Page images
PDF
EPUB

date and character of the two works, it is probably well to take the Book of Kings as the standard account, and so far accept the significance of the title of Пaрaλeιтoμévæv ("things omitted "), given in the LXX. to the Chronicles, as to make them a commentary, an illustration, and a supplement of the older work. But each has its independent character and value. The Book of Kings has been called the prophetic record, the Book of Chronicles the priestly record, of the time. This would be a misleading antithesis, if it was taken to convey the notion of antagonism or even marked diversity of idea between the books, which any attentive study of both must dissipate. But it is so far true as this-that the Book of Kings, dealing so largely with the kingdom of Israel, naturally gives special prominence to the office and work of the older prophets, who ministered chiefly to that kingdom; while the Book of Chronicles, being almost exclusively the history of Judah, brings out the power of the priesthood and the royalty of David, which played so great a partsometimes in union, sometimes in antagonism-in the spiritual history of the southern kingdom.

But besides this direct comparison of the two historical records, there is illustration no less valuable of the idea and purpose of the Books of Kings to be derived from other Scriptural books not properly historical, which, indeed, its narrative binds together in one continuous order of development.

The Psalms.-The illustration to be derived from the Psalms would be far more instructive, if we were not driven to rely mainly on internal evidence as to their date and occasion, and were not accordingly, in most cases, unable to fix these points with any certainty. But even with this drawback, the illustration is invaluable, as painting to us the inner life of Israel during the period of our history; for to this period a large portion of the Psalter must certainly be referred. There seems much probability that the first division of the Psalter (Pss. i.—xli.) took shape in the time of Solomon, for use in the Temple worship. In the later divisions many psalms are, with more or less authority, ascribed to Asaph, to Heman (and the sons of Korali), and to Ethan, the three chief musicians of David, and probably of Solomon also. Of these subsequent divisions it is at least not unlikely that some mark and illustrate the religious revivals of Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, and Josiah. Nor is more particular reference altogether wanting. Two psalms (lxxii., cxxvii.) are ascribed to Solomon-the one, a picture of the glory and majesty of his kingdom; the other (one of the Songs of Degrees"), ascribing to the Lord alone the blessings of earthly prosperity and happiness. Other psalms, especially among those ascribed to the sons of Korah, are of a national character-crying to God in national disaster (Ps. xliv.), thanking Him in the hour of triumph and deliverance (Pss. xlvi.-xlviii., lxxxv.), singing hymns at the marriage of the king (Ps. xlv.), or proclaiming the loveliness and gladness of the dwellings of the Lord of Hosts (Ps. lxxxiv.). One group (Pss. xci.-c.) has been thought by some to belong to the golden age of Hezekiah's glory and Isaiah's prophecy. The "great Hallel" (Pss. exiii.-exviii.), though found in the divisions of the Psalter belonging to the era after the Captivity, yet illustrates the festal worship of the people in the Temple of God: such psalms as Ps. cxxxvii. mark the sorrows of the Captivity by "the waters of Babylon." In all cases, the Psalms are the lyric expression of the inner life of the chosen people, and of the individual servants

of God, underlying the simple narrative which our books supply. We must study them if we would catch the spirit which animates the letter of the historic record itself.

66

The Sapiential Books.-But plainer illustration is gained from books which can be more certainly referred to distinct periods in the history. Thus the golden age of the glory of Solomon is illustrated by consideration of the various books which may be called Sapiential." The great Book of PROVERBS, both in its poetical and gnomic portions, tracing itself to him as the chief master of wisdom-perhaps much as the Psalter bears the name of David-is in its representation of wisdom the key at once to the true nature of the culture and glory of his age, and to the tendencies which, gaining the mastery, brought on its fall. The SONG OF SOLOMON-now by all the best authorities referred unhesitatingly to his age, probably to his hand -is full of the passion for beauty, the delight in nature, the sensibility to pure love, the knowledge of humanity marking both the character of the great king, and the culture of his time; yet is not without the tendency to rest on the visible and the sensual, in which was the germ of his voluptuous polygamy. The Book of JOBwhich, whatever be the date of its original materials. is commonly referred to his time-certainly opens the great questions of Natural Religion, concerning man as man, which belong to an age searching after wisdom and having contact with the thought and inquiry of races outside the covenant. The wonderful Book of ECCLESIASTES, to whatever period it is to be referred. in its depiction of a soul's tragedy shows no little insight into the character of him in whose person it speaks, as wearied out with the search after happiness in wisdom and in pleasure, in contemplation and in action, and coming back at last in despair to the simple command, 'Fear God, and keep His commandments," which was the first teaching of childhood. Only when studied in connection with the history can these books be rightly understood; so studied they give, on the other hand, an infinite life and colour to the bare massive outline drawn in the historical books.

