took place at the time of the Dodecarchy, or when the government of Egypt was completely shivered to pieces, he might easily have been able to maintain himself there for a considerable period. Of the strength of his rule in the sacred land we are able to adduce at least one important example.

2. This is the case of Samaria, i.e. the territory of the former kingdom of the Ten Tribes enclosed in the narrow limits which were left to it after the northern and eastern provinces were torn away under Tiglath-Pileser; for it is with this meaning that the terms Samaria and the Samarians (Samaritans) are generally used.' After the deportation of the greater number of their inhabitants by Shalmaneser,2 these districts remained for many years in a condition of such desolation that they were overrun with wild beasts. In the mean time king Asarhaddon,3 whom we suppose to be Asarhaddon II., having reduced afresh several refractory towns about twenty years after the death of Sennacherib, and wishing to inflict on their inhabitants the favourite punishment of his predecessors, transported large bodies of their heathen populations into these deserted provinces. We still know the names of several of these cities; and they give us a clearer idea of the number of the revolts of cities subjugated by former kings of Assyria, which Asarhaddon had to put down. A great number of the settlers in Samaria, the former capital, appear to have come from the Babylonian city of Cuthah; from which arose the name of Cutheans, often applied in derision to the Samarians by the later Jews. Other settlers were sent from Babylon itself; a fact which proves that Babylon had then been for some time independent of Nineveh, and had only with great difficulty been again subjugated. The neighbouring city of Cuthah had evidently taken the side of tremely probable that there has been some confusion between the two Asarhaddons. But to reduce them both to one person is too much opposed to the distinct statements which have come down to us. This perhaps affords the explanation of the statement in Euseb. Chron. Arm. p. 44, where, by a similar error, the chronicler passes straight from the first Asarhaddon to the successor of the second; for the reigns of Sammuges and his brother, each lasting twenty-one years, would correspond, at any rate as far as time is concerned, with the twenty years of Saosduchin and the twenty-two of Kiniladan in the Canon.

The oldest example we possess of this use of the word occurs in 2 Kings xvii. 29.

2 P. 165.

The name of the Assyrian king who repeopled Samaria is not given in 2 Kings

xvii. 24; but it is distinctly said that it was Asarhaddon in Ezra iv. 2. The Masora always speils this name Esarhaddon; the name 'AoBáκapas in Ezr. Apocr. v. 69 certainly rests on an incorrect reading of the Hebrew; moreover, some of the MSS. have here Nacherdan, which is itself a corruption from Sacherdan (according to Tobit i. 21), just as that is in turn from Asardân (Sardân).

According to Abulfida's Geogr. p. 305, 2, it lay not far from Babylon, and there seem to have been two towns of the same name at no great distance from each other, see de Sacy's Chrest. Ar. i. p. 331 sq. 2nd ed.; Tabari's Annalen, i. p. 185, Dub.; Rawlinson in the Journ. As. Soc. x. p. 23, and Journ. Geogr. Soc. xii. p. 477; Chwolson's Abs. über die Altbabyl. Liter. p. 48 sq.

Babylon in the struggle, and now suffered with it. Many of those, however, who were forced to settle in the cities of Samaria belonged to tribes in the remote east. This warrants the conclusion, which a little illuminates the obscurity of this period, that the reigning king of Assyria was making another attempt, which was not wholly in vain, to subjugate those distant eastern peoples, at the head of which the Medes had revolted against the Assyrians after the death of Sennacherib. Other settlers came from the cities on the west of the Euphrates, Hamath, Ivah, and Sepharvaim; 2 these cities belonged to those portions of Syria which it has been already stated that Asarhaddon subdued. These different heathen populations, establishing themselves in the cities of the deserted country, each maintained the worship of its own god; and when several of them were killed by lions, the fear gradually took shape among them that the ancient deity of the country was wroth with the new inhabitants for the neglect of his religion by the side of the many new faiths that had been introduced. Anxious that his settlement should thrive, Asarhaddon sent them a priest of the service of Jahveh from the midst of the exiled Samarians; he duly took up his residence in Bethel,3 and, there is no doubt, following the ancient custom of the kingdom of the Ten Tribes, set up an image of Jahveh in the form of a bull. But the pure heathen religions of the new settlers continued to exist along with it; and the ancient sacred places which had been deserted, where so many altars raised in times long gone by were still standing, saw the images of all possible deities erected by their side. This condition lasted till towards the dissolution of the

