A Short DISSERTATION Concerning the four last Kings of Judah. Occasioned by a small Tract, Entitled, josephi Scaligeri judicium de Thesi quadam Chronologica. And more especially, By some passages in Lud. Cappellus' Notes upon the Twelfth Table of his Chronologia Sacra.  
Licenced, Aug. 12. 1689. I. F.  
LONDON, Printed for Charles Brome, at the Gun, at the West-end of St. Paul's Churchyard. 1689.   

A Short DISSERTATION Concerning the four last Kings of Judah.  
JOseph Scaliger, amongst others, hath observed some difficulties in the History of the four last Kings of judah, viz. jehoahaz, jehoiakim, jehoiakin, and Zedekiah. Particularly, he doth this in a short Tract, Entitled, josephi Scaligeri judicium de thesi quadam Chronologica, (which we have after his Prolagomena to his Canon's Isagogici) in which he desires, that some studious person would undertake the solution of those difficulties. Many have since endeavoured it, particularly Lud. Cappellus, in his Notes upon the twelfth Table of his Chronologia Sacra. There are sundry passages in those Notes relating to the King's beforementioned, which I could not but take more especial notice of; but I shall examine only two of them.  

1. He asserts that jehoahaz was the younger Brother of jehoiakim, though he reigned before him. See Note 7th.  
2. He suspects, that when they began to Reign, jehoahaz was but thirteen years old, and jehoiakim only fifteen. So in Note 8th.   
The Learned Cappellus was (it seems) so secure of the truth of that assertion, that jehoahaz was the younger Brother, that he offers nothing at all in way of confirmation of it. But others have attempted to prove it by the arguments following; the validity of which we shall briefly examine.  
Arg. 1. If jehoahaz was not the younger Brother, why did they Anoint him, 2 Kings, 23.30. for the eldest Sons of their Kings were not Anointed?  
Answ. 1. It is not true, that none but the younger Sons were Anointed; jehoash was not a younger Brother when he was Proclaimed King for all his brethren were slain, at least, six years before, 2 Kings, 11.1, 2, 3.) and yet he was Anointed, v. 12.  
2. Suppose that they did not ordinarily Anoint the eldest, yet they did it in the case of jehoahaz, that by this Solemnity they might confirm him in the Kingdom, in opposition to Pharaoh-nechoh, or any that he might obtrude upon them. Or by Anointing him they declared, That the Kingdom being disturbed, by the Arms of the Egyptian, they delivered it to jehoahaz (tanquam de integro) as it was a new.  
Arg. 2. jehoahaz was the same with Shallum mentioned, 1 Chron. 3. Now Shallum is there said to be the fourth Son of josiah, and so he was, of necessity, younger Brother to jehoiakim, who was josiahs' second Son (for 1 Chron. 3.15. the Sons of josiah are reckoned thus, The first born johanan, the second jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum;) that jehoahaz was Shallum, there mentioned, they think to be manifest from jer. 22.11.  
Answ. That, which they say, is not manifest from jer. 22.  
1. It is not manifest that the Shallum, Jer. 22. was jehoahaz.  
2. If it was, yet it is not manifest that the Shallum, Jer. 22. was the same with the Shallum mentioned, 1 Chron. 3. Some think that by Shallum, Jer. 22. was meant jehoiakim. Flamen. Nobilius tells us, that the 72, according to one Edition, have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It is probable that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being found in the Margin (some having set it there as an interpretation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) crept from thence into the Text. Others have interpreted the Shallum, Jer. 22. to be Zedekiah, for the Kingdom of judah had an end, or was overthrown, when he was King. And so (say they) he was rightly named Shallum, which signifies a consummation or finishing. Of this opinion was R. Solomon; yea, it seems, by R. Kimchi, that this was the generally received opinion among the jewish Doctors; see them both in jer. 22. Finally, Kimchi himself was of opinion that Shallum, Jer. 22. was jehoiakim. And I have not met with any jewish Writer, that interprets Shallum to be jehoahaz, but Ab. Ezra. So that from all this, we may conclude that it is not so manifest that Shallum, Jer. 22. was jehoahaz, as some bear us in hand.  
