Page images
[blocks in formation]

And he smote thrice, and stayed. (19) And 1 Heb., went down.
the man of God was wroth with him,
and said, Thou shouldest have smitten
five or six times; then hadst thou smit-
ten Syria till thou hadst consumed it:
whereas now thou shalt smite Syria but

(20) And Elisha died, and they buried him. And the bands of the Moabites invaded the land at the coming in of the year. (21) And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that, behold, they spied a band of men; and they cast the man into the sepulchre of Elisha and

a Ecclus. 48. 14.

B.C. cir. 838.

2 Heb., face.

(19) The man of God was wroth with him.Because his present want of zeal augured a like deficiency in prosecuting the war hereafter. The natural irritability of the sick man may also have had something to do with it. Thenius well remarks on the manifestly historical character of the entire scene. It may be added that, to appreciate it fully, we must remember that Beλouarrela, or soothsaying by means of arrows, was a practice of unknown antiquity in the Semitic world. Shooting an arrow, and observing where and how it fell, was one method of trying to fathom the secrets of that Power which overrules events and foreknows the future. The proceedings of David and Jonathan, recorded in 1 Sam. xx. 35, seq., appear to have been an instance of this sort of divination, which in principle is quite analogous to casting lots, a practice so familiar to readers of the Bible. The second process-that described in verse 18- seems equally to have depended upon chance, according to modern ideas. The prophet left it to the spontaneous impulse of the king to determine the number of strokes; because he believed that the result, whatever it was, would betoken the purpose of Jehovah. "The lot is cast into the lap, but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord" (Prov. xvi. 33). Elisha's anger was the natural anger of the man and the patriot, disappointed at the result of a divination from which he had hoped greater things. In conclusion, it cannot be too often or too forcibly urged upon students of the true religion that the essential differences which isolate it from all imperfect or retrograde systems are to be found not so much in matters of outward organisation, form, and ritual, such as priesthoods and sacrifices, prophets and modes of divination, which were pretty much the same everywhere in Semitic antiquity; but in the inward spirit and substance of its teaching, in the vital truths which it handed on through successive ages, and, above all, in its steady progress from lower to higher conceptions of the Divine character and purposes, and of the right relations of man to God and his fellow-creatures.

(20) And the bands of the Moabites invaded. -Rather, And troops of Moabites used to invade. They took advantage of the weakened condition of Israel to revenge the devastation of their country described in chap. iii. 25.

At the coming in of the year. So the Targum and the LXX. The Syriac, Vulg., and Arabic understand," in that (or, 'the same') year." The preposition bě has probably fallen out of the Hebrew text: read, běbo' shanah," when the year came in "-i.e., in the spring. (Comp. 2 Sam. xi. 1.)

B. C.

cir. 839.

and of Hazael.

when the man was let down, and touched the bones of Elisha, "he revived, and stood up on his feet.

(22) But Hazael king of Syria oppressed Israel all the days of Jehoahaz. (23) And the LORD was gracious unto them, and had compassion on them, and had respect unto them, because of his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and would not destroy them, neither cast he them from his presence as yet. (24) So Hazael king of Syria died; and Benhadad his son reigned in his stead. (25) And Jehoash the son of Jehoahaz

(21) As they were burying. They-i.e., a party of Israelites. The story is told with vivid definiteness. A band. Rather, the troop. The particular troop of Moabites which happened to be making an inroad at the time.

They cast the man into the sepulchre of Elisha.-Comp. Mark xvi. 3, 4. In this case, we must suppose that the tomb was more easily opened, as the action was obviously done in haste.

And when the man was let down, and touched the bones.-Rather, and they departed. And the man touched the bones. The order of words in the original, as well as the sense, supports old Houbigant's conjecture. If the meaning were, "and the man went and touched," the subject in the Hebrew would have followed the first verb, not the second. Moreover, the verb would hardly have been hālak.

He revived.-Literally, and he lived. Thenius thinks that the sacred writer regarded this miracle as a pledge of the fulfilment of Elisha's promise to Joash. Bahr says: "Elisha died and was buried, like all other men, but even in death and in the grave he is avouched to be the prophet and servant of God." Dante's warning may not be out of place here:

"O voi che avete gl'intelletti sani,
Mirate la dottrina, che s'asconde
Sotto il velame degli versi strani."

Inf. ix. 61, sqq.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

Had respect.-Turned.

