History of the Jews, Vol. 1 (of 6)

by Heinrich Graetz

The example of Ahaz was, as a matter of course, not without influence on others. The nobles of Judah, who had a decided preference for all that was foreign, because it allowed full sway to their passions, gladly welcomed this adoption of Assyrian customs. Favoured by the weakness of King Ahaz, they could indulge in sensual pleasures, and continue their acts of injustice towards the nation. The priests were also infected by the bad example. From motives either of selfishness or of fear, they passed over with silence, and even favoured the evil deeds of the king and the nobles. They preached for hire according to the wishes of the mighty nobles. One of these depraved priests appears to have asserted that the sacrifice of the first-born was not displeasing to the God of Israel, but that such offerings were acceptable to Him. The law of Moses which commanded the first-born to be sanctified to the Lord, was explained as an order to surrender them to the fire. Happily, there yet remained representatives of the ancient law in its purity, who raised their voices in powerful and eloquent protest against these crimes and depravities. A younger prophet of that time laid his finger on the gaping wound, and not only called the degeneracy by the right name, but also pointed out the source whence it had arisen. The second Micah of Moresheth, probably one of the disciples of Isaiah, shared with him the arduous task of appealing to the hearts of the sinners, and of making clear to them the indispensable results of their evil-doings. He probably took up his dwelling-place in Jerusalem, but knowing the feelings prevalent in the country places and villages, he paid more attention to them than did the other prophets.

In a speech uttered in the time of King Ahaz, Micah laid bare the prevalent religious and moral evils, and especially declaimed against human sacrifices (Micah vi.). Notwithstanding all this, the evil spread further, and also attacked the healthy portions of the nation. False prophets, speaking in the name of the Lord, arose, who advocated crimes and vices in order to flatter the men in power. These false prophets spoke with eloquence—they pretended to have had visions; they employed the prophetic mode of speech, and by these means brought about a terrible confusion of ideas. The nation was bewildered, and knew not which to believe—its critics and censors, or its adulators and encomiasts. These evil days under King Ahaz were even more baneful than the six years of Athalia's government; they witnessed a king trampling the ancient law under foot, and introducing idolatry with its concomitant immorality and contempt of justice, nobles allowing their passions untrammelled license, and false prophets daring to speak in defence of those misdeeds, while the prophets of truth and justice were proscribed.

But in the meantime political events took their course and gave rise to fresh complications. In the kingdom of Samaria, which since its separation from the eastern and northern districts, could no longer be called the kingdom of the Ten Tribes, wrongdoing and short-sightedness continued to prevail. The wounds inflicted by the Assyrians had not crushed the pride and selfishness of those in power. Defying the misery of the present, they said: "Dwellings of brick have fallen in; we will erect buildings of stone. Sycamores have been hewn down; well, let us plant cedars instead." In their drunken carousals the Ephraimitish nobles failed to perceive that the defeats which their country had suffered, unless followed by a manly revival of energies, were only the prelude to their complete destruction. In addition to this short-sightedness, or perhaps in consequence of it, anarchy set in. After Pekah's death at the hands of Hoshea, the ringleader of the conspirators, nine years elapsed, during which no king could maintain himself in power. Hoshea appears at first to have refused the crown of thorns, and there was no one else who could lay claim to sovereignty. From the time of Pul's interference with the Lebanon affairs and the destruction of the Aramæan kingdom by Tiglath-Pileser, war between Egypt and Assyria had become inevitable. The two empires, on the Nile and on the Tigris, watched each other suspiciously, and prepared themselves for the final contest, through diplomatic movements and counter-movements, in which each endeavoured to strengthen itself and weaken the enemy by the acquisition of allies.

Meanwhile the doom of Samaria was ripe for fulfilment. Was it from a knowledge of their weakness, or only a thoughtless whim, that her nobles finally recognised Hoshea the son of Elah, the murderer of King Pekah, as their king? This last king of Samaria (727–719) was better, or rather less bad than his predecessors. He was also warlike; yet he was unable to avert the impending destruction. He appears to have secretly entered into connections with Egypt, which continually duped him with false promises. At this time a warrior-king of Assyria, Shalmaneser, proceeded against Elulai, king of Tyre and Phœnicia, and subdued him. The Tyrian kingdom was not able to offer any resistance. On this occasion Shalmaneser directed his plans also against Samaria. Hoshea did not await his coming, but went to meet him, offering surrender and gifts of allegiance. But no sooner had the Assyrian king withdrawn than conspiracies were organised against him. Hoshea commenced the secession by withdrawing the yearly tribute, and Phœnicia followed suit.