[ocr errors]

The Prophetic Books.-Again, the later history of the Second Book borrows even greater illustration from the prophetic writings-much as the earlier part of the record derives its chief interest from the action of the elder prophets of unwritten prophecy from Ahijah to Elisha. Thus, the period of national revival in Israel under Jeroboam II., and the unhappy period of decline and fall which succeeded it-so briefly and coldly narrated in our books-live in the pages of AMOS, the prophet of the day of hollow and licentious prosperity, and HOSEA, the prophet of the well-merited doom of judgment. There we discover the evils which lurked under a material prosperity and an outward semblance of religion; there we see how they burst out, rending the very bonds of society, as soon as that prosperity began to wane. So, again, the character of the reckless and cruel greatness of the Assyrian Empire, shown so terribly in the destruction of Israel and in the imminent danger of Judah, is marvellously illustrated by NAHUM, in his grand patriotic hymn of triumph over the foreseen fall of Nineveh. To the days of prosperity of Uzziah, who “loved husbandry," belong (it seems) the utterances of JOEL, picturing physical disasters as God's judgment, calling to repentance, promising temporal and spiritual blessing, and beginning the series of Apocalyptic visions of the vain

struggle of the enemies against the people of God. Once more, the great epoch of Hezekiah's religious revival is marked by the writings of the prophet MICAH, who, indeed, gave the signal for it (see Jer. xxvi. 8), and in whom first Messianic prophecy becomes clear and definite. The two grand crises of that reign -the danger under Ahaz from Syria and Israel, and the invasion of Sennacherib-form two chief themes of the supreme prophecy of ISAIAH, out of which the Messianic hope rises almost to actual vision. To the interval between Hezekiah and Josiah, when the Chaldean power begins to come into prominence, we may perhaps refer the magnificent brevity of the prophecy of HABAKKUK. Certainly the pathetic interest of the reign of Josiah is illustrated by the foreboding utterances of ZEPHANIAH. The bitterness of the captivity of Judah-probably the great Captivity-is brought out in the denunciation of Edomite triumph and cruelty in the hour of Judah's disaster by OBADIAH. Nor is it too much to say that the whole history of the last agony of the kingdom of Judah can be read adequately only in the historical and prophetical chapters of the great Book of JEREMIAH. The Books of Kings supply the thread of connection, which binds the prophetic books together, enabling us rightly to understand the substance of each, and the method of prophetic development running through them all. The prophecies, on the other hand, supply constantly the key to the true sense of the history, drawing out explicitly the lesson which it teaches by implication, and giving us a living picture of the ages which it sketches only in outline.

VI. Illustrations from Profane History. To these all-important illustrations must be added, as subsidiary, the light thrown upou the narrative by the study of the various heathen records, whether found in the works of ancient historians, or read in the monumental history of nations which came in contact with Israel, discovered and deciphered in modern times. This kind of illustration, hardly known in the case of the earlier books, begins substantially in the Book of Kings.

The account of Josephus, with all its acknowledged defects, is of very great value, both as a gloss on the Scriptural account, and an occasional supplement to it. The variations found in the LXX. version, in the way of transposition, addition, and omission, are not, indeed, of great importance; for the only substantial addition in the history of Jeroboam (see Note at the end of 1 Kings xi.) is obviously legendary. But they are of considerable interest, and occasionally indicate the existence of independent traditions. The authors quoted by Josephus or early Christian historians (such as Berosus, Manetho, Ptolemy), the monuments of Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon, even the Moabitic stone, all throw light again and again on the Book of Kings; and, though not without occasional difficulties and discrepancies of detail, have unquestionably furnished the strongest confirmation of its historic truth, and have cleared up some obscurities in its brief record. The history, it will be observed, comes in contact with the history of Tyre in the reigns of Hiram and Ethbaal, father of Jezebel; with the history of Egypt in the reign of the Pharaoh father-in-law of Solomon, of Shishak, of "Zerah the Ethiopian," of Sabaco (the So or Seveh of 2 Kings xvii. 3), of Tirhakah, and of Pharaoh-necho; with the history of Assyria under the "Pul" of 2 Kings xv. 19, Tiglath-pileser, Shalmaneser, Sargon, Sennacherib, Esarhaddon; with the history of Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar; even with our one