In the enumeration in Ezr. iv. 9 sq., which is from a very different source, the following names appear: 1) the Dinaites, or, according to the LXX, Deinaites, probably from the Median city which was called in much later times Deinaver, cf. Abulfida, Geogr. ed. Par. p. 414; 2) Apharsathchites, or as the Greeks spelt the name Paratakians, on the boundaries of Media and Persia, see Arrian's Anab. iii. 19. 5, 4. 21 sqq.; 3) Tarpelites, perhaps the same as the Tarpurites of the Greeks, Arrian iii. 8. 7; 4) Persians [Apharsites]; 5) Archevites in Babylonia, Babylonians, Susanchites (or Elamites, a name omitted in the LXX as of the same signification); 6) Dehavites, called Daians by the Greeks. The circumstances of the composition of the passage accounts for the special mention here of eastern tribes, because a petition is addressed to the Persian king, in which the Samarians especially allude to

their eastern origin; hence in v. 6 and vi. 6 only Persian descendants are named. Moreover, that the name of the king in this composition, iv. 10, should be different, is not surprising: the name Osnappar, according to the Masora, or better Asannapar, according to the LXX, is probably merely a

contraction from Asardanapar; and the Greek name Sardanapalus has arisen from Asarhaddon simply by the addition of this termination.

2 On these two last see p. 162 note 4. This passage makes it clear that the order of the cities enumerated in 2 Kings xvii. 30 sq. comp. with ver. 24, and the name of Sidonians subsequently applied in derision to the Samarians, can hardly have referred merely to local and intellectual relationship. What corruptions these names subsequently underwent may be seen from Epiph. Hær. viii. 7, I. p. 22, Petav. 3 P. 26.

kingdom of Judah; the change which then gradually came over it will be described further on.

This Asarhaddon was, therefore, just the man to make the thoughtless Manasseh also feel his power in Judah. The Chronicles relate that Jahveh sent on the reprobate prince and his people the generals of the Assyrian king, who carried away Manasseh in chains to Babylon. There, in his affliction, the obdurate king came to a knowledge of his sins, and turned to Jahveh with sincere entreaty; his prayer was heard, and he returned to reign once more in Jerusalem. Whoever is acquainted with the Chronicler's style of half-poetic representation, will only find in this account an example of the peculiar manner in which this narrator so often compresses into a few pregnant words the fuller descriptions contained in his authorities. The historical foundation of this story cannot, however, be called in question. Neither motive nor pretext for war against so foolish a king could possibly be wanting to the Assyrians; and the Assyrian generals might tempt him into their snares as they had formerly succeeded with the last king of Samaria.' We know from another source that on that occasion the Assyrians not only carried off the royal treasures, but actually deported several of Hezekiah's own sons to Babylon, where they were employed about the court.3 We may very reasonably assume, further, that this did not take place till towards the middle of the long reign of Manasseh; and considering the instability of all the movements of the Assyrian monarchy which was now hastening to its end, it is not surprising that on the death of Asarhaddon, if not before, Manasseh should have regained his freedom and his throne. That this severe affliction should have made an impression on his view of the situation, and have led him to a sort of repentance, may be not without foundation in fact. At any rate, we find no traces of any renewal of the furious and bloody persecution of the faithful down to the time of Josiah's reforms; and the statement about Manasseh's repentance was contained in the authorities used by the Chronicler.5 No other

4

The author of the description 2 Kings xvii. 24-41 is the last author but one of the book of Kings, and wrote, therefore, towards the end of the reign of Josiah. The exact names of the different idols, ver. 30 sq., are very curious, only they have hitherto been extremely obscure. In later times this priest was confused with Ezra, and Asarhaddon was made into Nabuchodrozzor; see Epiphan., &c.

2 P. 164.

5

2 Chron. xxxiii. 18 sq.; comp. with ver. 12 sq. The Chronicler evidently found a fuller account of all this both in the larger book of Kings and in a work on the prophet Hozai. This latter did not probably date from very far back, so that it is pos

* 2 Kings xx. 17 sq.; cf. above, p. 188 sible to suppose that the prayer of Ma

consequences of any general importance followed this change of feeling; he restored the altar of Jahveh in the forecourt of the temple which he had previously destroyed,' and offered sacrifice upon it; but so far as we can see at present, he allowed the heathen altars to continue as they were.2 This perhaps explains why the present book of Kings entirely passes over this incident of Manasseh's long career. The heathen element which had penetrated so deeply into the kingdom, was not suppressed till the reign of Josiah; only the severity of the bloody persecution of the faithful was plainly diminished.