(24) Ben-hadad-III., not mentioned in the Assyrian inscriptions. His reign synchronises with that of Samas-Rimmon in Assyria, who made no expeditions to the West (B.C. 825-812). The name Ben-hadad does not, of course, signify any connection with the dynasty overthrown by Hazael. It was a Divine title. (Comp. Note on chap. vi. 24.)

Benhadad was probably a feebler sovereign than Hazael. The rule, "Fortes creantur fortibus et bonis," is perhaps as often contradicted as corroborated by actual experience.

(25) The cities, which he had taken-i.e., which Hazael had taken. The cities referred to must have

[blocks in formation]

and took.

Slays his Father's Murderers.

1took again out of the hand of Ben-He returned and burnt incense on the high places. hadad the son of Hazael the cities, which

[blocks in formation]

B.C. 839.

B. C. cir. 827.

CHAPTER XIV. In the second year of Joash son of Jehoahaz king of Israel, reigned "Amaziah the son of Joash king of Judah. (2) He was twenty ch. 12. 20. and five years old when he began to reign, and reigned twenty and nine years in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Jehoaddan of Jerusalem. (3) And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, yet not like David his father: he did according to all things as Joash his father did. (4) Howbeit the high places were not taken away as yet the people did sacrifice 2 or, The rock.

c Deut. 24. 16;
Ezek. 18. 20.

[blocks in formation]


(1-17) THE REIGN OF AMAZIAH. (Comp. 2 Chron.

(2) Jehoaddan.-The Hebrew text, which is supported by the LXX., has Jchoaddin (perhaps," Jehovah is delight;" comp. Isa. xlvii. 8, and the Divine name Naaman).

(3) Yet not like David his father.-The chronicler paraphrases this reference to the ideal king of Israel: "yet not with a perfect heart."

[ocr errors]

(4) Howbeit.-The same word was rendered "yet" in the last verse. "Only," or save that" would be better.

(5) As soon as the kingdom was confirmed – i.e., as soon as he was firmly established on the throne; as soon as he felt his power secure. (Comp. 1 Kings ii. 46.)

Slew . . .-slain.- Literally, smote . . . smitten. (6) The murderers.-Literally, the smiters. According unto that which is written law of Moses.-A quotation of Deut. xxiv. 16. This reference is from the pen of the Judæan editor.

[ocr errors]

Shall be put to death.-So the original passage and the Hebrew margin. Hebrew text, "shall die.”

This humane provision of the Jewish law contrasts favourably with the practice of other nations, ancient and modern. Readers of the classics will recollect the hideous story of the treatment of the young daughter of Sejanus (Tac. Ann. v. 9).

(7) He slew.-Rather, he it was that smote. The valley of salt.-Comp. 2 Sam. viii. 13. ElGhor, the salt plain of the Dead Sea, which Amaziah would traverse in marching against Edom.

BC. cir. 826.

(5) And it came to pass, as soon as the kingdom was confirmed in his hand, that he slew his servants which had slain the king his father. (6) But the children of the murderers he slew not: according unto that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, wherein the LORD commanded, saying, "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own, sin. (7) He slew of Edom in the valley of salt ten thousand, and took Selah by war, and called the name of it Joktheel unto this day.

(8) Then Amaziah sent messengers to Jehoash, the son of Jehoahaz son of Jehu, king of Israel, saying, Come, let us look one another in the face. (9) And

Ten thousand.-The number slain in one conflict. Selah.-Heb., the Selac, i.e., the crag. The Hebrew name of the famous rock-hewn town of Petra. By war.-Or, in the battle. After the decisive engagement, Amaziah's troops forced their way through the narrow defile leading to the Edomite capital, probably meeting no great resistance.

Joktheel. A town of Judah bore this name (Josh. xv. 38). The name probably means God's ward, referring to the wonderful strength of the natural position of the town. Others explain, subjugated of God.

Unto this day—i.e., unto the time when the original document was written, from which the writer derived this notice.

The reduction of the capital implies that of the country. The defeat of Jehoram (chap. viii. 20, seq.) was thus avenged. Chronicles gives a more detailed account of the re-conquest of Edom, and its consequences (2 Chron. xxv. 5-16). It is there related that Amaziah hired a large force of mercenaries from the northern kingdom, but sent them home again at the bidding of a prophet. On their way back they attacked and plundered certain of the cities of Judah. The fall of Selah was followed by a massacre of captives. The gods of Edom, which Amaziah carried off, proved a snare to him. (See the Notes on the passage.)