glimpse of the history of Moab under Mesha in the reign of Jehoram of Israel. Most of our knowledge of these histories is comparatively new. When it is read through the extraordinary monumental records of Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon-the discovery and deciphering of which form some of the most wonderful chapters in historical study-it not only brings out facts, determines dates, confirms or corrects our interpretations, but it gives us a vivid picture of the very life and character of the great Empires, which often explains the different views taken of them in Scripture, and always gives force and colour to our conceptions of the Scripture history itself. The treasure-house is far from being exhausted. Future generations may rival or excel the advance made in this generation and the last, and every advance will be of no inconsiderable value to the student of Scripture history.

The effect of all this study and illustration of the book is to bring out more and more both its historical authenticity and its didactic value. The substance of the history, and even the text, have but few obscurities, and these are generally elucidated by comparison with the ancient versions.

VII. The Numbers given in the Book.-The one difficulty in the interpretation of the book lies in the numbers, chronological and other, which occur in it. These are now always written in full; but there is every reason to believe that in the original manuscripts they were, as usual, indicated by Hebrew letters -a method of indication which, as is well known, gives the greatest facility to accidental or intentional corruption. Thus, in our book, and still more in the Chronicles, it is difficult not to suppose that the large numbers given in the history (as, for example, 1 Kings xx. 29, 30; 2 Chron. xiv. 8, 9, xvii. 12-18, xxv. 5, 6, xxvi. 12, &c.) are without authority, due to careless transcription, or to corruption of the original document by the exaggeration of Jewish scribes.

The Chronology.-It is possible that this facility of corruption in numbers may bear upon what is the chief critical difficulty of the book, the determination of its chronology. In this book, unlike the earlier historical books, the calculations of dates are given in the text with great exactness, whether by the hand of the historian or by that of some later chronologer.

The first remarkable date is that mentioned in 1 Kings vi. 1, fixing the commencement of the Temple in the 480th year after the Exodus. With regard to this date, which has presented much difficulty to chronologers, see Note on the passage. By whomsoever given, it deserves very careful consideration in the calculation of Biblical chronology.

Next we have the reign of Solomon given at forty years (1 Kings xi. 43); against which the statement of Josephus that he reigned eighty years (Ant. viii. 7. 8) can hardly be held to be of serious moment.

From the time of the disruption, we have, marked with great precision, first, the duration of the successive reigns of the kings of Israel; next, the duration of the reigns of the kings of Judah; lastly, statements of the synchronism of accessions in each line with certain years in the reigns of the kings of the other line. Now, in the present condition of the text, these three lines of calculation present occasional discrepancies; and this is especially the case with the synchronistic notices, which are, indeed, believed by many to have been added by a later hand, both because of their rather formal artificiality, and of the evident

date and character of the two works, it is probably well to take the Book of Kings as the standard account, and so far accept the significance of the title of Пapaλemoμévæv ("things omitted"), given in the LXX. to the Chronicles, as to make them a commentary, an illustration, and a supplement of the older work. But each has its independent character and value. The Book of Kings has been called the prophetic record, the Book of Chronicles the priestly record, of the time. This would be a misleading antithesis, if it was taken to convey the notion of antagonism or even marked diversity of idea between the books, which any attentive study of both must dissipate. But it is so far true as this-that the Book of Kings, dealing so largely with the kingdom of Israel, naturally gives special prominence to the office and work of the older prophets, who ministered chiefly to that kingdom; while the Book of Chronicles, being almost exclusively the history of Judah, brings out the power of the priesthood and the royalty of David, which played so great a partsometimes in union, sometimes in antagonism-in the spiritual history of the southern kingdom.

But besides this direct comparison of the two historical records, there is illustration no less valuable of the idea and purpose of the Books of Kings to be derived from other Scriptural books not properly historical, which, indeed, its narrative binds together in one continuous order of development.