Shalmaneser thereupon collected his troops, and crossing the Euphrates and Lebanon, proceeded first against the Phœnicians. At his approach, the nations lost all hope of liberty. The Phœnician towns of Zidon, Acre, and even the ancient capital of Tyre, surrendered, probably without attempting resistance. From Acre, Shalmaneser advanced to the Samaritan kingdom by way of the plain of Jezreel. The inhabitants of the Israelitish towns either submitted to the mighty king or fled to the capital. Hoshea, undaunted by all these defections, continued his opposition, though, as it appears, the expected or promised help from Egypt was withheld. The capital, Samaria, which lay on a hill-top, could, if properly intrenched, hold out for some time. Meanwhile, Hoshea and the inhabitants of Samaria hoped for some unlooked-for event which might compel Shalmaneser to retreat. The walls, towers, and battlements of Samaria were therefore fortified, and rendered capable of defence; provisions and water supplies were also collected, and all the preparations needed for the defence of a besieged city were made. But the Assyrians were masters in the art of attacking and capturing fortified cities. The attack and the defence must have been carried on with great energy and endurance, for the siege of Samaria lasted nearly three years (from the summer of 721 till the summer of 719). But all the exertions, the courage and the patience of the besieged proved fruitless. The capital of the kingdom of the Ten Tribes, after an existence of two hundred years, was taken by storm. The last king of that state, Hoshea, though he was probably caught fighting, was mercifully treated by his conqueror. He was stripped of his dignities, and kept in prison for the rest of his life. No pen has noted how many thousands perished in this last contest of the kingdom of Israel, or how many were carried off into banishment. So estranged was that kingdom from those who recorded the memorials of the Israelitish nation, that they devoted but few words to its decline. No lament resounded, as though the sad fate of the nation was a matter of indifference to the poets. The prediction of the prophets had been fulfilled. Ephraim was no more; the idols of Dan, Samaria, and other cities, wandered away to Nineveh, and prisoners in thousands were carried off and dispersed. They were sent to colonise the thinly-populated territories—the position of which is not precisely known—in Halah and Habor, on the river Gozan, and in the towns of mountainous Media. The kingdom of the Ten Tribes, or Israel, had existed for two centuries and a half; twenty kings had ruled over it; but in one day it disappeared, leaving no trace behind. Alienated from the source of its existence through the obstinacy of Ephraim, which disregarded the Law and its influences on national morality, liberty and political strength, it had fallen into idolatry and its attendant vices. The country vomited out the Ten Tribes, as it had vomited out the Canaanitish tribes. What has become of them? They have been looked for and believed to have been discovered in the distant East as well as the far West. Cheats and dreamers have claimed to be descended from them. But there can be no doubt that the Ten Tribes have been irretrievably lost among the nations. A few of them, such as agriculturists, vine-dressers, and shepherds may have remained in the country, and some, especially such as lived near the borders of Judah, may have taken refuge in that country.

Thus the diseased limb, which had infected and paralyzed the entire body of the nation, was cut off and rendered harmless. The tribe of Ephraim, which on its first entry into the country had caused national disintegration through its selfishness, and which later on, owing to its haughtiness and self-seeking, brought on the weakening and final destruction of a kingdom once occupying the position of an empire, was now lamenting in exile. "Thou hast chastised me, and I was chastised as an untamed calf. I was ashamed, yea, I am confounded, because I bear the disgrace of my youth." (Jeremiah xxxi. 17, 18.) The body of the nation seemed to be healthier and more at ease after the removal of its unruly member. The tribes of Judah and Benjamin, with their dependencies of Simeon and Levi, which, since the downfall of the Ten Tribes, formed the people of Israel, or the "remnant of Israel," now rose to new power and developed fresh splendour. The destruction of Samaria, stunning as it was in its immediate effect on the remnant of the nation, served also a salutary purpose, inasmuch as, for the moment at least, it induced the people to put aside the follies and sins which had contributed also to their degeneration and weakness. The people and the nobles were now no longer deaf to the exhortations of the prophets; Isaiah's prediction to erring Samaria—that "the crown of pride on the head of the fat valley of the drunkards of Ephraim would be as an early ripe fig which is hastily devoured," (Isaiah xxviii. 1–4)—being fulfilled, they could no longer refuse him a hearing. How little was wanting, and Jerusalem had shared the fate of Samaria! Its existence depended on a whim of the Assyrian conqueror. In Jerusalem the fear of national overthrow begot humility, and a desire to listen to the words of those who would lead them in the right path.

Fortunately a king now occupied the throne, the like of whom had not been known since the time of David. Hezekiah (724–696), the son of Ahaz, was the very opposite of his father. His gentle, poetical soul was filled with an ideal, which he beheld in his people's own law, in its ancient statutes and traditions. With the same eagerness with which his father had paid homage to foreign usages, Hezekiah was intent on the restoration of pristine Judæan morals, and the purification of religious conceptions and institutions. He accepted the Torah as the guide of his own life and of that of his nation. His were not only the virtues of justice, generosity and high-mindedness, but also those distinctions of character, which as a rule are foreign to crowned heads, gentleness, modesty, and humility, adorned him. He possessed that deep piety and pure fear of God which are as rarely met with as artistic perfection or military genius.

Did the prophets early recognise this nobility of soul and heart in the young prince? Or did their power of vision enable them to foresee the accession of a king on David's throne who would adorn it? Or was it through their early teaching and guidance that he grew up to become the ideal king that he was? Nevertheless it is a fact that two prophets predicted great and promising things of Hezekiah while he was still in his boyhood.

During Ahaz's misrule, the prophets and that circle of "the Gentle" who composed the kernel and heart of the nation of Israel, turned their attention to the young prince, from whom they expected the restoration of the golden age enjoyed during the glorious days of David. Hezekiah had witnessed the sins of his father with pain, and bore testimony to the aversion he felt for them immediately after his father's death, inasmuch as he did not bury him in the hereditary sepulchre of the house of David, but in a specially prepared tomb. Hezekiah expressed his convictions in a psalm composed on his accession to the throne, which may be considered a manifesto. (Ps. ci.)

Hezekiah's reign, rich as it was in the manifestation of great virtues, in events of great import and in poetical creations, might have become a golden age had it not been that his wishes and plans were opposed by a barrier which he found it impossible to break down. Royalty had long ceased to have sole power in Judah. The overseer or superintendent of the palace (Sochen) had full power over the army and the officers of the court. He kept the king like a prisoner in his own apartments. In Hezekiah's time, the superintendent Shebna behaved as though he were the possessor of the throne and of sovereign power. In the beginning of his reign, however, the courtiers and those who were in office as judges or otherwise, not knowing his character or force of will, gave the young king free scope. During this time Hezekiah could carry his good resolves into effect, and in part introduce innovations, such as removing the idols, restoring the unity of worship, and dismissing the most unworthy of the courtiers from the palace and filling their places with more deserving men.