(8) Then. After the reduction of Edom. The more extended narrative which follows is plainly taken from a different source than that of the brief extract preceding it.

Come, let us look one another in the face. -A challenge to battle, the ground of which might be found in the outrages committed by the Israelite mercenaries on their homeward march. It appears likely, however, that Amaziah, intoxicated by his recent success. aimed at nothing less than the recovery of the Ten Tribes for the house of David. So Josephus (Antt. ix. 9, § 2), who gives what purport to be the letters which passed between the two kings on this


(9) The thistle.-Or bramble or briar. (Comp. Job xxxi. 41; Cant. ii. 2.) The LXX. and Vulg. render "thistle;" the Syriac, "blackthorn "(Prunus silvestris).

and Israel. before Israel; and they fled every man to their tents. (1) And Jehoash king of

Battle between Judah


Jehoash the king of Israel sent to Amaziah king of Judah, saying, The thistle

that was in Lebanon sent to the cedar 1 Heb., at thy Israel took Amaziah king of Judah, the

that was in Lebanon, saying, Give thy
daughter to my son to wife: and there
passed by a wild beast that was in Le-
banon, and trode down the thistle.
(10) Thou hast indeed smitten Edom, and
thine heart hath lifted thee up: glory
of this, and tarry at home: for why
shouldest thou meddle to thy hurt, that
thou shouldest fall, even thou, and Judah
with thee? (11) But Amaziah would not
hear. Therefore Jehoash king of Israel
went up; and he and Amaziah king of
Judah looked one another in the face at
Beth-shemesh, which belongeth to Judah.
(12) And Judah was put to the worse



cir. 825.

2 Heb., was smit-

Give thy daughter to my son to wife.Perhaps hinting at Amaziah's demand for the surrender of Israel (the "daughter" of Jehoash) to Judah (the son" of Amaziah).


And there passed by a wild beast that was in Lebanon.-Rather, and the wild beasts that were in Lebanon passed over it. So LXX. and Vulg. It is obvious to compare with this brief but most pithy parable that of Jotham (Judges ix. 8-15). The contrast between the northern and southern kingdoms in point of military strength and resources, and the disdainful tolerance with which the former regarded the latter, could hardly have found more forcible expression.

(10) Thou hast indeed smitten-i.e., thou hast thoroughly worsted; gained a brilliant victory over Edom. (The "indeed" qualifies "smitten.")

Hath lifted.-Rather, lifteth.

Glory of this, and tarry at home.-Literally, be honoured, and abide in thine own house, i.e., be content with the glory thou hast achieved. Rest on thy laurels, and do not risk them by further enterprises which may not turn out so favourably. So the Vulg. Thenius explains: "Show thy might at home," referring to the LXX. (Comp. 2 Sam. vi. 20).

For why shouldest thou meddle to thine hurt?-Rather, and why shouldst thou challenge or provoke (literally, attack, Dent. ii. 5) disaster?

(11) Looked one another in the face-i.e., encountered one another; joined battle.

Beth-shemesh.-The modern Ain-shems, north of which is a great plain now called Wady-es-Surâr, in which the encounter probably happened. Jehoash proposed to attack Jerusalem from the west, as Hazael also had intended (chap. xii. 17).

(12) To their tents.-Hebrew text, to his tent; so the LXX. and Syriac. Hebrew margin, to his tents; so Vulg., and Targum, and Chronicles. The meaning is that the enemy disbanded, as usually after a great defeat. (Comp. chap. viii. 21.)

(13) Amaziah king of Judah, the son of Jehoash the son of Ahaziah.-Comp. verse 8. Thenius thinks the formal specification of Amaziah's descent indicates that this narrative was derived from "the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel." At all events, it emphasises the importance of the inci


son of Jehoash the son of Ahaziah, at
Beth-shemesh, and came to Jerusalem,
and brake down the wall of Jerusalem
from the gate of Ephraim unto the
corner gate, four hundred cubits. (14)And
he took all the gold and silver, and all
the vessels that were found in the house
of the LORD, and in the treasures of the
king's house, and hostages, and returned
to Samaria.

(15) Now the rest of the acts of Jehoash
which he did, and his might, and how
he fought with Amaziah king of Judah,
are they not written in the book of
the chronicles of the kings of Israel?

dent, which is further indicated in the original by the
order of the words: "And Amaziah king of Judah
did Jehoash king of Israel take.

Came. So the Hebrew margin. The Hebrew text
has, brought him (way’bî'ô; a rare form). So Chronicles
and the Vulg., but not the other versions. Jehoash
brought Amaziah a prisoner to his own capital.

Brake down the wall.-Or, made a breach in the wall. No resistance appears to have been offered. of death to order the gates to be thrown open to the Josephus relates that Amaziah was induced by menaces enemy; a needless assumption, considering that the army had been routed and the king was a captive. He adds, that Jehoash rode in his chariot through the breach in the walls, leading Amaziah as a prisoner.

From the gate.-So Chronicles and the Syriac, Vulg., and Arabic here. The Hebrew text has, at the gate, which is due to the common confusion of the letters b and m (be, “in;” min, “from "). The following "unto" shows that "from" is right.

Of Ephraim.-This gate lay on the north side of the city, and was also called the "Gate of Benjamin.” It answers to the modern Damascus gate.

The corner gate. This gate was at the north-west corner of the wall at the point where it trended southwards.

Four hundred cubits.-That is, about 222 yards. It was also a The insolence of a victorious enemy is sufficient to account for this conduct of Jehoash. forcible way of convincing Amaziah that even his strongest city was not proof against the prowess of Thenins thinks that Jehoash wanted to Ephraim. make room for the triumphal entry of his troops. (14) That were found.-This expression seems to hint that there was not much treasure to carry off. (Comp. chap. xiii. 18.)

Hostages.-Literally, the sons of sureties. Having humbled the pride of Amaziah, Jehoash left him in possession of his throne, taking hostages for his future good behaviour. Similar acts of clemency are recorded of themselves by the Assyrian kings of the dynasty of Sargon.

(15, 16) Now the rest. . .-Comp. chap. xiii. 12, 13, where the reign of Jehoash is already summed up, though not altogether in the same phraseology. The compiler probably found verses 15, 16, in their present

[blocks in formation]

(16) And Jehoash slept with his fathers, and was buried in Samaria with the kings of Israel; and Jeroboam his son reigned in his stead.

(17) And Amaziah the son of Joash king of Judah lived after the death of Jehoash son of Jehoahaz king of Israel fifteen years.

(18) And the rest of the

acts of Amaziah, are they not written

a 2 Chron. 25. 27.

B.C. 825.

Jeroboam the Son of Joash.

Azariah, which was sixteen years old, and made him king instead of his father Amaziah. (22) He built Elath, and restored it to Judah, after that the king slept with his fathers.

(23) In the fifteenth year of Amaziah the son of Joash king of Judah Jeroboam the son of Joash king of Israel began to reign in Samaria, and reigned forty and

in the book of the chronicles of the 2 Chron. 26. 1, he one years. (24) And he did that which

kings of Judah? (19) Now "they made a conspiracy against him in Jerusalem : and he fled to Lachish; but they sent after him to Lachish, and slew him. there. (20) And they brought him on horses and he was buried at Jerusalem with his fathers in the city of David. (21) And all the people of Judah took

is called Uzziah."

B.C. 810.

position in the document from which he derived the entire section, verses 8-17; a document which was not the same as that upon which chap. xiii. depends, as appears from the differences of language in the two


The two verses are almost necessary here as a suitable introduction of the statement of verse 17, that Amaziah survived Jehoash by fifteen years.

(17) Fifteen years. He came to the throne in the second year of Jehoash, who reigned sixteen years (chap. xiii. 10), and reigned twenty-nine years (verse 2). The different data are thus self-consistent. Jehoash appears to have died very soon after his victory-perhaps in the following year.

(19) Now ... but.-And . . . and.

They made a conspiracy.-The fact that no individual conspirators are mentioned appears to indicate that Amaziah's death was the result of a general disaffection; and this inference is strengthened by the other details of the record. Thenius supposes that he had incensed the army in particular by some special act. Probably his foolish and ill-fated enterprise against Israel had something to do with it.

Lachish.-Now Um Lakis. Of old it was a strong fortress. (Comp. 2 Chron. xi. 9; chap. xviii. 14, xix. 8.) Amaziah's flight thither seems to indicate either a popular rising in Jerusalem, or a military revolt. They sent after him to Lachish.-This, too, may point to a military outbreak.

(20) They brought him on horses. Rather, they carried him upon the horses-i.e., perhaps in the royal chariot wherein he had fled from Jerusalem. Or, perhaps, the corpse was literally carried on horseback by the regicides.

The orderly method of proceeding, the burial of the king in the royal sepulchres, and the elevation of Azariah, seem to prove that the murder of Amaziah was not an act of private blood-revenge.

(21) All the people of Judah.-Thenius explains, all the men of war, as in chap. xiii. 7.

Took. The expression seems to imply that Azariah was not the eldest son. As Amaziah was fifty-nine years old at his death he probably had sons older than sixteen. Azariah was therefore chosen as a popular, or perhaps military, favourite.

Azariah.-See Note on 2 Chron. xxvi. 1. Thenius

B.C. cir. 825.

was evil in the sight of the LORD: he departed not from all the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin. (25) He restored the coast of Israel from the entering of Hamath unto the sea of the plain, according to the word of the LORD God of Israel, which he spake by the hand of his ser

thinks the soldiery gave Azariah the name of Uzziah. At all events, the king may have taken a new name on his accession, though which of the two it was we cannot say. (Comp. chap. xxiv. 17.) Sennacherib on investing Esarhaddon with sovereignty named him Asshurebil-mukin-pal.

(22) He built Elath.-The pronoun is emphatic; he, in contrast with his father. "Built," either rebuilt or fortified. The verse is in close connection with the preceding narrative. Amaziah perhaps had not vigorously prosecuted the conquest of Edom, having been greatly weakened by his defeat in the struggle with Jehoash. He may even have suffered some further losses at the hands of the Edomites; and this, as Thenius supposes may have led to the conspiracy which brought about his death and the accession of his son. The warlike youth Uzziah took the field at once, and pushed his victorious arms to the southern extremity of Edom, the port of Elath (chap. ix. 26), and thus restored the state of things which had existed under Solomon and Jehoshaphat.

After that the king slept—i.e., immediately after the murder of Amaziah. Thenius explains the verse with most success, but this clause is still somewhat surprising.


(23) Reigned forty and one years.-According to the statement of this verse, Jeroboam reigned fourteen years concurrently with Amaziah, who reigned altogether twenty-nine years (verse 2); and thirtyseven years concurrently with Azariah (chap. xv. 8), so that he reigned altogether not forty-one but fifty-one years. (The discrepancy originated in a confusion of the Hebrew letters x, fifty-one, with 2, forty-one.)

(25) He restored.-Rather, He it was who restored the border, i.e., he wrested out of the hands of the Syrians the territory they had taken from Israel.

From the entering of Hamath-i.e., from the point where the territory of Hamath began. This was the originally determined boundary of Israel on the north (comp. Num. xiii. 21, xxxiv. 8; Josh. xiii. 5), and the prophet Ezekiel specifies it as the future limit (Ezek. xlvii. 16, xlviii. 1). Israel's territory first reached this limit under Solomon, who conquered a portion of the Hamathite domains (2 Chron. viii. 3, 4).

[blocks in formation]

vant Jonah, the son of Amittai, the prophet, which was of Gath - hepher. (26) For the LORD saw the affliction of Israel, that it was very bitter: for there was not any shut up, nor any left, nor any helper for Israel. (27) And the LORD said not that he would blot out the name of Israel from under heaven: but he saved them by the hand of Jeroboam the son of Joash.

(28) Now the rest of the acts of Jeroboam, and all that he did, and his might,

B.C. 822.

B.C. 784.

B.C. cir. 810.

called Jonas.

His Death.

to Judah, for Israel, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? (29) And Jeroboam slept with his fathers, even with the kings of Israel; and Zachariah his son reigned in his stead.

CHAPTER XV.-(1) In the twenty and seventh year of Jeroboam king of Israel began Azariah son of Amaziah king of Judah to reign. (2) Sixteen years old was he when he began to reign, and

how he warred, and how he recovered Mitt J. 40, he reigned two and fifty years in JeruDamascus, and Hamath, which belonged

The sea of the plain-i.e., the Dead Sea (Num. iii. 17, iv. 49; Josh. iii. 16). The whole length of the Dead Sea is included (comp. Amos vi. 14, where virtually the same limits are specified), and the country beyond Jordan. (Comp. Note on 1 Chron. v. 17.)