The Psalms.-The illustration to be derived from the Psalms would be far more instructive, if we were not driven to rely mainly on internal evidence as to their date and occasion, and were not accordingly, in most cases, unable to fix these points with any certainty. But even with this drawback, the illustration is invaluable, as painting to us the inner life of Israel during the period of our history; for to this period a large portion of the Psalter must certainly be referred. There seems much probability that the first division of the Psalter (Pss. i.-xli.) took shape in the time of Solomon, for use in the Temple worship. In the later divisions many psalms are, with more or less authority, ascribed to Asaph, to Heman (and the sons of Korah), and to Ethan, the three chief musicians of David, and probably of Solomon also. Of these subsequent divisions it is at least not unlikely that some mark and illustrate the religious revivals of Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, and Josiah. Nor is more particular reference altogether wanting. Two psalms (lxxii., cxxvii.) are ascribed to Solomon-the one, a picture of the glory and majesty of his kingdom; the other (one of the Songs of Degrees "), ascribing to the Lord alone the blessings of earthly prosperity and happiness. Other psalms, especially among those ascribed to the sons of Korah, are of a national character-crying to God in national disaster (Ps. xliv.), thanking Him in the hour of triumph and deliverance (Pss. xlvi.—xlviii., lxxxv.), singing hymns at the marriage of the king (Ps. xlv.), or proclaiming the loveliness and gladness of the dwellings of the Lord of Hosts (Ps. lxxxiv.). One group (Pss. xci.-c.) has been thought by some to belong to the golden age of Hezekiah's glory and Isaiah's prophecy. The "great Hallel" (Pss. cxiii.-exviii.), though found in the divisions of the Psalter belonging to the era after the Captivity, yet illustrates the festal worship of the people in the Temple of God: such psalms as Ps. cxxxvii. mark the sorrows of the Captivity by "the waters of Babylon." In all cases, the Psalms are the lyric expression of the inner life of the chosen people, and of the individual servants

[ocr errors]

of God, underlying the simple narrative which our books supply. We must study them if we would catch the spirit which animates the letter of the historic record itself.

66

The Sapiential Books.-But plainer illustration is gained from books which can be more certainly referred to distinct periods in the history. Thus the golden age of the glory of Solomon is illustrated by consideration of the various books which may be called Sapiential." The great Book of PROVERBS, both in its poetical and gnomic portions, tracing itself to him as the chief master of wisdom-perhaps much as the Psalter bears the name of David-is in its representation of wisdom the key at once to the true nature of the culture and glory of his age, and to the tendencies which, gaining the mastery, brought on its fall. The SONG OF SOLOMON-now by all the best authorities referred unhesitatingly to his age, probably to his hand -is full of the passion for beauty, the delight in nature, the sensibility to pure love, the knowledge of humanity marking both the character of the great king, and the culture of his time; yet is not without the tendency to rest on the visible and the sensual, in which was the germ of his voluptuous polygamy. The Book of JOBwhich, whatever be the date of its original materials. is commonly referred to his time-certainly opens the great questions of Natural Religion, concerning man as man, which belong to an age searching after wisdom. and having contact with the thought and inquiry of races outside the covenant. The wonderful Book of ECCLESIASTES, to whatever period it is to be referred. in its depiction of a soul's tragedy shows no little insight into the character of him in whose person it speaks, as wearied out with the search after happiness in wisdom and in pleasure, in contemplation and in action, and coming back at last in despair to the simple command, Fear God, and keep His commandments," which was the first teaching of childhood. Only when studied in connection with the history can these books be rightly understood; so studied they give, on the other hand, an infinite life and colour to the bare massive outline drawn in the historical books.

