirig, and Hazeroth,

apparently identical with the modern 'Ain Hudherah (cf. Numb., xi, 34; xxxiii, 16,

17). On entering the Desert of Pharan, the people established themselves at

Cades, also Cadesbarne (the holy place), which has been identified with great

probability with 'Ain Kedis, some fifty miles south of Bersabee (Numb., xxxiii,

36). Proceeding northward, after the return of the spies whom they had sent to

explore Southern Palestine, they made a mad attempt to force their way into

Chanaan. They were repulsed by the Chanaanites and the Amalecites at

Sephaath, a place subsequently named Horma (cf. Judges, i, 17; now Sebaita)

and some thirty-five miles north of Cades. (Cf. Numb., xii, xiv.) Then began a

most obscure period in Israel's life. During thirty-eight years they wandered in the

Badiet et Tih (Wilderness of the Wanderings) on the southern confines of

Chanaan, apparently making Cades the centre around which their movements

turned. " It is possible that while here, they came, for the first time since the

Exodus, into contact with the Egyptians. An inscription of the Pharaoh Mernptah

has been found recently (at Thebes, in 1896), the close of which relates the

conquest by the Egyptians of the land of Chanaan and of Ashkelon, and then

adds: 'The Israelites are spoiled so that they have no seed; the land of Khar

[perhaps, the land of the Horites, i.e. Edom] is become like the windows of

Egypt. Of the circumstances alluded to nothing positive is known; but the

situation of the Israelites implied in the inscription is in or near Southern

Palestine, and, as the fuller records of later date show no trace of any relations

between Israel and Egypt until the time of Solomon, the sojourn at Cades seems

to be the only occasion that will suit the conditions. On the assumption that the

Exodus took place in the reign of Mernptah, the only alternative to the view just

set forth is to regard the inscription as a boastful account of the Exodus itself',

considered as an expulsion of the Israelites". (Wade, "Old Test-Hist.").

In the beginning of the fortieth year of Israel's wanderings, the march towards

Chanaan was resumed from Cades. In approaching Palestine this second time, it

was determined to avoid the southern frontier, and to enter the Land of Promise

by crossing the Jordan at the northern end of the Dead Sea. The shortest road for

this purpose was through the territories of Edom and Moab, and Moses asked

permission from the King of Edom to take this route, reminding him of the

relationship between his people and Israel. His refusal compelled the Israelites to

journey southward towards the Gulf of Akabah, and there to skirt the southern

possessions of Edom, whence they marched northward, skirting the eastern

frontier first of Edom and next of Moab, and finally encamping over against the

River Arnon (the modern Wady Mojib). Such is the general line of March

commonly admitted by scholars between Cades and the Arnon. Owing, however,

to the fact that the several lists of Israel's stations in Numb., xx, 22-xxi, 11;

xxxiii; Deut., x, 6, 7, contain differences as to the encampments which they

mention, and as to the time which they assign to Aaron's death, some

uncertainty remains as to which side of Edom -- east or west -- the Hebrews

actually skirted on their way to the Arnon. With regard to the various stations

named in those lists, a still greater uncertainty prevails. In point of fact, only a

few of them can be identified, among which may be mentioned the place of

Aaron's death, Mount Hor, which is probably the modem Jebel Madurah on the

western border of Edom, some thirty or forty miles north-east of Cades; and next

the encampment at Asiongaber, a place which may be identical with 'Ain el

Gudyan which lies about fifteen miles north of the Gulf of Akabah. Resuming their

march towards the Jordan, the Children of Israel crossed the Amon, and

encountered the hostility of the Amorrhite chief, Sehon, who had taken from

Moab the territory between the Arnon and the Jeboc (Wadv Zerkah). They

defeated him at Jasa (not now identified), captured his capital Hesebon (the

modem Resban), Jazer (Beith Zerah, three miles north of Hesebon), and the

other cities of his dominions. They were thus brought into contact, and

apparently also into conflict, with the northernmost kingdom of Basan, which lay

between the Jeboc and the foot of Mount Hermon. They gave battle to its king,

Og, defeated him at Edrei (now Edr'a), and took possession of his territory. Their

victories and, still more, their occupation of the land north of Moab by Ruben,

Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasses aroused the enmity of the Moabites who, at

this juncture, summoned Balaam to curse the Israelites, and who succeeded but

too well in their efforts to betray them into idolatry at Settim (Accacids), in the

plains of Moab, over against Jericho (Eri'ka). The crowning events of the

Wanderings were the induction of Josue into office as Moses' successor in

command, and the death of Moses himself on one of the heights of the Abarim

(Numb., xxvii, 12), which is variously called Nebo (Jebel Neba; Deut., xxxii, 49)

or Phasga (Ras Siaghah; Deut., iii, 27), the western projection of Mount Nebo.