But 2dly. Suppose it was manifest that Shallum, in jer. 22. was jehoahaz, yet it is not manifest that that Shallum in jer. 22. was the same with the Shallum mentioned Chron. 3. and so it appears not that jehoahaz was that Shallum; especially, if the Hebrew Writers, ap. S. Hieron, say truly that Shallum was a common name to all the Sons of josiah. Yea, it seems impossible that jehoahaz should be that Shallum. That Shallum was the fourth and youngest Son of josiah, and consequently jehoahaz (if he was that Shallum) was the younger Brother of Zedekiah, josiahs' third, as well as of jehoiakim the second Son. Now it seems impossible that jehoahaz should be the younger Brother of Zedekiah, and must seem so to every one that compares their ages when they began to reign. jehoahaz was twenty three years old when he began his reign, 2 Kings. 23.31. when Zedekiah was only twenty one years of age, when he entered upon his, 2 Kings, 24.18. and that was above eleven years after the beginning of Iehoahaz's reign; for jehoiakims eleven years' reign was between theirs. See 2 Kings, 23.36. Now is it possible, that he who was twenty three years old, should be the younger Brother of one that was but twenty one years old above eleven years after? Could Hamutal bring forth the elder Brother thirteen years after that she was delivered of the younger? Scaliger acknowledges this to be a difficulty which he could not assoil, but wishes others to do it for him (Quaerent studiosi, so he.) Let us see then how others have endeavoured to solve it.  

1. Some say that the Shallum, 1 Chron. 3. was indeed josiahs' third Son, and elder than Zedekiah. It is true, he is called the fourth, but (say they) that is not in respect of age, but because of the shortness of his reign, his unworthy demeanour in it. But this needs no confutation, Scaliger himself calls it futilis solutio.  
2. Others say that Zedekiah was made King while his Father lived, and reigned together with him three years. And that when 'tis said that he was twenty one years old when he began to reign, the meaning is, When he began to reign with his Father three years before his death; at which time jehoahaz was only twenty years of age, and consequently younger than Zedekiah by one year.   
But 1. The sense of the Text, 2 Kings. 24.1. is plainly that Zedekiah was but the age of twenty one years when he was made King by Nabuchadnezzar, jehoiakim being carried Captive to Babylon.  
2. How appears it that Zedekiah ever reigned with his Father? It is a thing so improbable in itself, that josiah should pass by the other, and take his third Son to reign with him, that it requires very good proof. And yet all the proof that is offered is from jer. 27.1, 2, 3. where we read, that in the beginning of the reign of jehoiakim, the Prophet was commanded to prepare Bonds and Yokes, and to send them to certain Kings, by the hands of the Ambassadors that came to jerusalem to Zedekiah King of judah. The neighbouring Kings who had understood that Zedekiah was made King three years before his Father's Death, did think that he reigned still after his Father's decease, and so sent their Ambassadors to him. Thus Ab. Ezra in Dan. 1. But this Interpretation is manifestly very far fetched, and therefore much time needs not be spent in the examination of it.. All the stress lies upon this, That Ambassadors were sent unto Zedekiah as King of judah, in the beginning of the reign of jehoiakim, wh●ch cannot be proved from that Text. Some have thought that when 'tis said, In the beginning of the reign of jehoiakim, V. ●. jehoiakim, by the Scribes negligence, hath crept into the Text instead of Zedekiah. Or however that, by jehoiakim we are to understand Zedekiah, for they say that jehoiakim was a common name to all the Sons of josiah. S. Hieron was of opinion, That that v. 1. belongs to the foregoing Chapter, viz. The twenty sixth, and in no wise to that which follows in chap. 27. As he also observes, that it was not found in the Copies of the 72, which they had then, as it is wanting in some Editions of that Translation now. But I shall wave all this, and suppose that the contents of the former part of chap. 27, were delivered to the Prophet in the beginning of Ieboiakim's reign, yet it will not follow that Ambassadors were sent to Zedekiah, as King of judah, at that time. For 1. That might be given in charge to the Prophet, in the time of jehoiakim, which he was not to execute till the reign of Zedekiah. He might receive a command in the time of the one, what he should do and say in the reign of the other; see v. 12. of that chap. 27. 2. Some have thought that the Prophet did then presently execute some part of that which was given him in charge, i. e. He did put the Bonds and Yokes upon his Neck, and did carry them (tho' not constantly, yet at certain times) during the reigns of jehoiakim and jehoiakin, and to the fourth year of Zedekiah; even fifteen years (says R. Solom. in Loc.) till Hananiah broke them from his Neck, jer. 28.10. I cannot dismiss this Interpretation without remarking that Kimchi takes notice of it, and expressly alleges Ab. Ezra for it; and yet doth not assent to it, but gives a quite other exposition of jer. 27.1, 2, 3. as well as R. Solom. doth.  
3. Some think to Solve the aforesaid difficulty, by saying that the Zedekiah who succeeded jehoiakin, and was then only of the age of twenty one years, was the Zedekiah mentioned in 1 Chron. 3.16. (where we read the Sons of jehoiakim, jeconiah his Son, Zedekiah his Son) and not Zedekiah the Son of josiah, spoken of v. 15. That he were Zedekiah mentioned v. 16. they prove from 2 Chron. 36.10. where he is called the Brother of jehoiakin. But to this the answer is easy, it being known and acknowledged that the word Brother, in Holy Writ, is taken very frequently in a larger sense, viz. for any Kinsman. Thus the Zedekiah, who succeeded jehoiakin, was his Brother, i. e. his near Kinsman, for he was indeed his Uncle or Father's Brother. We have sufficient warrant for this Interpretation from 2 Kings, 24.17. where this Zedekiah is expressly called his Father's Brother; yea, the seventy two and Syr. (not to mention the Vulg.) read not his Brother, but his Uncle or Father's Brother, even in 2 Chron. 36.10. Besides, if this Zedekiah was the Zedekiah mentioned 1 Chron. 3.16. and the Brother of jehoiakin (as these men pretend) they will acknowledge that he was his younger Brother, and then (unless they will admit a vacancy or interregnum of three or four years, betwixt jehoiakin and Zedekiah) he could not be twenty one years old when he began his reign; for jehoiakin was but eighteen years old when he began to reign, 2 Kings, 24.8. and reigned only three months and ten days. Add hereto, that the Zedekiah which succeeded jehoiakin was the Son of Hamutal, 2 Kings, 24.17. that Hamutal undoubtedly, which was the Mother of jehoahaz, 2 Kings, 23.31. Finally, can words express more clearly what Zedekiah it was that reigned after jehoiakin or Coniah, than those do jer. 37.1? And King Zedekiah, the Son of josiah, reigned instead of Coniah the Son of jehoiakim.  
Arg. 3. jehoahaz was only twenty three years old when he began his reign, 2 Kings, 23.31. and but three months after, we find jehoiakim to have been twenty five years old, 2 Kings, 23.31, 36. therefore jehoiakim was elder than jehoahaz.  
Answ. It doth not appear that jehoiakim was so old three months after that jehoahaz began his reign. jehoiakim was twenty five years old when he began to reign, i. e. (say some) when he began to reign in his own right, which he could not do until his Brother jehoahaz was dead. But suppose we grant that those words, When we began to reign, do refer to the time when he was first made King by Pharaoh nechoh, there might be an interval of time between Nechohs removing jehoahaz, and substituting jehoiakim in his place. When he had removed jehoahaz from the Kingdom, he either took him along with him from jerusalem to Riblah, or sent for him thither. Riblah, according to St. Hieron. in Ezek. 47. was Antioch in Syria, and accordingly the Targ. jonath. and jerus. in Num. 34.11. interpret Riblah to be Dophne; as also others tell us, that Antioch was built out of the ruins of an ancient City called Riblah. Now Antioch was at a considerable distance from jerusalem, and a proportionable time must be allowed for Iehoahaz's journey from jerusalem thither, and the same time (if not more) for Nechoch's march from thence to judea, to order the affairs of the Country; also some time for the settling those affairs (and how long he might stay at Riblah after Iehoahaz's coming thither we know not.) All this may make it reasonable to believe, that a considerable space of time did intervene between Iehoahaz's removal from, and jehoiakims entrance upon the Kingdom, which is mentioned only after Iehoahaz's being bound in Riblah, and the settling the Tribute in judea: See 2 Kings, 23.33, 34. The Thesis of which, Scaliger gives his judgement in the small Tract beforementioned, is this, That between the end of Iehoahaz's reign, and the beginning of jehoiakims, there intervened the space of two years more or less. This position he endeavours to overthrow by sundry arguments, but the answering them will not require much time or pains. In the first, he only begs the thing in question, viz. That after that jehoahaz had continued three months in the Kingdom, Nechoh presently appointed jehoiakim to succeed. The third and fourth Arguments depends upon this, That there must be a Septenary number of years between Hezekiahs' fourteenth year, and the destruction of the Temple; as also between Moses' death and the destruction of it. To us therefore, who acknowledge no necessity of a Septenary number of years, these arguments signify as little as the first. His second Argument only remains, which is this: The fourth year of jehoiakim was the twenty third from the thirteenth of josiah, Jer. 25.1, 3. from which, to the beginning of the reign of