| cities, all the region of Argob, the kingdom of Og and Bashan. All these cities were fenced with high walls, gates, and bars (brazen bars, 1 Kings iv. 13); besides unwalled towns a great many (Deut. iii. 4, 5). This statement gives us the idea that the country, before it came into the possession of the Israelites, was great and populous; yet it would not be safe to estimate the cities and towns here spoken of by the cities and towns of our own country in modern times. But even in the present day the cities and towns of this region possess, according to the picture drawn of it by Mr. Porter, a singular interest: Though,' says he, the country is now waste and almost deserted, its cities, with their walls and gates, crumbling but not fallen, still remain the living monuments of its former greatness. The most remarkable feature of the ruins that are everywhere met with in this district, is the wonderful state of preservation in which they are found; the massive walls yet standing, and in many places perfect; the streets with their ancient pavement unbroken; the houses complete and habitable, as if only finished yesterday, and even the very doors and window-shutters in their places. Numbers of such towns I have visited. I have wandered along their streets and read the history of the erection of their noble monuments inscribed on tablets nearly two thousand years ago. I have opened the folding doors, entered the houses and palaces, and examined in succession chamber after chamber. Silence and solitude remained there, for they were without inhabitant. The character of these structures explains the enigma of their preservation. The walls are of great thickness and built of square blocks of black basalt as hard as iron. The roofs are formed of long narrow flags of the same material, hewn and jointed with much neatness. The doors are massive slabs of stone, | generally cut in imitation of panels, and sometimes beautifully ornamented with sculptured wreaths of flowers. The window-shutters resemble the doors. No hinges were ever used; and, indeed, none are used in Syria to the present day. The doors turn upon vertical pivots, projecting above and below, which fit into corresponding sockets' (Journ. Sac. Lit., July 1854, p. 281). Before the captivity, Bashan spoken of as a whole; but subsequent to that period, in the books of the Maccabees, in Josephus, and in other writings, it is always referred to as divided into four provinces-Gaulonitis, Trachonitis, Auronitis, and Batanæa. Ezekiel speaks of the Hauran (xlvii. 16, 18), a name which is still given to a great part of the country east of the Sea of Galilee. In the N. T. mention is made of Trachonitis, Iturea, and Abilene (Luke iii. 1). It is difficult to fix the extent and boundaries of these several districts; perhaps, indeed, they varied at different times (Ib. p. 292, 295). Of late years great numbers, particularly from England, have visited Palestine, most of them from the interest connected with it as the scene of the many interesting and important transactions recorded in the Holy Scriptures; but a very general feeling in the minds of such visitors, especially at first, is that a country which has balked so largely in their eyes from their CANDACE earliest years, should be so inconsiderable in ex. tent; and that individual objects-as its cities and rivers, and other scenes-should be so small, and possess so little interest apart from our associations with them. Jerusalem, the Jordan, the Sea of Galilee, the Dead Sea, are no longer the objects which we had previously pictured in our imagination, but have shrunk into comparative insignificance, though, as we examine them one after another, and recall to mind the various events of which they have been the scene, our old interest in them may be considerably revived. Even the very commonly entertained opinion, that a pilgrimage to the spots consecrated by the birth, the life, the sufferings, and death of the Redeemer, cannot but increase our devotion, fails to be realised. In my own case,' says Dr. Stewart, 'I frankly confess that such was not the case. There was something in the disputes which have arisen regarding many of the localities, and the strange contrast between others, as the imagination had pictured them, and as the reality revealed them, which for the moment disturbed rather than increased my devotional feelings. The outward and material necessarily so engrossed so much of the attention as to interfere with spiritual meditation; and it was only after I had left Jerusalem, with all these localities well impressed upon the memory, and had quietly and leisurely transferred the ideas and meditations hitherto grouped around an imaginary locality to the real one, that I was able to appreciate the benefit, in a spiritual point of view, which I had derived from the view. On comparing notes with others who have been there, I found that their experience coincided very much with my own' (Stewart, 307, 438). In ancient times Canaan appears to have been infested to some extent by wild beasts. The references to them in the Scriptures are frequent, as in Gen. xxxvii. 20, 33; Lev. xxvi. 6, 22; Deut. xxxii. 