[ocr errors]

The Prophetic Books.-Again, the later history of the Second Book borrows even greater illustration from the prophetic writings-much as the earlier part of the record derives its chief interest from the action of the elder prophets of unwritten prophecy from Ahijah to Elisha. Thus, the period of national revival in Israel under Jeroboam II., and the unhappy period of decline and fall which succeeded it-so briefly and coldly narrated in our books-live in the pages of AMOS, the prophet of the day of hollow and licentious prosperity, and HOSEA, the prophet of the well-merited doom of judgment. There we discover the evils which lurked under a material prosperity and an outward semblance of religion; there we see how they burst out, rending the very bonds of society, as soon as that prosperity began to wane. So, again, the character of the reckless and cruel greatness of the Assyrian Empire, shown so terribly in the destruction of Israel and in the imminent danger of Judah, is marvellously illustrated by NAHUM, in his grand patriotic hymn of triumph over the foreseen fall of Nineveh. To the days of prosperity of Uzziah, who "loved husbandry," belong (it seems) the utterances of JOEL, picturing physical disasters as God's judgment, calling to repentance, promising temporal and spiritual blessing, and beginning the series of Apocalyptic visions of the vain

struggle of the enemies against the people of God. Once more, the great epoch of Hezekiah's religious revival is marked by the writings of the prophet MICAH, who, indeed, gave the signal for it (see Jer. xxvi. 8), and in whom first Messianic prophecy becomes clear and definite. The two grand crises of that reign -the danger under Ahaz from Syria and Israel, and the invasion of Sennacherib-form two chief themes of the supreme prophecy of ISAIAH, out of which the Messianic hope rises almost to actual vision. To the interval between Hezekiah and Josiah, when the Chaldean power begins to come into prominence, we may perhaps refer the magnificent brevity of the prophecy of HABAKKUK. Certainly the pathetic interest of the reign of Josiah is illustrated by the foreboding utter. ances of ZEPHANIAH. The bitterness of the captivity of Judah-probably the great Captivity-is brought out in the denunciation of Edomite triumph and cruelty in the hour of Judah's disaster by OBADIAH. Nor is it too much to say that the whole history of the last agony of the kingdom of Judah can be read adequately only in the historical and prophetical chapters of the great Book of JEREMIAH. The Books of Kings supply the thread of connection, which binds the prophetic books together, enabling us rightly to understand the substance of each, and the method of prophetic development running through them all. The prophecies, on the other hand, supply constantly the key to the true sense of the history, drawing out explicitly the lesson which it teaches by implication, and giving us a living picture of the ages which it sketches only in outline.

VI. Illustrations from Profane History. To these all-important illustrations must be added, as subsidiary, the light thrown upou the narrative by the study of the various heathen records, whether found in the works of ancient historians, or read in the monumental history of nations which came in contact with Israel, discovered and deciphered in modern times. This kind of illustration, hardly known in the case of the earlier books, begins substantially in the Book of Kings.

The account of Josephus, with all its acknowledged defects, is of very great value, both as a gloss on the Scriptural account, and an occasional supplement to it. The variations found in the LXX. version, in the way of transposition, addition, and omission, are not, indeed, of great importance; for the only substantial addition in the history of Jeroboam (see Note at the end of 1 Kings xi.) is obviously legendary. But they are of considerable interest, and occasionally indicate the existence of independent traditions. The authors quoted by Josephus or early Christian historians (such as Berosus, Manetho, Ptolemy), the monuments of Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon, even the Moabitic stone, all throw light again and again on the Book of Kings; and, though not without occasional difficulties and discrepancies of detail, have unquestionably furnished the strongest confirmation of its historic truth, and have cleared up some obscurities in its brief record. The history, it will be observed, comes in contact with the history of Tyre in the reigns of Hiram and Ethbaal, father of Jezebel; with the history of Egypt in the reign of the Pharaoh father-in-law of Solomon, of Shishak, of "Zerah the Ethiopian," of Sabaco (the So or Seveh of 2 Kings xvii. 3), of Tirhakah, and of Pharaoh-necho; with the history of Assyria under the "Pul" of 2 Kings xv. 19, Tiglath-pileser, Shalmaneser, Sargon, Sennacherib, Esarhaddon; with the history of Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar; even with our one

[ocr errors]

glimpse of the history of Moab under Mesha in the reign of Jehoram of Israel. Most of our knowledge of these histories is comparatively new. When it is read through the extraordinary monumental records of Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon-the discovery and deciphering of which form some of the most wonderful chapters in historical study-it not only brings out facts, determines dates, confirms or corrects our interpretations, but it gives us a vivid picture of the very life and character of the great Empires, which often explains the different views taken of them in Scripture, and always gives force and colour to our conceptions of the Scripture history itself. The treasure-house is far from being exhausted. Future generations may rival or excel the advance made in this generation and the last, and every advance will be of no inconsiderable value to the student of Scripture history.