jehoahaz, were nineteen complete years; from thence, to the beginning of the fourth year of jehoiakim, complete three years; and so from the thirteenth of josiah, to the beginning of jehoiakims fourth year, were twenty two complete; therefore the twenty third year, jer. 25. was only current. But if an interregnum of two years had intervened, it had not been the twenty third year but the twenty fifth: thus he. For answer, Scaliger tells us not what ground he had to reckon complete nineteen years, from the thirteenth of josiah to the beginning of the reign of jehoahaz. josiah reigned 31 years; subtract 13 out of 31, and there remains 18. Reckon then 18 years to the beginning of Iehoahaz's reign; two from the beginning of his to the beginning of jehoiakims, and then (as Scaliger himself computes) three years to the beginning of jehoiakims fourth year, and you have exactly the number of twenty three years, according to jer. 25. I only add, that though Scaliger would by no means allow of any Interregnum between jehoahaz and jehoiakim, yet the learned Cappellus was not so averse from admitting one: For he allots a whole year to jehoahaz, although the Scripture says that he reigned only three months, viz. He conceived that there was a vacancy or interregnum of nine months.  
Having thus examined the Arguments that are brought to support Cappellus' assertion, I shall now propose one or two on the other side, to prove that jehoahaz was the elder Brother.  
Arg. 1. If jehoahaz was the same with johanan; then he was certainly the elder Brother, for of johanan it is said expressly, 1 Chron. 3.15. that he was the first born. Some say that he is called the first born, not in respect of birth but of dignity, because he was thought most worthy to succeed his Father in the Kingdom. But this needs no confutation; or, if it did, Tostatus in 1 Chron. 3. hath refuted it sufficiently. As to Iehoahaz's being the same with johanan, a late writer says that all Commentators are agreed in it. But I must not say that, partly because I have not consulted all Commentators as (it seems) that Author hath, partly because I have met with sundry Commentators that are of a different opinion. Yet I could easily produce several very judicious Expositors, both Christian and Jewish, that have thought jehoahaz to be johanan. But I shall rather choose to prove it by this plain argument, jehoahaz being the son of josiah, must of necessity be either johanan or Shallum (this Scaliger urgeth); but it hath been proved above, that he could not be Shallum, and so he must be johanan.  
Arg. 2. He that succeeds his Father in the Kingdom, should by the Law of Nations be the eldest son (this Scaliger grants) but jehoahaz succeeded his Father in the Kingdom.  
Having thus considered the arguments on both sides, as diligently and impartially as I can, I judge it most agreeable to the Scripture-history, to say that jehoahaz was the eldest son of josiah, as being the same with johanan. All the difficulty that this puts us upon, is, The admitting an Interregnum of a year and nine months between the end of Iehoahaz's three months, and the beginning of the reign of jehoiakim; or of not so much, if Iehoahaz's twenty three years, 2 Kings, 23.31. were complete, and jehoiakims twenty fifth year, v. 36. was only current. This seems to me not comparable to the insupportable difficulties that attend the other opinion.  
The second passage in the Learned Cappellus, which we shall examine (but more briefly) is this: When jehoahaz is said to to be twenty three years old, and jehoiakim twenty five, he suspects that thirteen should be read instead of twenty three, and fifteen instead of twenty five. His reason is, because if jehoiakim had been twenty five years old when he began to reign, he must have been born when his Father was but fifteen years of age, and conceived when he was but fourteen; accordingly, if jehoahaz had been twenty three years of age, his Father must have been only of the age of sixteen when he was born. Now it seemed to him very inconsistent with josiahs' piety, to begin to beget Children so soon.  
Answ. 1. I cannot but judge it very agreeable to that good King's Piety, to make use of the proper remedy against means to subdue youthful Lusts. Some have believed that Solomon was neither fifteen nor fourteen years of age when he begat Rehoboam; whether they had firm grounds for their belief I shall not dispute; see St. Hieron. epist. ad Vitale. 2. Cappellus in saying that josiah was but fourteen years old when he begat jehoiakim, proceeds upon his former mistake, that jehoiakim was elder than jehoahaz; but according to our Hypothesis, jehoiakim was not conceived till josiahs' fifteenth year, or the beginning of his sixteenth:  
FINIS.