V. THE CONQUEST OF CHANAAN

Soon after the death of Moses, Josue resolved to attempt the invasion and

conquest of Chanaan proper, or the country west of the Jordan, which Israel's

great lawgiver had indeed contemplated, but had not been allowed to effect. In

some respects this was at the time a hard task. The crossing of the Jordan was

in itself a difficult .undertaking. The heights on the other side of the river were

crowned with numerous cities, strongly walled, and therefore able to offer a stout

resistance. Even the population in the lowlands was much superior to the

Israelites in the art and appliances of war, in touch, as they had long been, with

the advanced civilization of Babylonia and Egypt. In some other respects the

work of conquest was then comparatively easy. The various peoples

(Chanaanites, Hethites, Amorrhites, Pherezites, etc.) who made up the

population of Western Palestine, constituted a number of mostly independent

cities, distracted by those mutual jealousies which have been revealed by the

Tell el-Amarna tablets, and hence not likely to combine their forces against

Israel's invasion. "Moreover there was no possibility of outside alliances against

the intruders. Tyre and Sidon, and other cities of the coast, were going their way,

increasing their wealth and commercial connections by peaceful means, and

were averse to entangling foreign complications. The Amorrhites east of the

Jordan were the most formidable remnant of their decaying race, and they had

been rendered powerless; while the Philistines, themselves a strange people,

had not yet grown into power " (McCurdy). Circumstances such as these

naturally called for Josue's prompt and vigorous action. With God's special help

he crossed the Jordan at the head of all the tribes encamped at Galgal, identified

with the modern Tell Jiljulieh, four miles from the river, and thence advanced upon

Jericho. This city was one of the keys to the trans-Jordanic region, and it soon

fell into his power. He next proceeded by the pass of Machmas (the Wady

Suweinit) against Hai, a town two miles east of Bethel, and captured it by

strategem. After this rapid conquest of Central Chanaan, Josue made alliance

with he Gabaonites,. who had outwitted him, and won the memorable batttle of

Bethoron over the five kings of the nearest Amorrhite peoples. This victory was

followed up by the subjugation of other districts of Southern Palestine, a work

which seems to have been accomplished mainly by the tribes of Simeon and

Juda, assisted by the Cinites and the Calebites. Meantime, the kings of the north

had rallied around Jabin, King of Azor in Galilee, and mustered their hosts near

the Waters of Merom (Lake Huleh). At the head of the House of Joseph, the

Jewish leader took them by surprise, defeated them, and subdued numerous

northern towns. Josue's glorious achievements secured for the tribes of Israel a

firm foothold in Chanaan,. by means of which they settled in their allotted

territories. Great. however, as were these victories, they failed, even in

conjunction with the efforts of the individual tribes (an account of which is

supplied in the scattered notices in the Book of Josue and by the opening

chapter of that of Judges), to complete the subjugation of Palestine. Many of the

larger cities, together with the cultivated valleys and the coast-land, were still,

and remained for a long time, in the possession of Chanaan's earlier inhabitants.

VI. THE PERIOD OF THE JUDGES

As long as Josue lived, his personality and his generalship succeeded in keeping

up among the Israelites some manner of central authority, despite the tribal

rivalries which manifested themselves even during the conquest of Western

Palestine. When he died, with a previously appointed successor, all central

authority actually ceased, and the bonds of union between the different tribes

were quickly dissolved. The tribes were dispersed in different districts, and the

Semitic love of tribal independence strongly reasserted itself among them. The

immediate pressure of the war of conquest was no longer felt, and in many cases

the distinct Hebrew communities were either unwilling or unable to exterminate

the older population which survived in the land. The bond of union which naturally

arises from close kinship, was likewise considerably relaxed by intermarriage

between the Israelites and the Chanaanites. Even the bond created by the

community of religion was time and again seriously impaired in Israel by the

corruption of the ancestral worship of Yahweh with the attractive cult of the

Baalim of Chanaan. This deep disunion of the tribes accounts naturally for the

fact that, during a long period after the death of Moses' successor, each section

of Israel's possessions was in its turn harassed and humiliated by a powerful

foreign foe, and each time delivered from his oppression by a military leader,

"judge " as he is called, whose authority never extended over the whole land. In

the course of time, the drawbacks of such disunion were felt by the Israelites,

and in order to withstand their enemies more effectively by concerted action, they

wished for a king. Their first attempts in this direction were indeed unsuccessful:

Gedeon refused the crown which they offered him, and Abimilech, his son, who

accepted it, proved an unworthy ruler. Yet the longing of the Hebrew tribes for a

monarchy could not be suppressed; during Israel's fierce conflict with the

Philistines, Samuel, the last judge, wielded the universal and absolute power of a

monarch with the title and the insignia of royalty; and when to the hostility of

Western enemies was joined that of Eastern foes, like the Ammonites, the

Israelites strenuously asked for a king and finally obtained one in the person of

the Benjamite Saul.

Part II VII THE UNDIVIDED KINGDOM

VII. THE UNDIVIDED KINGDOM

Israel's first monarch resembled in many respects the judges who had preceded

him, for the simple reason that, under his rule, the Hebrew tribes did not really

coalesce into a nation. He was indeed the King of All Israel; his royal title and

authority were to be hereditary, and at his summons all the tribes rallied around

him. With their common help, he rescued the men of Jabes Galaad from

impending destruction at the hands of the Ammonites, fought for a time

successfully against the Philistines, and overcame the Amalecites. All the while,

however, his kingship was little more than a judgeship. His court and ways of life

were simple in the extreme; he had no standing army, no governors over

subordinate districts; the war against the Philistines, the great enemies of Israel

in his day, he waged like the judges of old, by hasty and temporary levies; and

when he died at Gelboe, the profound and inveterate disunion of the tribes, which

had been momentarily checked, immediately reappeared; most of them declared

themselves in favour of his son, Isboseth, but Juda gathered around David and

made him king in Hebron. In the civil war which ensued, "David grew always

stronger and stronger", with the final result that his sovereignty was formally and

voluntarily acknowledged by the elders of all the tribes. The new king was the

real founder of the Hebrew monarchy. One of his first cares was to secure for

Israel a political and religious capital in Jerusalem, a city of considerable size

and of considerable natural strength. His military genius enabled him gradually to

overcome the various nations who had cruelly oppressed the chosen people in

the days of the judges. On the south-west he fought against the Philistines, and

took from them the town of Geth (Tell es-Safi), and a great part of their

dominions. On the south-east, he conquered and established garrisons in the

territory of Edom. To the east of the Jordan he attacked and wellnigh

exterminated the Moabites, while on the north-east he overthrew the Syrians of

Soba as well as those of Damascus who had marched to the defence of their

kindred. Finally, he waged a protracted war against the Ammonites, who had

entered into a defensive alliance with several of the Syrian princes, and wreaked

upon them a frightful vengeance. The possessions secured by these various wars

formed a vast empire whose boundaries remained forever after the ideal extent of

the Realm of Israel, and whose wise internal organization, on regular monarchical

lines, greatly promoted the agricultural and industrial interests of the Hebrew

tribes.

Under such circumstances one might not unnaturally have supposed that the old

tribal jealousies were at an end forever. And yet, on the occasion of the king's

domestic broils, a rebellion broke out which for a while threatened to rend the

nation asunder on the old, deep lines of cleavage. This disaster was, however,

happily averted, and at his death David left to his son Solomon an undivided

kingdom. David's reign had been pre-eminently a period of war and of territorial

acquisition; Solomon's rule was, in the main, an era of peace and commercial

achievement. Of special value to the new monarch were the friendly relations

between Phnicia and Israel, continued from David's time. Through the help of Tyre

he erected the Temple and other beautiful edifices in Jerusalem; the help of Tyre

also enabled him to maintain for a time something of a foreign commerce by the

Red Sea. His relations with Egypt were likewise peaceful and profitable. He

received in marriage the daughter of Psibkhenao II, the last Pharaoh of the

twenty-first dynasty, and kept up with Egypt a brisk overland commerce. He

carried on a friendly intercourse and lively trade with the Hittites of Cilicia and of

Cappadocia.

Unfortunately, his love of splendour and luxury, his unfaithfulness to Yahweh's

law and worship, gradually betrayed him into oppressive measures which

especially alienated the northern tribes. In vain did he strive to overrule this

dissatisfaction by doing away with the ancient territorial divisions of the tribes,

and by appointing the Ephraimite Jeroboam as collector of taxes of the house of

Joseph: his tampering with the old tribal principle did but increase the general

discontent, and the great authority with which he invested the son of Nabat

simply afforded the latter better opportunity to realize the extent of the

disaffection of the northern tribes and to avail himself of it to rebel against the

king. About this same time, Edom and Moab revolted against Solomon's

suzerainty, so that, towards the end of his reign, everything threatened the

continuity of the empire of Israel, which had always contained the hidden germs

of disruption, and which, to a large extent, owed its very existence to the

extreme temporary weakness of the great neighbouring nations of Egypt and

Assyria.

VIII. THE KINGDOM OF ISRAEL

Roboam's insulting reply to the northern tribes, when, gathered at Sichem, after

Solomon's demise, they asked for some relief from the heavy yoke put upon

them by the late monarch, was the immediate occasion of their permanent

rupture with the line of David and the southern tribes. Under Jerboa's headship

they formed (c. 937 B.C.) a separate kingdom which is known as the Kingdom of

Israel, in contradistinction to that of Juda, and which greatly surpassed the latter

in extent and population. The area of the Northern Kingdom is estimated at about

9000 square miles, with a population of about four or five millions. It included

eight tribes, viz., on the west of the Jordan, Ephraim, one-half of Manasses,

Issachar, Zabulon. Aser, Nephtali with the coastline between Acre and Joppe; on

the east of the Jordan, Ruben, Gad, and one-half of Manasses. Its vassal-states

were Moab and so much of Syria as had remained subject to Solomon (III Kings,

xi, 24; IV Kings, iii, 4). The Kingdom of Juda included that tribe itself together

with that of Benjamin, and -- at least eventually -- a part, if not the whole, of

Simeon and Dan. Its area is estimated at 3400 miles, with a population of about

one million and three quarters. Besides this, Edom continued faithful to Juda for

a time. But while the Northern Kingdom was larger and more populous than the

Southern, it decidedly lacked the unity and the seclusion of its rival, and was

therefore the first to succumb, a comparatively easy prey to the eastern

conquerors, when their victorious march brought them to the western lands. The

history of the newly formed kingdom may be conveniently divided into three great

periods, during which various dynasties ruled in Israel, while the line of David

continued in sole possession of the throne of Juda. The first period extends from

Jeroboam to Achab (937-875 1 B.C.). The kings of this opening period were as

follows:

ISRAEL

Jeroboam I -- 937-915 B.C.

Nadab -- 915-913 B.C.

Baasa -- 913-889 B.C

Ela -- 889-887 B.C.

Zambri -- a few days

Amri -- 887-875 B.C.

JUDA

Roboam -- 937-920 B.C.

Abiam -- 920-917 B.C.

Asa -- 917-876 B.C.

Josaphat -- 876-

Of the twenty-two years of Jeroboam's reign, few details have come down to us.

At first, the founder of the Northern Kingdom took for his capital the city of

Sichem, in which Abimelech had once set up kingdom, and in which the actual

outbreak of the revolt against Juda had just occurred; he exchanged it for the

beautiful Thersa, eleven miles to the north-east. To offset the attractiveness of

Jerusalem and the influence of its Temple, he extended his royal patronage to

two ancient sanctuaries, Dan and Bethel, the one at the northern, and the other

at the southern, extremity of his realm. To guard against Juda's invasion of his

territory, he built strong fortresses on both sides of the Jordan. With regard to

Jeroboam's early military expeditions, Biblical narrative imparts no distinct

information: it simply represents as practically continual the war which soon

broke out between him and Roboam (cf. III Kings, xiv, 30; xv, 6). From the

Egyptian inscriptions at Karnak it appears that the Northern Kingdom suffered

much in connection with the invasion of Juda by Sesac, the first king of the

twenty-second dynasty, so that it is not likely that this invasion was the result of

Jeroboam's appeal Egypt for help in his conflict with the King of Juda. The

hostilities between the sister kingdoms continued under Abiam, Roboam's son

and successor. and in their pursuit, Jeroboam was, according to the chronicler's

account, badly worsted (II Para!ip., iii). Jeroboam's own line lasted only through

his own son Nadab, who, after reigning two years, was slain by a usurper, Baasa

of Issachar (913 B.C.), while Israel besieged the Philistine fortress of Gebbethon

(probably Kibbiah, six or seven miles north-east of Lydda). After his accession,

Baasa pushed the war so vigorously against Asa, King of Juda, that, to save

Jerusalem from an impending siege, the latter purchased the help of Benadad I,

of Damascus, against Israel. In the conflict with Syria which ensued, Baasa lost

much of the territory on the west of the Upper Jordan and the Sea of Galilee, with

the fateful result that the controlling power in the west was now no longer

Hebrew, but Aramean. Baasa was succeeded by his son Ela, whose reign lasted

only a part of two years (889-87 B.C.). His murderer, Zambri, got himself

proclaimed king, but perished after a few days giving place to his military

competitor, Amri (887-75 B.C.), the skillful head of a new dynasty in Israel. Under

Amri, Samaria, admirably and strongly situated in Central Palestine, some twelve

miles to the west of Thersa, became, and remained to the end, the capital of the

Northern Kingdom. Under him, too, the policy of hostility which had hitherto

prevailed between Juda and Israel was exchanged for one of general friendship

based on common interests against Syria. In some directions, indeed, Amri

suffered considerable losses, as, east of the Jordan, Ramoth and other cities of

Galaad fell into the power of the King of Damascus, while on the west of the

same river, he was forced to grant to that monarch trading privileges (cf. III Kings

xx, 34). But in other directions he succeeded in extending his authority. The

inscription of' Mesa proves that he brought Moab under tribute. He cemented

Israel's alliance with Tyre by the marriage of his son Achab with Jezabel, the

daughter of the Tyrian priest and king, Ethbaal. His territories, now apparently

limited to the tribes of Ephraim, Manasses, and Issachar, with a portion of

Zabulon, were consolidated under his firm rule, so much so that the Assyrians,

who henceforth carefully watched over the affairs of Palestine, designated Israel

under the name of "the House of Amri", even after his dynasty had been

overthrown

The second period comprises the kings from Achab to Jeroboam II (875-781

B.C.). These kings were as follows:

ISRAEL

Achab -- 875-853 B.C.

Ochozias -- 853-851 B.C.

Joram -- 851-842 B.C.

Jehu -- 842-814 B.C.

Joachaz -- 814-797 B.C.

Joas -- 797-781 B.C.

JUDA

Josaphat -- 876-851 B.C.

Joram -- 851-843 B.C.

Ochozias -- 843-842 B.C.

Athalia -- 842-836 B.C.

Joas -- 836-796 B.C.

Amasias -- 796-782 B.C.

Azarias (Ozias) -- 782-

The reign of Achab, Amri's son and successor, was a memorable one in the

history of the chosen people. It was marked at home by a considerable progress

of Israel in the arts of peace (cf. Ill Kings, xxii, 39); by the public adoption of the

Phoenician worship of Baal and Astarthe (D.V. Ashtaroth, Ashtoreth), and also

by a strenuous opposition to it on the part of the Prophets in the person of Elias,

the leading religious figure of the time. Abroad, Israel's friendly relations with Juda

assumed to permanent character by the marriage of Athalia the daughter of

Achab and Jezabel, with Joram the son of Josaphat; and in point of fact, Israel

was at peace with Juda throughout the twenty-two years of Achab's reign. Israel's

chief neighbouring foe was Syria over whose ruler, Benadad II, Achab won two

important victories (875 B.C.). Yet, upon the westward advance of their common

enemies, the Assyrians, under Salmanasar II, the kings of Israel and Syria united

with other princes of Western Asia against the Assyrian hosts, and checked

their onward march at Karkhar on the Orontes in 854 B.C. Next year, Achab

resumed hostilities against Syria and fell mortally wounded in battle before

Ramoth Galaad. Achab's Son, Ochozias, died after a short reign (853-51 B.C.)

and was succeeded by his brother Joram (851-42 B.C.). The two wars of Joram's

reign Were unsuccessful, although, in both, Israel had the help of the Southern

Kingdom. The first was directed against Mesa, King of Moab, who, as related in

Holy Writ and in his own inscription (known as "the Moabitic St one"), had

thrown off the yoke of Israel, and who did not hesitate, when very hard pressed,

to offer his oldest son as a burnt-offering to Chamos (A.V. Chemosh). The

second was waged against Damascus and proved exceedingly disastrous:

Samaria nearly fell into the hands of the Syrians; Joram himself was seriously

wounded before Ramoth Galaad, and next slain, at Jezrael, by one of his officers,

Jehu, who assumed the crown and began a new dynasty in Israel. Jehu's long

reign of twenty-eight years (842-14 B.C.), was most inglorious. Israel's deadly foe

was the Syrian king Hazael, who had also reached the throne by the murder of

his master, Benadad II. Instead of helping him to withstand the attacks of

Salmanasar II, Jehu secured peace with Assyria by the payment of a tribute (842

B.C.), and let Hazael face single-handed the repeated invasions of the Assyrian

king. Apparently, he had hoped thereby to weaken the Aramean power, and

perhaps even to get rid of it altogether. It so happened, however, that after a while

Salmanasar desisted from his attacks upon Hazael, and thus left the latter free

to turn his arms against Israel and against Juda, its ally. The Syrian king secured

for Damascus not only Basan and Galaad, and the whole of the country east of

the Jordan, but also Western Palestine, destroyed the Philistine city of Geth,

and was bought off by Joas of Juda with the richest spoil of his palace and

temple. Joachaz (814-797 B.C.), the son and successor of Jehu, was compelled

during the greater part of his reign to accept from Hazael and his son, Bernadad

III, the most humiliating conditions yet imposed upon a King of Israel (cf. IV

Kings, xiii, 7). Relief, however, came to him when the resources of Damascus

were effectively crippled by Assyria during the closing years of the ninth century

B.C. Israel's condition was further improved under Joas (797-81 B.C.), who

actually defeated Syria three several (sic) times, and reconquered much of the

territory -- probably west of the Jordan -- which had been lost by Joachaz, his

father (cf. IV Kings, xiii, 25).

The third period in the history of the Northern Kingdom extends from Jeroboam II

to the fall of Samaria (781-22 B.C.). On the basis of the Assyrian inscriptions

combined with the data of Holy Writ, the chronology of the last period may be

given approximately as follows:

ISRAEL

Jeroboam II -- 781-740 B.C.

Zacharias -- 6 months

Sellum -- 1 month

Manahem -- 740-737 B.C.

Phaceia -- 737-735 B.C.

Phacee -- 735-733 B.C.

Osee -- 733-722 B.C.

JUDA

Azarias (Ozias) -- 782-737 B.C.

Joatham -- 737-735 B.C.

Achaz -- 735-725 B.C.

Ezechias -- 725-696 B.C.

During the long reign of Jeroboam II, the Northern Kingdom enjoyed an

unprecedented prosperity. Owing chiefly to the fact that Israel's enemies had

grown weaker on every side, the new king was able to eclipse the victories

achieved by his father, Joas, and to maintain for a while the old ideal boundaries

both east and west of the Jordan (IV Kings, xiv, 28). Peace and security followed

on this wonderful territorial extension, and together with them a great artistic and

commercial development set in. Unfortunately, there set in also the moral laxity

and the religious unfaithfulness which were in vain rebuked by the Prophets

Amos and Osee, and which surely presaged the utter ruin of the Northern

Kingdom. Jeroboam's son, Zacharias (740 B.C.) was the last monarch of Jehu's's

dynasty. Ile had scarcely reigned six months when a usurper, Sellum, put him to

death. Sellum, in his turn, was even more summarily dispatched by the truculent

Manahem. The last-named ruler had soon to face the Assyrian power directly,

and, as he felt unable to withstand it, hastened to proffer tribute to

Theglathphalasar Ill and thereby save his crown (738B.C.). His son Phaceia

reigned about two years (737- B.C.) and was slain by his captain, Phacee, who

combined with Syria against Achaz of Juda. In his sore distress, Achaz appealed

for Assyrian help, with the result that Theglathphalasar again (734 B.C.) invaded

Israel, annexed Galilee and Damascus, and carried many Israelites into captivity.

Phacee's murderer, Osee, was Assyria's faithful vassal as long as

Theglathphalasar lived. Shortly afterwards, at the instigation of Egypt, he revolted

against Salmanasar IV, Assyria's new ruler, whereupon Assyrian troops overran

Israel and laid siege to Samaria, which, after a long resistance, fell, near the

close of the year 722 B.C., under Sargon II, who had meantime succeeded

Salmanasar IV. With this ended the Northern Kingdom, after an existence of a

little more than two hundred years. (For the fate of the Israelites left in Palestine

or exiled, see CAPTIVITIES OF THE ISRAELITES.)

IX. THE KINGDOM OF JUDA

Of the two kingdoms formed upon the disruption of Solomon's empire, the

Southern Kingdom, or Kingdom of Juda, was in several respects the weaker, and

yet was the better fitted to withstand the assaults of foreign enemies. Its general

relations with Israel, Egypt, and Assyria, during the existence of the Northern

Kingdom, have been brieflv mentioned in connection with the history of that

kingdom, and need not be more fully set forth here. Hence the following sketch of

the Kingdom of Juda deals exclusively with the period of its existence

subsequent to the overthrow of the Kingdom of Israel by the Assyrians. At the

time of the fall of Samaria, Ezechias was King of Juda (725-696 B.C.). He long

persevered in the allegiance which his father, Achaz, had pledged to Assyria;

Sargon's death, however, in 705 B. c., appeared to him and other Western

princes a favourable opportunity to throw off the Assyrian yoke. He therefore

formed with them a powerful league against Sennacherib, Sargon's successor. In

due time (701 B.C.), the Assyrian forces invaded Western Asia, captured several

Judean cities, and compelled Ezechias to renounce the league and pay an

enormous fine. Not long afterwards, Sennacherib ravaged Juda again, and

haughtily threatened Jerusalem with destruction . In accordance with Isaias's

prophecy, however, his threats came to naught: " the Angel of the Lord

decimated his army, and disturbances in the East recalled him to Nineveh (IV

Kings, xviii, 13; xix). It was under Ezechias that Juda came in contact for the first

time with Babylonia (IV Kings, xx). The long reign of his son, Manasses (696-41

B.C.), was, almost throughout, marked by religious degeneracy and faithful

vassalage to Assyria. In the latter part of it, Juda rebelled against Asarhaddon,

Sennacherib's son and successor, but the insurrection was speedily crushed,

and misfortune brought back Manasses to the worship of the true God. The brief

reign of Amon (641-39 B.C.) was an imitation of the first and the worst practices

of his father. In 608 B.C. Palestine was traversed by an Egyptian army under

Nechao II, a prince of the twenty-sixth dynasty, ambitious to restore to his

country an Asiatic empire. As a faithful vassal of Assyria, the pious King Josias

(639-08 B. c.) marched out to arrest Pharaoh's progress. He was defeated and

slain at Mageddo, and his kingdom became an Egyptian dependency. This

vassalage was indeed short-lived. The Chaldean Nabuchodonosor, on his

victorious March to Egypt, invaded Juda for the first time, and Joakim (A.V.

Jehoiakim) (608-597 B.C.), the eldest son and second successor of Josias,

became a vassal of Babylon in 604 B.C. Despite the advice of the Prophet

Jeremias, the Jewish king rebelled in 598. Next year, the newly enthroned king,

Joachin (A.V. Jehoiakin), was taken, with Jerusalem, and was carried captive to

Babylon together with many of his subjects, among whom was the Prophet

Ezechiel. In 588 B.C., Juda rebelled again under Sedecias (597-86 B.C.), the

third son of Josias. In July, 586 B.C., the Holy City surrendered, and its blinded

king and most of his people were deported to Babylon. Thus began the

Babylonian exile (see CAPTIVITIES OF THE ISRAELITES).

X. AFTER THE BABYLONIAN EXILE

"Politically and nationally the Babylonian captivity put an end for ever to the

people of Israel. Even when, 350 years later, there was once more a Jewish

state, those who formed it were not the people of Israel, not even the Jewish

nation, but that portion which remained in the mother country of a great religious

organization scattered over all Asia and Egypt " (Cornill). The exiles who, in 538

B.C., availed themselves of Cyrus's permission to return to Palestine, were

mostly Judeans, whose varied fortunes after their settlement in and around

Jerusalem belong in a very particular manner to the history of Judaism and

consequently need be set forth only in the briefest manner in the present article.

Prompted by the religious impulse which had led them to come back to the land

of their fathers, their first concern in reaching it was to resume God's holy

worship. Their perseverance in rearing the second Temple was finally crowned

with success in 516 B.C., despite the bitter and prolonged opposition of the

Samaritans. Their great leaders -- not only the Prophets of the time (Zachary and

Malachy), but also their local secular heads (Nehemias and Esdras) -- were

religious reformers, whose one purpose was to secure the people's fidelity to

God's law and worship. They made no attempt to set up a monarchy of their own,

and as long as the Persian Empire lasted they and their descendants gloried in

their loyalty to its rulers. Within the Persian period falls the formation of the

Jewish military colony at Elephantine, the existence and religious worship of

which have been disclosed by Judeo-Aramean papyri discovered quite recently.

The conqueror of Persia, Alexander the Great, seems to have bestowed special

privileges upon the Jewish community of Palestine, and to have granted to the

Jews who settled in Alexandria -- a city which he founded and called after his

name -- equal civil rights with the Macedonians (331 B.C.).

Alexander died before consolidating his empire. During the period of bloodshed

which followed his death, Palestine was the bone of contention between the

Syrian and Egyptian kings, often changed masters, and suffered oppression and

misery at each change. As time went on, the welfare, moral and religious, of the

Palestinian Jews was more and more seriously threatened by the influence of

Hellenism, at first chiefly exercised by the Ptolemies from Alexandria as the

centre (323-202 B.C.), and later by Antiochus III, the Great, of Syria, and his two

successors Seleucus IV and Antiochus Epiphanes, reigning at Antioch (202-165

B.C.). Under this last named Syrian prince, Hellenism appeared to be on the

point of stamping Judaism out of Palestine. The high-priests of the time, who

were the local rulers of Jerusalem, adopted Greek names, and courted the king's

favour by introducing or encouraging Hellenic practices among the inhabitants of

the Holy City. At length Antiochus himself resolved to transform Jerusalem into a

Greek city, and to destroy Judaism from the towns of Palestine and, indeed, from

all his dominions. A most cruel and systematic persecution ensued, in the

course of which the Machabees rebelled against their oppressors. The final result

of the Machabean revolt was the overthrow of the Syrian power and the rise of an

independent Jewish kingdom.

Under the Asmonean dynasty (135-63 B.C.) the Palestinian Jewish community

gradually spread, by conquest and forcible conversion, from its narrow limits in

Nehemias's time, to practically the extent of the territory of ancient Israel.

Internally, it was divided between the two rival sects of the Pharisees and the

Sadducees, themselves the slow outcome of the twofold movement at work

during the Syrian suzerainty, the one against, and the other in favour of,

Hellenism. The war which broke out between the last two Asmonean kings, John

Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II, who were supported by the Pharisees and the

Sadducees respectively, gave to the Romans the 9pportunity they had long

sought for intervening in Judean affairs. In 63 B.C. Pompey invested and took

Jerusalem, and put an end to the last Jewish dynasty. Up to 37 B.C., the year of

the accession of the Idumean Herod to the throne of Judea, the history of the

Palestinian Jews reflects, for the most part, the vicissitudes of the tangled

politics of the Roman imperatores. Herod's despotic reign (37 B.C. to A.D. 4)

was marked by a rapid growth of Hellenism in nearly every city of Palestine, and

also by a consolidation of Pharisaism in the celebrated schools of Hillel and

Shammai. Upon the death of Herod, the Emperor Augustus divided his kingdom

and placed Judea under procurators as a part of the Roman Province of Syria.

The last political struggles to be mentioned are (1) the Jewish revolt against

Rome in A. D. 66, which ended in the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70; (2) the

rebellion of liar Cochba in A.D. 132 under the Emperor Adrian, who finally

transformed Jerusalem into the Roman colony of Ælia Capitolina from which all

Jews were banished. Ever since then, the Jews have been scattered in many

countries, often persecuted, yet surviving, always hoping in some manner for a

future Messias, and generally influenced by the customs, and morals, religious

beliefs of the nations among whom they live.

Besides the works on Biblical history referred to in the bibllography to ISAAC, the following deserve

special mention: VIGOUROUX, Bible et dcouvertes modernes (Paris, 1896); SAYCE, Higher

Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments(London, 1894); McCURDY, History, Prophecy and the

Monuments (New York, 1895; new ed. announced, 1909); LAGRANGE, Etudes sur les religions

sémitiques (Paris, 1903); PINCHES, The Old Testament in the Light of the Historical Records and

Legends of Assyria and Babylonia (London, 1903); WINCKLER, History of Israel (Berlin, 1903);

BREASTED, Ancient Records of Egypt (Chicago, 1906-07); VINCENT, Chanaan d'après

l'exploration récente (Paris, 1907); CORNILL, History of the People of Israel, tr. (Chicago, 1899);

SOUTTAR, A Short History of Ancient Peoples (New York, 1903); WADE, Old Testament History

(New York, 1904).

Francis Gigot

Transcribed by Bob Mathewson

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VIII

Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor

Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

The Catholic Encyclopedia: NewAdvent.org

For more on the Israelites