The effect of all this study and illustration of the book is to bring out more and more both its historical authenticity and its didactic value. The substance of the history, and even the text, have but few obscurities, and these are generally elucidated by comparison with the ancient versions.

VII. The Numbers given in the Book. The one difficulty in the interpretation of the book lies in the numbers, chronological and other, which occur in it. These are now always written in full; but there is every reason to believe that in the original manuscripts they were, as usual, indicated by Hebrew letters -a method of indication which, as is well known, gives the greatest facility to accidental or intentional corruption. Thus, in our book, and still more in the Chronicles, it is difficult not to suppose that the large numbers given in the history (as, for example, 1 Kings xx. 29, 30; 2 Chron. xiv. 8, 9, xvii. 12—18, xxv. 5, 6, xxvi. 12, &c.) are without authority, due to careless transcription, or to corruption of the original document by the exaggeration of Jewish scribes.

The Chronology.-It is possible that this facility of corruption in numbers may bear upon what is the chief critical difficulty of the book, the determination of its chronology. In this book, unlike the earlier historical books, the calculations of dates are given in the text with great exactness, whether by the hand of the historian or by that of some later chronologer.

The first remarkable date is that mentioned in 1 Kings vi. 1, fixing the commencement of the Temple in the 480th year after the Exodus. With regard to this date, which has presented much difficulty to chronologers, see Note on the passage. By whomsoever given, it deserves very careful consideration in the calculation of Biblical chronology.

Next we have the reign of Solomon given at forty years (1 Kings xi. 43); against which the statement of Josephus that he reigned eighty years (Ant. viii. 7. 8) can hardly be held to be of serious moment.

From the time of the disruption, we have, marked with great precision, first, the duration of the successive reigns of the kings of Israel; next, the duration of the reigns of the kings of Judah; lastly, statements of the synchronism of accessions in each line with certain years in the reigns of the kings of the other line. Now, in the present condition of the text, these three lines of calculation present occasional discrepancies; and this is especially the case with the synchronistic notices, which are, indeed, believed by many to have been added by a later hand, both because of their rather formal artificiality, and of the evident

confusion which they introduce. Setting these last aside, the discrepancies are slight. In any case they are not great and may be easily exhibited.

The whole history (after the reign of Solomon) can be divided into three periods-(a) from the contemporaneous accession of Jeroboam and Rehoboam to the contemporaneous deaths of Jehoram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah by the hand of Jehu; (b) from the contemporaneous accession of Jehu and Athaliah to the fall of Samaria in the sixth year of Hezekiah; (c) from the sixth year of Hezekiah to the capture of Jerusalem. Now, (a) in the first period there is no difficulty. The united reigns in Israel amount to 98 years, in Judah to 95; and, remembering that the dates are always given in round numbers, reckoning, after the Hebrew manner, any part of a year as a year, there is here no real discrepancy, even in the synchronistic notices. We may accept the lower calculation, or perhaps something even less than this, as the true period. In the second period (b) the discrepancy begins. The united reigns in Israel amount to 143 years, in Judah to 165; and the synchronistic notices in the later part of the period are not only disturbed by this discrepancy, but are occasionally self-contradictory.† Of this discrepancy there must be some account to be given; for it is too patent to have escaped the notice of the historian himself, or even of a later chronologer. It is, of course, possible to refer it to corruption of the text; but of such corruption we have no indication in any variations of the ancient versions. If this be set aside, there are but two ways of accounting for it. There may have been (as Archbishop Ussher supposed) periods of interreguum in Israel-one of eleven years after the death of Jeroboam II., and before the accession of Zachariah, the other of about the same period between Pekah and Hoshea. But of these the former is most unlikely, for the period of anarchy had not yet set in; the latter, more probable in itself, is apparently inconsistent with the actual words of the historian (2 Kings xv. 30); of neither is there any trace in the history. The only other possible supposition is, that in Judah some kings may, after common Oriental custom, have acceded to power during their fathers' reigns, as coadjutors or substitutes. It happens that this is specially likely during this period in two cases. If, as has been thought by some critics, Amaziah after his defeat by Joash was kept in captivity till his conqueror's death, it would be natural that his son should be placed on the throne; and, when Uzziah had been smitten with leprosy, we actually know that Jotham acted as king before his father's death (2 Kings xv. 5). This supposition is, on the whole, most probable. It will not correct the confusion of the synchronistic notices, but it will account for the discrepancy in the collective duration of the reigns in the two lines. In this case it is perhaps, therefore, best again to take the lower calculation. In the third period (c), amounting to 133 years, Judah exists alone, and no difficulty can arise.