6

Manasseh certainly appears, however, to have had a more prudent regard for the interests of his kingdom in his later years. He provided all the fortresses with proper garrisons, and restored the second wall round Jerusalem,3 since the outer wall which had been built by Hezekiah either had not been completed, or had perhaps fallen out of repair. While the Assyrian power was tottering to its end, the Egyptian, under Psammetichus, regained its vigour, and he accordingly formed a very close alliance with it. This conclusion, at any rate, we are quite warranted in drawing by the few indications which remain to us. The war which Psammetichus carried on against the Philistine city of Ashdod, until its final reduction after a siege of twenty-nine years," must certainly have been watched with pleasure in Jerusalem. We further learn from Jeremiah, that an alliance existed with Egypt till the opening of Josiah's reign; and, as he expressly intimates, it replaced the previous league with Assyria, of which people were now weary. This change of feeling in favour of Egypt certainly commenced, hownasseh, found in some of the MSS. of the LXX and now placed in the Apocrypha, have been preserved from it. The extracts from an Apocryphon, which have been preserved in the Targum on the passage in the Chronicles, in Suidas under Mavaroh, and in the Chronogr. of Georg. Syncellus, i. p. 404 (cf. also Žunz Hebr. Handscriften in Italien, p. 12), would have to be assigned, judging by the character of their contents, to a later age than the Chronicles, even if the insertion in the Targum of the mention of the Logos were somewhat arbitrary. Cf. the Jahrbb. der Bibl. Wiss. x. p. 260 sq.-The song in Deut. xxxii. might seem also to fall in this last Assyrian period, as it sounds like an echo of the utterances of Isaiah, and it describes the Assyrians as a corrupt and feeble nation, whose sway Israel ought to be ashamed to endure; but the origin conjecturally ascribed to it p. 194 note 6 is more probable. 1 P. 209.

2 The Chronicler certainly says he removed out of the temple and city all the heathen altars which he had erected before, but this view of the results of his repentance is contradicted by the older narrative 2 Kings xxiii. 12; the latter passage is really wanting in the Chronicles. The supposition would still remain without disproof that Manasseh merely placed these altars on one side and that they were restored by Amon, but it receives no further corroboration.

32 Chron. xxxiii. 14; cf. vol. iii. p. 254.

4 P. 175.

Herodot. ii. 157; hence the 'remnant of Ashdod,' Jer. xxv. 20; cf. xlvii. 4 sq.

6 Jer. ii. 18, 36. The words seem to imply that an Assyrian alliance had subsisted not only at the time of Ahaz but even down to the reign of Manasseh, but it preceded the alliance with Egypt.

ever, under Manasseh, and we are even able to state with some precision the terms of the alliance. The army of Psammetichus, who, in former years during the great disturbances in Egypt, had himself found shelter as a refugee in Syria,' was for the most part made up of foreign mercenaries.2 He accordingly received regiments of Jewish infantry, which he conveyed to Egypt by sea from Joppa, supplying Manasseh with cavalry in return. The two states thus mutually exchanged the kind of forces in which each was strongest, and an active intercourse certainly sprang up between them which was not confined to military purposes. The inclination of Judah towards Egypt

3

further involved a more indulgent treatment of the Idumeans, in whom Egypt had taken a friendly interest ever since the days of Solomon; and we learn from a work of this period that the law actually laid stress on this point, in spite of the long national enmity which had subsisted between them.

3. The shelter extended by this peace favoured the arrival in the later years of Manasseh's reign of a period of relative prosperity, which, as we learn from the passage in the book of Micah 5 already alluded to, as well as from the prophetic book of Zephaniah and the earliest utterances of Jeremiah, continued down to the age of Josiah. It was at this time that the present book of Solomonic Proverbs was re-edited, and received several additions, among which the splendid introduction with which it opens deserves special mention. It is a remarkable testimony to the boldness of thought and aspiration with which the spirit of the nation, which had been for centuries so powerfully aroused, could at once advance, when there dawned upon it an era favourable to its calm development. This book not merely carries forward in the same line the lofty conception of wisdom

1 Herodot. ii. 152.

2 According to Herodot. ii. 152, they were only Ionians and Carians, but Diod. Sic. i. 66 speaks also of Arabians, a term in which the common usage might include the inhabitants of South Palestine.

3 This follows from Deut. xxviii. 68 comp. with xvii. 16. Nothing but the recent occurrence of some such peculiar practice as this could induce the Deuteronomist1) to look upon the forcible conveyance of Israelites by sea to Egypt, there to be treated like slaves, as the worst possible calamity that could befall them; and 2) to command the king of Israel not to convey his people to Egypt, in order to obtain large numbers of horses in return. The testimony in the book of Aristeas (p. 104, ad. fin. Haverkamp's Joseph.) which I did

not discover till too late, and which is brief but very distinct, is entirely independent of this. It is certainly not borrowed from Deuteronomy, and must, therefore, rest on some older narrative.

4 This results from Deut. xxiii. 8; cf. the rigid precepts of a wholly opposite character about the Moabites and Ammonites, vv. 4–7.

Mic. vi. sq. Let anyone only observe how coldly this prophet speaks of the king then on the throne, vi. 9. It is clear from vi. 6 sq. that a deep feeling of penitence had recently penetrated the people, which is quite in accordance with the remarks on p. 217 sq.