24; Ps. lxxx. 13: particularly to lions, bears, wolves, leopards, serpents (Judg. xiv. 8; 1 Sam. xvii. 34-37; 1 Kings xiii. 24-28; xx. 36; 2 Kings ii. 24; xvii. 26; Prov. xxviii. 15; Jer. v. 6; xlix. 19; Hosea xiii. 7, 8; Amos v. 19; Hab. i. 8). Travellers do not take notice of its being infested by them in modern times. CANDA'CE, queen of the Ethiopians, one of whose courtiers, an eunuch, who had charge of all her treasures,' was converted and baptized by Philip the evangelist. The situation of Cush, which in the O. T. is commonly rendered Ethiopia, is a question of some difficulty. The Ethiopia here referred to is commonly understood of the country to the south of Egypt. Some supposed it to be Abyssinia; but it is more generally understood of that part of upper Nubia in which Meroe, which stood near the present Assour, was situated. We learn from Strabo and Pliny, that both before and after the Christian era Ethiopia was governed by queen who were called Candace, just as Pharaoh and Ptolemy were long common names of the kings of Egypt. Eusebius, who flourished in the 4th century, says that Ethiopia continued to be ruled even in his time by queens who were called Candace, and that through the instru mentality of the eunuch the queen was converted and the gospel introduced into the country (Eccl. Hist. B. ii. 6. 1). The Abyssinians have also a tradition that he introduced it into Tigre, that part of Abyssinia which lay nearest to Meroe. CAN'DLE, a portable light in common use in modern times. Candles are by no means a modern invention, though lamps seem to have been used by the ancients for domestic purposes. Mention is made of something like candles both of tallow and wax, and not unfrequently of pitch. The wicks were originally small cords; afterwards the papyrus and the pith of rushes were used. But the ancients appear at no time to have been able to produce an article in any degree to be compared with the candles of modern times (Edin. Encyc. v. 371). We are not aware that there is any evidence that candles were in use among the Hebrews; it is certain, however, that lamps were in common use by them both in early and in later times (Exod. xxxv. 14; xxxix. 37; Matt. xxv. 3, 4). We meet indeed with the word candle in the E. T. of both the O. T. and the N. T.; but both the Hebrew and the Greek words which are rendered candles are often also rendered lamps, and should have been uniformly so rendered, as the word candle gives a false idea of the Jewish modes of living. The same Hebrew word which is translated lamps in Exod. xxv. 37; xxxv. 14; xxxvii. 23; xxxix. 37; 1 Sam. iii. 3; Prov. xiii. 9; xx. 20, is rendered candle in Job xviii. 6; xxi. 17; xxix. 3; Ps. xviii. 28; Prov. xx. 27; xxiv. 20; xxxi. 18; Jer. xxv. 10; Zeph. i. 12. So little distinction indeed did our translators make between the two words, that in some passages where they have lamp in the text, they have put candle in the margin; and where they have candle in the text they have put lamp in the margin. These are truly loose modes of translation. In 2 Sam. xxi. 17 the word is translated light; but lamp would have been more expressive: The men of David sware unto him, saying, Thou shalt go no more out with us to battle, that thou quench not the lamp of Israel.' In like manner the Greek word Avxvos, which is translated candle in the N. T., should in nearly every instance be translated lamp. This not only corresponds with the utensil in use among the Jews, but in some passages it is more appropriate and intelligible, as in Matt. v. 15, and the parallel passages, Mark iv. 21; Luke xi. 33. A candle would not ordinarily be very suitable for putting under a modius (E. T. bushel). In Luke xi. 34-36 the word occurs twice, and there is plainly a relation between the two clauses in which it thus occurs; but in the one our translators have rendered it light and in the other candle, and thus the relation between them is lost sight of. The lamp (E. T. light) of the body is the eye' (here lamp is much more truthful and expressive than light); 'therefore, when thine eye is sound (E. T. single) thy whole body also is full of light,' etc. 'If whole body, therefore, be full of light,' it is as when the bright shining of a lamp (E. T. candle) doth give thee light.' In several other passages our translators have rendered the word lights thy | where lamps would have been more appropriate and expressive, as in Luke xii. 35, 'Let your loins be girded about and your lamps (E. T. lights) burning, and ye yourselves like unto mer that wait for their Lord;' and also 2 Pet. i. 19, 'We have a more sure word of prophecy, whereunto ye do well that ye take heed as unto a lamp (E. T. a light) that shineth in a dark place.' It is used of John the Baptist (John v. 35): 'He was a burning and a shining lamp (E. T. light), and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light.' In Rev. xxi. 23 it is applied to our Redeemer in his state of exaltation in heaven, and there it is perhaps better rendered light: The city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it; for the glory of God did lighten it, and the lamb was the light thereof.' Here lamp would seem, at least to us moderns, a sad falling off. CANDLESTICK. From what we have stated under the last article, CANDLE, it will be seen that candlestick is not an appropriate term in a translation of the Scriptures; yet it is difficult to find a more suitable word, at least for the O. T., where the reference is nearly always to what is commonly called the golden candlestick which stood in the sanctuary or holy place, and we have no utensil of the nature of a lamp which conveys a sufficiently grand idea of it (Heb. ix. 2). If, therefore, it is employed for it, it must always be borne in mind that oil, not candles, furnished the light (Lev. xxiv. 2). The whole was made of pure gold, its shaft, its branches, its knops, and its flowers. Six branches came out of the sides of it, three out of the one side and three out of the other. The gold used in making it amounted to a talent (Exod. xxxvii. 17-24). The lamps were to be daily lighted by the priests, and were to burn from the evening unto the morning continually' (Lev. xxiv. 14; Num. iii. 31). When Solomon erected the temple of Jerusalem, he made ten candlesticks of gold, and set them in the temple, five on the right hand and five on the left' (2 Chron. iv. 7; see also 1 Kings vii. 49). The candlesticks in the temple were carried away by Nebuzaradan, the captain of the guard at the time of the Babylonish captivity (Jer. lii. 19). When Jerusalem was afterwards destroyed by the Romans, Josephus says that the golden table and the golden candlestick of the temple were carried in the triumphal procession of Vespasian and Titus at Rome; but of the latter he says, 'its construction was now changed from that which we made use of; for its middle shaft was fixed upon a basis, and the small branches were produced of a trident in their position, and had every one out of it to a great length, having the likeness a socket made of brass for a lamp at the tops of them' (Joseph. Wars, vii. 5. 5). He also states that the golden vessels and instruments that were taken out of the Jewish temple were deposited in the Temple of Peace which Vespasian now erected at Rome (Ib. vii. 5. 7). It has been commonly supposed that the figure of a several-branched candlestick which is still to be seen on the triumphal arch of Titus at Rome is a representation of the golden candlestick of the Jewish temple, though the forms of eagles and sea-monsters on the pediment, and some slighter objections, create doubts as to the perfect accuracy of the copy, as it is scarcely likely that the Jews would have admitted anything approaching to idolatrous figures into the sanctuary or holy place; yet, notwithstanding this and the statement of Josephus, it is generally thought that in other respects it may be a fair representation of the golden candlestick found in the temple by the Romans. In 2 Kings iv. 10 lamp may be advantageously substituted for candlestick; and in Matt. v. 15, and the parallel passages in Mark and Luke, lamp-stand may be employed. In the book of Revelation, where in the E. T. the word candlesticks repeatedly occurs, lamps, which may be held to be burning and giving forth light, is much more appropriate and expressive than the mere utensil for holding them. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lamps are the seven churches' (i. 20). 'I will come unto thee quickly and will remove thy lamp (E. T. candlestick) out of its place except thou repent' (ii. 5). Of the two witnesses it is said, 'These are the two lamps (E. T. candlesticks, which is a much less appropriate figure) standing before the God of the earth' (xi. 4). It may be remarked, lamps are commonly supposed to be lighted, while candlesticks are not. This CANE. [CALAMUS.] CANKERWORM. [YELEK.] CAPERNAUM, a city on the west coast of the Sea of Tiberias, in the land of Gennesaret (Matt. iv. 13; John vi. 17, 21, 24, 25). place is spoken of in the Gospels as in a special manner the scene of our Lord's preaching and miracles (Matt. xi. 20, 23), but no traces of it are now to be found; even its name is utterly forgotten in the country. Travellers have their conjectures as to its site, but in their conjectures they greatly differ. Robinson supposes it was probably that of some ruins near to Khan Minyeh (Robinson, Res. iii. 288; iv. 348). Dr. Wilson and other travellers suppose it to have been at a place called Tell Hum, where there are also considerable ruins (Wilson, ii. 138-149). This is decidedly the opinion of Dr. Thomson (Land and Book, i. 543-547). These circumstances are not unworthy of notice in conLection with the heavy denunciations which our Lord pronounced on Capernaum, and it is also not unworthy of notice that the towns Chorazin and Bethsaida, on which he passed similar denunciations (Matt. xi. 21, 22), have in like manner baffled the researches of geographers and travellers. Peter was perhaps a native of Bethsaida: it is called 'the city of Andrew and Peter' (John i. 44); but he appears to have dwelt in Capernaum (Luke iv. 31, 33, 38). CAPHTOR, the country from which the Philistines came when they settled in the southwest of Palestine, on the borders of the Mediterranean Sea (Gen. x. 14; Deut. ii. 23; Jer. xvii. 4; Amos ix. 7). As to the situation of Caphtor, learned men have been much divided. Bochart, following the Septuagint and the Targums of Jerusalem and Jonathan, understand by it Cappadocia in Asia Minor. Calmet and others CAPTIVITY suppose Crete to be the Caphtor of Scripture, while others understand by it the island of Cyprus; but the evidence adduced in favour of these opinions is of the slenderest kind possible. Others, with more probability, think that by Caphtor Egypt is to be understood. It is generally admitted that Egypt was peopled by Mizraim, the son of Ham, or his descendants; his name, in fact, was given to the country. Now among his descendants were the Caphtorim (Gen. x. 6, 14). To pass from Egypt to the south-west of Palestine must have been a comparatively easy and not an unnatural migration; while to pass to Cappadocia or Crete, or even Cyprus, would probably be attended with considerable difficulty at that early period of the world; and after going thither they would require, in order to settle in Palestine, to make another lengthened journey or voyage thither. In support of this opinion, Sir J. G. Wilkinson adduces a further argument: The word Egypt,' says he, 'was at all events connected with Coptos, a city of the Thebaid. From Kebt, Koft, or Coptos, the modern inhabitants have been called Copts. Its ancient name in hieroglyphics was Kebt-hor; and Poole is evidently right in supposing this to be the same as Caphtor. He thinks the name to be composed of Aca and yUTTоs, and to be traced in the Ai-Caphtor, 'land or coast of Caphtor,' in Jer. xlvii. 4; Herodotus, ii. 23.' CAPPADOCIA, a country in the east of Asia Minor, but its boundaries cannot be cer Ar tainly stated, as they varied at different periods. It was long governed by its own princes. chelaus, its last king, gave his daughter in marriage to Alexander, the son of Herod the Great by Mariamne (Joseph. Antiq. xvi. 4. 6). After his death it was reduced by the Emperor Tiberius, A.D. 17, into a province of the Roman empire. Among the Jews, devout men out of every nation under heaven,' who were at Jerusalem and heard Peter on the day of Pentecost, there were 'dwellers in Cappadocia ;' and it is probable that on returning home they might carry the gospel with them. At all events, it was addressed his First Epistle to the strangers early introduced into that country, for Peter scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia' (i. 1); a circumstance which illustrates the early extensive spread of Christianity. Cappadocia was distinguished as the native country of three distinguished fathers of the Christian churchGregory Nazianzen, his friend Basil, bishop of Cæsarea, and his brother Gregory, bishop of Nyssa. CAPTIVITY. As the Hebrew nation was divided into two distinct kingdoms, so each kingdom suffered a distinct captivity-the one the Assyrian, the other the Babylonish captivity. The Assyrian captivity was that of the ten tribes, which began in the reign of Pekah king of Israel, when Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria came and took Ijon, and Abel-beth-maachah, and Janoah, and Kedesh, and Hazor, and Gilead, and Galilee, all the land of Naphtali, and carried them captive to Assyria' (2 Kings xv. 29). This, according to the common chronology, was in the year B.C. 740, and appears to have referred chiefly to the country on the east of the Jordan, and to that on the north-west. Hoshea, having conspired against Pekah, slew him, and reigned in his stead; and having neglected and sought to evade the payment of tribute to the king of Assyria, Shalmanezer came up throughout all the land and took Samaria,' after a siege of three years, and carried Israel away into Assyria, and placed them in Halah and in Habor by the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes' (xv. 30; xvii. 3-6). This was in 721 B.C., about nineteen years after the captivity under Tiglath-pileser. Where that monarch placed his captives is not stated; and where the cities now mentioned were situated is only matter of conjecture. Thus ended the kingdom of Israel, after it had subsisted about 254 years. | gold which Solomon king of Israel had made in the temple of the Lord. And he carried away all Jerusalem, and all the princes, and all the mighty men of valour, even ten thousand captives, and all the craftsmen and smiths; none remained, save the poorest sort of the people of the land. And he carried away Jehoiachin to Babylon, and the king's mother, and the king's wives, and his officers, and the mighty of the land. And all the men of might, even seven thousand, and craftsmen and smiths a thousand, all that were strong and apt for war, even them the king of Babylon brought captive to Babylon' (2 Kings xxiv. 8, 10-16). This was in 599 B.C. It appears to have been at this time that Ezekiel and others of his fellow-captives at the River Chebar were carried to the land of the Chaldæans, for it is from Jehoiachin's captivity that he dates his visions (i. 1-3; viii. long captivity; but at length, after about thirtyseven years, Evil-merodach, king of Babylon, brought him forth out of prison, and spake kindly unto him, and set his throne above the throne of the kings that were with him in Babylon, and changed his prison-garments: and he did eat bread continually before him all the days of his life. And for his diet there was a continual diet given him of the king of Babylon, every day a portion, until the day of his death, all the days of his life' (Jer. lii. 31-34). A touching picture truly ! That the country might not be without inha-1; xx. 1, etc.) Jehoiachin himself sustained a bitants, 'the king of Assyria brought men from Babylon, and from Cuthah, and from Ava, and from Hamath, and from Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Samaria instead of the children of Israel; and they possessed Samaria, and dwelt in the cities thereof.' To these many others of different nations appear to have been afterwards added. Such were the people from whom sprang the race commonly known by the name of Samaritans. The first colonists were probably settled by Esarhaddon, the son of Sennacherib, king of Assyria; the last by 'the great and noble Asnapper' (2 Kings xvii. 24; xix. 37; Ezra iv. 2, 9, 10). The Babylonish captivity was that of the kingdom of Judah. It was the work of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, and consisted of three successive stages. On the death of Josiah, who had been mortally wounded in fighting against Pharaoh-Necho, king of Egypt, he was succeeded by his son Jehoahaz, who after a short reign of three months was dethroned by the Egyptian monarch, and was carried into Egypt and died there. Pharaoh placed on the throne Jehoiakim, another son of Josiah, who reigned for eleven years. 'In the third year of his reign came Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, unto Jerusalem, and besieged it. And the Lord gave Jehoiakim into his hand, with part of the vessels of the house of God, which he carried into the land of Shinar, to the house of his god; and he brought the vessels into the treasure-house of his god' (Dan. i. 1, 2; see also 2 Kings xxiii. 36; xxiv. 1, 2, 5, 6; 2 Chron. xxxvi. 5-8). Among those who were carried captive at this time were Daniel and his three friends, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. The likelihood is, there were others carried into captivity at this time, though there is no particular mention of them. This was in the year 606 B.C., and upwards of a hundred years after the final captivity of Israel. Jehoiakim was succeeded by his son Jehoiachin, but he reigned only three months; for 'Nebuchadnezzar came up against Jerusalem and besieged it; and Jehoiachin went out to him, he, and his mother, and his servants, and his princes, and his officers; and the king of Babylon carried out thence all the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king's house, and cut in pieces all the vessels of Nebuchadnezzar now placed Zedekiah, another son of Josiah, on the throne; but in the ninth year of his reign he rebelled against the king of Babylon, who now again came up against Jernsalem, and after a siege of eighteen months Zedekiah and his men of war were compelled by famine to abandon the city and attempt to make their escape; but the army of the Chaldæans pursued after him and overtook him in the plains of Jericho, and brought him to the king of Babylon to Riblah. And they slew the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes, and put out the eyes of Zedekiah, and bound him with fetters of brass, and carried him to Babylon.' And now Nebuzaradan, the captain of the guard, 'came unto Jerusalem, and he burnt the house of the Lord, and the king's house, and all the houses of Jerusalem, and every great man's house burnt he with fire. And all the army of the Chaldæans broke down the walls of Jerusalem round about. Now the rest of the people that were left in the city, and the fugitives that fell away to the king of Babylon, with the remnant of the multitude, did Nebuzaradan carry away. But the captain of the guard left of the poor of the land to be vinedressers and husbandmen' (2 Kings xxv. 1-12). Over this remnant Gedaliah was appointed governor, but about two months after he was basely assassinated by Ishmael, of the seed royal,' and then all the people, both small and great, and the captains of the armies, arose and came to Egypt, for they were afraid of the Chaldees' (xxv. 22-26). This, the concluding captivity of the kingdom of Judah, took place in the year 588 B.C., after it had subsisted from the beginning of Rehoboam's reign 387 years, and 133 years longer than the kingdom of Israel. From the whole accounts of the captivity it For there they that carried us away captive re- And they that wasted us required of us mirth, O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; would appear that the country was now bereft | By the rivers of Babylon there we sat down; of its inhabitants, and yet the numbers which Yea, we wept when we remembered Zion. are given of the captives that were carried to We hanged our harps on the willows in the midst Babylon are quite inconsiderable. Of the thereof; numbers carried captive in the reign of Jehoiakim we have no statement. Of those carried away in the reign of Jehoiachin we have some particular details. In 2 Kings xxiv. 14 we are told that all Jerusalem and all the princes, and all the mighty men of valour, even 10,000 captives, and all the craftsmen and smiths,' were carried away; and in ver. 16 that 'all the men of might, even 7000, and craftsmen and smiths 1000, all that were strong and apt for war, even them the king of Babylon brought captive to Babylon.' But it is not very clear whether these numbers are to be added together, or whether some of them are only details of particular classes included in the more general statements of the same numbers. The numbers carried captive in the reign of Zedekiah are not given in the Book of Kings; and in the Book of Chronicles there are no numbers given at all. Happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. Several of the captives, however, rose to high rank and authority under the kings of Babylon, as Daniel and his three companions, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Dan. i. 18-21; ii. 48, 49; iii 12, 29, 30; v. 29); and when the Babylonian monarchy was overthrown, Daniel was promoted to high authority and dignity by Darius, the king of Persia (vi. 1-3). Such occurrences as these are noway strange in In the Book of Jeremiah we have apparently a more complete statement. In the seventh | Oriental countries. It is commonly alleged year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, which appears to correspond with the captivity under Jehoiachin, the numbers given are 3023; in the eighteenth year of his reign, which appears to correspond with the captivity under Zedekiah, there were from Jerusalem 832; and in the twenty-third year of his reign, four years after the destruction of Jerusalem, there were 745. All the persons,' it is added, 'were 4600' (Jer. lii. 28-30). We are unable to explain the discrepancy of the first of these numbers as compared with that given in 2 Kings xxiv. 14, 16; the second seems a very small number to be carried away from Jerusalem when it was destroyed, even though it should be supposed to refer to it alone. that in Babylon the Jews were effectually cured of their disposition to idolatry. In past ages, from the time of their coming out of Egypt to the destruction of Jerusalem, they had shown a singular proneness to idolatry; but since their captivity they have been in a remarkable degree weaned from it, and have been a standing witness to the nations of the divine unity. The fact, however, is often stated too generally, for to this there have been remarkable exceptions, as in the times of Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria (1 Maccab. i. 11-15, 41-55; ii. 23-25). Perhaps, however, none of these numbers are much to be relied on, as transcribers were peculiarly liable to make mistakes in copying numbers. But taking even the highest numbers now given, they could form but a very small part of the population of the kingdom of Judah. What, then, had become of the great body of the inhabitants? As to this we have no satisfactory answer to give founded on historical authority; we only know that in subsequent times great numbers of Jews were found in other parts of the world, and it is a natural enough conjecture that, as there were three successive deportations of the Jews to Babylon, and as between these the country was in a very unsettled and dangerous state, great numbers may, in the intervals and at the deportations, have fled the country and taken refuge in other lands. This, however, could only partially explain the fact of the general depopulation of the country, and we must be content to leave it in a great measure unexplained. If we had possessed fuller details, there might have been found no difficulty in the case. Of the condition of the captives in Babylon we have few accounts. That of the mass of the people was probably sad enough. Of their Views and feelings we have a touching picture in the 137th Psalmı : The Jews' captivity of seventy years was at length ended. Cyrus, the king of Persia, in the first year of his reign, B.C. 536, made proclamation authorising the Jews who were in his kingdom to return to their own land and to rebuild the temple at Jerusalem, and he caused to be delivered up to them the vessels of the house of the Lord which Nebuchadnezzar had brought with him to Babylon (Ezra i.) In consequence of the proclamation there now returned to Palestine, under the leadership of Zerubbabel, who was of the royal line of the children of the captivity, 42,360, besides their servants and their maids, of whom there were 7337,' making together 49,697; but perhaps the servants and maids were not Jews (Ezra ii. 1, 2, 64, 65; 1 Chron. iii. 19). These form but a small portion of a nation, and yet they greatly exceed the numbers which are stated to have been carried captive, and even of their natural increase during the time of the captivity. But the numbers who now returned do not show the number of Jews in the Babylonian empire. Josephus says, 'Many of the Jews remained in Babylon, not being willing to leave their possessions (Antiq. xi. 1. 3). We also find from the Book of Esther that there were at a later period great numbers of Jews in various parts of the Persian empire (Esther ii. 5-7; iii. 8, 12-15; viii. 17; ix. 1-3, 5, 6, 12-16). From these statements it will be seen that there were much greater numbers of Jews in these countries than are accounted for by the numbers stated |