Jonah, the son of Amittai, the prophet.Comp. Jonah i. 1. Ewald remarks that the activity of this prophet must have occupied a very large field, as tradition connects him with Nineveh. Hitzig and Knobel recognise the prophecy referred to here in Isa. xv., xvi. There is no difficulty in the supposition that Isaiah has adopted and ratified the work of an earlier prophet," as Jeremiah has so often done. (See Cheyne's Isaiah, vol. i., p. 93.) But it is easier to prove that these chapters are not Isaiah's, than that they belong to Jonah.


Gath-hepher.-Josh. xix. 13. The present Meshed, Not far north of Nazareth.

(26) Affliction.-Better, oppression.

Bitter. So the LXX., Syriac, and Vulg. Better, stubborn, and so, inveterate, unyielding, enduring. (Comp. Deut. xxi. 18-20.) Targum, "hard;" Arabic, "strong" or "violent.”


[ocr errors]

For there was . left.-Comp. Note on 1 Kings xiv. 10.

(27) Said not.-By any prophet.

Blot out the name. The figure is taken from blotting out writing. (Comp. Num. v. 23.) The Hebrews used inks that soon faded, and could easily be wiped off the parchment. (Hence the partial obliteration of words and letters which is one of the causes of textual corruption.)

(28) How he recovered Damascus, and Hamath.-Jeroboam II. was probably contemporary with Rammân-nirâri, king of Assyria (B.c. 812-783). This king has recorded his exaction of tribute from Tyre and Sidon, "the land of Omri" (i.e., Israel), Edom, and Philistia; and a siege of Damascus, followed by the submission of Mari', its king, and the spoiling of his palace. The prostration of his enemy thus accounts for the permanent success of Jeroboam, who was himself a vassal of Assyria.

He recovered.-This verb was rendered "he restored" in verse 25, and that is the meaning here.

Damascus and Hamath.-Not the entire states so named, which were powerful independent communities, but portions of their territory, which had belonged to Israel in the days of Solomon. (See Note on 2 Chron. viii. 3, 4.)

Which belonged to Judah.-This is really an epithet restrictive of the phrase, "Damascus and Ha

salem. And his mother's name was

math," the sense being, "Judæan Damascus and Hamath." (Comp. the Note on chap. xv. 1.)

[ocr errors]

For Israel.-Heb., in Israel. The sense is obscure; but the particle "in" appears to refer to the re-incorporation of the Damascene and Hamathite districts with Israel. Ewald would cancel "which belonged to Judah," and read "to Israel' (so the Syriac and Arabic. But the LXX., Vulg., and Targum support the existing text.) Others explain: He restored Damascus and Hamath to Judah (i.e., to the theocratic people) through Israel (i.e., the northern kingdom, to which the recovered districts were actually annexed). No explanation, however, is really satisfactory. It may be that by an oversight the Judæan editor wrote "to Judah," instead of "to Israel," and that some scribe added a marginal note" in Israel," which afterwards crept into the text. It is curious to find certain districts of Hamath leagued with Azariah, king of Judah, against Tiglath Pileser. (See Note on chap. xv. 1.)

(29) Even with the kings of Israel.-Probably some words have fallen out, and the original text was, "and was buried in Samaria with the kings of Israel." (Comp. verse 16.) The Syriac and Arabic have," and was buried."


(1–7) THE REIGN OF AZARIAH (Uzziah), KING OF JUDAH. (Comp. 2 Chron. xxvi.)

(1) In the twenty and seventh year of Jeroboam. An error of transcription for the fifteenth year (1, 15; 15, 27). The error is clear from chap. xiv. 2, 17, 23. Amaziah reigned twenty-nine years (chap. xiv. 2), fourteen concurrently with Joash, and fifteen with Jeroboam. It was, therefore, in the fifteenth of Jeroboam that Uzziah succeeded his father.


Azariah. An Azriyâhu (Az-ri-ya-a-u), king of Judah, is mentioned in two fragmentary inscriptions of Tiglath Pileser II. (B.C. 745-727). The most important statement runs : "xix. districts of the city of Hamath (Hammatti) with the cities of their circuit, on the coast of the sea of the setting of the sun (i.e., the Mediterranean), which in their transgression had revolted to Azariah, to the border of Assyria I restored, my prefects my governors over them I appointed." Eponym list records a three years' campaign of Tiglath Pileser against the Syrian state of Arpad in B.C. 742740. Schrader supposes that Azariah and Hamath were concerned in this campaign. (This conflicts with the ordinary chronology, which fixes 758 B.C. as the year of Azariah's death.)


« PreviousContinue »