Page:Essays ethnological and linguistic.djvu/193

Rh most furiously on the tribes of the frontiers, Naphthali, and those on the other side of the Jordan, namely Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh. In the inroad made by the Assyrians under Tiglath-Pileser, we are told they "took Ijon and Abel-beth-maachah and Janoah and Kedesh and Hazor and Gilead and Galilee, all the land of Naphthali, and carried them captive to Assyria." (2 Kings xv. v. 29.) Yet even under the belief of these tribes having suffered very severely more than the others, it appears from Josiah having thus exercised his superintendence over all Israel, in "the cities of Manasseh and Ephraim and Simeon, even unto Naphthali," that there were still large bodies of the people of those tribes remaining, and inhabiting their cities in their own land, after the Assyrians had wasted their country and carried away captive a number of their brethren. If therefore the above inferences be correct, we have eight tribes out of the ten proved to have had a large portion remaining in their own land after the Assyrian captivity, among whom it is particularly deserving of notice are the tribes of Simeon, and of Ephraim and Manasseh.

Of all the theories put forward on the supposition of the ten tribes having been lost to history, that in support of the Afghans being their descendants has certainly met with most favour. For this the strongest argument adduced by its advocates is the similarity of names among this people to some among the ancient Israelites, as has been already stated; one tribe among the Afghans being now designated by themselves as the tribe of Joseph, and another by a name resembling that of Simeon. But these coincidences of names, we may repeat, afford no proof of identity with the Israelites, as the names are common to all the Eastern nations, while we are thus fortunately able to show the futility of the supposition further by tracing the tribes of Joseph and Simeon as remaining in their own land more markedly than any of the others. The preceding evidences refer to the interval between the Assyrian captivity and the Babylonian. In that interval they are distinctly proved to have had a recognized existence in their own land, after the time when they are supposed to have been carried away captive, giving us reason to conclude that only a portion, and probably but a small portion, of their main body had been carried away. Our next task is to show the probability of even that portion which had been taken away, having returned with their brethren of Judah and Benjamin and Levi, upon the promulgation of the decrees of Cyrus and his successors in their favour.

When the Israelites, upon the promulgation of these de-