The general result, therefore, is that, taking the shorter calculation, we have, from the division of the kingdom to the fall of Samaria, a period of 238 years, and from the same point to the fall of Jerusalem a period of 371 years. If the longer calculation be taken, twenty-two years must be added to each of these periods.

Now, we are able to test these calculations by independent chronological data, found in ancient historians

If the civil war of four years (see 1 Kings xvi. 15-23) between Omri and Tibri be not included in the reign of Omri, then the period is 102 years.

† See (for example) 2 Kings xv. 27, 30, 32, xvi. 1.

and chronologers, and in the Egyptian and Assyrian monuments. By such comparison their general accuracy is very remarkably illustrated, although some discrepancies in detail occur.

(a) Thus the capture of Samaria is fixed by Ptolemy's Canon in B.C. 721; the capture of Jerusalem is determined by undoubted authorities in B.C. 586. The interval between these dates corresponds almost exactly with the time assigned in our text to the sole existence of the kingdom of Judah.

(b) Starting from either of these dates, the calculation in the text, taking the shorter reckoning, would place the accession of Rehoboam at 957 or 959 B.C. Now, the Egyptian records fix the accession of Shishak at about 983 B.C. His invasion took place in his twentieth year, B.C. 963, and as this coincided with the fifth year of Rehoboam, this would fix the accession of Rehoboam at B.C. 968-about half-way between the dates determined by the longer and shorter calculations of the chronology of our book.

(c) The invasion of Pharaoh-necho is placed in our history about twenty-three years before the final capture of Jerusalem, i.e., about B.C. 609. But the Egyptian chronology fixes his reign from 610 to 594, and makes his expedition against Assyria take place early in his reign.

(d) The accession of Sabaco II. (the So or Seveh of 2 Kings xvii. 4) is fixed by the Egyptian records in B.C. 723; the Hebrew text notes the intercourse between him and Hoshea about three years before the capture of Samaria, i.e., 723 or 724. In all these cases there is a very close coincidence between the two chronologies. (e) The Assyrian chronology agrees less closely. Thus our text makes Menahem's reign end about thirty years before the fall of Samaria, i.e., B.C. 751. The Assyrian records make Tiglath-pileser receive tribute for him in 741. In our text the expedition of Sennacherib is fixed to about eight years after the fall of Samaria, i.e., B.C. 713. The Assyrian monuments place it about B.C. 701; and this later date seems to be confirmed by the Canon of Ptolemy. These discrepancies cannot be removed, except by alteration of our text, unless there be some error in the data of our Assyrian calculations. It will be observed that they are simply in detail.

Thus

(f) The chronological notices in Josephus, which by their minute accuracy suggest some independent sources of information, do not enable us to pronounce decisively between the two reckonings of the text. (a) he has placed Josiah's fulfilment of the prophecy against the altar at Bethel 361 years after its utterance, immediately after the division of the kingdom (Ant. x. 1. 4). Now the eighteenth year of Josiah would be according to the shorter reckoning about 336 years, according to the longer reckoning about 352 years, after the division of the kingdom; and the incident recorded took place not earlier, though it may have been later, than the 18th year. (8) In Ant. x. 8. 4 he remarks that the kings of David's race reigned on the whole 514 years," during twenty of which" (he adds, oddly enough) Saul reigned, who was not the same tribe." Allowing forty years for David and eighty (according to Josephus' calculation) for Solomon, and (it would seem) twenty for Saul, the period for the division of the kingdom to the fall of Jerusalem would be 370 years, which agrees with the shorter reckoning. (7) The Temple is said (Ant. x. 8. 5) to have fallen "in the tenth day of the sixth month of the 470th year after its dedication; but since this was in the eleventh year of Solomon, or (according to Josephus) sixty-nine years before the disruption, this would give 401 years for the same period,

66

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »