i <i ii-wjy^nyiyii

£j£££.<.i7 > ' .  -4-^J.iaifc' J

CHWcy

WXmm

&&!

for the founding of a. College in this Colony"

From the Library of
Dr. C. Ray Palmer
1915

This book was digitized by Microsoft Corporation in
cooperation with Yale University Library, 2008. You
may not reproduce this digitized copy ofthe book for
any purpose other than for scholarship, research,
educational, or, in limited quantity, personal use. You
may not distribute or provide access to this digitized copy
(or modified or partial versions of it) for commercial purposes.

COMMENTARY

THE BOOKS OF KINGS.

KAEL FRIEDRICH KEIL, D.D. PH.D.,
PROFESSOR OF EXEGETICAL THEOLOGY ANT> THE ORIENTAL LANGUAGES IN THE UNIVERSITY OF DOHPAT.
TRANSLATED BY
JAMES MURPHY, LL.D.,

PROFESSOR OF HEBREW, BELFAST.

SUPPLEMENTED BY
COMMENTARY ON THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES.
ERNST BERTHEAU,
PROFESSOR IN GOETTINGEN.
TRANSLATED BY
JAMES MARTIN, B.A.,
EDINBURGH.

VOLUME II.

EDINBURGH:
T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STBEET.
LONDON : HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO. J SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, AND CO.
DUBLIN : JOHN ROBERTSON, AND HODGES AND SMITH.

MDCCCLVir.

PBINTED BY
10 BUT PARK,
DUNDEE.

%Q"S kr

CONTENTS.

SECOND BOOK OE MX G 8. —(Continued).
Chap. XIII. — Reign of King Jehoahaz, vv. 1—9, and Joash of Israel, vv.
10—13, and 22— 25. Death of Elisha, vv. 14—21, ... 1
Chap. XIV — Reign of Amaziah King of Judah, vv. 1—22, comp. 2 Chr.
xxv., and of Jeroboam II. of Israel, vv. 23— 29, ... 9
Chap. XV. — Reign of Azariah or Uzziah King of Judah, vv. 1 — 7, and of
several Kings of Israel, w. 8 — 38, ..... 19
Chap. XVI.— Reign of Ahaz, King of Judah. Comp. & Chr. xxviii. . 34
Chap. XVII. — Reign of Hoshea, the last King of Israel, taking of Samaria
and removal of the Israelites to Assyria and Media by Shalmaneser,
w. 1—6 ; reflections on the fall of the Kingdom of Israel, vv. 7—23 ;
and transplanting of Heathen Colonists into the depopulated terri
tory, w. 24 — 41, ...... 50

SECTION THIRD.
HISTOBY OP THE KINGDOM OP JUDAH PROM THE DISSOLUTION OP THE KINGDOM
OF THE TEN TRIBES TO THE BABYLONISH CAPTIVITY.
Chap. XVIII. — Reign of King Hezekiah, w. 1 — 12. Sennacherib's Expedi
tion against Judah and Jerusalem, w. 13 — 37, ¦ . .78
Chap. XIX. — Delivery of Jerusalem and liberation of Judah from the
Assyrians. Comp. Is. xxxvii., . . . . .93
Chap. XX. — Sickness and recovery of Hezekiah, w. 1 — 11. Arrival of a
Babylonian Embassy at Jerusalem, vv. 12 — 19. Hezekiah's death,
w. 20, 21,  112
Chap. XXI.— Reign of Manasseh, w. 1 — 18, comp. 2 Chr. xxxiii. 1 — 20; and
of Arnon, w. 19— 26; c&mp. 2 Chr. xxxiii. 21— 25, . . .123
Chap. XXII.— XXIII. 30.— Reign of King Josiah, vv. 1, 2; Discovery of
the Book of the Law on the occasion of repairing the Temple,[vv. 3 — 20 ;
reading of the Law in the Temple and renewal of the Covenant
with the Lord, ch. xxiii. 1 — 3 ; abolition of Idolatry and solemnization
of the Passover, w. 4 — 24 ; and of Josiah's reign, vv. 25 — 30, . 131
Chap. XXIII. 31— XXIV. 17.— Reign of King Jehoahaz, vv. 31-35, of
Jehoiakim, v. 36— ch. xxiv. 7, and Jehoiachin, vv. 8 — 17, . 158
Chap. XXIV. 18—20 and XXV.— Reign of Zedekiah, and fall of the King
dom of Judah, ch. xxiv. 18, xxv. 26. Subsequent fate of Jehoiachin,
vv. 27— 30,  172

vi CONTENTS.

THE BOOES OF THE CHRONICLES. Page.
Preface, .......... 191
PART I.
Genealogical Tables, . . . . 193
PART II.
1 Chr. IX. 35 to 2 Chr. XXXVI.
HISTORY OP THE KINGS IN JERUSALEM PROM DAVID TO ZEDEKIAH, THE LAST IN
THE SERIES OP KINGS BELONGING TO THE HOUSE OF DAVID.
I.— Chap. IX. 35— Chap. XXIX.— History of David, . . 194
1. Chap. IX. 35— Chap. X.— Family Of Saul and fate of his house, . 195
2. Chap. XI. 1 — 9.— David is anointed King in Hebron, and conquers
Jerusalem, ........ 201
3. Chap. XI. 10— 47.— List of David's heroes, and brief account of their
deeds, ......... 205
4. Chap. XII. 1 — 22. — List of those who attached themselves to David
during the lifetime of Saul, ...... 216
5. Chap. XII. 23 — 40. — Number of the warriors who elected David King
in Hebron, ........ 221
6. Chap. XIII.— XVI.— The Ark of the Covenant is taken to the house
of Obed-Edom, and remains there three months, chap. xiii. (account
of David's preparations for building a house, of his family, and of
his wars with the Philistines, chap, xiv.), the Ark is then carried by
the Levites to Jerusalem in a solemn procession, chaps, xv. and xvi., 225
7. Chap. XVII.— Chap. XXII.— David wishes to build ». Temple in
Jerusalem. He makes the necessary preparations, but the erection
of tbe building itself is left for Solomon. Chaps, xviii. — xxi. form a
parenthesis containing accounts of David's wars, his officers, &c. , . 251
8. Chap. XXIII.— XXVI.— David makes Solomon King. Division of
the Priests and Levites into classes, and appointment of their duties, 298
9. Chap. XXVII. — Account of the army and of David's officers, . 316
10. Chap. XXVIII.— XXIX.— David's last instructions ; and his death, 321

SECOND BOOK OF THE CHRONICLES,
II.— Chap. I.— Chap. IX.— History of Solomon, . . . 333
1. Chap. I. 1 — 13. — Solomon offers burnt-offerings in Gibeon; in the
night after the sacrifice God appears to him, . . . 333
2. Chap. I. 14 — 17. — Solomon's chariots, horsemen, and wealth, . 337
3. Chap. II. — VII. — The building of the Temple and other things con
nected with it, ...... 337
4. Chap. VIII. and IX.- Brief notices of important events in Solomon's
Reign, account of his wisdom, his wealth, ahd his power. His death, 346
III. — Chap. X. — Chap. XXXVI.— History of the Kings who reigned in
Jerusalem, from Rehoboam to Zedekiah, .... 355

CONTENTS. Yll
Page.
1. Chap. X. — XII. — Rise of the Southern and Northern Kingdoms
History of Rehoboam,
2. Chap. XIII.— Abyah,
3. Chap. XIV.-Chap. XVI.— Asa,
4. Chap. XVII.— Chap. XXI. 1.— Jehoshaphat,
5. Chap. XXI. 2— 20.— Jehoram, .
6. Chap. XXII. 1—9.— Ahaziah, .
7. Chap. XXII. 10.-XXIII. 21.— Athaliah, Ahaziah's Mother,
8. Chap. XXIV— Joash 
9. Chap. XXV.— Amaziah,
10. Chap. XXVI.— Uzziah, ....
11. Chap. XXVII.— Jotham,
12. Chap. XXVIII.— Ahaz,
13. Chap. XXIX.— XXXII.— Hezekiah, .
14. Chap. XXXIII. I— 20.— Manasseh,
15. Chap. XXXIII. 21— 25.— Arnon,
16. Chap. XXXIV. and XXXV.— Josiah,
17. Chap. XXXVI. 1—4— Jehoahaz,
18. Chap. XXXVI. 5— 8.— Jehoiakim,
19. Chap. XXXVI. 9, 10.— Jehoiachin,
20. Chap. XXXVI. 11— 21— Zedekiah,

366363

368

381

. 398
400
Mother,
402
403
406
409
414
416
422
444
446
446
456
457
460
461
SECOND BOOK OF KINGS.

CHAPTER XIII.

REIGN OF KING JEHOAHAZ, VV. 1—91, AND JOASH OF ISRAEL ;
vv. 10 — 13, and 22—25. death of elisha, vv. 14 — 21.
V. 1. "In the 23d year of Joash, king of Judah, Jehoahaz
became king over Israel in Samaria seventeen years." This
statement is in contradiction with v. 10, and does not agree well
with earlier synchronistic statements. If Jehoahaz became king
ih the 23d year of Joash, king of Judah, and reigned seventeen
years, his son Joash cannot after his death have succeeded him
On the throne in the 37th year of Joash of Judah, as is stated v.
10. For even should we assume with Vatabl., Grot., Calm.,
and others, that Joash became king in the very beginning of the
23d year, and his son Jehoahaz only at the close of the 37th
year of king Joash of Judah, Jehoahaz would still not have
reigned fall fifteen years, which could not possibly be counted
as seventeen years : since, if the beginning of his reign fell in
the beginning of the year, his first year would exactly agree with
the 23d year of Joash, whereby the 37 th of Joash of Judah must
have coincided at least in part with the fourteenth of his reign.
The solution of Ussher (Annal. m. ad a.m. 3163), Lightfoot
( Opp. i. 90), Budd. (hist. eccl. ii. 401 f.), Seb. Schm. and several
Rabbins (comp. Meyer Annott. ad Sed. ol. p. 944), that Je
hoahaz had assumed his son Joash as co-regent two or three
years before his death, appears at once to be a make-shift, and a
product ofthe difficulty, as it contradicts the clear .words of vv.
VOL. II. a

2 2 KINGS XIII. 2 — 9.
9 and 1 0, according to which Joash became king only after his
father's death. Our statement, however, is at variance not only
with v. 10, but with xii. 2. For as Jehu ascended the throne at
the same time with Athaliah, and Joash of Judah became king
in the seventh year of Jehu, according to which Athaliah reigned
nearly six full years ; the end of the twenty-eight years' reign
of Jehu (x. 36) must fall in the 22d year of Joash of Judah,
unless we choose to assume, contrary to the fixed principle of our
author, to reckon the incomplete years as complete, that Jehu
reigned longer than twenty-eight years, or to agree to the im
probable assumption of Seb. Schm., that between the death of
Jehu, and the commencement of the reign of his successor, several
weeks or months elapsed. AH these difficulties and contradic
tions disappear, as soon as we assume an error in our verse, and
put instead of the 23d the 22d year of Joash. Then Jehu
reigned twenty-seven years and some months, which as in all the
other kings are stated as twenty-eight years, and Jehoahaz may
have reigned from the 22d to the 37th year of Joash of Judah
from fifteen to nearly sixteen years, which, according to the
principle above developed in the introduction to 1 Ki. xii.,
namely to reckon the years of the kings according to Nisan, and
thus count the weeks and months before as well as after Nisan
as full years, would make out a reign of seventeen years.1
Vv. 2 — 9. As Joash,walking wholly in the footsteps of his pre
decessors, continued the illegal calf-worship introduced by Jero-
1 Instead of the number twenty-three we might also put twenty-one ;
for as the first year of the Jewish Joash coincides with the seventh of
Jehu (xii. 1), the beginning of the twenty-eighth year of Jehu might
possibly fall in the end of the twenty-first year of the Jewish Joash.
The reign of Jehoahaz continuing from the twenty-first to the thirty-
seventh year of Joash might then still more easily be said to amount to
seventeen years. So Josephus has amended our text (Ant. ix. 8, 5) ;
for that he should have found this number in it is not a probable sup
position,^ this reason, that the LXX., as well as all the old versions,
agree with the Masoretie text in the number twenty-three. Des
Vignoles (chronol. i. p. 347 if.) and Winer (E.W. i. 687 f.) assume an
error in v. 10, referring to the fact that the date contained in v. 1 har
monizes with the duration of Jehu's reign, but in v. 10 the LXX.
have, according to edit. Aid., actually thirty-nine instead of thirty-seven.
But in reference to v. 1 we have above in the text proved the contrary
and the reading of the edit. Aid. of the LXX. in v. 10 is nothing more
than an arbitrary emendation of no critical import.

2 kings xiii. 2—9. 3
boam (v. 2), the Lord chastised Israel still more under his reign
than under 1 iis predecessor Jehu. The longer the sin was con
tinued, the greater the revolt, so much the severer must have been
the punishment. The instruments the Lord employed as scourges
for Israel were Hazael and his son Benhadad, who oppressed the
kingdom of Israel so severely that only 50 horsemen, 10 chariots,
and 10,000 footmen were left to Jehoahaz. When, as the oppres
sion rose to the highest, Jehoahaz besought the Lord and was
heard, God the Lord gave Israel a saviour, so that they were
released from the hand of the Syrians, and again dwelt peacefully
in their tents as before time, although they departed not from the
sins of Jeroboam, and the Asherah also stood in Samaria. — On
the sing. suff. in n2!2(2> v- 2 and fy^. v- 6 comp. on iii. 3. The
change of ^y into £q in Dathe is arbitrary. V. 3. n^n-^
T T * T — T
" the whole time," namely, of the reign of Jehoahaz. Many
expositors limit these words : nearly, almost during his whole
reign (Seb. Sch., J. D., Mich., d. exeg. Hand.) ; but vv. 4 and
5 do not warrant this. The saviour (ynyift v. 5) given to the
kingdom of Israel at the prayer of Jehoahaz is neither an angel,
nor the prophet Elisha, as some think, nor quidam e ducibus Joasi
(Seb. Schm., Budd. h. eccl. ii. 402), nor are we to understand
thereby a victory gained by Jehoahaz over the Syrians, but the
Lord gave Israel a saviour in the two successors of Jehoahaz, in
the kings Joash and Jeroboam, of whom the former recovered
from the Syrians all the cities taken from his father (v. 25), the
latter restored the old boundaries of Israel (xiv. 25.) For that
Israel did not obtain deliverance from the Syrian yoke under
Jehoahaz, but that the Lord had mercy on them first under Joash
and Jeroboam, and by these kings granted them victory over
their enemies, is said in the most explicit manner in vv. 22 — 25
and xiv. 26 f. According to these clear expressions must the
indefinite statements of vv. 4 and 5 be understood, especially as
the reference of the passages quoted to these verses cannot be
mistaken. But from the comparison of those passages with our
verses it follows at the same time that the oppression which, ac
cording to |v. 3, Hazael's son Benhadad exercised over Israel
falls in the time of his father's reign, and thus that Benhadad is
named, not as king, but as general under his father Hazael. For,

4 2 kings xm. 2—9.
according to v. 24, the alleviation of the Syrian yoke took place
simultaneously with the death of Hazael, who died, not under
Jehoahaz but under Joash, whereupon Joash wrested their con
quests again from the Syrians. Therefore also in v. 4 only a ^yft
Qytf is mentioned. Concerning q^q PItTI (v- ^) see on 1 ^* x"'"
t-: • T T •
6. When it is said, v. 4, " God heard him," we may not surely,
with Meyer, ad Sed. Ol. p. 943, affirm the contrary : iratam
faciem Domini quidem deprecatus est, sed non exauditus, but cer
tainly assume, that the hearing did not take place immediately,
that is, the aid did not eome under him, but under his son, as
the phrase Di^n-^ (v- *0 an(^ v- 22 ff- imperatively demand.
"nriQ IN^l " ^ley wer>t out from under the hand of Aram,"
that is, they were released from the power of the Syrians, were
delivered from their oppression, and attained again to the enjoy
ment of the blessings of peace. "And the children of Israel
dwelt (sat) in their tents as yesterday and ere yesterday," that
is, they were able to dwell again in peace in their houses as
formerly, without being driven out and carried away by their
enemies. — V. 6. ^n 712. "therein (in the sin of Jeroboam)
— T T
walked he," that is, Jehoahaz, or it, that is, Israel. Concerning
the form ^nn> which Hitzig (Begr. d. krit. p. 135,) unneces
sarily explains as an error of transcription, compare on 1 Ki.
xxi. 21 ; on the j-pgJN see on 1 Ki. xiv. 23. This idol had
probably remained from Ahab's times (1 Ki.xvi.33) as its destruc
tion by Jehu is not mentioned. — V. 7 has given much trouble to
the expositors. C. a Lap. wished to connect it with v. 3 and place
it before v. 4. Houbigant and Dathe have actually placed it after
v. 4. 13 must, according to Schulz and the exeg. Hdb. plane abun-
dare, according to Cler., signify sed. All this is arbitrary. The
verse stands in its right place, 15 means for, and is in substance
attached to vv. 4 and 5, while v. 6 contains only a thought subor
dinate to v. 5, for which reason Seb. Schm. would put it in a
parenthesis. Tlie connection of thoughts is simply1 this : Jehoa-
1 Maurer has determined the order of thought in vv. 6 and 7 much
too artificially, and even falsely thus : tamen non recesserunt a peccatis
J.arobeami cet. tamen constanter neglexerunt Jovain, vs. 7. narn Jova
facia facer e infecta non poterat, Israelitis tantum imbecillum auxilium
tuler at.

2 KINGS XIII. 10—19. 5
haz besought the Lord, and the Lord heard him, for he saw their
oppression .... and gave them a saviour ....
although they departed not from their sins (v. 6) ; for Israel was
come to an extremity ; he (Jehovah) had left to Jehoahaz not
more than fifty horsemen .... for the king of the
Syrians had destroyed them (the remaining horsemen, chariots,
and footmen.) That " he had made them like the dust in thresh
ing," denotes their total annihilation, Is. xxi. 10 ; Mic. iv. 12 f. ;
Jer. li. 33. The figurative expression here, however, had contained
partly a literal truth ; for according to Am. i. 3, Hazael had
drawn threshing instruments of iron over the Gileadites, accord
ing to a barbaric custom of war, of which examples occur else
where, comp. 2 Sam. viii. 31 ; Judg. viii. 7.
Vv. 10 — 13. — Tlie beginning, duration, and character of the reign
of Joash (tfysfti or tlJNiiT1) *'n Israel- On the beginning of his
t x :
reign see the remarks on v. 1. — On v. 11 comp. v. 2 and 6. —
The war of Joash with Amaziah, indicated v. 12, is related xiv.
8 — 14. The standing formula for the end of every reign is, in
the case of Joash, placed too early in vv. 12 and 13, and recurs
in xiv. 15 f., interwoven with the history of the reign of the
Jewish king, there still less suitably, although it stands here in
the wrong place, and should properly follow at the close of the
chapter. Vv. 14 — 19. Under Joash " Elisha fell sick of his sickness
whereof he was to die." Quemadmodum unicuique homini suus
morbus et mors destinata ; sic etiam Elisa taridem juxta sortem
generis humani aegrotavit lethaliter ; estque tacita oppositio inter
ipsum et Eliam, qui vivus in caelum ascendit. Seb. Schm. On
the news of the mortal sickness of the prophet, the king came
down to him, — the place where Elisha lay sick and died is not
named, — and " wept over his face." These words are certainly
not with Cler., Schulz, and others, to be thus understood : dum
eum jacentem oscularetur, lacrimas profudit, but merely to be
taken in the sense, he wept standing before him, literally, over
him lying. The king believed that after the death of the prophet
he must encounter the danger threatening his kingdom from the
Syrians, and therefore exclaims, "My father, my father! the
chariot of Israel and the horsemen thereof!" Comp. in regard

6 2 kings xiii. 14 — 19.
to these words on ii. 1 2. From this lamentation of the king
over the approaching death of the prophet, it appears that Joash
was not altogether without trust and faith. Serias, Seb. Schm.
rightly remarks, putamus fuisse has lacrimas, nee hypocriticas
nisi quod non perrexerit in seria poenitentia. This faith, though
weak, the Lord accepted and comforted him by a cheering pro
mise of the dying prophet. In order to help the weak faith
ofthe king, the promise is connected with a symbolic action.
" Take bow and arrows, lay thy hand upon the bow, open the
window eastward and shoot," said Elisha to him, and after the
king had taken the bow in his hand, laid his hands upon the
hands of the king in token of the power granted to the bow-shot
coming from the Lord through the medium of the prophet, and
added on the discharge of the arrow : " An arrow of deliverance
from the Lord and an arrow of deliverance against the Syrians !
and thou wilt smite the Syrians in Aphek to destruction." The
discharged arrow was to be a symbol of the help of the Lord
against the Syrians to their utter overthrow. This promise the
king was now by his own act to appropriate. Elisha therefore
desired him to shoot the remaining arrows to the ground, and the
king did so, but stopped after shooting the third arrow, and there
by displayed the weakness of his faith. For when it was said to
him, that the discharged arrow signified a victory over the Syrians,
it was evident of itself that the more arrows he shot, the greater
deliverance, the more victories would he obtain. When, there
fore, he stopped so soon, the reason could only lie in this, that he,
doubting the omnipotence of God to fulfil his promise, regarded
three victories as the maximum, which the Lord could or would
give him.1 The prophet, therefore, was justly indignant with
the weak faith of the king, and declared to him that he had
only by the unbelief he had herein displayed, deprived himself
of the complete victory over the Syrians. By this distinction
between the objective promise and its subjective appropriation,
the apparent contradiction between v. 17 and 19 disappears,
1 Cum rex apud animum suum potentiam Syriae regum reputaret,
nee fidem prorsus habere t Elisaeo, satis esse credidit, si ter feriret
terrain, veritus ut valicinium impleretur, si plures ictus terrae impin-
geret. Cler,

2 kings xiii. 20, 21. 7
which S. Schm. and Cler. endeavoured to explain in a very un
satisfactory manner by referring n^3_*!2> (v- l?) sensu strictiori
to the army of the Syrians, in v. 19 on the contrary sensu latiori
to the kingdom and nation of the Syrians. The arrow shot
through the window under the laying on of Elisha's hands sym
bolized the promise objectively made to Joash, the arrows shot
by Joash at the word of the prophet to the ground, represented
the subjective appropriation of this promise.1 — V. 16. n-p 2511"!
. T' :t •• :-
"pii 72? " lay thine hand upon the bow." 2-V-nn to cause to
ride, go, then, to load (2 Sam. vi. 3), accordingly here, to lay on,
as more frequently in Syr. and Arab. Comp. L. de Dieu ad h. I.
and Ges. thes. iii. 1287. — V. 17. "Open the window eastward,
or toward the east," probably with reference to this, that the
Syrians had established themselves in the East, had taken^ all
Gilead, x. 32 f. nyHEJn salvation, see on v. 1. o^fcQ, in, upon
x : t — . x
Aram, that is, towards Aram, comp. Ew. Gr. § 521. — On the
situation of Aphek comp. on 1 Ki. xx. 26. — V. 18. ;-|21N Tin
"smite on the earth," that is, shoot the arrow to the earth.
Comp. on this meaning of J-J3n> ™- 25, ix. 24 ; 1 Ki. xxii. 34 ;
1 Sam. xvii. 49 f. — V. 19. ffi^nVj to smite, it behoved thee to
smite . . . , then wouldst thou . . . Comp. Ew. Gr.
§544. Vv. 20, 21.- Even after his death Elisha was proved by a
miracle to be a prophet of the Lord, in order to put the seal
upon the truth of his announcements, especially his last still
unfulfilled prediction concerning the conquest of the Syrians,
comp. Sir. 48, 12 — 14. In the next year after the death of
Elisha the inhabitants of the city, in the vicinity of which the
prophet was buried, brought out a dead man to bury him. By
the way they saw a marauding party of Moabites advancing, and
opened, in order to retreat from them as speedy as possible, the
grave of Elisha, which was at hand, and put the body into it
with all haste. But as soon as the deceased touched the body of
Elisha, he revived and stood up on his feet. Among the
1 Quite arbitrary is the conjecture of Koster (i. p. q. p. 98) : "per
haps the plurality of arrows is intended, as in the well-known story of
the dying father, to express the harmony of the two kingdoms."

8 2 kings xiii. 20, 21.
Israelites the dead were neither enclosed in coffins nor covered
with earth, but only wrapt in linen cloth and laid in tombs, so
that one body might touch another, and, on returning to life,
would not be hindered from moving. Now, with regard to this
miracle, it was not the dead body of Elisha, but the living God,
that gave life again to the dead ; and the effect of the Divine
omnipotence was only brought about by contact with the dead
Elisha, and was connected with him, because God wished thereby
to show his people, that the Divine efficiency that was at work
in Elisha had pot disappeared from Israel with his death. The
special object of the miracle indeed was this, to convince in the
most effectual manner people and king of the truth of the
promise of the victory over the Syrians, which the dying Elisha
had announced to king Joash by the laying of his hands upon
the hands of the king.1 The narrator intimates this object
when immediately after the account of this miracle he records
the historical fulfilment of that promise (vv. 22 — 25.) The
difficult ;-|2$ ;-q is mostly rendered with Maurer, "the year
T T T
came," for, " when the year came." The LXX. and Chald.
express this sense ; on the contrary the Vulg. and Syr., in ipso
anno, as if they had read n3$S- At all events Ewald's explana-
XX-
tion is to be rejected ; " they were wont to come in the coming
of the year (^ infin.), a yearly coming" (Krit. Gr. p. 528), less
on account of the change of text, as on account of the sense not
suiting the context. — ^i^i means not, " they cast," as if they
had flung the body into the grave, but, they deposited it with all
haste. — The phrase ^y^ belongs to the descriptive, as it were
pictorial style, the dead came and touched = as the dead came
to the bones of Elisha, he touched them. Quite unsuitable
1 Many from Ephraim Syr. and Pseudo-epiphan. de proph. c. 6 to
Koster erroneously assign as the object of this miracle, to show that
Elisha even in the grave surpassed his master Elijah in miraculous
power, or that ho was able to do wonders in the grave, because he
possessed the spirit of Elijah in a twofold measure. But the spirit and
object of this miracle are completely mistaken by the rationalists who
with Bauer (hebr. Mythol. ii. p. 197), the exeg. Hdb. and Jahn (Einl.
ii. 1, p. 261) pronounce the deceased to be one apparently dead, who,
when he was cast into Elisha's grave, was brought to his senses and
restored to animation by the rough shock of the severe fall.

2' KINGS XIV. 1 — 4. 9
therefore is the conjecture of Hitzig y^h^y (Begr. d. Krit. p.
127.) Vv. 22—25. With v. 22 comp. vv. 4 and 7 and the remarks
there. Reassumitur hoc de Chasaele ad exponendum complemen-
tum prophetiae Elisa?. V. 23 ff. On account of his covenant
made with the patriarchs, the Lord did not yet reject Israel
from his sight, as they certainly deserved by their obstinate rebel
lion against him, but now again averted the impending destruc
tion from them by the death of Hazael. For his son and successor
Benhadad was three times defeated by Joash, as Elisha had
promised, and must have surrendered to the Israelites all the cities
conquered by his father under Jehoahaz. The cities which Hazael
took from Jehoahaz are not named ; even under Jehu he had
conquered all Gilead (x. 33), under Jehoahaz probably also a
part of the country on this side of the Jordan, as he had carried
away almost his whole army (v. 7.) Joash recovered these cities
from him, his son Jeroboam Gilead also, comp. xiv. 25.

CHAPTER XIV.

REIGN OV AMAZIAH KING OF JUDAH, VV. 1 — 22, COMP. 2 CHR.
XXV., AND OF JEROBOAM II. OF ISRAEL, VV. 23—29.
Vv. 1 — 4. Amaziah comes to the sovereignty in the second
year of Joash king of Israel. As according to xiii. 10 (comp.
our remarks on xiii. 1) Joash of Israel became king towards the
end of the thirty-seventh year of Joash of Judah, Amaziah can
only have ascended the throne in the second year of Joash of
Israel, if his father Joash did not reign thirty-nine full years.
Now his reign is certainly, xii. 1, stated at forty years ; but
these forty years may, according to the above-mentioned prin
ciple of our author to give the current years as complete, have
amounted only to 38^ or 38|, in case that Joash attained to
the sovereignty a couple of months before Nisan, and his death
ao-ain occurred a few months after Nisan. There is, therefore,
no need of the hypothesis of a co-regency, which is in no way

10 2 KINGS XIV. 5—7.
indicated in the text, though employed by C. a Lap., Seb.
Schm., Light (Opp. i. 90) and others.— V. 3 f. Amaziah's reign
was theocratic, though it was not like David's, but resembled that
of his father Joash, that is, it began well and ended badly. Both
kings fell into idolatry in the latter years of their sovereignty.
Concerning Joash, see on xii. 3 ; but Amaziah worshipped the
idols ofthe Edomites, 2 Chr. xxv. 14 ff, he is therefore, 2 Chr.
xxv. 2, characterized quite correctly, " he did that which was
right in the eyes of the Lord, only not with a wholly devoted
heart;" see my apol. Vers. p. 383.
Vv. 5, 6. After Amaziah had confirmed his kingdom, he
avenged the death of his father by the execution of his mur
derers, but adhered therein to the law of Moses, and did not put
to death their children, as no doubt often occurred and was
quite customary in antiquity, comp. Havern. Comm. on Dan.
p. 224 and Mich., Mos. R.V. p. 2 ff, because the law (Deut.
xxiv. 16) prescribed, " The father shall not be put to death for
the children, nor the children for the fathers, but every man
shall die for his own sin.1 The change of pftfti into jyftifi (Keri)
T X
according to Deut. is to be rejected on critical grounds.
V. 7. The brief notice ofthe conquest of the Edomites in the
valley of Salt, and the taking of the town Selah, is completed by
2 Chr. xxv. 6 — 16, whence we learn, that Amaziah wished to
strengthen his own very considerable force for this war by
100,000 mercenary troops from Israel, but at the warning of a
prophet sent back the hired Israelites, whereupon they in anger
plundered several cities of Judah and slew many men, comp. my
apol. Vers. p. 299 and 447. — Under Joram the Edomites, whom
David had also defeated in the valley of Salt and then subjugated
(2 Sam. viii. 13 f. : 1 Chr. xviii. 10 f.), had revolted from the
supremacy of Judah (viii. 20 ff.) Amaziah undertook to reduce
them again under his sway, and succeeded so far, that he
totally routed their army and took their capital, so that his suc
cessor Uzziah was able to incorporate the Edomite seaport Elath
1 The poor evasion, with which de Wette (Beitr. i. 167) endeavoured
to set aside the force of this direct reference to the law of Moses as a
proof of the existence of the Pentateuch under Amaziah, Hertz, i. p.
q. p. 87 if., has already estimated at its worth. Comp. also Havern.
i. 2, p. 596.

2 KINGS XIV. 7. 11
again into his kingdom (v. 22.) rfogn ^ for nVfin M^ (2
Chr. xxv. 11) the salt-vale is the Ghor adjacent to the great
salt-hill, two and a half hours long, Khashm Usdum ^>
-.XwJ in the south of the Dead Sea, which separated the ter
ritories of Judah and Edom (comp. Rob. Pal. iii. p. 24 f.). y^$*y
¦t) IleTpa the city Selah or Petra was most probably the capital of
the Edomites, as also from the fourth century before Christ of
the Nabatheans, and afterwards of Arabia Petraea, a great and
flourishing commercial town, which is also from the fourth to
the sixth century of the Christian era named as the metropolitan
church of Palaestina tertia. It derives its name rock from its
situation and mode of architecture. According to Strabo (xvi.
4, 21) it lay " on a place otherwise flat and level, but surrounded
by rocks, rising steeply from without, but furnished within with
copious fountains for daily use and for watering the gardens "
(similarly Plinius in Rob. iii. p. 131), on the east side of the
Ghor leading to the Elanitic gulf, about two long days' journey
distant from the southern extremity of the Dead Sea. Its former
glory is attested by the many splendid ruins, which still exist
under the name Wady Musa, and were first discovered in modern
times by Burckhardt (Reis. ii. p. 703 ff.), afterwards by Irby and
Mangles, Laborde, and others, and also visited and described by
Rob. (iii. p. 60 ff.)1 In the taking of Selah the remaining part
of the Edomite army, 10,000 men, was probably taken captive
and cast down from the top of the rock which was round the city
(2 Chr. xxv. 12. )2 The name ^^w a Deo subactum, in servi-
1 On the identity of the ruins of Wady Musa, called " Vallis Moysi"
even by the Crusaders, with the ancient Petra, comp. Eob. iii. p.
128 ff., where the historical notices of this city are admirably collected,
and p. 760 ff., where the questions concerning the various names given
to Petra, and concerning the transference of the name Petra to other
places, are discussed with great profoundness. Burckhardt in the p. q.
at p. 704 has given a plan of these ruins ; that designed by Laborde is
still better, which is also adopted in the map of Arabia belonging to
Robinson's Palestine.
2 Movers (Krit. Unters. p. 81) wishes without necessity to correct
this statement of Chr. by the assumption of the writing of fy^y
q^mUu being repeated through neglect ; for which there is so much

12 2 KINGS XIV. 8— 10.
tatem redactum (comp. Ges. thes. iii. 1244), which Amazian
applied to the city, was naturally retained only so long as the
city remained in the power of the Jews, that is, till the time of
Ahaz (xvi. 6), and therefore does not again occur. Joktheel
signifies, moreover, also a city in the tribe of Judah, Jos. xv. 38.
The phrase j-j.-[]-j Q^n yy proves, therefore, that the history of
Amaziah was written, if not in his time, at least very soon after
his death.
Vv. 8 — 10. After the conquest of the Edomites, Amaziah
engaged in a war with Joash of Israel, which had an unfortunate
issue for him. The external occasion of it, which is not men
tioned in our narrative, was probably given, as the Rabbins sup
posed, by the hostilities committed against Judah by the dis
missed mercenary troops of Israel (2 Chr. xxv. 13) ; but the
proper and deeper ground was pride and insolence, which Ama
ziah, in consequence of his victory over the Edomites, allowed to
steal upon him and carry him so far that he not only, forgetting
the Lord his God, to whom alone he owed this victory, wor
shipped the Edomite idols taken in war as gods, and by threats
reduced to s'lence the prophet who censured this idolatry (2 Chr.
xxv. 14 ff.), but also, in the proud confidence of his might, chal
lenged Joash the king of Israel to war. The historian has
omitted even the professed external ground of this challenge, but
has sufficiently discovered the internal ground by the statement
as well of the haughty challenge, " Come, let us look one another
in the face," as also of the answer of Joash warning him of his
arrogance (vv. 9, 10.)— The phrase qyjd *iN*inn adspexerunt
• x : : *
sibi vultus corresponds to the German expression, to view heads,
to measure one with another, that is, to engage in combat with
one another. This signification has J vi. in Arab., comp. Ges.
thes. iii. 1247. — Joash admonishes his proud adversary with a
fable, as Jotham once similarly instructed his fellow-citizens
(Judg. ix. 8 ff ) The fable of the brier (v. 9) is not to be so ex-
the leas reason, as according to his own confession (p. 259) this whole
section of Chronicles is not taken from our Books of Kings, as he has
been pleased to assume with regard to the other parallel sections. To
the suspicion thrown on this narrative of Chronicles on the part of
Gramberg, Movers p. 259 lias moreover replied as it deserved.

2 kings xrv. 11—14. 13
plained in detail, that by the brier we should directly understand
Amaziah, by the cedar Joash, and by the wild beast the warriors
or the war, or suppose, with Dereser, that Amaziah had sought
a daughter of Joash in marriage for one of his sons and employed
the refusal as a pretext for war; for with reason Seb. Schm. has
remarked, existimo non omnia in applicatione adhibenda, and thus
explained the fable : rubus s. spina ad cedrum mittens est homo
superbia elatus ; petitio filiae cedri est res indigna postulatu ;
conculcatio a bestiis agri soil, per cedrum immissis est ingens cala-
mitas temere adscita. Correct on the whole ; only we must
regard the desire of a daughter of the cedar as a wife for his son
on the part of the brier more correctly' as an ambition going
beyond the bounds of his own standing and power, and omit the
addition, per cedrum immissis, introduced into the parable by
Schm. The trampling of the brier by a wild beast, is to teach
the fall and ruin, which, unexpectedly, overtake the haughty in
the midst of his highflown schemes. V. 10 contains the applica
tion of the fable. — "l^y ^TNtM animus te tollit, that is, thy courage
is raised, thou art proudly uplifted, comp. Ges. thes. ii. 915.
TH3n " be honoured," that is, habeto tibi hunc honorem, sis eo
¦• x •
contentus. Maur. — " Why wilt thou meddle with misfortune."
msrin to engage in strife, war, comp. Deut. ii. 5, 9, 19, 24, etc.
So also here, where misfortune (nV^) 's regarded as the foe, with
X X
which one is engaged in strife, as Winer (lex. p. 195) has rightly
observed. Vv. ] 1 — 14. Yet Amaziah in his arrogance regarded this
warning as little as the representation of the prophet, that, on
account of his revolt from the Lord, God had determined to
destroy him (2 Chr. xxv. 16), and according to the Divine fore-
ordination (2 Chr. xxv. 20) engaged in war. But Joash antici
pating him, invaded Judah, and at Bethshemesh, (comp. on this
city above, p. 46), not only put his army to route, but took him
self captive, marched to Jerusalem, broke down a considerable
part ofthe city walls, plundered the treasures ofthe temple and
palace, and returned with hostages to Samaria. V. 13. " And
he brake down the wall of Jerusalem from the gate of Ephraim
to the corner gate 400 cubits," that is, about the half of the
northern wall. For the gate of Ephraim lay at all events on the

14 2 kings xiv. 15—22.
north side of the city, on the way to Ephraim, and is also called
the gate of Benjamin, Jer. xxxvii. 13, xxxviii. 7, Zech. xiv. 10,
because the way to Ephraim went over the land of Benjamin,
comp. Faber. Arch. i. p. 333 f. and Hengstenb. Ghristol. ii. p.
375. It is no doubt to be sought in the region of the present
Damascus gate, comp. Rob. Pal. ii. p. 377. — V. 14. ij^
rto^SJfirfj wbich the old translators (LXX. toik; vioi,? twv
avppl^eojv, Syr. ^O^L ¦ i ^ filii commixtionis i. e. gens promiscua,
Arab. L).r£ Ju; an& Chald. N'O'O"! "021 fit™ Magnatum) did not
rightly understand, means obsides, the hostages (see Ges. thes. ii.
1064), namely, those who must have been given to Joash for the
liberation of Amaziah. This liberation of the king, indeed, is
not expressly mentioned, but it necessarily follows from this that
Joash did not take him with him to Samaria, but Amaziah re
mained king in Jerusalem, and outlived Joash about fifteen vears
(v. 17.)
Vv. 15 — 22. In vv. 15 and 16, the author of our books repeats
the end of the reign of Joash with the standing formula from
xiii. 12 f., ut ostendat, Amatsiam ei supervixisse laudetque divinam
misericordiam, quae tamen Amatsiam non plane perdere voluerit,
abrepto ex hac vita Joaso. Seb. Schm. — V. 17, comp. 2 Chr.
xxv. 25. — V. 19. Several ancient expositors discover the cause
of the conspiracy against Amaziah in the unfortunate issue of
his war with Joash. But this hypothesis would only have gained
probability if the conspiracy had broken out soon after the de
parture of Joash. Some indeed believed this, and appealed to 2
Chr. xxv. 27, where it is said, " after the time that Amaziah
turned away from the Lord, they made a conspiracy against him
in Jerusalem," (comp. Mich, annot. uber. ad h. I. and Budd. hist.
eccl. ii. 408), but it only follows from this that the conspiracy
had its internal ground in the revolt of Amaziah from the Lord,
the evil consequences of which appeared in the unfortunate war
with Joash, but not that it broke out at that time, that Amaziah
was forthwith removed and exiled to Lachish, and that the go
vernment in Jerusalem was committed to his son. For it is at
once very improbable in itself, that Amaziah being removed from
the throne, lived fifteen years in peace at Lachish, and then first

2 kings xiv. 15— 22. 15
made an attempt to recover the sovereignty, in which he was
slain ; and then, if this had actually taken place, it should have
been recorded of Uzziah, as well as in xv. 5 of Jotham, that he
governed the kingdom during the time of his father's deposition.
But neither in v. 22 nor in xv. 8 is the least intimation of this
found. We must therefore assume that the conspiracy broke
out first towards the end of the twenty-nine years', reign of
Amaziah, that Amaziah indeed escaped to Lachish, but was im
mediately put to death by the conspirators sent thither after
him, whereupon they brought his body to Jerusalem, and there
buried it, while his son Uzziah was made king by the people in
his stead. — lE/iy? Lachish, a Canaanitish royal city (Jos. x. 3 —
31, xii. 11) in the lowlands of Judah (Jos. xv. 39), fortified by
Rehoboam (2 Chr. xi. 9), afterwards taken by Sennacherib (2
Ki. xviii. 14- — 17 ; 2 Chr. xxxii. 9), lay, according to Eusebius,
seven Roman miles south of Eleutheropolis (comp. v. Raum.
Pal. p. 207), and is irrecoverably lost, as the ruins Um Lakis
(iK,i'y *0 are not identical with the old Lachish, see Rob. Pal.
ii. p. 653 f. " They brought him OiDIDi"!-^ on tbe horses,"
that is, on a chariot drawn by the king's horses, to Jerusalem. —
V.21. rfryiy or ^y-fly Azariah (v. 21, xv. 1, 6, 8, 17, 23, 27,)
is called ra~v. 13, 30,' 32; 2 Chr. xxvi. 1, 3, 11 etc.; Is. i. l,vi.
1 ; Am. i. 1 ; Zech. xiv. 5 y^Wy or jyntfy Uzziah. Some
x . "*. x • '-.
expositors regard ffHTJ? as an error °^ t*ie Pen arlsing out of
i"PW> which however, on account of the frequency of the name, is
destitute of probability. We must rather assume that the king
actually had both names, which are closely related in significa
tion ; pp-tV means potentia Jovae, fVyiy quem Jova adjuvit ; as
the Oriental names are so changeable. Comp. on 1 Ki. xv. 2.
 V. 22. Immediately after his father's death Uzziah (Azariah)
fortified the Edomite seaport Elath or Eloth (see on 1 Ki. ix.
26) and restored it to Judah ; comp. the remarks on v. 7. From
the words, " after that the king slept with his fathers," we can
not with Jarchi, Abarb. (comp. Meyer annot. ad Sed. 01. p. 950)
and Seb. Schm. infer, that Uzziah had attained to the sove
reignty before the death of Amaziah; the words merely state
that Uzziah completed the reduction of the Edomites, com-

16 2 kings xiv. 23—29.
menced by his father immediately after his death by the conquest
ofElath. Vv. 23 — 29. Reign of Jeroboam II. of Israel. Jeroboam ad
hered to the antitheocratical image worship of his father (v. 24),
but raised his kingdom to great political power, inasmuch as he
restored its original boundaries, and continuing the conquests of
his father, recovered all the conquered territory from the Syrians,
v. 25, comp. with xiii. 25. r)ftn tfi'^yft was the northern
boundary ofthe kingdom of Judah under Solomon, comp. 1 Ki.
viii. 65. rmvn Qi " sea of the plain " is the Salt or Dead Sea.
T T —. X -
This line of boundary is taken from Deut. iii. 17, iv. 49, which
the prophet Jonah follows in his announcements, comp. Heng
stenb. Beitr. ii., p. 140. l Jonah the son of Amittai is the same
prophet, the historjr of whose predictions concerning Nineveh are
preserved for us in the book of Jonah ; comp. de Wette, Einl.
p. 330), and Havern. Einl. ii. 2, p. 324 f. igniT Hil Gath-hepher
belonging to the tribe of Zebulon (Jos. xix. 1 3), and according
to Hieron., situated two Roman miles from Sepphoris towards
Tiberias (see v. Raum. p. 125) is according to modern monastic
tradition preserved in the village el Meshchad («Xrc\iL»J^), where
one of the many Moslemite graves of the Neby Yunas is shown
(Rob. Pal. iii. p. 449.) — Vv. 26 and 27 assign the reasons why
the Lord granted to the antitheocratically disposed Jeroboam so
great power for the restoration of the old boundaries of the land
formerly determined by Moses. This took place, because the Lord
saw the heavy oppression and helpless condition of Israel, and had
not yet pronounced the decree for the extirpation of the kingdom
of the ten tribes, and thus had not yet ^annulled his covenant
with the apostate people (xiii. 23.) nib "W most explain after
the old versions, " bitter affliction." Coccei., J. H. Mich., and
Ges. (thes. ii. 818), however, adhere to the usual meaning of
1 By this reference to the quoted passages of the Pentateuch the
inference drawn by Credner (in Ullm. u. Umbr.'s theol. Stud. 1833,
p. 3, p. 785) and Hitzig (Comm. on Is. p. 181 f.) from our verse,,
namely, that Jeroboam subjugated again the territory of the Moabites,
is proved to be unfounded : for from this it is evident, that he merely
incorporated again with his kingdom the Israelitish territory as far as
the Arnon, the river of the plain (Am. vi. 14.)

2 kings xiv. 23—29. 17
rn£ contumax, pervicax, as much as to say, insanabilis. But it
must be evident, that the former meaning suits better, on which
account we assume, that n"VD ^ere takes its signification from
yyft, for which the language presents so many analogies :
though t^q Ex. xxiii. 21 occurs also in the signification of
TTyft ; for Cler. has justly remarked, j-pft (faem. of yft) amarus
est doloris et moeroris frequeniissimum epitheton, cum ;-pQ d°l°r
nusquam dicatur. 'yy\ 'Wgy DDN"I " anc^ a^ ls gone> bond and
free." de Wette. On this phrase borrowed from the Pentateuch see
on 1 Ki. xiv. 10. Israel was sunk down to the helpless misery pre
dicted by Moses, Deut. xxxii. 16 ; therefore the Lord helped them,
as His servant Moses had then promised them,' that they might
perceive that their idols could afford no deliverance, and might
acknowledge the Lord alone as their God, Deut. xxxii. 37 — 42.
— The words, v. 28, 'yy\ "yvg^Tl ItUfcW " an(^- h°w ^e recovered
Damascus and Hamath of Judah to Israel," have given much
trouble to the old expositors, inasmuch as they took fiTliT1'? ^or
a dative and (as de Wette still does) rendered, " how he brought
Damascus and Hamath to Judah through Israel," whereby no
tolerable sense is elicited, as we shall be convinced by the at
tempted explanations collected by Seb. Schm.1 1TTI1T1'? 1S a
periphrasis for the genitive, and was correctly explained by Cler.
quae olim Judce fuerant. It might still be a question, whether
it is to be referred merely to p\j2n> " the Jewish Hamath "
(Mich.) or also to ^Efta^ (Cler. and others.) The former is
obviously the correct supposition. Jeroboam might certainly
recover Damascus, but not the city Hamath (EirKpaveia on the
Orontes) to Israel, because the latter never belonged to the
kingdom of Israel, as was proved above p. 134. But David had
conquered Damascus and made Damascene Syria tributary to
him (2 Sam. viii. 5 f. ; 1 Chr. xviii. 4 ff.) In Solomon's time
indeed Rezon had assumed to be king of Damascus (1 Ki. xi. 23
ff.) ; yet it is a question, whether he attained to complete inde-
1 Movers also (Krit. Unters. p. 125) has quite misunderstood our
passage, when he after Hitzig (d. proph. Jonas Or. 1831 p. 23 and
Comm. on Is. p. 184) explains it thus, that Jeroboam conquered
Hamath itself and transferred it with Damascus to Judah, for which,
wonderful to tell, he quotes Am. v. 27, " I will carry you away
beyond Damascus." VOL. II. B

18 2 kings xiv. 23—29.
pe'ndence, as it is only said of him in the passage quoted, that
he was hostile to Solomon during his whole reign, abhorred
Israel and made himself king over Aram, but it is not men
tioned that this province was lost to Israel under Solomon. The
meaning of our words accordingly is, how Jeroboam restored
Damascus and that part of Hamath, which under Solomon was
included in the kingdom of Judah, to Israel, which in its origin
received this northern part of the kingdom, whereby he re
stored the original boundaries of the kingdom in the north (v.
25)1 — V. 29. As Jeroboam came to the sovereignty in the
fifteenth year of Amaziah and reigned forty-one years, his death
fell in the twenty-sixth year of Uzziah. If, therefore, his son
became king in the thirty-eighth year of Uzziah (xv. 8), he cannot
have ascended the throne immediately after the death of his
father. See on xv. 8.
1 Though according to 2 Chr. viii. 4 Solomon established magazine
cities in Hamath, yet we are not to infer with Winer (R.W. i. p.
537) from this, that he possessed the city Hamath itself; still less
does it lie " expressly " in these words. Unfounded also is Winer's
farther remark i. p. q., that from the word ^i^jn in our passage an
earlier possession of the Israelites does not necessarily follow. For
although the meaning of again does not lie immediately in 'yffij yet
^ttJi"! can have here as well as in v. 25 no other meaning than, to
bring back, restore. The difficulties, lastly, which Winer raised
against viewing pn^Ji^ as a genitive, are quite unimportant. Por
x ¦
although 3,i^|-j in this signification is often construed with dat. pers.
or cum ^j, ye* the construction with *j is by no means repugnant to
the spirit of the language, and must be assumed here for this reason,
that every other view, even that proposed by Winer " to Judah in
Israel (that is, to the theocratic people, but in Israel)," is unnatural,
since neither can Judah stand at once for the theocratic people, nor
can the language be in any sense applied to a Judah in Israel.

2 kings xv. 1—7. 19

CHAPTER XV.
REIGN OF AZARIAH OR UZZIAH KING OF JUDAH, VV. 1 — 7,
AND OF SEVERAL KINGS OF ISRAEL, VV. 8 — 38.
Vv. 1 — 7. Comp. 2 Chr. xxvi. " In the twenty-seventh year
of Jeroboam . . . Azariah became king . . ." This
chronological date is inconsistent with xiv. 2, 16, 17, 23. If
Amaziah ascended the throne in the fifteenth year of Joash
of Israel, and in his twenty-nine years' reign outlived Joash
about fifteen years (xiv. 2 — 17), if, moreover, Jeroboam suc
ceeded his father Joash in the fifteenth year of Amaziah (xiv.
23), and therefore Amaziah died in the fifteenth year of Jero
boam, Uzziah or Azariah can only have become king in the
fifteenth year of Jeroboam, as there is not the slightest ground
for the assumption of an interregnum of twelve years, much rather
according to xiv. 21 was Azariah made king immediately after
the death of his father.1 To save the correctness of the state
ment, " in the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam," many wished
to reckon not from the actual commencement of Jeroboam's
reign, but from the time when his father Joash declared him king
(Ussher annal. ad. a.m. 3168, Budd. hist. eccl. ii. p. 410, Tiele,
Chron. p. 70, and many others.) By this the chronology is not
disturbed, provided we compute, as all the supporters of this
opinion do, the years of Jeroboam's reign not from his co-regency
but from his sole sovereignty ; but this opinion has no positive
ground whatever, and deviates from the analogy of the other
synchronistic dates, which always refer to the proper reign of the
kings. We shall, therefore, be compelled with L. Capell., Grot.,
1 The ancients have rightly rejected the hypothesis of an interreg.
num applied here also by Mich., Walther (harm. bibl. p. 268), Petav.
and others, because, not to speak of its contradicting the text, thereby
the interregnum introduced after the death of Jeroboam in Israel
must have been prolonged to twenty-two or twenty-three years. Comp.
des. Vign. chron. i. p. 356 f., Budd. hist. eccl. ii. p. 409, Dahl, Amos
new transl. p. 6, and Maur. in the Commentatt. theol. edited by Rosenm^
and himself ii. 1, p. 284 f.
B 2

20 2 KINGS XV. 1—7.
des Vign. Chron. i. p. 355 f. and others to regard the number
twenty-seven as an error of transcription originating in the
change of y@ into jj and alter it into fifteen.1 — V. 3 ff. The
author of our books limits himself to this, to characterize the
spirit of the reign of Uzziah by the formula customary with him,
without specifying merely one particular act of his long and, as
appears from the parallel passage in 2 Chr. xxvi., eventful reign,
probably because it exercised no essential or permanent influence
on the development of the theocracy (comp. ch. xvi.) As Ama
ziah was unfaithful to the Lord in the last years of his reign
(see on xiv. 3), so Uzziah did that which was right in the eyes of
God only so long as Zechariah, who was experienced in the visions
of God, lived, and during this time carried on successful wars
against the Philistines and Arabians, fortified the walls of Jeru
salem with strong towers, built watch towers in the wilderness,
and digged cisterns for the protection and the supply of his large
flocks, promoted the culture of the field and the vineyard, and
collected a numerous and well appointed army (2 Chr. xxvi.
5 — 15.) But the great power to which he thereby attained
made him arrogant, and estranged his heart from the law of the
Lord, so that he, like the heathen kings, wished to assume to be
sovereign pontiff of his kingdom, and intruding into the sacred
functions belonging solely to the Levitical priests according to
the law of Moses, to offer incense in the temple, for which he was
punished on the spot with the leprosy (v. 5, and 2 Chr. xxvi. 16
ff.) With respect to these accounts peculiar to Chronicles, which
Gramberg's injudicious criticism declared to be mere inventions,
even Winer (R.W. ii. p. 754) remarks : " they harmonize very
well with the rigorous and warlike character of the reign of this
sovereign, Is. xiv. 29." They are also the less to be questioned,
1 Another expedient, namely, to understand the twenty-seventh
year of Jeroboam with some K abb. not of the beginning of his reign,
but of the time that Jeroboam had still to reign, or even with other
Rabb. and Tremellius of the year in which Uzziah was smitten with
the leprosy (see Meyer ad. Sed. Ol. p. 950 ff.), is so unnatural, that it
is scarcely worthy of mention. The unnatural character of the latter
assumption, in which v. 1 is joined with v. 5 into one sentence, and v.
2 — 4 is taken parenthetically, has heen already exposed by des Vign.
I.e. p. 358 ff.

2 KINGS XV. 1 — 7. 21
as they almost all receive confirmation from other sources,1 and
1 Comp. my apol. Vers. p. 418 ff. What Movers in his Krit. Unters.
p. 125 f., has brought together for the vindication of the peculiar ac
counts of Chronicles stands very much in need of a critical sifting. —
The subjugation ofthe Philistines is presupposed in Is. xiv. 28 (comp.
Gesen. Comm. on Is. i. p. 495) and partly also by Amos vi. 2, comp.
with xi. 6 — 8. To the great buildings of Uzziah Hosea viii. 14 alludes :
"Judah hath multiplied fenced cities;" and Isaiah (ii. 7), in a predic
tion embracing the times of Uzziah and Jotham, depicts the land as
" full of silver and gold, and no end of its treasures, full of horses, and
no end of its chariots," whereby the efforts of Uzziah, mentioned in
Chronicles, to increase the prosperity of his kingdom and augment his
military force are abundantly confirmed. It is more difficult to sup
port the statement (Chr. v. 10), that the Ammonites paid him tribute,
though as little can its historical truth underlie any reasonable doubt.
As the territory of the Ammonites was separated by Gilead from the
kingdom of Judah, there arises a question not easy to be answered, in
what way Uzziah may have made them tributary to him. Credner
(i. p. q. p. 787 f.) thinks that Uzziah made this nation tributary dur
ing the distraction that occurred after the death of Jeroboam II. in the
kingdom of Israel, by political negotiation without warlike interference,
inasmuch as they, being afraid of his superior power, voluntarily sub
mitted themselves to the protection of the kingdom of Judah, but be
cause this was done from regard to the personal character of Uzziah,
they had attempted to revolt again under Jotham, so that he was
obliged to enforce the payment of tribute by war (2 Chr. xxvii. 5.)
But this hypothesis is too destitute of probability to command our
assent, especially if we reflect, that the Moabites, dwelling between
Judah and the Ammonites, were not subdued, but as Credner thinks,
had been able by all manner of excuses and evasions, first to delay and
then actually to withhold submission. But were the Ammonites who
lived farther from Judah so altogether deficient in exeuses and evasions ?
Movers (Krit. Unters. p. 130 f.) accounts for the submission of the
Ammonites in this way, that Uzziah and Jotham had possessed a part
of the territory of Gilead " probably ceded by Jeroboam to Uzziah in
consequence of an amicable arrangement," through which the way was
open to them to make war on the Ammonites. But of such a friendly
cession of a part of Gilead to Judah history knows nothing. It no
more follows from the passages quoted by Movers, 2 Ki. xiv. 28 ; Mic.
vii. 14, than from the numbering of the Gadites under Jotham men
tioned 1 Chr. v. 17, or from the fact that Uzziah also possessed flocks,
TiE^TSS (2 ^r. XXV1- 10.) For even though -^$173 often denotes
the great plain in the territory of Reuben (for example Deut. iii. 10,
iv. 43, etc.), yet this word is also used of other plains, inasmuch as
Jer. xxi.. 13, Jerusalem is designated as -^EJ^ft -fi^'' an^ therefore
Gesen. (thes. ii. 643) quite correctly understands it in 2 Chr. xxvi 10,
de planilie tribus Judae. This hypothesis, therefore, is destitute of any
tenable ground. Uzziah probably reduced the Ammonites to tribute

22 2 kings xv. 1 — 7.
gain probability from the long duration of this reign. The time
when Uzziah was smitten with leprosy is not mentioned, indeed,
either here or in Chronicles, but this Divine punishment, which
unfitted him for reigning, must have befallen him only in the
last ten years of his fifty-two years' reign, because his son, who
was only twenty-five years old at the death of his father (v. 33,
and 2 Chr. xxvii. 1), immediately undertook the administration
of the kingdom, and therefore must then have been at least fifteen
years of age. , The leprosy of the king is likewise described in
our narrative as a Divine judgment, " Jehovah smote (y$y\) the
king and he became a leper." This expression presupposes guilt,
and therefore an act of the kind which is recorded in Chronicles,
while the addition to the description of his conduct, " as his father
Amaziah," warrants, indeed necessitates the assumption, that he
did not do that which was right in the eyes of the Lord with un-
deviating consistency. So much the less reason is there to pro
nounce with de Wette and Win. i. p. q. the historical occasion
mentioned in Chronicles for the infliction of this Divine judg
ment to be an invention of the writer, conceived in a Levitical
spirit; comp. my apol. Vers. p. 316 f. On account of the
after the taking of Elath (xiv. 22), from which he might undertake an
expedition against them without touching on the territory of the Moab
ites, and probably did undertake it because they had given aid to the
Edomites against Judah, or from some other cause to us unknown. If
their subjugation had taken place at the time of the anarchy succeed
ing the death of Jeroboam, it would also be conceivable that by an
attack upon Gilead they had even threatened the kingdom of Judah,
whereby Uzziah was induced to make war upon them in the most
direct way through the territory of Reuben. The prophet Amos, who
prophesied under Uzziah and Jeroboam, is acquainted with incursions
of the Ammonites into Gilead, in which they perpetrated the greatest
atrocities, for which he denounces upon them the Divine judgment,
Am. i. 13 f. But this conjecture has small probability. The war be
tween them and Jotham (2 Chr. xxvii. 5) also requires another approach
to them for the Jews than through Gilead, as Jotham was not on so
friendly terms with Pekah that he could have marched through his
territory. Their revolt after Uzziah's death, in consequence of which
Jotham commenced hostilities against them, is placed by Movers
p. 133 in the fourth year of Jotham, and connected with the first inva
sion of Tiglath Pileser and the consequent deportation of the Gileadites ;
but on purely false presumptions and conclusions, as will be shown on
xvi. 7 f. The time of the revolt is unknown, as it cannot he inferred
from 2 Chr. xxvii. 5.

2 kings xv. 8—12. 23
leprosy Uzziah was obliged to commit the government to his
son, and submitting to the strictness of the Mosaic law (comp.
on vii. 3) to live in a separate house. rPtttonn IYQ 1S explained
by Win. (lex s. v.) and Ges. (thes. i. 509) after Iken (diss. phil.
theol. ii. 184) and Mich, (suppl. p. 884), nosocomium, lazaretto.
Altogether arbitrary and erroneous ; for \£jgn ^oes not mean
- x
debilis, infirmus fuit, nor ifrjQTi infirmus, aegrotus ; the Arab. iu£±
. : x
is not connected with it, because j£, as is well known, corres
ponds, not with jy, but with |rj. "Htfan means only liber or
: x
manumissus, even in Ps. lxxxviii. 6, and fymjgnn fYQ Aquila'
has rightly explained by oIko<; eKev6epla<;, house of liberation, so
called, 'not quia in ea segregati sunt ab hominibus et quasi liberia
societate eorum (Kimchi), but as " the place where those dwelt,
whom the Lord had manumitted, who no longer belonged to his
servants ;" comp. Hengstenb. Christol. iii. p. 592. — JT^itl""^
erat praefectus regiae, was governor of the royal palace, judging
the people of the land, that is, undertook the management of
the palace and the royal office of judge, that is, the adminis
tration of the kingdom. — V. 7. The place where Uzziah was
buried is called in 2 Chr. xxvi. 33, the field of burial of
the kings. This is only a more exact definition of the general
"TH "W. but not a difference, as Winer (R.W. ii. p. 754) asserts,
as the burial-field of the kings was in ihe city of David, and
Uzziah was buried in the royal burial-field indeed, but not in
the royal vault on account of his leprosy.
Vv. 8 — 12. Reign of Zechariah of Israel. "In the thirty-
eighth year of Uzziah king of Judah Jeroboam's son, Zechariah,
became king over Israel." As according to our remarks on xiv.
29 Jeroboam died on the twenty-sixth year of Uzziah, there is an
interregnum of ten or twelve years between the death of Jero
boam and the beginning of the reign of his son Zechariah, as
almost all chronologists admit, inasmuch as, without this assump
tion, the chronological synchronism would be completely de
stroyed ; but the correctness of our author's statement is placed
beyond a doubt by the commencements of the following reigns
(vv. 13, 17, 23, 27), and all attempts to remove the difference
otherwise prove themselves to be untenable at the first glance.

24 2 kings xv. 8—12.
Comp. Usseri Annal. p. 45, Offerhaus, spirit, p. 117 f., de*
Vignoles chron. i. p. 262 f., Budd. hist. ii. p. 415, Win. R.W. i.
p. 730 and ii. p. 822, Tiele, Chronol. p. 71, Maurer in the com-
mentatt. theol. edited by himself and Rosenm. it. 1 p. 286 f. — V.
9 ff. Zechariah also continued in the sins of his fathers, in the
worship of the calves, and the word of the Lord uttered (x. 30)
concerning Jehu was therefore fulfilled in him. In consequence
of a conspiracy he was put to death, and the throne taken from
the house of Jehu. DJ^b^P before the people, that is, openly
— |X *T
before the eyes of all. As Israel was not led by the tokens of
the Lord's mercy experienced under Joash, and especially under
Jeroboam, any more than by the previous heavy judgments and
the earnest appeals and warnings of the prophets Hosea and
Amos, to repent and return to the Lord his God and King, the
judgment of rejection must at last break in upon a people so
shamefully scorning the grace, long-suffering, and covenant
faithfulness of God. We see the kingdom, therefore, after the
death of Jeroboam, hastening with rapid strides to its fall. In
the sixty- two years from the death of Jeroboam to the conquest of
Samaria by Shalmaneser, two anarchies, making up twenty years,
prevailed, and six kings followed one another, of whom only one,
Menahem, died a natural death, so that his son succeeded him on
the throne ; the remaining five were dethroned and murdered by
rebels, so that, according to the just remark of Witsius, with the
murder of Zechariah not only the sentence of Hosea (i. 4), " I
will visit the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu,"1 but also
the sentence forming a parallel with it, " and will cause to cease
1 " The blood of Jezreel," or the blood shed in Jezreel, is the extir
pation of the dynasty of Ahab and the Baal worshippers. So far as
Jehu acted therein by command of God, this act was imputed to him
as meritorious (comp. on x. 30), but so far as he followed his own am
bition and sin more than the command of God, he was involved in
guilt. The prophet Hosea estimates the act according to its subjective
motives, and pronounces it a deed of blood, whereas in our historical
narrative, above x. 30, only the objective act as such is regarded. It
is quite perverse, therefore, in Hitzig, Comm. on Hos., to explain the
words of the prophet in the way, that the prophet blames Jehu not for
the death of Joram and Jezebel, but for the murder of Ahaziah and his
brothers, as well as the bloodshed, 2 Ki. x. 11. As if the prophets
had determined their predictions by such petty partialities! The right
view of the passage Hitzig might have discovered in Witsius I.e.

2 kings xv. 13—16. 25
the kingdom of the house of Israel," was carried into effect, inas
much as with Zechariah the kingdom properly ceased in Israel.
Nam successores Zachariae non tam reges fuerunt, quam fures,
latrones ac tyranni, augusto Regum nomine indigni, qui tyranni-
dem male partam neque melius habitam foede amiserunt. Witsius
AeKa<pv\. p. 320.
Vv. 13 — 16. Zechariah's murderer, Shallum, held the throne
only one month (qiqi pp"1 comp. Deut. xxi. 13, and as to this
• x — v
use of ftifti Ges. thes. ii. 585), as he was assailed in war by
Menahem of Tirzah, and slain by him at Samaria. ^yyv\ (v. 14)
here denotes, as term, milit. techn. the advance of the foe or hos
tile army. Menahem must therefore have been general or com
mander of the forces, as Josephus (Antiq. ix. 11, 1) expressly
says. As to the situation of Tirzah see on l.Ki. xv. 21. — V.
16. Setting out from Tirzah Menahem smote pfDQft also, the
city Thapsacus with all its environs, because it did not open its
gates to him, that is, he took it by storm, and treated the van
quished with such barbarous vengeance that he did not spare
the child in the mother's womb ; comp. viii. 12. — nDD.Fl ls no
other than Thapsacus on the Euphrates, the border city of the
kingdom of Israel under Solomon (1 Ki. v. 4 ; see above p. 57),
which, with the restoration of the old limits of the kingdom by
Jeroboam II. (xiv. 25, 28) had again come to the kingdom of
Israel, as J. D. Mich, has justly remarked. On the contrary
most expositors, and following them v. Raum. Pal. p. 164 regard
our nDDD as a clty 0^ Palestine in the neighbourhood of Tirzah.
But this assumption is destitute of all ground, and has only arisen
from this, that explaining n^"in?D " fr°m Tirzah onward," they
x 1 • • ,
understood our author, as if Menahem had wasted the whole
country from Tirzah to Tiphsah. But even Maurer, the most
decided advocate of this opinion concerning Tiphsah, rejects this
view, and with Schultz and de Wette refers piJj"ij-)J2 to *^e ver^
in the beginning of the verse : " he smote setting out from Tir
zah" (excursione ex oppido Tirzae facta), but thinks, Menahem
non is fuit qui in tam latum terrarum spatium, quale Tirzae, oppido
Ephr. et Tapsaco inter jectum est, tamque magnam et locuplelem
urbem, victricia arma proferret. But why Menahem was not the
man, it might be difficult to prove. What Maurer says on this,
2

26 2 kings xv. 17—22.
namely that Menahem was civitatis a capite revulsae omnique
scelere inde ab initiis laceratae regulus, would, if it had argumen
tative force at all, prove too much, namely that Jeroboam II.
also was not in a position to reconquer the ancient boundaries of
his kingdom in the north. But where have we the standard by
which to estimate the valour and strength of the army of Israel
led by Menahem, in order to be able to assert with confidence
that he was not able to take the city Thapsacus on the Euph
rates, the size and strength of which at that time are to us com
pletely unknown? While, then, the reasons adduced for a
Tiphsah in the neighbourhood of Tirzah are unfounded, the
name JiDDn traJectus is also opposed to this opinion, which is
scarcely explicable, even if conceivable, of a town not far from
Tirzah. Vv. 17 — 22. Menahem's ten years' reign resembles that of his
antitheocratic predecessors. During his reign the Assyrians for
the first time marched against Israel under king Pul ; but Mena
hem gave Pul 1000 talents of silver (about £342,200), " that his
hands might be with him, to confirm the kingdom in his hand"
(v. 19.) These words are so understood by Ephr. Syr., C. a
Lap., Calm., Dereser, and others, with reference to Hos. v. 13,
as if Menahem had summoned Pul to his aid, in order to establish
his dominion by his assistance. But this view is not necessarily
demanded by the words of Hosea, " Ephraim goes to the Assy
rian," namely to seek aid, and is in contradiction with the words
of our verse, " Pul came against the land." In conformity with
these words we must understand the matter thus : Pul of his
own motion, perhaps induced thereto by the expedition of Mena
hem against Thapsacus, advanced against the kingdom of Israel ;
then .Menahem sent him 1000 talents, in order not only to divert
him from his plans of conquest, but at the same time to purchase
his friendship and aid for the establishment of his own precarious
sovereignty, so that Menahem did not properly invite the Assy
rians into the land, but only changed the enemy, when advanc
ing against the country, by this tribute into a confederate for the
security of his usurped dominion ; which the prophet Hosea,
who was less concerned about the historical fact than the dispos-
sition betrayed therein, might very well censure as a going of
Ephraim to the Assyrians (besides v. 13 comp. also vii. 11, viii.

2 kings xv. 17—22. 27
9) and a covenant-making with Asshur (xii. 2.) Pul (^q) is
the first Assyrian king, whom the Old Testament mentions after
Nimrod, who extended his dominion over Asshur and built
Nineveh (Gen. x. 9 ff.) With him the conquests of the Assy
rians in hither Asia begin, and are continued by his successors
Tiglath Pileser (v. 29, xvi. 9, and 1 Chr. v. 26), Shalmaneser
(xvii. 5 ff, xviii. 9 ff.), and Sennacherib (xviii. 13 ff.), until the
latter, under Hezekiah, suffered the total extermination of his
army, and on his return to Nineveh was put to death by his sons,
on which his son Esarhaddon succeeded him.1 According to the
biblical. accounts, the Assyrian empire in the time of Pul was at
the height of its power, with which also agree the fragments from
the history of this empire, which are handed down to us in the
Chronicon of Eusebius from Berosus, Alexander Polyhistor, and
Abydenus. According to the citations of Polyhistor from Berosus,
after Semiramis forty-five Assyrian kings reigned altogether 526
years. They were followed by Pul, who invaded Judaea ; after-

1 In modern times Sargon also (Is. xx. 1) is usually named as an
Assyrian king, who according to Paul., Rosenm., Gesen., Hitzig on Is.
xx. and others, must have reigned only a short time between Shal
maneser and Sennacherib, whereas Vitringa and Movers (Krit. Unters.
p. 128 f.) hold Sargon to be the same as Shalmaneser, hut Kalinsky,
Marsham, and J. D. Mich., as Esarhaddon, and the Rabbins, Hieron.,
and Schroeer (imper. Babyl. et Nini p. 152) as Sennacherib. Of all
these opinions the last only is probable. He cannot have reigned be
tween Shalmaneser and Sennacherib, because there is no interval
between the two, as Sennacherib appeared in Judea in the year 714
(xviii. 13), but Shalmaneser can scarcely have been dead before the
year 716 or 715, as, according to a notice of Menander of Ephesus in
Josephus (Ant. ix. 14, 2), after the conquest of Samaria in the year
722 he made war on the Phoenicians, and then besieged Tyre for five
years. Josephus, indeed, does not expressly say that this war took
place after the dissolution of the kingdom of the ten tribes, but this we
must conclude from the fact that Hoshea king of Israel would scarcely
have ventured to revolt from the Assyrians, as long as the Assyrian
armv was in Phoenicia. To this it is to be added, that according to
Tob! i. 18 Shalmaneser was succeeded on the throne by his son Sen
nacherib. But the identifying of Sargon with Shalmaneser is met by
the objection, that Shalmaneser scarcely extended his conquests to
Philistsea. On the contrary, it speaks for his identity with Senna
cherib at least, that Tartan, Sargon's general (Is. xxi. 1) appeared
under Sennacherib before Jerusalem, xviii. 17.

28 2 kings xv. 17—22.
wards, in the time of Hezekiah, Senecheribus (Sennacherib)
reigned eighteen years, Asordanes eight, Sammughes twenty-one,
whose brother Sardanapalus twenty-one, Nabopolassar twenty,
and Nabucodrossor (Nebuchadnezzar) forty-three (Chron. Armen.
b. i. ch. 4 and 5, p. 18 ff. edit. Mediol.) Abydenus (ibid. p. 25)
names the following Assyrian sovereigns, Sennacherib, Nergilus
(or Adrameles), Axerdis, Sardanapalus, Saracus, under whom
his general Busalosor (Nabopolassar) assumed the sovereignty
of Babylonia, attacked Ninus, and, after Saracus had burned
himself with his palace, held the dominion over the Chaldaeans
and Babylonians. Comp. Wilh. Hupfeld, exercitt. Herodot. spec.
i. p. 9 — 11. By these fragments our biblical accounts of the
Assyrian empire are sufficiently confirmed, inasmuch as, notwith
standing their deviations in several names, so much appears
certain, that it was at that time still undiminished in power, and
only ceased to exist a long time after Esarhaddon, with the
conquest of Nineveh by Nabopolassar.1
1 By this means are harmonized the scattered notices, which Hero
dotus furnishes concerning the expedition of Sennacherib against
Egypt (ii. 141), and the taking of Nineveh by Cyaxares the Mede
(i. 106) after the 520 years' duration of the Assyrian dominion
over Upper Asia (i. 95.) For even if Herodotus does not expressly
mention the participation of the Babylonians in the conquest of
Nineveh, yet it may be inferred from several of his intimations
(comp. Hupf. i. p. q. p. 7 and 21), while again the notices of Poly
histor and Abyd. concerning the marriage of the daughter of the
Median prince Asdahages with Nabucodrossor (Euseb. chron. Arm.
p. 21 and 25) point to a connexion of the Babylonians with the
Medes in the destruction of the Assyrian monarchy, so that Josephus
(Ant. x. 5, 1) is fully justified in saying, that the Medes and Baby
lonians destroyed the Assyrian empire. But the fall of this empire,
with the conquest of Nineveh (Herod, i. 106), cannot have occurred so
late as 606 B.C., about a year and a half before the death of Nabopo
lassar, as Hupf. (i. p. q. p. 7 f.), led astray by the misunderstood pas
sage, 2 Ki. xxiii. 29, assumes, in contradiction to Joseph. (Ant. x. 5,
1), but must have taken place before the war carried on by Cyaxares
with the Lydians 610 B.C. (Herod, i. 74), and indeed in the beginning
of the twenty years' reign of Nabopolassar, that is, in 625 or 624,
comp. Kalkar in Pelt's theolog. Mitarb. part 2, p. 76 f. — On the con
trary, according to the citations from Ctesias in Diod. Sic. (ii. 23 — 28),
Nineveh, after a three years' siege by Arbaces the Mede, and Belesys
the Babylonian, was destroyed under Sardanapalus, and the dominion
of the Assyrians, after a duration of 1300 years, transferred to the

2 kings xv. 20. 29
V. 20. fr^'^ exegit tributum, construed with Tyy tributum im-
posuit, comp. Ges. thes. ii. 616. lyij-T 1'Yqji are not warriors or
miHtary heroes ; for least of all from the warriors could Menahem
Medes, while Belesys retained the satrapy of Babylonia, and began to
reign in his own name as over his own kingdom. This event is
usually placed about 880 B.C. (see Hupf. 1. c. p. 5), while others place
it about 260 years before Cyrus, and make Sardanapalus, according to
a notice of Euseb., contemporary with Jeroboam II., who died 783
B.C., see Winer R.W. i. p. 119 f. But if the dominion of the Assyrians
ceased in the interval between 880 and 800, and in its place a Median
monarchy with an independent Babylonian kingdom succeeded, the
Assyrians cannot possibly have appeared under Menahem 771 — 760,
and later still in hither Asia as a conquering power. If we chose even
to modify with H. Leo (Lehrb. d. Universalgeseh. i. p. 118) the hypo
thesis of a new Assyrian monarchy after the fall of the old under
Sardanapalus, which has been devised to reconcile Ctesias with the
accounts of the Bible, in such a manner, that the destruction of the old
would be nothing more than the founding of a properly independent
Median monarchy in the Medo- Persian high lands and in the low
land of the Jihun (or Bactria), while the Assyrian monarchy continued
under its own kings perhaps of the race of Belesys : it would still,
apart from the consideration that it completely alters the accounts of
Ctesias in Diodor. Sic, be inconsistent with the biblical accounts,
inasmuch as, according to these, if not Pul, at all events Tiglath,
Pileser and Shalmaneser must have possessed Media, because they
transplanted the captive Israelites to Assyria and Media (1 Chr. v.
26; 2 Ki. xv. 29, xvii. 6, xviii. 11.) If we reflect besides, that the
assumption of a second Assyrian monarchy is destitute of all historical
evidence, that none of the old writers makes the least mention of a
twofold destruction of Nineveh or of a restoration of this city after its
destruction under Sardanapalus, but, according to the Bible accounts,
Nineveh was still unimpaired in the time of the prophet Jonah under
Jeroboam II., about 800 b.c, and even much later in the times ofthe
prophet Zephaniah living under Josiah (reigning 642 — 611), though,
according to Zeph. ii. 13, it was soon to be destroyed, that, finally, the
statements of two Sardanapali, in the Scholiast to Aristophanes Nub.
v. 1022, as little deserve the name of historical testimony as the notice
of Syncellus p. 205 of a second Ninus as successor of Sardanapalus
(comp. Hupf I.e. p. 29 and 38) : we must reject this hypothesis as not
merely unsatisfactory, but destitute of all historical ground, and may,
if we do not wish to accuse Ctesias of intentional falsification of history,
merely assent to the view of Hupfeld (I.e. p. 34 ff.), that Ctesias took
the sovereigns found registered in the Median annals from Arbaces to
Astyages for independent kings of Media, and, thereby led astray, not
only placed Sardanapalus with the fall of the Assyrian empire that
took place under him about 250 or 260 years too early, but also trans
ferred to Arbaces that which was accomplished only by Dejoces. and

30 2 kings xv. 23-26.
levy such a tax,1 but, men of wealth, pollentes opibus (Syr.,
Vulg., Luth., Vatabl., Grot., Cler., and others, comp. Ges. thes.
i. 262), or more correctly still, men of respectability and influ
ence, inasmuch as this meaning alone, not the special notion of
wealth, can be educed from Ruth ii. 1, and 1 Sam. ix. 2. — The
" fifty shekels from each" depends on NSJ'S'V not on rtf-Jy. By
this tribute Pul was induced to return to his own land, but,
according to 1 Chr. v. 26, carried away with him the inhabitants
of Gilead.
Vv. 23 — 26. Pekahiah succeeded his father in the government
" in the fiftieth year of Azariah king of Judah." As Menahem
became king in the thirty-ninth of king Azariah, and reigned
ten years, he must have died in the forty-ninth year of Azariah.
If, therefore, his son ascended the throne only in the fiftieth year
of Azariah, some months elapsed between the death of Menahem
and Pekahiah's accession, because, probably in the unsettled
state of the kingdom, his right to the throne was contested. He
held it also only two years, as his adjutant (ttj^tf) see above p.
: x
145) Pekah conspired against him, and, with fifty Gileadites,
put him to death. V. 25. " Smote him in the castle frift^N
1 Ki. xvi. 18, comp. Ges. thes. i. 152) of the king's house with
Argob and Arieh." rTHfc$rT~nWl 1 ;TlN~nN most interpreters
understand so, that Argob and Arieh were Pekah's accomplices,
Astyages, the former of whom delivered Media from the Assyrian
supremacy, the latter, with Labynetus or Nabopolassar, took Nineveh,
and put an end to the Assyrian empire (Herod, i. 95 f. and 106.) — So
much for our purpose concerning this question ; its farther investiga
tions see in Hupfeld, whose line of proof is not quite free from error,
but at all events deserves the commendation, which has been briefly
given to it by H. Leo in the Berl. Yahrbb. f. Wissensch. Krit. 1844.
April, 72, p. 575 f.
1 Even those who understand J-nj-j "i-^^j of warriors have acknow
ledged the weight of this argument, and hence S. Schm. will thus
conceive the sense, quod Menahem istam pecuniam impossuerit universo
Israeli, nee viris quidem fortibus exceptis ; but this is an arbitrary
addition to the text. But J. D. Mich, endeavoured to remove the diffi
culty by the hypothesis, that at that time the military form of govern
ment arising from the civil wars, existed among the ten tribes, and the
soldiers exacted the tax imposed upon them from others again who were
subordinate to them. Quite improbable and irreconcilable with the
text.

2 kings xv. 27— 31. 31
who were conjoined with him in slaying the king ; but the
words immediately following, " and with him fifty of the sons of
the Gileadites," appear more to favour the view of S. Schm.,
quod Argob et Arjeh fuerint duo principes Pekachjae, quorum
potentiam et auctoritatem timuerit Pekach ideoque cum rege eos
trucidaverit. Vv. 27 — 31. Reign of Pekah (nftQ) tne son °f Remaliah.
Under him the Assyrian king Tiglath Pileser (iD^Ss rH3fi
or ->gvk$ rhm xvi- 7, -iDNgV? or "^b nSjn 1 Chr- v-
26; 2 Chr. xxviii. 20)1 came, conquered a part of the country
and carried its inhabitants into captivity to Assyria. This took
place in the last year of Pekah, in the beginning of the reign of
Ahaz king of Judah, comp. v. 37. — V. 29. Concerning the
towns Ijon and Abel-beth-maachab (Abil), see on 1 Ki. xv. 20.
Janoah (rniO 1S to be sought between Abil and Kedesh, or at
least in their neighbourhood.2 Kedesh (\fiyp) a city of refuge
belonging to the Levites on the mountains of Naphtali (Jos.
xix. 37, xx. 7, xxi. 32), on the west side of the Sea of Merom,
twenty Roman miles from Tyre, the birth-place of Barak (Judg.
iv. 6, comp. v. Raum. Pal. p. 129 f.), still exists as a village
under the old name on the hills west of Huleh, comp. Rob. Pal.
iii. p. 622. In this region lay Hazor, see above p. 141. " And
Gilead and Galilee, all the land of Naphtali." As the last words
1 V. Bohlen (Symbolae p. 24) explained the name of this king, who
is nowhere else mentioned, quite unnaturally ,'^\  Ly /S^ppi Tig-lad-
pil-adzer, gladius intrepidus (est) elephas ignis i.e. Dei ; much more
probably Gesen. in his lex. man s. v., Dominus Tigris, according to
which j-i^]-| will stand for Diglath, the river Tigris.
2 Decidely false is the assumption of Winer (R. W. i. 630) and
Gesen. (thes. ii. 863), that j-p^ is the border city of Ephraim and
Manasseh mentioned Jos. xvi. 6 f, which according to Euseb. lay
twelve Roman miles east of Neapolis (Sichem.) For Galilean cities
are here spoken of. The Reviewer of v. Raumer's Pal. in the
Munchner gel. Anz. 1836, Nov. No. 242, p. 902, is disposed to find
Janoah in the large village Januach inhabited by Druses, which was
found by St. Schulz in the mountain tracts north east of Acre, and is
used by the principal inhabitants of Acre as a summer residence, see
Paulus' Sainml. von Reis. vii. p. 98. But this also lies too far remote
to have been reckoned to the territory of Naphtali.

32 2 kings xv. 27—31.
are annexed without >\, it might appear, that they were a com
prehensive description of all the fore-mentioned places and
districts, especially as Galilee includes the northern district of
the tribe of Naphtali (see above p. 131.) Accordingly Gesen.
comm. on Is. i. p. 352) thinks, that Gilead here as often denotes
a very small district, even a city (Hos. vi. 5), and that the
writer, notwithstanding the small exception (namely, that Gilead
lay on the other side of Jordan), may have included all the *
before-named places, under the general name, the whole land of
Naphtali. But that Gilead does not denote a city in Hos. vi. 5,
has been rightly observed by Winer (R. W. i. p. 504.) As little
can it be proved that this name is used of a very small district
of Perea, lying to the east of Merom. We can therefore under
stand Gilead only of the whole territory of the Israelites east of
the Jordan, 1 Chr. v. 6 and 26, demands this, and must there
fore take "q^ V"^-SlD irl apposition with n^i^art which it more
strictly defines. But the enumeration is not therefore altogether
without order, as Cler. appealing to the simplicity of the Hebrew
style which minus accuratum ordinem nequaquam respuit, imagines,
but purely historical, that is, following the actual order of the
conquests. Tiglath Pileser first took the several partly fortified
cities adjacent to the sea of Merom, then turned to Gilead, con
quered this district, and on his return thence, the remaining part
of Galilee, namely, the whole land of Naphtali.1 Comp. still on
xvii. 6. — V. 30. Pekah met with his death by a conspiracy
formed by Hoshea the son of Elah, who assumed the sovereignty
" in the twentieth year of Jotham." This statement is very sur
prising, as Jotham reigned only sixteen years, and Ahaz had
become king in the seventeenth year of Pekah (xvi. 1), according
to which Pekah 's death must have fallen properly in the fourth
year of Ahaz. The reason of this extraordinary statement can

1 In the annals of the kings the conquests of T. P. were probably
mentioned each more at large, but it would have been too much for our
author in epitomizing to specify them all : he therefore contents him
self, after mentioning several cities, with including all the other places
under the general terms Gilead and Galilee. Movers (Krit. Unters. p.
133) erroneously asserts, that our author only mentions Gilead, by the
way, because the most part of it still belonged to the kingdom of Judah
under Jotham.

2 kings xv. 32—38. 33
only be sought with Ussher (chronol. sac-r. p. 80) in this, that
hitherto no mention had been made of Ahaz, Jotham's successor,
because the reign of Jotham is first recorded in v. 32 ff.1
Vv. 32 — 38. Reign of Jotham. of Judah. Comp. 2 Chr. xxvii.
1 — 9. The statement, " in the second year of Pekah ....
Jotham became king," is explained by this, that the first year of
Pekah, which coincides with the fifty-second of Uzziah, was not
complete, inasmuch as he did not attain to the sovereignty in
Nisan. For the beginning of Jotham's reign is not separated a
1 All other conjectures, as for example that of Lightfoot (Op. i.p. 244),
prove themselves at the first glance to be untenable ; comp. Win. R. W.
i. p. 724. Hitzig (Comm. on Is. p. 72 f.) has endeavoured to show in
a peculiar manner, that instead of, " in the twentieth year of Jotham,"
is to be read, in the twentieth year of Ahaz, the son of Jotham, inas
much as he makes Jotham reign eight years in conjunction with his
father Uzziah, and after his death only eight years alone, and then
lengthens the reign of Ahaz eight years, fixes it at twenty-four instead
of sixteen years, and in order to save the synchronism of the history of
Israel, assigns to Pekah also twenty-eight instead of twenty years,
whereby the eight years' interregnum usually assumed between Pekah
and Hoshea falls away, while the collective period of the kings is not
altered, because the interval between the death of Uzziah and the be
ginning of Hezekiah's reign is still thirty-two years, and these thirty-
two years are made up, only not with the Books of Kings and Chronicles
by the sixteen + sixteen years of the reigns of Jotham and Ahaz, but
by the eight years of Jotham and twenty- four years of Ahaz. But the
whole combination stands upon the weakest possible footing. Besides
our statement, " in the twentieth year of Jotham," the force of which
is fully neutralized not only by the other dates, but also by the circum
stance that Hitzig must insert the words, " Ahaz the son of" to make
it subserve his purpose, there is merely the age of Hezekiah at his
accession to the throne, which demands a more than sixteen years'
reign of Ahaz, because he must otherwise, according to xviii. 2, comp.
with xvi. 2, have begotten Hezekiah in the eleventh year of his life,
which is " purely impossible," for the farther assertion, that the state
ment v. 37, that Jotham was assailed in war by the Syrians and
Ephraimites, is quite improbable, no one will hold to be demonstrated
or demonstrable. And the statement concerning Hezekiah's age at
the commencement of his reign will be shown to be devoid of evidence
on xviii. 2. The whole hypothesis is shown to be untenable partly by
the arbitrary manner in which a multitude of texts, namely, v. 33, xvi.
1 and 2, xvii. 1, 2 Chr. xxvii. 1, 8, xxviii. 1, must be altered at will,
partly by this, that the time, during which Jotham conducted the go
vernment in his father's lifetime, is in vv. 5, 7, 2 Chr. xxvi. 21, 23,
expressly and clearly distinguished from his sixteen years' reign after
the death of Uzziah.
VOL. II. C

34 2 kings xvi. 1 — 4.
full year from that of Pekah, and therefore the sixteen years'
reign of Jotham, which actually amounted only to fifteen years
and some months, had terminated according to xvi. l,in the seven
teenth year of Pekah. Of Jotham's reign, besides the general de
scription of it in the usual terms, nothing further is recorded, but
that he built the higher gate of the temple ; comp. on this the
remarks on xi. 19. According to 2 Chr. xxviii. 3, he built besides
an addition to the wall of Ophel, several cities in the mountains of
Judah, and castles and towers in the forests, and reduced the
rebellious Ammonites, so that they paid him tribute three years.
Jotham accordingly prosecuted with vigour, what his father had
begun and undertaken for the promotion ofthe outward prosperity
of his kingdom. Comp. here the note on v. 3 ff. — V. 37. " In
these days (that is towards the end of Jotham's reign), the Lord
began to send against Judah, Rezin," etc. ^ rPTWn irnmisit
calamitatem, comp. Lev. xxvi. 22, Am. viii. 11. These words
express more than the mere alliance of the kings of Israel and
Syria, and their preparation for war, or the mere hostile disposi
tion of these kings to Judah, as Gesen. Comm. on Is. i. p. 269
thinks ; they denote the actual beginning ofthe hostile invasion,
which was continued after Jotham's death, so that the enemy
appeared before Jerusalem in the first year of Ahaz, comp. on
xvi. 5.

CHAPTER XVI.
REIGN OF AHAZ, KING OF JUDAH. COMF. 2 CHR. XXVIII.
Vv. 1 — 4. On the commencement of the reign of Ahaz, " in
the seventeenth year of Pekah," see on xv. 32. — V. 2. Under
the prosperous reigns of Uzziah and Jotham, with the increase
of wealth and worldly power, luxury and voluptuousness, false
self-confidence and forgetfulness of God, had become very pre
valent among the people, as the first chapters of Isaiah abun
dantly testify. It cannot therefore surprise us, that the theo
cratic principle still externally maintained by those two kings

2 kings xvi. 1—7. 35
was abandoned by Ahaz, that under his reign sincere dependence
on Jehovah having vanished from the hearts of the people, dis
appeared also from their outward conduct, that Ahaz " did not
that which was right in the eyes of the Lord his God, like David
his father" (v. 2), as his predecessors, Joash, Amaziah, Uzziah,
and Jotham, had not acted altogether as David (xii. 3, xiv. 3,
xv. 3 and 39), that he " walked in the way of the kings of Israel"
(v. 3), that he dedicated his son to Molech by fire, that he " sacri
ficed and burned incense in the high places, and on the hills and
under every green tree" (v. 4), that is, that by him the worship
of images, high places and false gods of every kind was intro
duced into the whole land. Yet we are not so to understand the
idolatry of Ahaz, as if the worship of Jehovah was immediately
discontinued. This corresponds with the character of polytheism,
which only in special cases becomes the fanatical persecutor of
other gods and religions, but in general seeks to venerate several
gods beside each other, in direct opposition to the worship of
Jehovah, which is degraded into idolatry by any equalization of
Jehovah with another God (see above, p. 162.) Only in the
last years of his reign does Ahaz proceed so far in his idolatry as
to suspend the external temple worship of Jehovah, and shut up
the doors ofthe temple (2 Chr. xxviii. 24.) — The description of
the religious conduct of this king in our verses gives only a sum
mary account of his idolatry, from which we are not to conclude
that Ahaz introduced the different kinds of idolatry all at one
time. Much rather did he proceed from step to step, and the
offering of his son to Molech obviously occurred only at the time
when he was hard pressed by the Assyrians, from whom he ex
pected aid. — The words, " he walked in the way of the kings of
Israel," to which is added, 2 Chr. xxviii. 2, by way of explana
tion, " and made also molten images for Baalim," denote in the
first place only the self-devised worship of Jehovah by images ;
for this was the way in which all the kings of Israel walked from
first to last ; though the phrase is so used of Joram, king of
Judah, in viii. 18, that it denotes at the same time the Baal
worship of the dynasty of Ahab. In this sense, that is, denoting
the worship of images and of Baal at the same time, is it here
also to be taken. — V. 3. Even his son he caused to go through
the fire, that is, he offered him to Molech in the valley of Ben-
c2

36 2 kings xvi. 1—7.
hinnom (xxiii. 10.) Instead of ^1 stands in 2 Chr. xxviii. 3
the plural yi^, and in v. 16, yy$t$ ^hl2 f°r the singular •tfyft
"l^N) although the reference is only to the one Assyrian king,
Tiglath Pileser, in order to express generally the thought, which
rests not in the number but the thing, in which case many lan
guages occasionally employ the plural ; comp. Gesen. Lehrgeb.
p. 664, Ew. Krit. Gr. p. 584 f., and Winer Gramm. desneutestl.
Spr. p. 200 f. of the 5th ed. As to the matter of fact we have
here the first historically attested human sacrifice among the
Israelites. In the Pentateuch, indeed, there are several warn
ings against the Canaanatish abominations of the sacrifice of
children to Molech (Lev. xviii. 21 ; Deut. xviii. 10), and the
punishment of stoning is prescribed for this transgression, but in
case of neglect the extirpation of the transgressor is threatened
by the Lord (Lev. xx. 2 — 5) ; but there is no proof that this
abominable idolatry was actually practised in Israel before the
times of Ahaz; for, as Movers Rei. d. Phon. i. p. 65 quite cor
rectly remarks, " otherwise the abomination would certainly not
have been passed over in silence by the biblical writers, who so
often make mention of other forms of idolatry."1 The phrase
1 Movers is also certainly right, when he (p. 64 f., 324, etc.) derives
the introduction of the worship of Molech from the first entrance of the
Assyrians into Judea, and from this time forward assumes an inter
mixture of the Canaanitish idolatry with the Upper Asiatic or Assyrian
fire-worship, even though the proofs adduced are much in need ofa
critical examination. According to the Old Testament, indeed, the
worship of Molech is found among the Canaanites even in the times of
Moses, for it is enumerated in the Pentateuch as in our passage among
the abominations of the nations, which the Lord destroyed before the
children of Israel (comp. Lev. xviii. 21, with v. 24 ff. ; Deut. xviii.
9, 10, 12) ; but it is not therefore necessary that it should be of
Canaanitish origin. For had it arisen among them, or been even their
principal form of worship, how could we account for it, that it is not
named from the time of Joshua to the Assyrian period among the
various Canaanitish superstitions into which the Israelites almost at all
times more or less fell ? Its manifestation in Ahab's time can scarcely
be otherwise viewed than in intimate connexion with the appearance of
the Syrians in Palestine, whereby Movers, p. 65, is justified in the
statement, "But when the Assyrian fire-gods, Adrammelech and
Anammelech, became known, Ahaz first resumed the Canaanitish cus
tom as the biblical writer remarks (comp. 2 Ki. xvi. 3), and from that
time first is mentioned the valley of Hinnom with its sacrifices of chil
dren, which were there offered to Baal as Molech (comp. 2 Ki. xxxiii.

2 kings xvi. 1 — 7. 37
ttJNl to~nN "T'llfn here, xvii. 17, xxi. 6 ; 2 Chr. xxxiii. 6 ;
Ezek. xx. 31, is virtually equivalent to 'rryft^y ^5 "Vuj?n (Lev.
10 ; 2 Chr. xxxiii. 6 ; Jer. vii. 31, xix. 5 ; Ezek. xvi. 20, xxiii. 37.")
After this let any one judge with what right P. v. Bohlen (d. alte
Indien i. p. 304) could assert : " the horrible sacrifices of children were
practised by the Hebrews from the brightest days of Solomon till after
the exile," without even furnishing a single historical attestation of tha
statement. The same opinion is found in Winer (R.W. ii. p. 118) and
others, who infer it from the identification of Molech with Milcom,
which has been already refuted, p. 1 68 f. Finally Vatke (Rei. d. A .
T. p. 190 ff. 245 and 685) asserts, that " the Israelites during the
whole journey through the wilderness of Arabia, and even at a later
period, worshipped Saturn as their national deity with animal and human
sacrifices." But the proof of this assertion drawn from Amos v. 25 f.
and Ezek. xx. 26, comp. xvi. 30 (perhaps 20), apart from the consi
deration of the perverse presupposition of Hegel, that the Jehovah
religion developed itself only gradually till the 8th century B.C. step
by step from rude nature worship, rests on an erroneous interpretation
of the passages quoted. The words of Amos, " Have ye (says the
Lord) offered unto me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness forty
years, O house of Israel ? And ye bore the tabernacle of your king
and the stand (JM3) of your images, the star of your God, which ye

made for yourselves," have no other meaning than this, that the great
mass of the people of Israel, during the long period of their journey
through the wilderness, neglected the worship of Jehovah by offerings,
and instead of this adored a borrowed king of heaven with an idola
trous worship. But that this king of heaven, whose tabernacle and
star they bore with them, was Saturn, is based upon the erroneous ex
planation of the word -jj)^ by Saturn, which is regarded as untenable
even by Hitzig and Ewald. Comp. the excellent refutation of this
opinion in Hengstenb. Beitr. ii. p. 108 — 118. Ezekiel knows still less
of the worship of Saturn by the sacrifice of children in the wilderness.
When it is said, Ezek. xx. 24 ff., " Because they (the Israelites) did
not adhere to my (God's) judgments in the wilderness  I
polluted them in their own gifts in the presenting of all the first born,
that I might make them desolate," here also in opposition to the re
ference of the words Qpp -^q ^,3 T32>i~n to tlle sacrlficlng of ctil-
dren to Molech, which is stiU maintained even by Ewald and Umbreif,
Havern. (Comm. on Ezek. p. 315) has with perfect justice remarked :
" It is altogether incorrect in the ancient writers, as Vitringa,
observ. ss. p. 267 f., to think here immediately of a worship of
Molech, as Movers recently concludes from this passage, that
'the Israelites in Egypt (sic 1), as the prophet Ezekiel expressly
asserts, dedicated all the first-born to Molech,' die Phoniz. i. p. 328 ;
comp. Vatke, p. 191. The prophet in this case could not possibly
have omitted the essential gj^ or -feft^y- Ezekiel then clearly

38 2 KINGS XVI. 1 — 7.
xviii. 21 ; Deut. xviii. lO ; Jer. xxxii. 35) and TjW? ijn-TOnn
(Lev. xx. 2—4), as appears from yryfth ttJNl 132 n« T^H*
2 Ki. xxiii. 10, and denotes the sacrifice of children to Molech.
The older theologians are at variance on the question whether
this phrase mean an actual burning of the children offered to
Molech or only a passing of them between two funeral piles, a
mere februatio or lustration by fire, inasmuch as Spencer de leg.
Hebr. rit. 1. 2 c. 360 sqq., Witsius miscell. ss. I. 2 diss. 5 (torn.
i. p. 608 ff), Pfeiffer, dub. vex. cent. iv. loc. 80, p. 832 and
others assumed both usages as co-existing. Jarchi ad Lev. xviii.
21, Moses Maim, and others have declared for the mere februatio,
Cler. ad Lev. xviii. 21, Budd. hist eccl. i. p. 608 ff and Mich.
Mos. R.V., § 247 on the contrary for the burning. This last
view is rightly regarded by the recent writers as alone correct,
and is defended at length against the others by Gesen. in the
thes. ii. 985. Compare also Movers p. 328. According to Ezek.
xvi. 20 f., " Thou hast taken thy sons and daughters, whom thou
hast borne unto me, and hast sacrificed these to them to be de-
alludcs to Ex. xiii. 12, 13, but intentionally omits the there appearing
«-rtj-|iU. He expresses himself indefinitely, and we are not to refer to
v. 31, where he speaks of subsequent events, in order to define the
meaning of the expression. The prophet admits, that they observed
the law in regard to gifts, and the offering of the first-born, but in a
perverted sense, inasmuch as they gave them a heathenish turn, and
addicted themselves to nature worship, while they were externally
attached to the worship of Jehovah." Moreover Movers has not
cleared up either the question concerning the origin of the old Canaan
itish Molech-worship, or that concerning the proper nature of Molech,
by which is mostly understood the planet Saturn worshipped as a star
of ill omen ; for his assertion, that the ancestors of the Israelites, Edo
mites, Ammonites, and Moabites, who, according to the Old Testament,
are confessedly only Abraham and Lot, had brought it from Upper
Asia, from Chaldea, and Assyria, to Canaan (p. 63, 323, 333, 339,
etc.), and that Molech had been blended with the old Canaanitish Baal
or Bel into a Bel- Saturn, is at once refuted as erroneous by the fact,
that Abraham and Lot were no worshippers of Molech, and did not
enter into such close intercourse with the Canaanites, that these should
have adopted the worship of Molech from them. Besides Molech is
reckoned among the gods of the Canaanitish nations, who were to have
been extirpated, and are uniformly distinguished from the Ammonites,
Moabites, and Edomites. Thus the investigation concerning Molech
is still in need of a critical review, which, however, cannot receive
so brief and passing a notice, that we could compress it into a note.

2 kings xvi. 1—7. 39
voured. Was it too little in thy whoredom, that thou hast also
slain my children, and delivered them Qpj^ qj-)^ *yn#n3>" the
offering consisted in the slaying and burning of children! Comp.
also Ezek. xxii. 37 ; Jer. vii. 31, and xix. 5. Thus a burning
alive cannot be intended, which even Havern. p. 238 still finds
possible in a manner not easy to comprehend, after he has imme
diately before mentioned the slaying as the first part (act) of the
offering.1 Both acts are usually denoted together by ^2 T>2J>n
* "wJfch "V^yrh f°r which in xvii. 31, and in Jer. vii. 31, is
used ^^2 ppjE, in 2 Chr. xxviii. 3 $^2 1'12Vrr> and in Jer.
xix. 5 *?yjy Fpfc;, clearly proving that -^lyn was an actual
burning. Now as in point of expression a burning in the fire
can scarcely be called a passing through the fire, we must agree
with Movers, that " the burning of the children was regarded as
a passing through, by which they attained to purification with
the Deity after the dissolution ofthe earthly impure dross ofthe
body," (d. Rei. d. Phon. i. p. 329), while at the same time we
must reject as fundamentally false the accompanying assertions,
that the Israelites in Egypt had originally consecrated all the
1 Certain and indubitable testimonies are wanting for the opinion
that the children were burned alive. Eusebius in the principal pas
sage of his praep. ev. I. iv. c. 16, where he enumerates the many hu.
man sacrifices of the ancients, mentions not a syllable of this horrid
custom, but says, on the contrary, that at Salamis these victims were
stabbed by the priests with spears in the belly (Kara tov oro/na^ou) and
then burned upon the kindled funeral piles (i. p. 164 ed. Hein), and
besides speaks repeatedly by their o-tpayri and dwocnpaTTeiv (p. 165 ff.)
Diod. Sic. also in I. xx. c. 12, where he describes the brazen statue of
Kronos with its Molech arms outstretched and glowing with heat, says
nothing of casting live children into them ; and even passages quoted
by Miinter (Rei. d. Karth. p. 22) from Klitarch. and Photius by no
means clearly exhibit this sense ; but may as well be understood of
the burning of children already dead ; only the notice there quoted
from Tzetzes of the brazen bulls used at Carthage in the sacrifice of
children with pipes in their nostrils, so that the crying of the children
sounded like the notes of pipes, would involve the burning of children
alive, if Miinter himself had not explained the latter as a later addi
tion. In like manner this is presupposed in the description given by
Jarchi ad Jer. vii. 31 of the statue of Molech. See the passage in
Winer (R.W. ii. p. 119) and the representation of it according to this
description in Lundii jud. Heiligth. p. 564. But Tzetzes and the
Rabbins ofthe middle ages are very suspicious witnesses for a custom,
which the older writers do not know.

40 2 KINGS XVI. 5.
first born to Molech (p. 328), and regarded Jehovah himself as
Molech or the sacrificial fire devouring the children (p. 327),
since they are not proved either by Ezek. xx. 26, or by Ex. xiii.
12, and Lev. xx. 3. For from the words, " I will cut him (who
devotes his children to Molech) off from among his people ; be
cause he hath given of his seed unto Molech to defile my sanc
tuary," (Lev. xx. 3), it no more follows, that the offering to
Molech was made on the altar of the sanctuary of Jehovah,
than as has been already remarked, that the worship of Molech
is intended in Ezek. xx. 26. Movers' error has arisen from
this, that he identifies the phrase 'rfaftly "YOSfil corresponding to
TTiTvh TD^n with BJN2 T2yn> whereas it is, perhaps practi-
x - . -:i - - x ¦ *^-:i-
cally, but not philologically equivalent to this expression. -p^yj-f
miT^ used ofthe first born (Ex. xiii. 12; Ezek. xx. 26) means,
to cause to go over to the Lord (comp. for this signification of
TOJJn Num. xxvii. 7, 8), give over, dedicate, offer to the
Lord; on the contrary ft}^ -p^!"! means, to cause to go
through the fire. Now, if 'y^yryy "V2V71 were used as practically
equivalent to gjfr^ *1l,2}ft"b this could only happen because the
devoting of the children to Molech was effected by slaying and
burning them in the fire, whereas the dedication of the first born
to Jehovah consisted in this, that they were presented to the
Lord in his sanctuary and redeemed (pT7Q]-\ *"p33,^ "1122 72 -^X-
xiii. 13.) Movers quite falsely asserts, p. 328, "It is philologically
false, that -py^n can signify in general, to dedicate, offer ;" for
the presenting of the first-born denoted in Ex. xiii. 12 by TQ^pf
is in v. 15 expressly called mpp^ PQT an& thus -^yj-f is quite
identified with |-Qf. — On v. 3 comp. 1 Ki. xiv. 23. n2T',l has
tsere without the pause contrary to the general rule, see Ew. Gr.
§ 274 and 297.
V. 5. " Then came Rezin . . . and Pekah up to war
against Jerusalem, and pressed hard upon Ahaz, but could not
make war," that is, they intended to besiege Jerusalem and con
quer it, but it did not come to a siege much less to a conquest,
comp. Is. vii. 1. Deviating from this, 2 Chr. xxviii. 5 — 15
relates, that these two kings smote Ahaz, and carried home
many captives with abundant spoil ; but the Israelites at the
expostulation of the prophet Oded released their captives again,

2 KINGS XVI. 5. 41
and sent them back fed and clothed to the city of palm trees to
their brethren. This account Gesen. (Comm. on Is. i. p. 269),
Winer (R.W. i. p. 44), Maur., and others, pronounced to be
irreconcilable with the relation of our verse and of Isaiah, and
then rejected as an unhistorical exaggeration of the writer,
whereas long before them the older interpreters recognized the
two relations as supplementing each other, and reconciled them
with one another, see my apol. Vers. p. 420 ff. But Chronicles
tells not of a campaign which occurred after the expedition men
tioned in our verse, as Grot, on 2 Chr. xviii. 5, and Ussher,
Annal. ad. a. m. 3262 f., suppose, but of the events which
preceded it, as most expositors rightly understand. The war
which, according to xv. 37, began in the end of the reign of
Jotham, was opened with the irruption of both kings into Judah,
in which the Syrians and Israelites smote the Jewish army and
took many prisoners. On this the two kings marched together
to Jerusalem, but could effect nothing against this city, because
Ahaz meanwhile had invited the Assyrian kingTiglath Pileser to
his aid, and the latter had already invaded Syria, so that Rezin
and Pekah, without having effected their object, retired from
Jerusalem into their own country to defend it against the mighty
Assyrian foe. But whether these two leading events, on the
one hand the battle fought by the Syrians and Israelites with
the Jews, recorded in Chronicles, on the other hand the subse
quent united march of the two kings to Jerusalem, were only
two main movements of the one great and prolonged campaign,
as Lightf. Op. i. p. 101, Pluschke in Keil's and Tzschirner's
.Anal. i. 2, p. 46, Hengstenb. Christol. i. -2, p. 48, Kleinert,
Echth. d. Jes. p. 45, and others, have supposed, or two different
campaigns, the latter of which was undertaken a year after the
former, as Vitringa and Rosenm. on Is. vii. with Hieron., Jarchi,
and Buddeus (h. eccl. ii. p. 425) have represented the course of
affairs, this cannot be determined with certainty, and does not
materially affect the main point.1
1 Mov. (Krit. Unters. p. 142 ff.) and Havern. (Einl. ii. 1, p. 217 f.)
therefore err when they so put the matter, as if those who explain both
narratives only of one campaign, understood them also, like Gesen., of
one and the same event, and their counter reasons, so far as they have
any force, only prove the diversity of the events, but not the existence

42 2 kings xvi. 6.
V. 6. " At that time Rezin brought Elath to Aram, which
the Jews under Uzziah had regained, comp. on xiv. 22. By j-|^2
^ipjpl this conquest is only placed in general in the course of the
war of the Syrians with Ahaz, not necessarily after their cam
paign against Jerusalem. On the contrary it must have pre
ceded it and occurred after the defeat of Ahaz's army (2 Chr.
xxviii. 5) because Ahaz, by calling in the Assyrian, had forced
Rezin to desist from the siege of Jerusalem, so that he had no
time to penetrate farther south and make conquests in Edom.
" And the Edomites came to Elath and dwelt there unto this
day." Many expositors after the Chald., Syr., and Arab ver
sions take oi^-in only for another form of ?ift-ifc$ Aramaeans,
Syrians, and this appears at first sight to be suitable; but on a
farther consideration of the matter this view proves to be unten
able. For as the Syrian kingdom was destroyed very soon after
this campaign, and the Syrians were carried into captivity (v. 9),
they cannot have dwelt long in Elath ; comp. Mov. Krit. Unters.
p. 151. If, therefore, the words, " they dwelt there unto this
day," are even taken from the annals of the kings, and do not
originate first with the author of our books, yet they suit not the
Aramaeans but only the Edomites. We prefer, therefore, with
the LXX., Vulg., the Masor., and most expositors, even Rob.
Pal. iii. p. 109, the reading Qift'nN Edomites, as the origin of
the variant D^-p^ from ?^¦y-jN may be easily explained by
the foregoing q-^> whereas, in case it had originally stood
D^DIN' there is no conceivable reason for the origin of the read
ing n^TIN' except perhaps an unthinking error of transcrip
tion. But Eift-nN by no means warrants us with L. Capell.,
Cler., Mich., Dathe, and others to change q^n also into D^-y^,
as 2>,ttJn does not necessarily imply an earlier possession. After
the Edomites again came into possession of Elath, and by the
of two independent campaigns. Havernick allowed himself to be led
too much by the representations of Movers, as he did not observe that
his line of argument so explains the predictions of Isaiah i. and ii. 4
as if the prophet had given a chronological account of these events,
whereas these predictions are not even uttered in the times of Ahaz, as
Hav. himself has elsewhere (Einl. ii. 2, p. 66 f.) proved, still less do
they exclusively treat of them.

2 kings xvi. 7 — 9. 43
destruction of the Syrian power also became independent of them,
they themselves invaded Judah and carried off spoil, 2 Chr.
xxviii. 17.1
Vv. 7 — 9. In this strait Ahaz, without regarding the en
couraging prediction of Is. vii , that the kings of Syria and
Ephraim were only like firebrands still smoking, and, notwith
standing the warning of the prophet against an alliance with
Assyria, applied to Tiglath Pileser, and by the transmission of
the treasures of the temple and the palace purchased for himself
the aid of the Assyrians, so that Tiglath Pileser advanced against
Damascus and took it, slew king Rezin and carried the inhabi
tants of Damascus into captivity to Kir.2 The time when Ahaz
1 The Philistines also invaded Judah and conquered several towns of
the low country (2 Chr. xxviii. 18), in order to avenge themselves for
the humiliation they had received under Uzziah (2 Chr. xxvi. 6.)
This account receives a striking confirmation from Is. xiv. 28 — 32,
comp. Gesen. Comm. on Is. i. p. 494, Hitzig, Jesaj. p. 175, my apol.
Vers. p. 240, and Havern. Einl. 2, 1, p. 219 f, as also our remarks on
xviii. 8.
2 Of the proceedings of Tiglath Pileser against the kingdom of Israel
nothing is here said. Mov. (Krit. Unters. p. 154) thence concludes:
"that no serious disaster befel it at that time," and, p. 133, rejects
even the correct assumption, that the deportation of the inhabitants of
Naphtali and Gilead took place after the conquest and exile of the
Syrians, as " quite unfounded and obviously false, because the author
of the Rook of Kings would not have here passed it over in silence."
But if any argumentum e silentio is quite unfounded and obviously false,
so undoubtedly is this, which cannot be sustained by some misunder
stood expressions of Isaiah (viii. 23 and xvii. 2.) According to Mov.
this deportation of the Israelites by Tiglath Pileser, which is also con
firmed by 1 Chr. v. 6 and 26, must have taken place before his expedi
tion against Syria. But had Movers only considered the geographical
relation of Syria and Gilead to Assyria he would have been convinced
of the complete untenableness of his assertion. Or did he not know
that there wa3 no other military way from Assyria or Mesopotamia
from which Tiglath Pileser must have come to hither Asia than that
leading by Thapsacus over the Euphrates, and thence either by Emesa
or Palmyra to Damascus, by which all the conquerors from upper
Asia invaded Palestine (comp. C. Ritter's Erdk. Th. x. Asien Bd. vii.
p. 11 and 1114), and thus that Tiglath Pileser could not reach either
the land of Naphtali or Gilead without marching through the Syrian
kingdom from Damascus ? But our author did not require to mention
this expedition here, because he had already related it, xv. 29, in the
history of the kingdom of Israel. Besides, not to speak of the older
interpreters, Gesen. (Comm. on Is. i. p. 352) has rightly connected

44 2 kings xvi. 7 — 9.
applied to Tiglath Pileser for help is not here distinctly given ;
but it lies in the nature of the thing, that he took this step when
the enemies, after conquering his army, prepared to march to
Jerusalem ere they made their appearance before this city ; -with
which also Is. vii. and viii. agree, comp. Hav. Einl. ii. 2, p. 69.
^hy O^ipn* " wh° rise UP against me>" that is, assault and
make war upon me. With regard to the form ?^n for ftiftp
see Ew. Gr. § 326 p. 201. — yip Kir (Is. xxii. 6; Am. i. 5, ix.
7), which the Vulg. has erroneously understood of Cyrene, is,
according to a conjecture made by Bochart (Phal. iv. 32), taken
by Calm., Mich. (Spicil. ii. p. 121, Suppl. ad lex. p. 2191),
Rosenm. (Althk. i. 2, p. 102 f.), Winer (R.W. ii. p. 777),
Gesen. (thes. iii. 1210, and Comm. on Is. i. p. 688), and others,
for the country along the river Kur (Kvpos, Kvppos of the
ancients), which unites with the Araxes and falls into the
Caspian Sea. But as this river formed the boundary between
Armenia Major, Iberia, and Albania (comp. Forbiger, Hdb. d.
alten Geogr. 1844 ii. p. 74, 598), and thus flowed north of
Armenia, this district can scarcely have belonged at that time to
the Assyrian empire, as the murderers of Sennacherib fled to the
land of Ararat, and, therefore, no doubt beyond the bounds of
the Assyrian empire (xix. 37), and in general Armenia occurs
in the Old Testament under the names of Ararat, Togarmah,
and Minni. If we compare the collective passages in which
mention is made of Kir, it is more natural according to Is. xxii.
6, where it is named along with Elam, and both nations are
described as good archers, to think with Bochart (Phal. iv. 32)
of the city Kovprjva mentioned by Ptolemaeus vi. 2 on the river
Mardus in the south of Media, as the borderers on the Mardus
are celebrated as good archers (see C. Ritter's Erdk. viii. Asien
vi. 1, p. 615), or still more probably with Vitringa on Is. xxii. 6
of the city Kaplvn, situated at all events in Media (Ptol. vi. 2),
the present Kerend (see C. Ritter ix. As. vi. 2, p. 391), in favour
this captivity of the Israelites with the taking of Damascus by Tiglath
Pileser as an event of the same war, although he has erroneously as
sumed that the captivity of the Naphtalites took place a campaign
earlier, and formed the prelude to the other invasions of the Assyrians,
in refutation of which Hitzig (Jesaj. p. 70) has appealed to the geo
graphical relation of the two countries.

2 kings xvi. 10—1 6. 45
of which it may be added, that the Chald. in our passage has
rendered yip by Ni'np- On the contrary Amos ix. 7, accord-
xx :'•
ing to which the Aramaeans descended from Shem (Gen. x. 22)
emigrated from Kir to Syria, might point to a district lying in
the north of Mesopotamia or in Chaldaea rather than to a region
beyond the Tigris : although we know far too little of the most
ancient seats of the Shemitic races to lay much stress on this
point. It is very possible that the original seat of the Shemites
is to be sought in the upper highlands of the river Kerkha, on
which Kerend lies (Ritter ix. p. 323 ff.), and that Kir was also
situated there.
Vv. 10 — 16. While Tiglath Pileser remained at Damascus,
Ahaz paid him a visit of homage, probably in order to make
himself more secure of his favour. Here he saw an altar which
pleased him, and sent therefore a sketch and model of it to
Uriah the priest, with orders to build a similar altar in Jerusa
lem ; which he had executed on the return of the king (vv. 10,
11.) On this altar Ahaz, after his return to Jerusalem, offered
his burnt-offering, meat-offering, and drink-offering, and removed
the altar of Solomon from its place on the north side of the
court, and ordered Uriah the priest to perform all the sacrifices
henceforth on his new altar (vv. 12 — 15.) And Uriah obeyed
also this order (v. 16.)1 Proceeding on the supposition that this
new altar was dedicated to idols (a supposition which Theodore
and Procop. entertained), the older interpreters endeavoured to
answer the question, why Ahaz chose the gods, not of the vic
torious Assyrians, but of the vanquished Syrians. Seb. Schm.
replies, Nirnirum jam agnoscebat Assyrium hostem potius quam
amicum cum diis Assyriis : cogitabatque de ejusmodi diis, qui
ipsum contra Assyrium et deos ejus defenderent. Ubi homo
1 If de Wette (Beitr. i. p. 252) finds this compliance of the priest.
" very scandalous," and seeks herein a proof of the non-existence of
the Pentateuch, Hav. (Einl. i. 2, p. 597) has on the contrary replied
with justice, that examples are not wanting of similar falsely submis
sive conduct on the part of the priests toward the king, and pointed to
the fact, that the narrative implies no entire apostasy from Jehovah.
But when he farther remarks, that Ahaz had distinguished this priest
before as a favourite, the historical proofs of this are wanting, as
Gesenius, to whose comm. on Is. viii. 2 he refers, only offers the con
jecture, that "this priest appears to have stood high in his favour."

46 2 kings xvi. 10—16.
-stultus deos Syrorum, quos prius putabat adversus se fuisse vali-
dos, elegit potius quam Jehovam verum Deum. Quod vero dii
Syri Rezinum non defendissent adversus Assyrios, pro sua cceci-
tate alii potius cuicunque casui, non infirmitati deorum istorum
adscribebat. But who could believe this? Had Ahaz then
regarded the Assyrians as his enemies, he woidd not surely have
paid a visit to Damascus. The whole supposition, that this
altar was consecrated to the Syrian, or as some think, to the
Assyrian gods, is false. According to the intention of the king
it was to be consecrated to Jehovah, and therefore he caused it
to be erected in the temple of Jehovah, and the sacrifices pre
scribed in the law to be offered on it (v. 15) ; and the reason
why he wished to substitute it for Solomon's altar of burnt-
offering lay simply in this, that it pleased him better than the
old one of Solomon. That which was sinful in this was the
inepta ideXoOprjcriceia, as Budd. (hist. eccl. ii. p. 428) quite cor
rectly designates the reason of this innovation, or that he, accord
ing to his idolatrous tendencies not regarding the difference
between heathen and theocratic forms of worship, made arbitrary
changes in the temple of Jehovah contrary to the command of
the Lord, who, to guard against idolatry, did not commit the
structure and forms of the places of worship built for his name
to human fancy, and therefore revealed to Moses and David the
patterns of the sanctuaries to be built for him (Ex. xxv. 40, xxiv.
30; 1 Chr. xxviii. 19.) Therefore was every altar erected by
private choice compared to an altar of idols, even though it was
not, like that of Ahaz, constructed after the model of an idola
trous altar.1 The form n&fla^H appears to be merely an error of
1 The passage, 2 Chr. xxviii. 23, " Ahaz sacrificed to the gods of
Damascus, who smote him, and said, The gods of the kings of Aram,
who help them, to them will I sacrifice, that they may help me. And
they were the ruin of him and of all Israel," is perfectly reconcilable
with what is above stated. For if the statement actually refer to this
altar, it might be regarded as an explanation of the writer, who, re
garding the inclination of the king as an act, designated the offerings
on the altar, which was built after the model of an altar consecrated
to the gods of Damascus, as really presented to these gods themselves.
With much greater probability, however, the statement of Chronicles
refers not to this altar, but to sacrifices which Ahaz actually offered ou
r>1?22 *° *^e S0^8 °^ Daltlascufl> before he went to Damascus to Tig-

2 kings xvi. 10 — 16. 47
the pen for ptoftyy 1 Chr. xviij. 5 f. ; 2 Chr. xxviii. 23.—
Uriah the priest is probably the same as the person, whom
Isaiah (ch. viii. 2) was to take as witness of his prediction, j-ftft^
likeness, pi22n Pattern, model. — V. 13. The words, "and (Ahaz)
burned his burnt-offering," etc., are not to be understood as if
the king had himself in offering performed the functions belong
ing to the priests, but only that he caused offerings to be made
for him on this altar by the obsequious priests, comp. v. 1 5. —
The fourteenth verse, " And the brazen altar, which was before
Jehovah, he brought from (its place) before the house of Jehovah,
between the (new) altar and between the house of Jehovah, and
put it on the north side of the (new) altar" are so misunderstood
by the Rabb. and Vatabl., as if Ahaz had placed his new altar
between the brazen altar and the porch of the temple on the
north side ; on the contrary Ahaz removed the altar of Solomon
from its place, and had it conveyed to the north side of the court,
and his new altar set in the place of the old before the middle of
the temple, yvyi means not removit, but admovit, and is con
nected with '-\y\ "yy^-^yy notwithstanding the introduction of
TPH IWl f°r *^e sa^e of greater clearness, as Maurer has rightly
observed. — With respect to the article before the nom. regens
in the stat. constr. ]-fl2Jn3n n2tftn> comP- Fw. Gr. § 514. — V.
15. All offerings, which the Mosaic law prescribed, as well the
daily morning and evening sacrifice, as the special burnt-offer
ings, meat and drink-offerings to be presented by the king
or the whole people, were henceforth to be offered on the new
altar, and also the blood, as the law required in these offerings,
was to be sprinkled upon it, from which it is evident, that this
new altar was to supply altogether the place of the altar of burnt-
offering consecrated to the Lord in the temple. Concerning
lath Pileser and before Tiglath Pileser took Damascus, and by the
conquest of the Syrians according to the opinions of the heathen,
exposed the weakness of their gods. The author of ' Chronicles has
omitted the building of the new altar after the model of that at Damascus
as of no importance in comparison with the other sins of Ahaz, but
not, as de Wette asserted, to save the honour of the true worship.
Comp. in reply to this assertion Hertz i. p. q. p. 107 ff. and my apol.
Vers. p. 386 f.

48 2 kings xvi. 17, 18.
the brazen altar Ahaz declares, in the first instance only i^-ppfT
yp'Jy, "it will be for me to consider," that is, I shall bethink
myself concerning it and then determine farther. On this
meaning of '-jjtq see Prov. xx. 25. — The Kethibh yr.y$i requires
no change ; the pron. suff. stands before the nomen, as often
especially in the broader popular language, comp. Ew. Gr. §
562. Vv. 1 7, 18. Ahaz interfered also with the other articles in the
court. He cut off the pannels from the bases and removed the
laver from off them, took down the brazen sea also from the
brazen oxen on which it stood, and placed it on the pavement of
stones, wtjp, to cut off, is used xviii. 17, xxiv. 13, of the separa
tion of the platings of massive gold, and denotes here also the
separation or cutting away of the pannels adorned with sculpture.
The ¦) before "i*i3n-J"lM can on^ have come into the text by an
error of the pen. [3133^ J1B2T112 ls *^le fl°or ofthe court paved
with stones probably in Mosaic work. Interpreters differ in
opinion as to the object of Ahaz in interfering with these works
of art. Cler. and Budd. I.e. think he perhaps used the copper
for coining, or sold it for other objects, or sent it to the king of
Assyria. But these conjectures are refuted by the circumstance
that the bases and the brazen sea were still extant at the destruc
tion of Jerusalem (xxv. 13, Jer. i. Iii. M), by which it appears
distinctly enough that Ahaz neither melted, alienated, nor en
tirely destroyed them, nor in fact did anything more than what
is here expressly stated, so that one of his successors, no doubt
the pious Hezekiah, was able to restore them in his reformation
of religion. There is much probability therefore in the conjec
ture of Ziillig (die Cherubim-Wagen p. 56), that Ahaz wished
not so much to destroy these things, as to employ the elaborate
sculpture on the borders of the bases and the oxen of the brazen
sea, in adorning another place, perhaps his own palace, perhaps
an idol temple. For had he wished to destroy them, he would
not have been contented with merely cutting off the panels from
the bases or removing the brazen sea from the oxen on which it
rested.1 But, lastly, Ahaz went so far as to close the temple
1 Movers (d. Rei. d. Phon. i. p. 66 — 68) has made quite new dis
coveries from our verses and some passages of Hosea. Thus from

2 kings xvi. 17, 18. 49
doors, 2 Chr. xxviii. 24  V. 18. "And the covered way of the
Sabbath, which they had built at the house, and the outer entry
of the king he removed into the house of the Lord on account of
the king of Assyria." This notice is very obscure, because
neither ]-Q$r? TfD^ nor n^TTn ^blttl Ninft is mentioned
anywhere else, and in general our accounts of the arrangement
of the court of Solomon's temple are extremely defective. Of
the different opinions enumerated by C. a Lap. and Calm, the
most probable is that intimated by Grotius, that it was a covered
portico, through which the priests entered the temple on the
Sabbath ad inchoandam icpnpeplav, (comp. on *td^q Ges. thes. ii.
953), for to think with the Rabb. of a covered tent outside the
temple, where the people whom the court could not contain
assembled, is not a probable supposition, j-ft^inn I^H N12J2
is a private external entrance for the king into the temple (see
above p. 151), not, as some think, the royal station in the temple
Hos. x. 5, 6, and viii. 5, 6, he concludes, that the Assyrians under
Pul removed the gods of Samaria, that is, the golden calves, and from
Hos. viii. 4, and xiii. 2, that " the Israelites made new ones, which
appear to have been afterwards carried away by the Assyrians (comp.
2 Ki. xxiii. 15, Judg. xviii. 30.)" He farther asserts, that at the
command of Tiglath Pileser (fj Ahaz removed the brazen sea from
the brazen oxen to a pediment of mere stones (comp. Ex. xx. 25, [?]),
and " likewise on account of the Assyrian king (?) destroyed the oxen,
cherubim, lions, palms on the scutcheons of the brazen bases in the
court, and mutilated likewise the temple furniture (2 Chr. xxviii. 24),"
and also removed the brazen altar of burnt-offering from its place to
the north, in order to make room for the star worshippers to pay ado
ration to the sun, etc. Then from all this follow the conclusions, that
symbols of animals were extremely distasteful to the Assyrians, and
that the Assyrian star-worship quite coincided with the Persian, be
cause Xerxes also removed the images from Greece as the Assyrians
did from Syria and Palestine. Here at length indeed it occurs to him,
that, according to 2 Ki. xvii. 30, the colonists transplanted by Esar
haddon to Samaria erected images of their native gods in the cities of
Samaria, but he sets aside the objection to his assertions arising from
this fact by the remark, that among the Assyro- Persian nations not the
representation of the gods in general but only in human form (dvdpa-
woeidrj dyaKjiara, Beros. p. 69) was forbidden, while animal symbols
were popular. Consequently, according to Movers' opinion, the golden
calves, and the oxen, cherubims, lions of the brazen sea, and on the
pannels ofthe bases were no animal symbols, but gods in human shape 1 !
To controvert such absurd conclusions and groundless assertions would
be an unprofitable waste of time 1
VOL. II. D

50 S KINGS XVII. 1, 2.
court. So much is clear, that the covered way of the Sabbath
as well as the external entrance of the king were outside the
temple walls, and the change made by Ahaz consisted in remov
ing it into the temple, -fi$N "vfcft 13QQ from fear of the king of
Assyria, that he might secure the entrance of the temple from
him.1 Vv. 19, 20. With regard to the burial of the godless Ahaz,
2 Chr. xxviii. 27 states more precisely, that he was buried in
the city of David, but not in the sepulchres of the kings.

CHAPTER XVII.

REIGN OF HOSHEA, THE LAST KING OF ISRAEL, TAKING OF SA
MARIA AND REMOVAL OF THE ISRAELITES TO ASSYRIA AND
MEDIA BY SHALMANESER, VV. 1 — 6; REFLECTIONS ON THE
FALL OF THE KINGDOM OF ISRAEL, VV. 7 — 23 ; AND TRANS
PLANTING OF HEATHEN COLONISTS INTO THE DEPOPULATED
TERRITORY, VV. 24 — 41.
Vv. 1, 2. " In the twelfth year of Ahaz .... became
Hoshea the son of Elah king, etc." As, according to xv. 30,
Hoshea conspired against Pekah in the fourth year of Ahaz, slew
him, and assumed to be king in his stead, but, according to our
verse, he actually became king in the twelfth year of Ahaz, the
throne must have been contested with him for eight years. Most
interpreters and chronologists therefore have rightly assumed an
anarchy of eight years between Pekah and Hoshea, inasmuch as
the dates in our verse and in xv. 30 prove themselves to be cor-
1 Ahaz evidently apprehended, as J. D. Mich, rightly conjectures,
that the king of Assyria called to his aid might take a fancy to make
himself master of the city, and in that case a certain covered portico of
tbe temple and an entrance into it from the outside might be of advan
tage to him in the siege of the city. This notice therefore with all its
obscurity affords a sufficiently clear testimony to the truth of the state
ment of Chronicles, called in question by Ges. comm. on Is. i. p. 269,
namely that the king of Assyria called to his aid by Ahaz did not help,
but oppress him.

2 kings xvii. 1,2. 51
rect by their agreement with the precedi ng and following chro
nological data, comp. on xv. 30 and xviii. 9 f.1 — V. 2. " He
did that which was evil in the eyes of the Lord, but not as the
kings of Israel that were before him," Wherein Hoshea was
favourably distinguished from his predecessors is not stated.
Some Rabb. thought it was by this, that he did not prohibit his
subjects, as the earlier kings of Israel, from visiting the temple
at Jerusalem, as Hezekiah, according to 2 Chr. xxx. 10, invited
the Israelites to the passpver from the country of Ephraim and
Manasseh even unto Zebulon, and according to vv. 11 and 18
also several from Ephraim and Manasseh, Assher, Issachar, and
Zebulon, appeared at the feast. But this invitation to the pass-
over took place after the conquest of Samaria and deportation of
the greater part of the Israelites in the sixth year of Hezekiah,
as is abundantly evident from 2 Chr. xxx. 6 — 9. At all events
so much is implied in the words of our verse, that Hoshea was
more anxious than his predecessors to reign theocratically, but
wherein he showed this cannot be ascertained. Although less
godless than the former kings of Israel, yet he could not escape
the Divine judgment. Solet nimirum Deus pcenam majorum difi
ferre ex sua longanimitate, si forte posteri seriam agant pmniten-
1 An interregnum of eight or nine years has been assumed by Ussher,
annal. m. p. 51, des Vign. Chronol. i. p. 390 ff, Offierhaus, Bengel,
Winer (R. W. i. p. 609), Tiele, Chronol. p. 73, and others. Comp.
Budd. hist. eccl. ii. p. 417 ff., and Maurer, commentatt. I. c. p. 289.
On the contrary several Rabb., Vatabh and Grot., were of opinion, that
Hoshea was subjected by the Assyrian king from the fourth to the
twelth year of Ahaz, and therefore these years were not reckoned as
years of his reign till the time when he revolted from him. Lastly,
according to Lightfoot (Op. i. p. 103), no king of Samaria was men
tioned in the period from the fourth to the twelfth year of Ahaz, quia
Hoseas nondum constabilitus erat in ikrono sed cohibitus per Assyrium
usque ad annum duodedmum Achasi, quo demum tempore ilium ibi
regem eonstituit. But both assumptions are at variance with v. 3, in
cpnformjty with which Shalmaneser made Hoshea subject and tributary
to him after he became king, which cannot be understood of the time
before the twelfth year of Ahaz. Besides, in all probability Tiglath
Pjleser was still reigniug in the fourth year of Ahaz, and was only re
turned to his dominions after the removal of the Syrians and Gileadites.
And even if Tiglath Pileser was then dead, his successor could not
have already appeared in the land of Israel, either to conquer Hoshea
or to oppose his accession to the throne.
D 2

52 2 kings xvii. 3 — 6.
tiam, quod si non fit, etsi hi minus maii sint, ad vindictam tandem
procedit ira Dei, coll. Ex. xx. 5. S. Schm.
V. 3. " Against him came up Shalmaneser king of Assyria."
The old theologians find the occasion of this expedition of Shal
maneser against Hoshea in this, that Hoshea refused any longer
to pay the tribute imposed on the Israelites by Pul in the time of
Menahem. But this opinion has been justly rejected by Maurer
as unfounded, because xv. 19 speaks only of a single payment
of Menahem to Pul, inasmuch as it is there written y^ not
yfiiy as here and elsewhere, thus iii. 4 ; 2 Chr. xxvii. 5 ; Ps.
lxxii. 10, where yearly tribute is intended. Maurer himself
thinks that Shalmaneser came up, aut ab Hoseae quodam aemulo
in auxilium arcessitus, aut quia Hosea in appetendo regno Assy-
riorum praesidio ipse usus erat, sed voti compos foetus conditionem,
quacum erat regnum adeptus, omiserat. This also is quite im
probable and nowhere intimated. Why should we not seek the
ground at once in the thirst of conquest of the Assyrians ? —
-iDfcWQ^ttJj wlt^ w^ich Gesen. compares the Pers. *\ , .L, £
verecundus erga ignem, according to Hos. x. 14, where he is
called Ift^ttj, devastated the fenced city ^N21N H1^ *hat 1S> t'ie
strongly fortified city Arbela in Galilee, known from 1 Mace. 9,
2, and Josephus (comp. Hav. Einl. ii. 2, p. 282), obviously in his
here mentioned first expedition against the kingdom of the ten
tribes, in which he made Hoshea subject (i^y) to him and
compelled him to pay tribute (nn3t3> see above p. 54 f.) This
x : •
expedition falls in the beginning of the reign of Hoshea ; for he
paid this tribute several years (pj32J2 H3ttj v- ^)> until he refused
x x : xx
it, which took place in the sixth year of his reign, as Shalmaneser
again appeared before Samaria in the beginning of the seventh
year of it, v. 4.
Vv.. 4 — 6. Hoshea sought help against the Assyrians in a
treaty with the Egyptian king ^p (perhaps to be read N!D)j
that is, Zeveyps in Manetho, the son of Sabakos of Ethiopian
descent, the second king of the twenty-fifth dynasty, whom
Rosselini thinks he has recognised in a royal figure at Thebes ;
comp. Vitr. Comment, in Jes. ii., p. 318, Gesen. Comm. on Is. i.
p. 596, and thes. ii. 940, Archinard, chronol. p. 68 and Hav.

2 kings xvii. 4 — 6. 53
Einl. ii. 2, p. 76.1 — As soon as Shalmaneser learned Hoshea's
defection, which is called ytfp as rebellion against his acknow
ledged sovereign, in particular that he had sent messengers to the
Egyptian king So and refused the farther payment of the tribute,
he seized and laid him up bound in prison, over-ran his whole
territory, advanced to Samaria his capital, besieged it three
years, took it at length in the ninth year of Hoshea, and carried
away Israel to Assyria and Media. According to this view of
the history, which simply follows the text of vv. 4 — 6, Hoshea
was already seized and imprisoned before the siege of Samaria.
On the contrary, the difficulty is at once raised, how Shalma
neser could make himself master of his person before the taking
ofthe capital, and then the question arises, where he left him
bound. This question the expositors have not answered, but S.
Schm. has obviated the difficulty by the assumption, that Shal
maneser fought a battle with him before the occupation of the
country and the siege of the capital, and in it took him captive.
1 Others, as Ussher, Annal. p. 52, Marsham, Can. chron. p. 485,
take him to be SafiaKZs (Herod, ii. c. 137 and 139) the first king of the
Ethiopian race and father of Sevechos ; but chronology decides against
it. For as in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah (Is. xxxvi. 1) Tirhakah
advanced against Sennacherib, Sabakos cannot have been reigning in
the third or fourth year of Hezekiah, inasmuch as Tirhakah's prede
cessor Sevechos reigned according to Euseb. twelve, according to
Syncell. fourteen years ; comp. Archin. I. c. p. 67. — Still less can So
be identical with Z^r (of Manetho and Jul. Afric. in Syncell. i. 138
ed. Dind.) or Setfws (Herod, ii. c. 141), as Hitzig on Is. p. 221 thinks
to prove ; because the names are too different. For the abbreviation
affirmed by Hitzig of ^Q from jy^Q cannot be proved by the forms
pft and y^ used for j-^j, because (a) it is questionable whether these
forms are to be taken with Ewald (Gr. § 446) and Hitzig for abbrevi
ations of f^t and are not much rather independent forms, as Hupfeld
in Lassen's Ztschr. ii. p. 431 f. supposes, and (b) because even if the
former were the case, the j-\ in the present instance is an appended for
mative letter, the falling away of which cannot establish the presumed
change of j-| into ^}. The designation also of So as king of Egypt in
comparison with Tirhakah, who, xix. 9, is styled king of Cush (Ethi
opia), proves nothing for Sethos and against Sevechos, as the Ethiopian
dynasty, to which Sevechos belonged, at all events ruled over a great
part of Egypt. In fine, the other combinations of Hitzig in favour of
his assumption may, in the great obscurity of the Egyptian history at
this period, be opposed by other combinations of equal probability and
weight, as has been done by Gesen. and Kriobel on Is. xix.

54 2 kings xvii. 4 — 6.
As nothing of this is mentioned, however, tnany expositors, from
R. Levi ben Gers. to Maurer, have supposed that Hoshea was
only taken captive on the conquest of Samaria, whereby, more
over, it is not necessary to take ^yyy (v. 5) as a pluperfect, as
Maur. has shown. For Veri utique similius est, Hoseam imminente
hostili exercitu in Samariam se recepisse, Aegyptiorum f return
auxilio, quam Salmanassari obviam profectum in aperto campo
cum eo confiixisse. Maur. This supposition is certainly more
probable, but whether it be therefore historically true cannot be
decided on account of the brevity of the narrative. Budd. is
therefore right also in saying, ut ab ordine a seriptore sacro
observato recedamus, nulla nos cogit necessitas (h. eccl. ii. p. 418.)
Whether, meanwhile, we decide for the former or the latter
opinion, we must agree, that Hoshea after his capture was carried
to Assyria, and there put in prison. — V. 5. The three years of the
siege of Samaria were not full years, for, according to xviii. 9 f.,
it began in the seventh year of Hoshea, and the town was taken
in the ninth, although is is there also said to have lasted circa
three years. The ninth year of Hoshea corresponds with the
sixth of Hezekiah (xviii. 10), or the year 722 or 721 B.C., in
which the kingdom of the ten tribes Was destroyed, see above p.
186. — " He carried them into captivity to Asshur," that is, into
the land of Assyria ; for he assigned them dwelling places in the
lands of Assyria proper and in the cities of Media.1 n^TI
is probably KaXa-^vr] or KaXa^avi] (in Ptolem. vi. 1 called
KakaKivrj), the most north-western province of Assyria between
the Tigris, the Armenian border mountain Niphates, and the
1 Pul and Tiglath Pileser had already removed the transjordanic
tribes of Israel (2 Ki. xv. 29) to Assyria, and indeed to Halah, Habor,
Hara, and the river Gozan (1 Chr. v. 26.) This statement of Chron.
deviates from our present one only in this, that Habor is distinguished
as a country from the river Gozan and fc$"^n Hara is named in addi
tion, toil Pr°hably denotes the Median highlands in the neighbour
hood of the mountain Chaboras, the district ofthe Persian Irak, which
the Arabs call  Jlx.==<Jl montanum, the Persians , , Mjm&S ; comp.
Boch. Phal. iii. 14, Rosenm. Althk. i. 1, p. 295, and Ges. thes. i. 392.
Moreover, Gesen. (thes, i. 176) and Winer (R.W. i. p. 515) quite
arbitrarily describe these deviations of Chron. from our verse as negli-
gentia rerumque geographicarum imperitia ofthe writer of Chronicles,
not reflecting, that the two passages speak of different deportations.

2 kings xvii. 4 — 6. 55
river Lycus, that is, the greater Zab (comp. Forbiger i. p. q. ii.
p. 609, and, on the country along the greater Zab, Ritter's
Erdk. ix. p. 639 ff.) So Bochart, Phal. iii. c. 14, Mich.
Supplem. p. 767, Ges. thes. i. 476, Rosenm. Althk. i. 2, p. 94,
113. On the contrary Rosenm. i. p. q. p. 98 f. and 120 takes
n^n t0 be identical with the Syr. -_k*X*j, ^Xojo, (j_)1>Xs», a
city, according to Abulf. in Busching's Magaz. iv. p. 262 and
Assemanni (bibl. or. iii. 2, p. 418 f.), five days' journey north of
Bagdad, from which probably the district bordering on the
Zagros has received the name XaXmviTK or KaKcoviTK (see
'Forbig. p. 610 and 614.) It is scarcely possible to decide
between these two places ; only the identification of our r-fojy
and n^3 the city of Assyria built by Nimrod (Gen. x, 11) by
Ges. (thes. ii. 688), Tuch, Comm. on Gen. p. 239 and others,
appears to me unfounded, and the distinction ofthe two by Mich.
I.e. and Rosenm. i. p. q. p. 99 to be much rather established,
while, however, it may certainly be questioned, whether nSi"T
denotes Calachene and n^3 Cholwan, Chalonitis, as Mich, thinks
probable, or the contrary assumption of Rosenm. is more correct.
On Cholwan, Holwan, comp. Ritter's Erdk. ix. p. 464 f. and
469 ff, who here p. 470 f. declares himself for the identity of
n^PI with Holwan.
Ti2n Chabor is (a) a mountain, the boundary range between
Assyria and Media, 6 Xafiaopas to 6'joos in Ptol. vi. 1, a branch
of the monies Gordiaei or Carduchii (see Wahl. ane. and mod.
hither and central Asia i. p. 818 f.), which continues in a south
easterly direction from the south-east corner of lake Van to the
south-west of lake Urumia, where, at the present day, in the
district of the Hakary tribes, not far from the residence of the
patriarch of the independent Nestorians, a mountain Habor is
found (see The Nestorians, or the ten tribes, by Asahel Grant,
translated by S. Preiswerk, Basle, 1843. p. 59) ; (b) a river still
called Khabur, which, rising at the foot of this mountain above
Julamerk, flows in a south-westerly direction to the Tigris, and
first pointed out by A. Schultens (ind. geogr. ad vit. Sal. s.v.)
from a passage of Jakuti also communicated by Mich, (suppl. p.
665), afterwards described by Wahl i. p. q. 718 and more exactly
after the statements of Dr Rich and Dr Grant by Ritter (Erdk.

56 2 kings xvii. 4 — 6.
ix. p. 716 and 1030.) See also Grant, The Nestor, p. 40, and
the map accompanying this work. This river flows through the
middle -of the province Kalachene. The word -fi^n onty three
times mentioned in the Old Testament, denotes, 1 Chr. v. 26,
the mountain Chaboras, but in our verse, and the parallel passage
xviii. 11, the river Khabur, as the term in apposition with it,
river of Gozan, demands. On the contrary, Mich. (Suppl. p.
280 f.), Winer (R.W. i. p. 253), Ges. (thes. i. 442), Havern.
(Comm. on Ez. p. 15) and others, also Ritter (Erdk. x. p. 248),
understand yyyr^ of the river Chaboras (in Ptol. Xafiwpa?, in
Strabo and others A/36ppa<;, Aboras, in Plin. Chabura, in Abulf.
7
and Edrisi ryi^ ln the Syr. ;^^ and ions), which rises under
the Masian chain at Ras el Ain (. . .axJI u~^r), ^ows ^rst through
upper Mesopotamia in a south-easterly direction parallel to the
two principal rivers, then turns to the south-west, and at Kerkesi,
Circesium, Carchemish falls into the Euphrates (see Forb. i. p.
q. p. 627.) But this river is called -Q3 in Ezek. i. 3, iii. 15 etc.
x :
According to the analogy of the Syriac we might certainly take
"Yl2n an<l "\22 on^y f°r different names ofthe same river, if only
there were cogent reasons for this assumption. But these are
wanting. The only plausible reason1 is derived from the addition
1 Havern., indeed (Comm. on Ezek. p. 16 and 43) finds a proof also
of the identity of "133 with our "VQn in Ezek ii. 15, inasmuch as he
so explains this verse : " And I came to the captives at Tel-abib, that
dwelt by the river Chebar, and where they sat, there sat I seven days
silent among them," as if it referred to earlier and later Israelitish
settlers in this region, from which he then further infers, that colonists
of the kingdom of the ten tribes had been already brought to this river.
But it is manifest that this is not intended, according to the ordinary
correct rendering of this verse, as we find it in the Chald., Syr., and
Vulg. But even, according to the rendering preferred by Hav., "who
settled at the river Chebar and dwelt there," the words imply no con
trast of earlier Israelitish and later Jewish settlers, which is only
imported by an arbitrary exposition of the words Q^^l pftSn "lll^
qqJ, " who already, that is a long time before, dwelt there." Hav.,
T
indeed, thinks to justify the arbitrary insertion of " already" by a
Syrian phrase quoted from Assemanni, but has not observed that in
this the opposition is clearly enough indicated by the antithesis of the
praeter. and the partie. praes.

2 kings xvii. 4—6. 57
tt"l3 "1H3. The above named theologians, whom Ritter has fol
lowed, find Gozan in the district Tav^aviTii, situated, according
to Ptol. v. 18, between the rivers Chaboras and Saccoras, now
Kaushan, according to which the river of Gozan must no doubt
be the Mesopotamian Chaboras. But, however much this
opinion appears to be recommended by our finding here all tlie
localities together (Ritter i. p. q.), yet grave objections to it
arise on a closer consideration of the matter. In the first place
the order, in which according to this view the places are named,
must appear strange, Assyria, Mesopotamia and the cities of
Media ; why should the writer not have given the three pro
vinces to which the Israelites were removed, according to their
natural order as regarded from Palestine, Mesopotamia, Assyria,
and Media? Why should he also have thought it necessary to
add to Ti3n the more precise determination, river of Gozan,
since the Chaboras falling into the Euphrates could have greater
importance neither for him nor his reader than the land of Halah
certainly still more unknown to the Israelites and Jews ? Why
should he not, as the exiles could only inhabit the land along
the river, have rather named the country itself, and at most
appended the river flowing through it as a farther determina
tion of the country ? Lastly, it is in the highest degree impro
bable,, that the Assyrian should have transplanted the deported
Israelites into dependent provinces.i The policy of these con
querors leads us rather to expect that Shalmaneser, as Pul and
Tigiath Pileser (xv. 29, and 1 Chr. v. 26), transplanted the ten
tribes not partly to Mesopotamia, but altogether to Assyria and
Media, especially as only Assyria and the cities of Media are
mentioned, and Assyria, where it is used in the Old Testa
ment ofa country, never occurs in the wider sense ofthe Greeks,
as including Mesopotamia or Aram Naharaim (comp. on xxiii.
29.) Even Winer, although he finds TQn and Yf\W in Mesopo-
1 It is also probable, from political grounds, that the Israelites were
transplanted into the centre of the Assyrian kingdom. A population
that is carried away from its home on account of continued seditions, is
not removed to a land bordering on other scarcely subjugated tribes,
but is taken rather into the interior of the old country, where it cannot
move without being under immediate inspection. Preiswerk on Grant's
Nestor, p. 108, note.

58 2 kings xvii. 4—6.
tamia, cannot refrain from remarking, that " the Gozan of our
passage points to Assyria, as that of xix. 12 to Mesopotamia"
(R.W. i. p. 515.) But even in xix. 12 it is questionable,
whether Gozan is to be sought in Mesopotamia ; in our verse ^"QH
\Y\i ~)H2 1S certainly identical with X^wsJl V*^ Chabur Chasa-
niae, as Jakiti names the Assyrian Khabur in contradistinction to
the Mesopotamian. For the same reason evidently wy ^pj3 ls
here added to -fi3p, an<i ftlJ denotes not Gauzanitis in Mesopo
tamia but an Assyrian district.1 Xja*»=» would indeed corres
pond still more to the Hebrew 'ny^, if we read with Wabl. i. p. q.
p. 718 according to a conjecture thrown out by Mich, (suppl. p.
666) X/JU*s», as _ and _ are frequently exchanged in the manu
scripts ; though this change is not absolutely necessary, as ana
logies also exist for the interchange of 3 and _ (see Gesen. thes.
i. 252.) The original signification of rp^ we cannot at present
ascertain farther. But it is not impossible that the name Gozan
is preserved in the word Zozan, by which, according to the testi
mony of Dr Grant, the Nestorians denote all highlands of Assyria,
where they find pastures for their flocks (see Grant, the Nestor.
p. 110), as the transition of g (j) into z (^) occurs in the Shem-
1 Moreover, how far the similarity of the Hebrew ^3 with the
Greek Ta.v£av is from affording a valid proof of its identity with the
Mesopotamian district ravfavm?, may be inferred from this, that Ptole-
maeus (vi. 2) also mentions a town of the name of Tav£avl& in Media
between the chain of Chaboras and the Caspian. Sea, which Boch.
(Phal. iii. 14), Rennell (Geogr. of Herod, vol. i. p. 521, ed. 2) and
Rosenm. (Althk. i. 2, p. 102 comp. with i. 1, p. 295) identify with
Gozan, according to which the latter two find the river of Gozan in the
Kizil-Ozien in the northern declivity of the Kurdish chain (the Zagros),
which are called the Abbas Bei mountains, and flowing into tbe Cas
pian Sea (comp. Ritter's Erdk. viii. p. 615 f.) This assumption, which
Ritter also, i. p. q. p. 590 thinks probable, although he afterwards (x.
p. 248) declares himself against it, might at all events suit 1 Chr. v.
26, where the river of Gozan is distinguished from Habor, but is not
necessary even there, and in no case entitles us to explain our passage
according to it, as an earlier deportation is then spoken of. We take
the river of Gozan, also in 1 Chr. v. 26, for the Assyrian Khabur, and
do not identify the city Gauzania with Gozan, but merely regard it as
a proof that the name Gauzan = Gozan occurred also out of Mesopo
tamia.

2 kings xvii. 7—23. 59
itic dialects (comp. Ges. thes. iii. 1 144), but in Sanscrit c (ch, z)
passes according to definite euphonic laws regularly into k and
farther into g, and in reduplicated forms inversely k and g into
c' and g' (j).
Vv. 7 — 23. To the narrative ofthe fall ofthe kingdom ofthe
ten tribes and the removal of its inhabitants into exile, the author
of our books appends some thoughts on the causes which brought
this end on the greater portion of the covenant people, and finds
them in the revolt of Israel from Jehovah his God, in his idol
atry, in his disregard of the voice of the prophets by whom the
Lord would have recalled the backsliders to himself, lastly in the
separation of the ten tribes from the house of David by Jero
boam, and the worship of the calves introduced by him. These
reflections rest altogether on the Mosaic law and the Pentateuch,
so that they furnish a very strong testimony for its existence, not
merely in the times of the author of our books, in the Babylonish
exile, but also during the whole period of the subsistence of the
kingdom of the ten tribes ; indeed they have the Mosaic origin
of the whole law for their postulate, inasmuch as only on this
postulate could the revolt of the ten tribes and their continued
opposition to the will of God revealed in the law and by the pro
phets be regarded and pronounced to be the sole cause of their
final rejection from the presence of the Lord. — V. 7. "ipjv} " and
it came to pass," that is, the previously related fall of the king
dom together with the removal of its inhabitants took place, be
cause . . In order to set forth more clearly the guilt
of this apostasy, mention is made of the great goodness by which
God had bound his people to thankfulness in the expression of a
• sincere and devoted worship, of their deliverance from Egypt,
from the power of Pharaoh, as in the first commandment (Ex.
xx. 2 ; Deut. v. 6), according to which sin is also described as a
fearing oi other gods. Comp. also Lev. xi. 45 ; Jos. xii. 17 ; Ps.
lxxxi. 11 ; Jer. ii. 6, and on j-fcHS ~P nniTO Ex- xvlll> 10- —
V. 8. The sin of Israel against his God is again described as
" walking in the statutes of the Canaanites and of the kings of
Israel whom they had made." These two kinds of sin are then
more particularly developed in vv. 9—20 and 21—23. j-OpD
"131 C'iSn form t*ie antithesis to the niiT ]TlptT> m which Israel

60 2 kings xvii. 7—23.
was to walk, Lev. xviii. 4, 5, 26, xix. 19, 37, xx. 8, 22. In form
the words agree most closely with Lev. xx. 23. The phrase
'"13") tW^in "itiJN D^iin °ften occurring in our books (1 Ki. xiv.
24, xxi. 26 ; 2 Ki. xvi. 3, xxi. 2) is from Deut. xi. 23 comp.
xviii. 12. — " And of the kings, whom they had made," that is,
the Lord their God had not chosen them, Deut. xvii. 15 — V. 9.
INQin " the children of Israel covered words, with regard to
which it was not so with Jehovah their God," that is, they ven
tured by a multitude of perversions and trifling interpretations
of his word to conceal his true nature. Thus Hengstenb. (Beitr.
ii. p. 176 and Christol. iii. p. 9) has rightly explained fr$Qn>
which most interpreters have so grievously misunderstood, that
some have taken it for secret blasphemy against God (Chald.,
Syr., Grot., Cler.), others for committing acts of treachery (per-
fide egerunt res quae non rectae erant in Jehovam. Ges. thes. i.
505), others still, as Deres., for the commission of secret sins. —
" And built them altars of high places in all their cities." The
author of our books has indeed mentioned nothing of this in the
history of this kingdom ; but from the illegal calf-worship intro
duced by the kings it may be inferred, that the people also
recklessly followed their inclinations in the erection of their own
altars of the high places, which could not be entirely suppressed
even in Judah, where the temple and temple-worship sanctioned
by the Lord himself were still extant, though the altars at Dan
and Bethel were also nothing but ]-nj>33, 1 Ki. xii. 31. The
x
words recurring in xviii. 8, " from the tower of the watchmen to
the fenced city," are a proverbial description of universality, as
much as to say, from the smallest town or hamlet to the greatest
cities, in all places where men dwelt. Q^J}3 ^Tlft ls a tower
built for the protection of the flocks in steppes and deserts, 2
Chr. xxvi. 10. On v. 10 comp. 1 Ki. xiv. 23.— V. 11. "They
wrought wicked things to provoke Jehovah ;" this refers to the
sins of idolatry .— V. 12. qi^j (xxi. 21, xxiii. 24 ; 1 Ki. xv.
12, xxi. 26) is taken from Lev. xxvi. 30, and Deut. xxix. 16,
and denotes not stercorei, sordidi, impuri, as the Rabb. explain
it (see Ges. thes. i. 287), but first, stones, stone masses, as the
Chald. lyyy, Ezr. v. 8, vi. 4, and the Syr. ,_L\^y^ lapides, Job viii.

2 kings xvii. 7—23. 61
17, the stones and stone masses dedicated to the gods, the stone
images of the gods, lastly in a contemptuous sense the gods
themselves. The original meaning is still evident in Lev. xxvi.
30, " I will destroy your high places, and cut down your sun
pillars, and cast your carcases upon the carcases of your Q^^J
dead stone masses ;" the transition to the signification of gods is
shown in Deut. xxix. 16, "and ye have seen their abominations
and ?)-p7'53 ]-)^ their gods, wood and stone, silver and gold,
which were with them." Besides these places of the Pentateuch
the word occurs only in the passages quoted from our books and
Jer. 1. 2, and very frequently (forty times) in Ezekiel. Comp.
Hav. on Ezek. p. 75 f.— The words, " whereof the Lord had
said unto them, Ye shall not do this," allude to passages of the
law, as Ex. xx. 2 EP., xxiii. 13; Lev. xxvi. 1, etc. — V. 13 ff. But
the Lord did not rest satisfied with the law, but testified against
Israel and Judah by all his prophets, and admonished them to
turn from their evil ways and observe his commandments ; never
theless they hearkened not, hardened themselves as their fathers,
rejected their commandments, the covenant and the testimony of
the Lord, and went after vain idols to worship them. In v. 13
Judah is named with Israel, although here the causes of Israel's
rejection only are unfolded, to intimate before hand the like for
tune, that Judah also was preparing for himself although his
rejection occurred only at a subsequent period, as is more dis
tinctly expressed in vv. 19 and 20. TitH~h^ lfc033_i?2 T2
x x • : x - :
" by all his prophets, every seer." j-fpj-| ^3 is appended to ^3
*1^',235 t0 express emphatically the whole of the prophets of every
kind, whom the Lord had sent since the time of Moses. The
emendation therefore proposed by Ew. Kr. Gr. 295 and Hitzig,
Bgr. d. Krit. p. 127 ntrrb21 ^>123_S2 1S unnecessary, although
its sounds well on account of its easiness, comp. Maur. ad h. I. —
V. 14. The words, DS-jy-j-lN Wp*\. "they hardened their
necks, were stiff-necked," are derived from Deut. x. 16, and
formed after the phrase ^yy pRm, "of a hard neck, stiff-necked,"
(Ex. xxxii. 9, xxxiii. 5, xxxiv. 9 ; Deut. ix. 6 — 13, xxxi. 27). —
V. 15. The phrase, " they went after vanity and became vain "
(Jer. ii. 5) denotes the nullity of the whole life and strife with

62 2 kings xvij. 7—23.
respect to the chief end of man, his relation to God. All that
man proposes except God as the object of his life is ^y\ (comp.
Deut. xxxii. 21), is idolatry and leads to vanity, to spiritual and
moral corruption, Rom. i. 21. The last words of the verse
refer to Lev. xviii. 3. — In vv. 16 and 17 the idolatrous course
of the Israelites, the worship of the calves, Asherah and Baal,
and other superstitious practices, are likewise described with
reference to the warnings of the Pentateuch against them. The
golden calves (1 Ki. xii. 28) are called pi2D73 after Ex. xxxii. 4,
T •• —
8 ; Deut, ix. 12 — 17. On Asherah and Baal comp. 1 Ki. xvi. 32 f.
—Ofthe worship ofthe whole host of heaven (sun, moon, and stars)
nothing occurs in the history of the kingdom of the ten tribes ; this
worship is first mentioned as a historical fact under Manasseh (xxi.
3.) Our author has here merely borrowed the expression from
Deut. iv. 19, and xvii. 3, without meaning thereby to indicate a
new, though not previously mentioned, species of idolatry among
the ten tribes, as the host of heaven was indeed implicitly wor
shipped in Baal and Asherah, as divinities of sidereal power ; see
on xxi. 3. The whole first half of v. 17 is formed after Deut.
xviii. 10, where the worship of Molech is prohibited in conjunc
tion with soothsaying and divination. Neither is there any
mention of the worship of Molech in the history of the ten
tribes ; but it may still have appeared at least here and there in
its closing period, when Ahaz introduced it also into Judah
(xvi. 3.) OZp soothsaying, pavrela. t£jn3> which is used 1 Ki.
xx. 33 in a tropical sense, comes from fljn3> a serpent, and means
T T
omen ex serpentibus petere, but is then used of divination in
general. Comp. Boch. Hieroz. i. p. 20 ff, where the testimonies
of the ancients concerning 6<piopavTeia are collected, and Heng
stenb. d. Gesch. Bil, p. 122 f. — Concerning -iSftnpf see on 1 Ki.
xxi. 20. — V. 18. "The tribe of Judah alone" means the king
dom of Judah, see above p. 171 ff. — Vv. 20 and 21 are a paren
thetical explanation of the sentence, " he left only the tribe of
Judah alone," namely, at that time, for afterwards Judah also
was cast off, because he followed the statutes of Israel, comp.
ch. xxiv. and xxv. ^^to"i mt-Vs *^ Israel of the twelve tribes,
•• x : • — -.* x
not merely the ten tribes as S, Schm-, Calm., and others think.
The vj (v. 21) is connected with v. 18,^-the Lord cast off Israel,

2 kings xvii. 7—23. 63
only Judah remained, for Israel had rent (the kingdom) from
the house of David, 1 Ki 31, xii. 20.— ^TH 1S to he rea(1
NTH from ^-^ = -j-j^ f°r yiy, " he made to flee, give way"
that is, drew away Israel from the Lord. The Keri Tfyl-) gives
the same sense, but is an unnecessary emendation. — V. 23.
The removal (-^d;-j) or rejection (tr^n v. 20) out ofthe sight
ofthe Lord signifies the abolition of the relation of grace, into
which the Lord had entered with Israel by his covenant, the
withdrawal of his grace, the necessary consequence of which was
the expulsion of the people from the Lord's land. This expul
sion endured " unto this day," that is, until the composition of
our books.1
1 As the Hebrew yy like the German bis (until) is not always used
in an exclusive sense, but often also abstracted from that, which lies
beyond the prescribed terminus ad quem, it by no means follows from
the words, " The Lord removed Israel out of his sight .....
until this day," that the ten tribes returned to their native land after
the time of the composition of our books about the middle of the sixth
century b.c. Yet as little can the opposite widely spread opinion be
established, namely, that they lived unto this day as a collective body
in the exile. It is well known, how often men have wished to dis
cover the ten tribes long regarded as lost, now in the numerous Jewish
communities in the south of Arabia, now in India, particularly in
Malabar, now in China, Turkestan, and Kashmir, or in Affghanistan,
(see the proofs in Ritter's Erdk. x, p. 246), nay, in America, until
recently Dr Grant (the Nestorians or the ten tribes) thought he had
found them again in the independent Nestorians and Jews living
among them; whereas others, as WitBius (AeKd<fi. c. iv. ff.), J. D.
Mich, (de exilio decern trib. comm. iii,) and lastly Robinson in the
treatise (the Nestorians, etc., New York, 1841) quoted by Ritter i. p.
q. p. 285, and only thence known to me, endeavoured to prove, that
they had been long since lost, partly by being mingled in the Baby
lonish exile with the Jews, and to some extent attached to the exiles
brought back by Zerubbabel and Ezra to Palestine, partly afterwards
by intermixture with the remaining Jews who were scattered over all
the world after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, and partly by
conversion to Christianity, so that all attempts to discover any where
the remainder of the ten tribes are vain. This view is correct, although
its advocate has mixed its valid grounds with much that is untenable.
For if we consider the arguments brought forward by Grant for his
hypothesis, (a), that we have not the slightest historical trace of the
ten tribes having ever left Assyria, (bj, that they did not return with
the return from the Babylonish captivity, (cJ, that they were still found
in the land of their exile according to Josephus (Antiq. xi, 5, 2) in

64 2 kings xvii. 24— 41.
Vv. 24 — 41. Tlie Samaritans and their idolatry. V. 24. After
the first, and according to Hieron. (Comm. on the proph.) in the fifth cen
tury, (dj and, lastly, that they were to this day in territory of the Old
Assyria, inasmuch as the Nestorians as well by their own accounts as
by those of the Jews dwelling there are Beni Israel, and no doubt of the
ten tribes, as they prove themselves to be Israelites by still retaining
several Mosaic customs and usages (the Nestor, p. 113 ff.) ; we find,
that (dj only proves that the Nestorians are of Jewish extraction, but not
they are remainder of the ten tribes, for their own accounts lose their
weight from the fact that the Jews of other countries profess the same
of themselves. Farther, the statements of Josephus and Hieron. (c)
cannot be regarded as historically accredited testimonies, but are only
conclusions built on the one hand upon the failure of distinct historical
accounts of the return of the ten tribes, on the other hand upon the
fact that in the times of these writers many Jews or Israelites lived in
Assyria and Persia. So much also, and no more, follows from the
saying from king Agrippa reported by Josephus (de bell. Jud. ii.
16, 4), not to build in the contemplative revolt on tous « t~s 'ASia-
Prjvijs 6ixo<pvXovs and their aid. Lastly, with regard to the reasons
a and b, the want of definite historical accounts concerning the return
of the ten tribes cannot prove much as an argumentum e silentio, and
is, moreover, weakened by the erroneous presupposition lying at the
foundation of it, that the ten tribes never came into contact with the
Jews carried away in the Babylonish exile, but remained unmingled
and sequestered from them, and could not have returned, if not with
Zerubbabel and Ezra, at a later period to their fatherland. The pre
dictions quoted by Ritter, p. 250, probably after Robinson, Jer. 1. 4, 5,
17, 19 ; Ezek. xxxvii. 11 ff., as well as the prophetic sentence cited
by Witsius I. c. c. v. § 11 — 11 ; Is. xiv. 1 ; Mic. ii. 12 ; Jer. iii. 20,
xxx. 3 f, xxxiii. 7 f., certainly prove very little for the contrary opinion,
because they refer mostly to the Messianic times, and are to be under
stood in a spiritual sense ; but from the books of Daniel, Ezra, Nehe-
miah, and Esther, thus much at least appears, that the Jews carried
away by Nebuchadnezzar were scattered not merely in the province
of Babylonia, but in the various districts of the Chaldean, formerly
Assyrian, afterwards Persian kingdom beyond the Euphrates, whereby
with the discontinuance of the distinction kept up by the policy of the
kings of Israel the old separation also must have disappeared, and a
closer bond have grown up among all the descendants of Jacob from
their common unhappy lot of dispersion among the heathen ; since the
Persian kings could know no distinction between Israelites and Jews,
and under Xerxes, the grand Vizier, Haman wished to destroy all the
Jews (not merely the tribe of Judah, but all the Hebrews.) Farther
the edicts of Cyrus, Ezr. i. 1 — 4, " whoever is among you of all his
people, his God be with him, and let him go up," etc., and of Artax-
erxes, Ezr. vii. 13, " whoever ofthe people of Israel in my realm is
willing," gave permission to all Israelites of the twelve tribes to return
to Palestine, and who could assert with reason, that none of the ten
tribes availed themselves of this permission? If, on the contrary,

2 kings xvii. 24 — 41. 05
tbe removal of the Israelites, the king Assyria transplanted hea
then colonists from several provinces of his kingdom into the cities
of Samaria. By the "^$N 'ih'O most interpreters understand
Shalmaneser, who removed the Israelites, because he only is
Grant remarks, that " of the 50,000, whom Cyrus sent back to their
country, it is expressly said that they were of those " whom Nebu
chadnezzar had carried away to Babylon" (Ezr. ii. 1), with which we
may also compare i. 5, " Then rose up the chief of the fathers of Ju
dah and Benjamin, and the priests and Levites," etc., these words
apply no doubt to the majority of the exiles who returned, and prove
that the ten tribes did not return as a people to Palestine, but by no
means that the great number of returning citizens of the former king
dom of Judah might not be accompanied with a considerable body of
members of the remaining tribes ; as Lightfoot (hor. Hebr. in. ep. i.
ad Cor. Addenda ad C. 14 ; Op. ii. p. 929) and Witsius I.e. p. 346,
and long before them the Rabb. in Seder Ol. rab. c. 29, p. 86, have
concluded from the fact, that the sum of the persons and families sepa
rately named in Ezra ii. amounts only to 30,360 individuals, whereas
the total number of those who returned is stated in v. 64 at 42,360,
besides 7337 servants and maids, the inference, that this surplus above
the families of Judah, Benjamin and Levi, mentioned by name, might
have been of the ten tribes. To this it is added, that those who
returned regard themselves as the representatives of the twelve tribes,
inasmuch as at the dedication of the new temple they offer " a sin-
offering for all Israel according to the number of the twelve tribes," Ezr.
vi. 17. Those who returned with Ezra do the same thing. In thanks
giving for their happy return to their fatherland, they offer twelve
bullocks for all Israel, ninety-six rams, seventy-seven lambs, and twelve
he-goats for a sin-offering, all for a burnt-offering unto Jehovah, Ezr.
viii. 35. Undoubtedly the overwhelming majority of those who
returned with Zerubbabel and Ezra belonged to the tribes of Judah,
Benjamin, and Levi, which is simply explained by the consideration,
that these being a much shorter time in exile, had retained more faith
fully the longing after the home given by the Lord to their fathers
than the ten tribes who had been exiled 130 years. But that these
also in the course of time, after those who returned to their ancient
land had attained to greater ecclesiastical and civil prosperity, followed
in great numbers, we must infer from this, that in the times of Christ
and the apostles, Galilee and partly also Peraea were very densely
peopled with Israelites ; which population cannot be derived from the
Jews who returned to Judaea under Zerubbabel and Ezra, because the
Jews of Galilee were not regarded by those of Judaea as of equal birth,
but more or less despised on account of their Galilsean origin. But
those who remained in foreign countries were so intermingled after
wards with the Jews, who were scattered over all regions of the earth
since the time of Alexander, and especially after the destruction of the
Jewish Commonwealth by the Romans, that the last traces of the old
division of tribes have entirely disappeared.
VOL. II. E

66 2 kings xvii. 24 — 41.
mentioned in that which precedes. But according to Ezra iv. 2,
Esarhaddon brought the heathen colonists into the country.1
This statement it is sought indeed generally to reconcile with
that presupposition by the assumption, that one part of the new
colonists had been transplanted to Samaria by Shalmaneser, and
another by Esarhaddon, whereby it is at the same time assumed,
that Esarhaddon in thrs'expedition removed the last remnant of
the ten tribes, all who had escaped during Shalmaneser' s inva
sion into the mountains or inaccessible retreats of the land,
partly also no doubt into Judaea, and had assembled again into
the land after the departure of the Assyrians (see Hengstenb.
Beitr. i. p. 179.) But the following considerations are against
this view ; (a.) Our author does not compel us to understand
Shalmaneser by the -flttj^ TyyO> inasmuch as the introduction of
the colonists into the land is not so closely connected with the
removal ofthe Israelites from it, that both must have been effected
by one and the same Assyrian king, (b.) Of a twofold trans
planting of colonists to Samaria no indication is any where found,
and as little of a second removal of the part of Israel that re
mained after Shalmaneser. The prediction Is. vii. 8, that within
sixty-five years Ephraim shall be broken that it be no more a
people, if it refer according to the supposition of Ussher, Heng
stenb. (Christol. i. 2, p. 56 f.) and others to the transplanting
of heathen colonists to Samaria by Esarhaddon, by no means
requires a removal of the last remnant of the Israelites by this
king, but only the occupation ofthe country by heathen settlers,
with whom the small remainder of the Ephraimites intermingled,
so that Ephraim ceased to be a people. For so long as the land
of Israel was only desolate and bereaved of the greatest part of
its Israelitish population, the possibility remained that the exiles
might return to their fatherland, and with those who remained
1 Kalkar has inaccurately examined this passage, if he (in Pelt's
theol. Mitarb. iii. 3, p. 25) asserts, " from Ezr. iv. 2 we see only, that
the Samaritans worshipped Jehovah since the time of Esarhaddon, not
at all, that he led a colony to Samaria;" for the passage runs literally
thus, "for we, as ye, seek your God, but we do not sacrifice to him
since the days of Esarhaddon the king of Assyria, who brought us up
hither." They could not, they say, sacrifice to him hitherto, because
they had no temple of Jehovah, on which account they now wish to
take part in the building of the temple.

2 kings xvii. 24 — 41. 67
behind form again a people, and so long might Israel be still
regarded as a people, as the Jews in the Babylonish exile did
not cease to be a people, because they had the certain hope of
returning to their own land after a seventy years' banishment.
But after heathen colonists were settled in the country, with
whom the Israelites remaining in the land amalgamated, so that
a Samaritan mixed population of a predominantly heathen cha
racter grew up, a people of Ephraim could no longer be spoken
of in the land of Israel. This settlement of the colonists in the
cities of Samaria might therefore be described as the time of the
total dissolution of the people of Ephraim without the necessity
of assuming at the same time a removal of the last remnant of
the Israelites, of which history knows nothing. This must cer
tainly be assumed, if the ten tribes were removed to the last man,
and the Samaritans were a purely heathen people without any
admixture of Israelitish blood, as Hengstenb. (Beitr. i. p. 179,
ii. p. 3 ff), wished to show : but the inadequacy of this demon
stration has been convincingly proved by Kalkar (the Samari
tans a mixed people, in Pelt's theol. Mitarb. iii. 3 p. 24 ff.) By
the -fl^N 'lb'0 accordingly we understand with Tremellius Esar
haddon, who transplanted the Samaritans according to their own
account from Babylon, Cuthah, and other places, to Samaria,
and are not afraid that the well-known mendacity of the Sama
ritans so strongly urged by Hengstenb. (Beitr. ii. p. 6 ff.) will
be made good against this testimony, because the Samaritans,
like all liars, only lied, when they hoped to gain some advantage
by their lying. fc$3*n, " and he brought," namely, men or set
tlers, from Babel, which was a province of the Assyrian empire,
Cuthah, etc. The situation of Cuthah (nn^) cannot be deter-
x
mined with certainty. Josephus (Ant. ix. 14 — 3, and x. 9 — 7)
explains it as a region of inner Persia, in which Zonaras, the
Chron. Alex, and Cellarius agree with him ; J. D. Mich, in the
spicil. i. p. 104 f., as a district about Sidon, because the Samari
tans, in a letter to Alexander the Great, say, that they were
called Sidonians (comp. Jos. Ant. xi. 8 — 6, and vii. 5 — 5), but
in the Suppl. ad lex. Hebr. p. 1255 f. he has rightly abandoned
this opinion and decided rather for the 15^J" ^jjJ"? mentioned
by Abulfeda and other Arabic and Persian writers in the Babylo-
e 2

68 2 kings xvii. 24—41.
nian Irak in the district ofthe Nahr Malcha, in which Rosenm.
(Althk. i. 2, p. 29), and Ges. (thes. ii. 674) rightly agree with
him, as this opinion has the greatest probability. Moreover, tbe
greatest number of colonists must have come from Cutha, as the
Samaritans are called tDiTflD hy the Rabbins.— ^yy Avah is
probably the same as f^yy Ivah (xviii. 34, xix. 13 ; Is. xxxiv.
13), as the conjecture forces itself on every one, that the Avites
transplanted by Esarhaddon are those, whose kingdom was des
troyed by the Assyrian kings (xviii. 34, xix. 13) ; but where the
city or district Avah is to be sought is equally uncertain. Iken
(diss. phil. theol. p. 152) compares the Phoenician city Avatha
(comp. Rei. Pal. ill. p. 232 f.) ; and so Mich. (Suppl. p. 1851),
because, according to v. 31, the Avites worshipped Nibhaz, by
which idol he understands the great stone dog that stood formerly
in the region between Berytus and Tripolis, and from which the
Lycus received the name c  <,XT ^j clog's river. This is very
improbable, because the Assyrian policy could only hope to
attain its end by transplanting the nations into distant, not con
tiguous localities. Ges. (on Is. i. p. 957) and Winer (R.W. i. p.
136) are of opinion that the city Avah is probably to be sought
in Mesopotamia, but no trace of it remains either in the old
writers or in the present oriental topography.1 But might not
Avah be identical with the city Awah or Abah (comp. Biisch-
ing's Magaz. v. p. 326), mentioned by Abulfeda in Persian
Irak, lying twenty-seven parasangs north-east of Hamadan ? —
HOtl IS *he celebrated city Hamath on the Orontes, see above
t -:
p. 134. — Qi'HDD Sepharvaim is probably the 2nr<pdpa of Ptol.
v. 18, the most southern city of Mesopotamia, perhaps the same
as the 7roXt? Snrapwv&tv mentioned by Abydenus in Eusebii.
prcep. ev. ix. 41. Comp. Mich. Suppl. p. 1084 f., Rosenm.
Althk. i. 2, p. 152 f., Ges. thes. ii. 969, and Winer, R.W. ii. p.
1 Hitzig in his comm. on Is. p. 425 explains pj«|y as the earlier
residence of the Nomade Qi^y mentioned Deut. ii. 23, who dwelt
before the Philistines unto Gaza, and seeks their home in the neigh
bourhood of the Persian Gulf, as he supposes that these Avites
migrated thence to Philistaea. But without any ground, as not a
syllable is said in Deut. ii. 23 of an immigration of the niiiv

2 kings xvii. 25—33. 69
526. On the other hand Vitringa and others sought the place
in Syria, an assumption which is not demanded by its connexion
with Hamath — ytf*y " and caused them to dwell in the cities of
Samaria instead of the children of Israel." From these words
Hengstenb. (Beitr. i. p. 179) infers, that Esarhaddon removed
the Israelites to the last man. But that these words must not be
so strictly taken is evident from 2 Chr. xxxiv. 9, according to
which in Josiah's time a whole remnant of Israel (p|V^ttJ-^3
!7N""lto'\) existed in the cities of Manasseh, Ephraim, Simeon,
and even to Naphtali (2 Chr. xxxiv. 6), of whom the Levites
had collected money for the repair of the temple. The words of
our verse only prove, that the Israelites were henceforth no
longer the principal inhabitants, the possessors of the land, but
the colonists transplanted thither entered into their place as
owners of the soil. But from this it no more follows, that an
Israelite was not to be found in the land, than it follows, for
example, from the words Jos. xi. 23, " So Joshua took the whole
land according to all that Jehovah had said, and Joshua gave it
for an inheritance unto Israel, according to their divisions by
their tribes," that at that time all the Canaanites were extir
pated, or at least driven out of their possessions.
Vv. 25 — 33. In the first period of their settlement in the
cities of Samaria the new colonists were attacked by lions,
wherein they recognized a judgment of the Deity of the land,
whom they did not worship, and therefore petitioned the Assyrian
king for an Israelitish priest, who might teach them the right
worship of the God of the land. The king granted their request,
and sent one of the exiled priests of Israel, who fixed his resi
dence at Bethel, and instructed them in the worship of Jehovah.1
1 Hengstenb. (Beitr. i. p. 179, ii. p. 13) urges also the petition of
the heathen colonists as one of the chief reasons proving that the last
remnant of Israel had been removed by Esarhaddon, as he concludes
from it, that " they have no one in the land who can give them the
rudest idea of the way and manner of worshipping the God of the
land." But here two things are overlooked, (a) the priests were not
= Israelites, that, therefore, the removal of ail the inhabitants, even
the lowest and most unimportant class of the ten tribes, does not follow
from the removal of all the priests ; (b) that the petition speaks of
sending a priest, and not at all of communicating " only the rudest
idea of the way and manner of worshipping the God of the land," that,

70 2 kings xvii. 25—33.
— From the theocratic point of view (comp. Lev. xxvi. 22 ; Jer.
according to the religious views of the heathen, a local deity can only
be worshipped in a right manner by the priests consecrated to him,
that only the offerings presented by his priests are acceptable to him,
and adapted to appease his anger and avert the plague from the land.
If it be objected, on the other hand, that the new settlers, according to
v. 32, made priests from the whole people, this took place only after the
arrival of the Israelitish priest, who could consecrate other priests.
What Hengstenb. has farther adduced (to conclude at once the point in
question) has still less force. The prophetic expressions concerning the
expulsion of the ten tribes from their land, Jer. iii., xxx., xxxi., and
Zech. x., prove by no means the removal of the last remnant of the
people of Israel, but only the rejection and banishment of the people
as a whole. The circumstance, also, that the Samaritans, Ezr. iv. 1,
do not assert their Israelitish origin, will not surprise any one, who
knows, that they did not become Israelites, because the heathen trans
planted to Samaria were incoprorated with the remnant of Israelites in
the land into a mixed populace, in which the prevailing heathen blood
and heathen disposition had long entirely extinguished the Israelitish
element. The remaining arguments drawn from Jesus Sir. and from the
New Testament, are devoid of all force, see the refutation by Kalkar i.
p. q. p. 30 ff. On the contrary, in favour of the mixed origin of the
Samaritans is in the first place the analogy of all other deportations,
in which only the mass of the populace as a body, particularly those
classes of the inhabitants, from whom new seditions were to be appre
hended, was removed, not to speak of the impossibility of getting hold
of all the inhabitants to the last man in any country, especially a
mountainous one (comp. Kalk. p. 28). Add to this the historical tes
timonies of Chronicles concerning a remnant of Israelites after the
removal of the people. Among these is first 2 Chr. xxx., where the
invitation sent by Hezekiah " to the escaped, that remained from the
hand of the king of Assyria" in the country of Ephraim and Manasseh,
even unto Zebulon, to partake of the passover at Jerusalem, is men
tioned. As according to Hengstenberg's own assumption, as well as
our remarks on xviii. 3, this event belongs to the period after the
deportation by Shalmaneser, and the whole Old Testament knows
nothing of a second deportation, it furnishes a decided proof of an
Israelitish remnant in the land. If it be sought to invalidate this
argument by the affirmation of a second deportation after Shalmaneser,
though destitute of all historical ground, yet it is impossible to set
aside the similar fact related 2 Chr. xxxiv. 9, that under Josiah, at
least fifty years after the settlement of the colonists in the cities of
Samaria by Esarhaddon, the Levites collected money for the repair of
the temple from Manasseh and Ephraim and the whole remnant of
Israel. And this fact, in conjunction with the other undertaking of
the same king, namely, to search the houses in the cities of Manasseh
and Ephraim, and Simeon even unto Naphtali, and destroy the high
places, Astartes and idols (2 Chr. xxxiv. 6 comp. with 2 Ki. xxiii.
15 — 20), affords the most striking proof that, there was a remnant of

2 kings xvii. 25—33. 71
xv. 3), the author of our books explains the plague of lions as a
punishment from God. There were certainly lions in Palestine
before this (Judg. xiv. 5 ; 1 Sam. xvii. 34 f. ; 2 Sam. xxiii. 10 ;
1 Ki. xiii. 24, xx. 36), especially in the northern mountains
(Song iv. 8 ; Jer. v. 6), in the woods (Jer. xii. 8 ; Am. iii. 4),
and in the brushwood on the banks of the Jordan (Jer. xlix. 19,
1. 44 ; Zech. xi. 3), although travellers have met with none in
recent times (comp. v. Raum. Pal. p. 104 and Win. R.W. ii. p.
37) ; but during the depopulation ofthe land from Shalmaneser
to Esarhaddon they had encreased very much, so that they
killed many of the settlers (qj-q Q'13lil 'Wl *hey killed of
them, namely, many.)— V. 26. y-jNH ''Tl'b^ ftBXpft. "the right
of the God of the land," that is, his right worship which he
demands as due to him from the inhabitants ; comp. on EDttJ!2
on i. 7. — V. 27. !|3ty^ ^3?^ ean^ et habitent, sc. ipse et qui cum
eo erunt, ejus socii, administri. So correctly Maur., in opposition
to Dathe and the exeg. Hdb., who would change the plural into
the singular. The priest sent by Esarhaddon to the colonists was
no Levitical priest of the Lord, but an Israelitish priest of the
calves. This appears not only from the fact that he was one of
the deported priests, and in Israel there were none but priests of
the calves, but may also be inferred from the circumstance that
he settled in Bethel, the chief seat of the calf-worship, and that
his instruction in the fear of Jehovah had only the effect that the
new inhabitants of the land, like Jeroboam I., made priests out
of the whole people, and worshipped Jehovah in the high places
built by the Israelites (1 Ki. xii. 31, xiii. 32), but at the same
time adored each people its own gods according to the custom of
the q^3, that is, of the heathenishly disposed Israehtes, who had
been carried away thence (v. 32 i.) The D^ft^J (v. 29) are
not the colonists transplanted to Samaria, as some expositors
think, but the earlier inhabitants of the kingdom of Israel (ft^ty
see above p. 209), Israelitae dum illi adhuc ibi erant (Jarchi) ;
for the Q^ftu; are clearly distinguished from the colonists, who
Israelites in the land, even after the times of Esarhaddon, that was not
removed, and that might and did mingle with the heathen settlers, as
Ephraim and Manasseh belonged to the province of Samaria that was
afterwards inhabited only by Samaritans.

72 2 kings xvii. 25 — 33.
made use of their high places. The words a^fttETJ ItoJJ ")t?)N
are a parenthesis, and the following «v^ i^ depend on ^i^fj
Hence it follows that the Israelitish high-places still remained on
the removal of the people, as nothing is said of a destruction of
the cities on the conquest of the land by the Assyrians. Too
much, however, would be attributed to the words, if they were
to be interpreted so strictly as to imply that all the high places
remained standing, and the new settlers had only used those
previously existing and built none in addition to them. — The
various gods of the heathen settlers named in vv. 30 and 31 are
all of Babylonian or Assyrian origin, and are almost wholly un
known. Pfeiffer (dub. .vex. p. 450) and Carpzov. (Appar. p.
516 ff.) have enumerated the opinions of the older expositors,
especially the Rabbins. The Babylonians made for themselves
ni32 JTI3D tents of daughters. Selden (de diis Syr. ii. c. 7, p.
283 ff.), Voss (theol. Gentil. ii. 22), Miinter (Rei. d. Bab. p.
74), Winer (R.W. ii. 629), and others understand by this, tents
or booths in which, according to the custom mentioned by Herod.
(i. 199) and Strabo (xvi. p. 745), the maidens exposed them
selves in honour of the Babylonian Mylitta (called Kay,dpai by
Herod.) ; but to this A. Beyer in the Addit. ad Seld. p. 310 ff.
and Carpz. I.e. have fairly objected, that according to the plain
words of our verse gods or objects of idolatrous worship are
intended, which were placed in the ]-flft3 ]-\'12 5 comp. also
Hengstenb. Beitr. i. p. 160. The Rabb. understand by it an
idol, some the hen with her chickens, others the Pleiades or the
constellation of the clucking hen (see Carpz. I.e.) On the con
trary, Mov. (Rei. d. Phon. i. p. 596) renders ]-\i22 D12D inv<>-
lucra or secreta mulierum, and understands this of the idol of
Mylitta, that is, the female organs of generation, which as
symbols of the Babylonian goddess were kept in the sanctuaries
wrapped up in robes woven for them (1 Ki. xxiii. 7) by the
women or the young girls dedicated to her, who presented them
as Secreta Veneris also to the paramours in return for the money
given to Mylitta. But ]-fi23 ]-fi3D ^oes not etymologically
signify secreta mulierum. The J"yfip can only be tabernacula
(idolis sacra) in excelsis (Ges. thes. ii. 952) or little tent-temples,
which were regarded as holy and worshipped with the gods they

2 kings xvii. 25—33. 73
contained. This appears — altogether apart from the passage
Amos v. 26, according to which the Israelites in their march
through the wilderness bore ]-fi3D their king— partly from xxiii,
7, according to which the women wove for the Asherah, which is
of the same nature with the Babylonian Mylitta, QipQ. houses,
little temples, partly from Ezek. xvi. 16, where the Israelites are
thus reproached, thou didst take of thy garments and didst make
for thee variegated ]y\fty that is, idol-temples made of patch
work. The addition pfy^y if it stand for jy^ daughters, cannot
certainly be understood with Hengstenb. i. p. q. p. 161 of the
daughters of Bel and Mylitta, but is perhaps to be explained by
this, that these little temples were dedicated pre-eminently to the
daughters, inasmuch as Mylitta was especially honoured by these,
namely, by the prostitution of their chastity. — The Cuthites
made for themselves ^yy Movers, p. 68, with the Rabbins
imagines Nergal to be a cock ; Selden (ii. c. 8) and Carpz. p.
517 explain the word ignis perennis in septis a Cuthaeis religio-
sissime servatus, after a quite uncertain etymology from -^ = -yij
and ^ from ^73- The moderns take Nergal to be the planet
Mars, inasmuch as Winer (R.W. ii. p. 175) after Norberg
(Onom. cod. Nasar. p. 105 f.) connects bxiZ Wlth VSTJ'J> *n
Arab. «aj _«, Mars hasta et fiagello munitus ; Ges. (thes. ii.
913) now prefers explaining it with P. v. Bohlen from the
Sanscr. nrigal, homines devorans, against which the only objec
tion is that nri certainly means virum, hominem, but gal signi
fies not devorare, but labi, decidere, puere, and is perhaps ety-
mologically connected with quail, quellen (see Bopp, glossar.
saner, p. 103 of the second ed.), and the signification comedere
in Westergaard (radic. ling, saner, p. 249), rests on the mere
identification of gal with gri.1 The men of Hamath made for
1 Movers takes ^-^} to he an abbreviated form of "iVfcOtl) ^313? a
name borne by two Babylonian grandees in Jer. xxxix. 3, of whom
the one was a president of the Magi, and therefore probably had his
name from the god, whose chief priest he was ; "^frOty S1gnifies fire-
prince and ^yyil 1sj hke ^313> 3',*13> the hatchet or axe, which the As
syrian Mars had assigned to him as fire-prince (d. Relig. d. Phon. i. p.
341 f. and 423.)

74 2 kings xvii. 25—33.
themselves ^^ffit^- Ashima was worshipped, according to
Rabb. statements, under the form of a bald he-goat (see Selden
ii. c. 9, Carpz. p. 518.) All other conjectures are still more un
certain, comp. A. Beyer Addit. p. 319, f., Ges. thes. i. 161, and
Winer, R.W. i. p. 112.— The Avites worshipped ^23 and
p^Tin- ^he Rabb. derive the name jj-q^ fr°m 1123 lat'rare an(i
explain Nibhaz to be an idol in the form of a dog (Selden ii. 9,
and Addit. p. 321, Carpz. p. 518), with which Iken (dissert, i. p.
143 ff.) then connected the colossal figure of a dog, which, ac
cording to the testimony of the traveller de la Roque, is found
in Syria, three days' journey from Berytus towards Tripolis, and
was worshipped by the inhabitants of that region as a tutelary
god (see on v. 24.) Winer (R.W. ii. p. 178), and Ges. (thes.
ii. 842, and comm. on Is. ii. p. 348), incline rather to the assump-
y
tion, that '{in23 1S an evil demon, the VSJ of the Zabians, which
Norberg, who first started this opinion, describes in the Onom.
cod. Nas. p. 100, as horrendus rex infernalis : posito ipsius throno
ad telluris i.e. lucis et caliginis confinium, sedimo acherontis fundo
pedibus substrato, with which the similar description of the Cod.
Ad. ii. 50, lin. 12, given in the same place is to be compared.
Tartak, which, according to the Rabb., must have had the form
of an ass, (comp. Seld. and Carpz. 11. cc), Ges. (Comm. on Is.
ii. p. 348), and Winer (R.W. ii. p. 703), have also taken for a
cacodaemon, whereby we might perhaps understand a planet of
ill omen, Saturn or Mars, as the word in Pehlvi signifies deep
darkness. — The settlers from Sepharvaim burned their children
to Adrammelech and Anammelech. The sacrifices of children
made to these gods indicate their relationship with Molech.
According to the Rabbins, Adrammelech must have had the
form of a mule or peacock, Anammelech of a horse or pheasant
(see Seld. and Carpz. ll. cc.) ; but most probably these deities
were also of an astrological nature. The name ir^EmN, which
occurs also xix. 37, as the name of a man, is explained either
from the Shemitic ~nN> (glorious king), or from the Pers. :]
il, (fire king), and understood of the sun. So Ges. Comm. on
Is. ii. p. 347, after Jurieu, hist, des cultes iv. p. 653. Other con
jectures of Lette see in the Biblioth. Brem. nov.fasc. i. No. 2.

2 kings xvii. 5, 6. 75
'HP^J? Jurieu would understand of the moon, but quite uncer
tainly. Hyde (de relig. vett. Pers. p. 131), explained the name
much more probably of the constellation Cepheus, which in
Oriental astronomy is called the shepherd, and the cattle C-el-ll
^1,), and the herd-stars (cJJjjtfl l—jSSJ), as r^yy might cor
respond to the Arab. ^ = jMS. In his thes. ii. 1052, Ges.
conjectures also, that ryyy may be equal to ^ statua, and so
signify statua regis i.e. Molochi. Finally Movers (d. Rei. d.
Phon. i. p. 410), takes both names for one deity, a two-formed
Molech, inasmuch as he asserts with right, that the Kethibh
C'nBD i*!7N 1S to he read Qi^Qpn ^fc$ the god of Sepharvaim,
and explains this double god as a sun-god, because Sepharvaim,
whose 7roXtoO%os he was, is described by Berosus as a city of the
sun. So far Movers is perhaps right, but his farther assumption
is extremely precarious, that we " are to regard Adar-Melech as
the sun-fire, and indeed, as Adar is Mars, in so far he was
conceived to be a destructive power," and that Anammelech is
a contraction of 'rj'tin plf oculus Melechi, signifying the ever
watchful eye of Saturn, according to which Adrammelech is to
be taken for the solar Mars, Anammelech for the solar Saturn.1
Vv. 34 — 41. This divine service compounded of the service of
idols and of Jehovah the new inhabitants of the kingdom of the
ten tribes retained unto this day, that is, till the time of the
Babylonian exile, when our books were composed. In later times,
as is known, the Samaritans abandoned idolatry and adopted
1 Hitzig and Benfey have proposed still other but extremely doubtful
explanations. Hitzig (Comm. on Is. p. 437), takes •^'-y^ to mean the
month Adar, which originally denoted a deity, and n^ftjn to be com
pounded of n^J3"l and \y time = Rronos, according to which the two
words coincide in meaning : " Adar the king, or Kronos the king,"
comp. on the contrary, Ges. thes. ii. 1052. Benfey (die Monatsnam.
p. 187 f.) explains with Reland (diss. ii. 113), ^ft-fiN fire-king, and
proposes to take -yyfty^ aB au abbreviation of the Persian deity Anahit,
or still better of the Aniran of Yezd, standing in the closest connexion
with fire, in Zend Anaghra (lights) without beginning.

76 2 kings xvii. 34—41.
monotheism.1— V. 34. " They fear not the Lord, neither do they
after their statutes or after their ordinances," that is, they have
not purely retained either the worship of Jehovah or their former
idolatry, but a compound of both. Naturally, therefore, they
did not follow the law and commandments, which the Lord com
manded the children of Jacob, to whom he gave the name of
Israel (Gen. xxxii. 29 ; 1 Ki. xviii. 31), and which required the
sole worship of Jehovah with the exclusion of all other gods. On
v. 35 f., comp. Ex. xx. 5, and the remarks on v. 7. b1)!^ 1132
x — i
is found, Ex. xxxii. 11, and ^1^3 JftlTS* ^x* V1, ^> xx* ^3 f- ;
Deut. iv. 34, v. 15. — In the words ?n'? 2113 IttJM (v- ^7) the
written composition of the law through Moses is presupposed ;
for although the name of Moses is not mentioned, our author
knows no other law than that given by Moses, comp. above p.
20 f. — V. 40. VittJfcOi"! tOS©Q 1S the divine worship composed of
idolatry and the external service of Jehovah, comp. v. 34.
1 The reasons by which Hertz, i. p. q. p. 118 ff. wished to prove, that
this section was written in the time of Josiah, and that the Samari
tans had renounced idolatry at that time, and therefore before the Baby
lonian exile, are not cogent, as the words, v. 41, " they (these
settlers) and their children, and their children's children (grand child
ren) did as their fathers" must not be so strictly taken, that it could
be inferred from them, that with the third generation, with the grand
children, and therefore ninety years after the fall of the kingdom of
Israel, the idolatry of the Samaritans ceased ; altogether apart from
the consideration, that this computation is antecedently false, because
it supposes that Shalmaneser transplanted the new colonists to Samaria
immediately after the removal of the Israelites. And from the fact
that on petitioning to be allowed to take part in the building of the
temple by Zerubbabel, they say to the Jews, " we seek your God, as
ye," etc. (Ezr. iv. 2), it does not follow with certainty that they had
at that time entirely renounced proper idolatry.

( 77 )

THIRD SECTION.

HISTORY OF THE KINGDOM OF JUDAH FROM THE DISSOLUTION
OF THE KINGDOM OF THE TEN TRIBES TO THE BABYLONISH
CAPTIVITY.
In this period, which embraces an interval of 134 years from
the sixth year of the reign of Hezekiah, 722 B.C. to the burning
of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans, 588 b.c. (see above p. 187), the
kingdom of Judah is at the very first sorely pressed by the
Assyrian Sennacherib, but at the entreaty of the pious king
Hezekiah is miraculously delivered from this powerful enemy,
xviii. — xx. ; though in the fifty-seven years ofthe ungodly reigns
of the idolatrous Manasseh and his son Amon, it is made ripe for
its fall, xxi., which even the god-fearing Josiah, notwithstanding
all his endeavours to extirpate idolatry and restore the true
worship of Jehovah could not avert, but only delay for a time,
xxii. — xxiii. 28. After this pious king had fallen in the unfortu
nate battle with Pharaoh Necho, the country was occupied by
the Egyptians, his son Jehoahaz, who was made king by the
people, was carried into Egypt by Necho after a reign of three
months, and his brother Eliakim under the name of Jehoiakim
appointed king, xxiii. 29 — 36. Under Jehoiakim Nebuchad
nezzar, after he had defeated the Egyptian army of Necho at the
Euphrates, invaded Judea, and in three campaigns, the latter
two of which were occasioned by the revolt of the Jewish kings
who had become his tributaries, made an end of the kingdom of
Judah by the removal of the people to Babel, and the repeated
conquest and final destruction and burning of Jerusalem, xxiv.
and xxv.

78 2 kings xviii. 1—8.

CHAPTER XVIII.
REIGN OF KING HEZEKIAH, V. 1 — 12. SENNACHERIB'S EXPEDI
TION AGAINST JUDAH AND JERUSALEM, V. 13—37.
V. 1 — 8. Beginning, duration, and spirit of the reign of Heze
kiah. V. 1 f. " In the third year of Hoshea of Israel Hezekiah
became king, and was twenty-five years old." As, according
to vv. 9 and 10, the fourth and fifth years of Hezekiah corres
pond to the seventh and ninth of Hoshea, his first year appears
to run parallel with the fourth of Hoshea. Josephus has, there
fore (Ant. ix. 13 — 1), instead of the third year (v. 1) placed era
TerdpTco, for which also Maur. has finally decided. But if we
assume that the beginning of Hezekiah's reign falls in the end
of Hoshea's third year, his fourth and sixth year must then coin
cide for the most part with the seventh and ninth of Hoshea, so
that no change of the i$yfi in v. 1 is necessary. The age of
T
Hezekiah at the commencement of his reign is surprising. For
as his father Ahaz ascended the throne when twenty years old,
and reigned only sixteen, if Hezekiah was twenty-five years old
at his father's death, he must have been born in his eleventh
year. This certainly implies a maturity in Ahaz earlier than is
found in our northern climes. Many interpreters, therefore,
presuming an error in the numbers, have supposed either that
Hezekiah was not twenty-five (p(3) but only twenty (3) years
old at his accession (Cler., d. exeg. Hdb., and others), or that
Ahaz in the commencement of his reign was twenty-five and not
twenty years of age, as the LXX., Syr. and Arab, actually read
twenty-five years in 2 Chr. xxviii. 1 (Win. R.W. i., p. 45.)
Both suppositions are possible, for in the latter case Ahaz would
only be born in the fifteenth year of his father Jotham's life,
which is not at all improbable, and may be sufficiently justified
by the actual occurrence of similar mistakes in the statement of
numbers ; but they are not absolutely necessary, as instances of
so early maturity are not wanting in southern countries. Sam.
Bochart, in his Epistola ad iV". Carbonelli, has quoted from
Hieronymus (ep. ad Vitalem 132) and an old glossa, the cases

2 kings xviii. 1 — 8. 79
of a boy of ten years, and of one of nine, qui nutricem suam gra-
vidavit, and several similar instances from later writers (geogr.
sacr. p. 920 ff. ed Lugd.) Thevenot also remarks in his travels
(part iii. p. 165), that among the Indians are found fathers of
ten and mothers of eight years of age, and even lately K. Koch
knew a young princess in Mingrelia, who in her tenth year was
married to an Abkhasian prince in his twelfth year (see -travels
through Russia to the Caucasian Isthmus, part ii. in the Widen-
mann and Hauffschen Samml. von Reisen, part 26, p. 194.)
— V. 3 ff. Hezekiah walked in the footsteps of his ancestor
David in earnest devotedness to the Lord, in all confidence in
him and sincere obedience to his commandments, inasmuch as
he had been turned to the Lord his God on the one hand per
haps by the calamities, which the untheocratic reign of his un
godly father had brought on the kingdom, and on the other
by the powerful influence of the prophet Isaiah. He therefore,
in the very first year of his reign, reopened and purified the
temple that had been defiled by the idolatrous practices of Ahaz
and at length entirely closed, made atonement for the sins ofthe
whole people by a sin-offering, and by a great burnt-offering
renewed the worship of God in the temple, but afterwards sum
moned also the whole people, not merely his own subjects, but
also the remnant that was left of the tribes of Israel, to a grand
passover festival at Jerusalem in order to rekindle their love to
the worship of the Lord, and finally destroyed all the monuments
of idolatry in the whole land, and even to Ephraim and Ma
nasseh, while he provided the temple-worship with the means
necessary for its due administration, and arranged it throughout
according to the law. All this is related at large in 2 Chr.
xxix. 3 — xxxi. 19, while our author contents himself with men
tioning in a few words the extirpation of idolatry and the faith
ful observance of the law of Moses on the part of this .king.1
1 The attacks of De Wette (Beitr. i. p. 115) and Gramberg (die
Glaubw. d. Chron. p. 185 ff.) on the credibility of these accounts of
Chronicles, to which even Winer (R.W. i. p. 585) assented, have been
alreadv shown to be unfounded by Dahler (de libr. Paral. p. 131), von
Hertz'(i. p. q. p. 148 ff.), and in my apol. Vers. p. 399, while Winer
has paid no attention to these replications. What Chronicles relates
in detail of Hezekiah's efforts to restore and revive the worship of
Jehovah, is only the historical enlargement of the brief and general

80 2 kings xviii. 1—8.
V. 4. On the pfyft^,, liygft, and FnttJN? see above, p. 220 ff.
¦TPtttN ls here obviously to be taken collective, as has been al-
6tatement of our author, that this king' uniformly adhered to the Lord
and kept his commandments given by Moses ; for Havern. (Einl. ii. 1
p. 22) very fairly remarks, " to the abrogated heathen worship, some
thing positive, a purely theocratic worship, must be opposed." Yet
the allusions of the prophet Isaiah xx. 30, and xxxi. 5, to which Hav.
refers, I cannot recognise as proofs, partly because they do not point
clearly enough to the great passover under Hezekiah mentioned in
Chronicles, partly because they are not to be referred to this event, in
asmuch as this prophecy of Isaiah was delivered before the fall of the
kingdom of the ten tribes (comp. Hav. Einl. ii. 2, p. 139), while the
solemn passover set on foot by Hezekiah was manifestly held after it.
This follows clearly from the invitation to this festival sent to the re
sidue of the ten tribes, in which, among other things, it is said, " ye
children of Israel, turn to Jehovah, that he may turn to you that are
escaped, who remain from the hand of the king of Assyria ; and be not
ye like your fathers and your brethren, who trespassed against Jeho
vah the God of your fathers, on which account he gave them up to
desolation, as ye see ; and be ye not stiffnecked, as your fathers, give the
hand to Jehovah and enter into his sanctuary, which he hath sanctified
for ever, and serve Jehovah your God, that his kindled wrath may turn
away from you ; for if ye turn to Jehovah, your brethren and your chil
dren- will find compassion before their conquerors, that they may return
to this land," etc. (2 Chr. xxx. 6 — 9.) In these words the deportation
ofthe greater part of the ten tribes is so plainly implied, that we can
not refer them to the deportation by Tiglath Pileser, which extended
only to the transjordanic tribes and the Naphtalites, but not to Ephraim,
Manasseh, and Zebulon, to whom the messengers of Hezekiah were
sent with a letter of this import. On a cursory reading of 2 Chr. xxix.
— xxxi. it might appear as if this passover were celebrated in the very
first year of Hezekiah's reign, and for this reason, indeed, contrary to
the law in the second month", because the first month was occupied with
the necessary preparations (2 Chr. xxx. 2 f.) But this appearance
vanishes on a closer inspection of these chapters. According to xxix.
3 Hezekiah in the first year of his reign, in the first month, opened the
doors of the house of God and repaired them, then assembled the priests
and Levites in order to charge them with the purification of the temple ;
whereupon they commenced the purification on the first day of the first
month, and on the sixteenth day of the same month competed it (v. 17.)
This purification begun on the firBt day of the first month cannot have
taken place in the first, but at the earliest in the second year of Heze
kiah's reign, because it was preceded by the repairing of the doors and
the assembling and commissioning of the priests and Levites. After
the purification was accomplished, the king, with the rulers of the city,
offered a solemn sacrifice for the reconsecration of the temple, where
upon the congregation also presented burnt-offerings, and thus the ser
vice of the house of God was re-established. But the passover men-

2 kings xviii. 1 8. 81
ready remarked, p. 225 note. All the old versions have the plural,
which 20 codd. in Kennicott also give. " And brake in pieces
the brazen serpent that Moses had made : for unto these days the
children of Israel had burnt incense to it, and it was called
Nehushtan." This brazen serpent Moses had set up in the wil
derness at the command of God as a symbol of the subduing and
conquering of the serpents and their fatal bite, by which the
people were visited (Num. xxi. 5 — 10, comp. Hav. Einl. i. 2 p.
502 f.) In after times the people inclined to superstition made
this symbol an object of idolatrous veneration. For as Cleric.
very truly remarks : non est credibile a temporibus usque Mosis
sine ulla intermissione cultum fuisse aenei serpentis simulacrum.
Non videtur hoc passurus fuisse David uti nee Salomo primis regni
sui annis. Sed potuerunt esse homines superstitiosi, qui interdum ad
illud simulacrum s'tffitum adoleverint, quasi in honorem peri Dei,
tioned after this in ch. xxx. must again have fallen in one of the
following years. For if it had been intended to hold it in the second
year of Hezekiah, after the purification and dedication of the temple
was accomplished when the middle of the first month of this year was
past, it could only have been stated as a reason for deferring the pas
sover till the second month, " for the fourteenth day of the first month
was already past," but not " for they could not keep it at that time
(that is, in the first month appointed by law), because the priests had
not sanctified themselves in sufficient time, neither had the people
gathered themselves together to Jerusalem " (v. 3.) To this it is
added that the assembling ofthe people, " from Beersheba even to Dan,"
could not be accomplished in two or three weeks, so that, if it had been
designed to celebrate the passover in the same year, it would have been
necessary to defer it not to the second but to a later month of the year.
Hence it appears at least that tbe passover festival could not have
taken place before the third year of Hezekiah. But in the fourth year
Shalmaneser commenced warlike operations against the land of Israel,
which continued for three years, during which a passover feast, to
which the remnant of the ten tribes should be invited, is not to be
thought of. Now if we add to what has been previously said, that the
already noticed striking prominence given to the visitation brought
upon the Israelites by the Assyrians in Hezekiah's letter of invitation
implies, that the judgment of God that had come upon them was still
fresh in the memories of those who had escaped it (which could not
possibly be said of the deportation of the Gileadites and Naphtalites,
twelve to fifteen years before, inasmuch as the tribes who had not felt
the arms of Tiglath Pileser had unquestionably long since ceased to
mourn over it), this passover festival cannot have occurred before, but
must have taken place immediately after the fall of the kingdom of the
ten tribes, which appears also to be indicated in 2 Chr. xxxii 1.
VOL. II. F

82 2 kings xviii. 1—8.
quijusserat Mosem id confiare ; dein aucta etiam ut ft supersti-
tione coluerint aut Deum Israelis sub ea imagine, aut quod detenus
erat, peregrinum numen animo ei substituerint, atque simulacrum
ejus Dei serpentem aeneum habuerint. This abuse was the more
natural, as among the heathen, particularly the Egyptians and
Phenicians, serpents «were adored as the bearers of a healing
virtue and of immortality ; comp. Cler. on the passage and
Creuzer, Symbol, i. p. 526 ff. ofthe 2nd ed. ttflpftj formed from
DttJni brass signifies something brazen. Most ofthe older ex
positors think the name has the accessory idea of contempt. But
this neither lies in the form nor is it probable in itself, because
it must otherwise have been applied to the brazen serpent only
at and after its destruction ; comp. Pfeiff. dub. vex. p. 452. — V. 5.
" And after him was not his like among all the kings of Judah,
or among those that were before him." From tbe first of these
expressions J. D. Mich, concluded that the author of our books
took it from his source, which, according to 2 Chr. xxxii. 32,
came from the hand of Isaiah, as king Josiah came to the
sovereignty fifty-six years after Hezekiah, and was not inferior to
him in piety and sincere obedience to the law (comp. xxii. 2.)
But this conclusion is by no means certain, inasmuch as Josiah's
conduct is described in the same terms in xxiii. 25, whence we
perceive that this expression was of a proverbial nature de eo
quod rarissimum et cujus nulla memoria est, comp. Cler. on Ex.
x. 14.— v. 6. rYirr^ piy\ comp- p- 165. v. 7. V^ston wlse
acting, including its happy consequences, see above p. 21.
" And he was rebellious against the king of Assyria, and was not
(any more) subject to him." Judah was brought into depen
dence on Assyria by Ahaz, which Hezekiah resisted obviously
only after the withdrawal of Shalmaneser from Palestine, per
haps only after his death, for which reason Sennacherib made
war upon him in order to reduce Judah under his sway (v. 13 ff.)
V. 8. " He smote the Philistines unto Gaza and its borders,"
etc., he thus punished them for their invasion of Judah under
Ahaz, took from them the cities then conquered (2 Chr. xxviii.
18), and reduced them to their old boundary, Gaza. This
statement, therefore, confirms the account of Chronicles, which
has been assailed by neological criticism, which is besides proved

2 kings xviii. 9—13. 83
to be true by Is. xiv. 28 — 32, comp. our note on xvi. 16, and
Havern. Einl. ii. 1, p. 220, also Movers' Krit. Enters, p.
128, where, moreover, the following words, " from the tower of
the watchmen to the fenced city," are erroneously explained
of the cities founded by Uzziah in the territory of the Philis
tines, and the towers built for the protection of his flocks in
the wilderness (2 Chr. xxvi. 6, 10), whereas this proverbial
expression (comp. on xvii. 9) only affirms that Hezekiah smote
all the stations of the Philistines from the smallest to the greatest
and strongest.
In vv. 9 — 12 the destruction of the kingdom of Israel by Shal
maneser already narrated, xvii. 3 — 6, according to the annals of
Israel, is repeated from the annals of the kingdom of Judah, in
which it was also registered as an event ofthe highest importance
for the theocracy.
From v. 13 to ch. xix. 37 follows the narrative of Sennacherib's
invasion of Judah and his defeat, which is found almost word for
word also in our collection of the prophecies of Isaiah, xxxvi. and
xxxvii., and in a brief abstract, but notwithstanding its brevity
furnishing several important supplements, in 2 Chr. xxxiii.
These three accounts are independently of each other composed
from the collection of the prophecies of Isaiah (2 Chr. xxxii. 32),
which was embodied in the annals of the kingdom, as I have
proved against Gesenius in my apol. Vers. p. 223 — 235, and as is
now acknowledged by most critics and interpreters ; comp. Ewald
in the Leipziger A.L.Z. 1833 August, No. 188, p. 1502, Movers,
Krit. Unters. p. 187, Hitzig, Umbreit, and Knobel on Is. xxxvi.
and .Havern, Einl. ii. 3 p. 147 ff.
V. 13. Comp. Is. xxxvi. 1. "In the fourteenth year of king
Hezekiah, (714 B.C.), Sennacherib king of Assyria came up
against all the fenced cities of Judah and took them." This
verse forms the introduction to the following narrative, in which
the occupation of the whole land by the Assyrians is summarily
stated, wherein " all the fenced cities " is not to be taken in the
strictest sense, as besides the strong capital Jerusalem, the fort
resses of Lachish and Libnah (v. 17 and xix. 8) were not yet
conquered, when the following negotiations with Hezekiah were
opened. Sennacherib (l^TOD? in the LXX. Sevvaxnplfi or
Sevvaxnplp, in Joseph. Hevaxqp.fioi;) mentioned also by Berosus.
F 2

64 2 kings xviii. 14 — 16.
in Josephi. Ant. x. 1—4, and in Euseb. Chron. arm. p. 18 f., by
Abydenus (in Eus. Chr. arm. p. 23), and by Herodotus ii. 141,
the successor of Shalmaneser (see on xv. 19) reigned according
to Berosus eighteen years in the time of Hezekiah, comp. still
on xix. 37. The name 3i-m2D corresponds probably to the
Sanscrit Sen&grib and the new Persian •-r-*J/J' ls*M exercituum
victor. So according to P. v Bohlen, Ges. thes. ii. 962 ; other
wise Win., lex. s.v., Hitzig and Ges. himself on Is. xxxvi. 1.
Herodotus (I.e.) calls him f3acn\ev$ Apaftiwv Te Kal Ao-o-vpiaiv,1
and says that his expedition was directed against Egypt, which
also appears from xix. 24, is confirmed by Is. x. 24, and is
besides easily reconciled with our narrative, as Judah formed the
key to the conquest of Egypt for the Assyrian, as for all upper
Asiatic conquerors, and had perhaps formally allied itself to
Egypt, when Tirhakah inarched against Sennacherib (xix. 9.)
V. 14 — 16. On the intelligence of Sennacherib's invasion
Hezekiah at first made preparations for defence. He caused
Jerusalem to be still more strongly fortified in case of a siege,
and the fountains of the upper Gihon as well as the brook beside
the city to be stopped (see on v. 17), in order to cut off the water
from the besiegers, as is related in 2 Chr. xxxii. 2 — 8, and con
firmed in the clearest manner by Is. xxii. 8 — 11, comp. my apol.
Vers. p. 324, Hav. Einl. ii. 1, p. 221, and the expositors on Is.
xxii. Meanwhile Sennacherib had penetrated to Lachish, where
upon Hezekiah, doubting the possibility of being able to resist
his arms, sends messengers thither to treat with him concerning
his submission, and actually sends the tribute demanded by Sen
nacherib, as is related in our verses. The fortress of Lachish
lay seven Roman miles south of Eleutheropolis (see on xiv. 19),
and therefore south west of Jerusalem on the way to Egypt.
From the words of Hezekiah, " I have sinned, depart from me,"
etc., the older expositors infer, that Hezekiah sinned in his
revolt from the Assyrian supremacy by refusing the farther pay
ment of tribute ; but as his predecessor Tiglath Pileser had
1 This statement is explained perhaps in the simplest manner by the
circumstance, that Arabia, taken in a wider sense, denotes all the pro
vinces on this side of the Tigris, which the Assyrians governed in
addition to their original country Assyria. Comp. Bochart Phal. i., c.
7, p. 31, and Schroeer imper. Babyl. p. 166.

2 kings xviii. 17. 85
brought the kingdom of Judah into dependence on himself only
by dealing treacherously with Ahaz, the attempt of Hezekiah to
shake off this yoke was scarcely to be blamed from a theocratic
point of view. But Hezekiah certainly acted wrong in this
respect, that after he had taken the first step he shrunk from its
perilous consequences, and wished to purchase again the peace,
which he himself had broken by new submission and payment
of tribute. This false step of the pious king, arising from a
momentary weakness of faith, was however turned into a blessing
for him and his kingdom through the arrogance of Sennacherib
and the covenant-faithfulness of tlie Lord. — V. 15 f. In order
to make up the demanded tribute of 300 talents of silver and 30
talents of gold, as the treasures of the temple and the palace,
having been very much exhausted under the bad government of
Ahaz, did not suffice, Hezekiah was obliged to take the gold
plating, with which he himself had overlaid the doors and posts
of the temple (2 Chr. xxix. 3) and send it to the king of
Assyria.1 The substantive J-fljQ^ occurring only here etymo-
logically res sujficientes denotes the door posts (fc^QlpD' \IZ2i^SD\,
J ' HO oi
, " .uCj. limina, superliminaria, LXX., to, eaTvpiypeva.)
V. 17. Not content with this payment of tribute, Sennacherib
sent a strong body of troops under the command of Tartan,
Rabsaris, and Rab-shakeh, from Lachish to Jerusalem, which
posted itself on the west side of the city. In the text of Isaiah
Rab-shakeh only is named, because he acted as spokesman in
the following conference (see v. 19.) Tartan had probably the
supreme command, as he is named first here, and, according to
Is. xx. 1, also conducted the siege of Ashdod. Comp. the note
on xv. 19. The name M-nffc which, if we may conjecture from
the other two names, is only a name of office or title, Gesen.
and Hitzig on Is. xx. 1 explain by high person or crown of the*
body . jJ'rli'. — D"HD "2"! properly princeps eunuchorum (Ges.
thes. ii. 973) and nStETl ^* *°' the chief cup-bearer are
I.. T I —
1 Ovk direxpcov °' /8a<nXueoi Brfo-avpol- (dot ovv ev Tails roiavrais avayxais,
Kai tovs Upoiis 6r)aavpovs hairavqv Kai nakiv avroiis eK tojv TTokepiav apanXrj-
poiiv. r) avayicq he wapeo-Keiaa-e Kai ras wuXay xavevcrai ras xpvo-as, as ovtos
Kareo-KciatTe Kai tovs VTad/iovs t5>v 8vpmv. Theodoret.

86 2 KINGS XVIII. 17.,
names of office. There is therefore no ground for taking Rab-
shakeh with Theod. and Procop. for a Hebrew, who had either
of his own accord gone over to the Assyrians, or had been carried
thither with the captives. The supreme court officers at the
same time filled the office of generals in the army. The follow
ing words ^3V) ifoy*y • ¦ ¦ ^3*11 are wanting in Isaiah,
because they are unnecessary for the sense. — " The conduit of
the upper pool by the highway of the fuller's field" (Is. vii. 3),
is the conduit which went from the reservoir of the upper Gihon
(Birket el Mamilla) to the lower pool, the Birket es Sultan (see
above p. 11) ; as the end of this conduit is mentioned Is. vii. 3,
which we cannot understand with Hitzig (Is. p. 75) of the end
of the canal, which conducted the fountain to the pool, but only
with Knobel (Is. p. 46) of the end of the conduit leading from
the pool to the city. According to chap. xx. 20 and 2 Chr.
xxxii. 30, Hezekiah stopped the upper mouth of the water of
Gihon, and conducted it down from the west to the city, that is,
he covered the conduit going from the upper Gihon to the lower
pool, and so conducted the water, which formerly ran on the west
side without the city walls down into the valley of Ben-hinnom,
through a canal with several subterranean chambers into the
city, whereby in case of a siege the water would be withdrawn
from the enemy and preserved for the inhabitants of the city.
This work, which is mentioned also by Jes. Sir. 48, 17, Heze
kiah executed, but not, as Knob. p. 154 thinks, only after the
departure of the Assyrians, but on their entrance into the
country, before they appeared at Jerusalem, when he made the
preparations for defence mentioned above in v. 14, to which
belonged, according to 2 Chr. xxxii. 3 f., the stoppiug of the
water fountains and of the brook by the city, and, according to
Is. xxii. 11, the construction of a reservoir between the two walls
for the water of the old pool, that is, the upper Gihon ; against
which the circumstance, that this work is mentioned in 2 Ki.
xx. 20, 2 Chr. xxxii. 30, only at the end of Hezekiah's reign in
the summary view of his celebrated deeds, proves nothing.1
1 Comp. Rob. Pal. ii. p. 164 f., where reference is made to a similar
precaution, which, according to Wilh. Tyr. viii. 7, the Mohammedans
took on the first advance of the crusaders towards Jerusalem.

2 kings xviii. 18 — 25. 87
" The highway of the fuller's field" (Is. vii. 3), is the highway
which either passed by the fuller's field or led to it. The first
assumption is more probable, because the fuller's field, where the
fullers, needing so much water for their business, cleansed and
dried the cloths and stuffs, must have been in the neighbourhood
of the upper pool, where a district had been assigned to them
without the city, as the Roman fullers pursued their handicraft
together without the city (comp. Martial, iv. 93, and Plaut.
Asin. v. 2, 57) on account of the unpleasant smell (see Win.
R.W. ii. p. 784.)
Vv. 18 — 25. (Is. v. 3 — 10.) Arrived at Jerusalem the As
syrian generals called for king Hezekiah to demand of him the
surrender of the capital ; but Hezekiah does not appear himself,
but sends out his three chief ministers before the city walls, to
whom Rab-shakeh addresses a boastful speech in order to intimi
date Hezekiah and induce him to surrender. That they invite
the king himself to the conference is omitted in the text of
Isaiah. Eliakim the son of Hilkiah was only lately raised in
Shebna's place, to be master of the house or minister of the royal
court Cf"^3!T"Sy comp. above p. 44), and in this office a father
of his people (Is. xxii. 20 ff.) Comp. also on this office Paulsen
d. Reg. d. Morgenl. p. 321. — Shebna (pj23\y or ^33$ in Is.)
was formerly over the household, but was lately removed from
this office on account of misconduct, as the prophet had announced
-to him (Is. xx. 15 ff.), though at the time still yQfo secretary of
the king or secretary of state (called among the Persians Jj'ijS
Devattar, properly ink-horn bearer, among the Turks Reis el
Kutteb, head ofthe scribes ; see Paulsen p. 292 and v. Hammer,
Staatsverf. des Osman. Reichs. ii. p. 109, and on this office
among the Hebrews our remarks in p. 43), whereas Isaiah had
predicted to him banishment to a distant land.1 Joah, the son
1 As the name of Shebna's father is not given either here or in Is.
xxii. 15, the expositors of Isaiah have not unfairly concluded that he
was a novus homo, an upstart, who abused his high station of chief
steward of the royal household for the enrichment of his house, drove
in a splendid chariot, and wished to establish a name and memory for
himself by the preparation of a highly finished family sepulchre (Is.
xxii. 16), and was therefore dismissed from his office. On the other
hand, the farther conjecture of Hitzig is altogether precarious, that he

88 2 kings xviii. 18—25.
of Asaph, was recorder, who kept the Qiftin "H3"1! (s£e above p.
43.) — V. 19 ff. Rab-shakeh endeavours, in his address, to show
that Hezekiah's confidence in his ability to resist the power of
the Assyrians is vain, inasmuch as neither Egypt (v. 21) nor
his God (v. 22) nor his military resources can protect him (v.
23.) The title ofthe great king, or king of kings (Ezek. xxvi.
7 ; Dan. ii. 36) was assumed by the Assyrian, Babylonian, Per
sian, and other Oriental sovereigns, because not only many of
their deputy governors of provinces bore the title of king, but
also kings of conquered countries were under their supremacy as
vassals, comp. Ges. Comm. on Is. i. p. 392. " What is this
confidence that thou cherishest," that is, thy confidence that
thou hast is a vain one. V. 20. fpftN is by general admission
the original reading, and VTV3N (^s- v- *>) a less- suitable altera-
tion. — " Thou sayest — only a word of the lips is counsel and
strength for the war," that is, thou sayest, thou hast counsel and
strength for the war, but this is only a vain pretence. So
correctly Aben Ezra in L. de Dieu ad h I. Q'vnQjy ^3"^ ls a
word that comes only from the lips, not from the heart (yy), the
seat of the understanding, and therefore an inconsiderate foolish
speech (Prov. xiv. 23, comp. also Job xi. 2.) V. 21. " Egypt is
a bruised reed, which, if a man lean on it, goes into the hand
and pierces it." This figure is very significant of Egypt, inas
much as the reed is there properly at home. Ezek. xxix. 6, 7,
has borrowed this figure from our verse. W|2T POP ls n°t a
broken, but only a bruised, crushed reed, which a man may take
to be whole and so deceive himself, comp. Is. xlii. 3, where w^
is opposed to -qeJ. What Rab-shakeh, arrogantly confiding in the
invincible might of his master, here says ofthe vanity and ruin-
ousness of trusting in Egypt, was literally true, and had already
been very plainlj' stated by Isaiah (xxx. 3 — 5) to his people. The ^
in £$3«i introduces the consequence. — V. 22. But besides Egypt,
Judah had a strong shield of confidence, namely, the omnipotence
of his God. This rock, also, which deceives no one who only
was perhaps a discontented Syrian, who had come from his country,
which was subject to the Assyrians, to Jerusalem, and there counter
acted the ABsvrian interest.

2 kings xviii. 18—25. 89
puts his entire trust in it, Rab-shakeh wishes to shake, inasmuch
as he artfully represents the reformation of religion effected by
Hezekiah, and the destruction ofthe altars of high places, as an
insult to the God of Israel. The Assyrians had thus heard of
Hezekiah's reforms, and, according to their polytheistic notions,
discovered therein an injury to the worship of God, which Rab-
shakeh turns to his own ends in order to make the people waver
in their confidence in the Lord. " If ye say, We trust in Jeho
vah our God (then I say) is not this he, that is, is not this the
God, whose altars," etc.1 V. 23 f. The last ground of Heze
kiah's confidence appears to Rab-shakeh so insignificant and con
temptible, that he offers him 2000 horses, if Hezekiah can only
put riders on them. Here Gesen. fairly remarks, that the mean
ing is not that Hezekiah will not raise 2000 men, but 2000 men
who could serve as horsemen. The Jews at that time had
certainly cavalry, and attached much importance to them (Is. ii.
7, xxx. 16), but they could never be compared with the numerous
cavalry of the Assyrian and Egyptian armies. 3"ij;j-in to engage
with any one, and hence here, " to enter into a contest" (Cler.
and Gusset.) '^ -jpiN nilQ " one captain of the least of my
master's servants," that is, one of the least captains of my
master. nPiD signifies in itself a deputy or lieutenant, usually
the deputy governor of a province under the Satrap, but at
the sametime, in military states, a lieutenant-general of the
army. The mno are t^lus S^SEP 3^25?' The interposition
of -jj-jN between the nom. regeus in the stat. constr. and the noun
depending on it is without a precedent, as by rule " no ad
jective, pronoun, or other word can come between the restricted
1 The plur. }!nnfc4,nj hy which these words are addressed to the
people, appears at first sight preferable, but is in fact only an altera
tion of the original reading -^^;r| preserved in Isaiah, if thou sayest,
namelv, the king addressed in the person of his ambassadors, comp. my
apol. Vers. p. 229. Farther, the assertion of Gesen. is false, that the
author of Chronicles has quite mistaken the construction of our verse,
inasmuch as this speech is repeated 2 Chr. xxxii. 12 in a contracted
form not verbally but according to the sense. Lastly, the inference of
Knobel from the clause, " ye say to me," as to a previous conference of
the delegates with Rab-shakeh, is also false.

90 2 kings xviii. 26—28.
and the restricting noun" (Ew. Gr. § 509), but we must conceive
"H7N as co-ordinate with, not subordinate to j-||-|-3 (Hitz.) V. .
25. After Rab-shakeh thinks he has undermined every ground
of Hezekiah's confidence, he comes to say also of his master, that
he has not come against Jerusalem without Jehovah, but much
rather by his commission. Rab-shakeh might have heard some
thing of Isaiah's predictions of the sentence that was to be exe
cuted on Judah by the Assyrians, which turning to his purpose
he so represents, as if his master had undertaken the campaign
at the command of Jehovah. ]-|fc*tn V"^'-'-^ ^s" v> ^)
instead of j-ftn 0'to)2]T'7J? ln our text owes its origin only to
the tendency to assimilate the first sentence to the following one.
!"rtn Dlp^n 1S Jerusalem.
Vv. 26—28. (Is. v. 11—13.) The delegates of Hezekiah fear
the boasting of Rab-shakeh might make some impression oh the
people, who were listening on the city walls : they therefore
interrupt him, and request him to speak with them in Aramaic,
as they understand that language ; but Rab-shakeh replies, that
his master had much rather commissioned him to address his
speech to the people, and begins immediately in a still louder
voice to urge the people to revolt from their king, and come over
to the king of Assyria (v. 29 ff.) From these Verses it appears
that the Assyrian commanders understood Jewish or Hebrew, and
the Jewish nobles on the other hand Aramaic. The mother
tongue of Assyria was certainly not Aramaic, but a Medo-Per-
sian dialect ; but in all the parts of the Assyrian monarchy on
this side ofthe Euphrates, in Syria, Mesopotamia, and Babylonia,
the Aramaic was the language of the country, which must there
fore have been known also to the Assyrian government officers,
and spoken also at court, if it was not actually the court lan
guage. JryTirP signifies the native speech of the kingdom of
Judah, and by no means implies a long interval after the capti
vity of the ten tribes, as Gesen. asserts. The change of the pre
position ^p^NI T?HH ^"^ (v* ^) *s remove(i in Is- (v- 12) ;
the suffix in ^i^N refers to Eliakim, the spokesman of the
Jewish delegates. The *yy is also not exactly equivalent to
^, but includes the idea partly of elevation above the others,
partly of hostility. By the words, " who sit on the walls to eat

2 kings xvui. 29—33. 91
their own excrement, and drink their own urine," Rab-shakeh
describes the inhabitants as determined to endure a hard siege
with an intimation of its horrors, comp. vi. 25. For t3!~Pin
= Qi"VNin excrementa sua and OJ-p^tlJ urinas suas the Masor.
have substituted the euphemisms ?n^jj an<^ D!T^>31 'V^O.
V. 28. "royvi does not stand according to later speech usage for
DpV| (Gesen., Hitz., and others) ; Qhi^ would here be quite un-
suitable, because Rab-shakeh did not now for the first time stand
up to speak, but was already standing, and had spoken ; "fl^yi")
means, he set himself, took a position designed for proper effect.
Vv. 29—33. (Is. 14—20). The address of Rab-shakeh to the
people turns again on the thought, that Hezekiah can no more
than his God defend Jerusalem from the power of the Assyrians ;
the people therefore should not allow themselves to be deceived
by a vain confidence in him, but rather surrender immediately
to the great king of Assyria, that they may enjoy a happy life
under his sceptre. fcOttJ'1- ?N> " ^e* no*; Hezekiah deceive you,"
namely by the pretence, that he can defend the city against the
assault of the Assyrians. The extraordinary phrase *\yift " out
of his (the Assyrian's) hand," by which the speaker slips out of
the speech begun in the name of his master, is omitted in Is. v.
14. V. 30. Concerning the use of j-^ with a passive see on
vi. 5, and Ew. Gr. § 494 and 572. It is omitted in Is. v. 15.
V. 31. n3-Q ipN Itoih " make Peace Wlth me'" rt3*a hies-
sing, happiness, is here according to later usage = the Chald.
ND^tlJ Peace 5 a signification, which is developed from the form
of benediction -A Q^tt?. ^N WS " come out to me," namely,
from your walls, that is, surrender to me, comp. Ges. on Is.
xxxvi. 16, where this phrase is supported by several passages
from Bar Hebr. " To eat his own vine and his own fig-tree, and
drink the water of his own well," means, to enjoy the fruits of his
own property in rest and peace, comp. the analogous description
of a life of undisturbed happiness, 1 Ki. v. 5 above, p. 57. The
imperatives !)fn?)^ ^2N1 denote the consequence flowing of itself
from that which precedes, com. Ew. Gr. § 618, " so will ye eat
and drink." "V . 32. " Till I come and take you," etc. In case
of surrender also the Assyrian wishes to make use of his usual
l

92 2 kings xviii. 29—33.
policy of deportation into other countries. Comp. the examples,
collected by Hengstenb. de rebus Tyrior. p. 51 f., of this measure,
which was so often brought into operation in ancient times. But
in order to reconcile the people to it, the boaster promises that
Sennacherib will give them a land as good as their own. The
description of this land (v. 32), which is abridged in Is. v. 17,
as a land of corn and wine, bread and vineyards, olive trees and
honey, is copied after the description of Canaan (Deut. viii. 8,
xxxiii. 28), but not so as to presuppose a knowledge of these
passages. Moreover, it is a vain labour, if the expositors (Hitz.
Knob.) wished to discover the land according to this description,
as Rab-shakeh in his boasting scarcely thought himself of any
definite province ofthe Assyrian empire. — V. 33 ff. After repre
senting to the people the delightfulness of the deportation, he
returns to his principal argument, that even Jehovah cannot
deliver Jerusalem from the Assyrian arms, as so many other
gods had failed to deliver their countries. The regions enume
rated, v. 34, occurred already, xvii. 24, as far as -fQ"^ and
yyy\, which, however, cannot be determined with certainty.
Arpad (in Syr. r£») appears to have been a Syrian town, because
it is always mentioned in conjunction with Hamath (xix. 13 ;
Is. x. 9, xxxvi. 19, xxxvii. 13 ; Jer. xlix. 23), but cannot be
farther indicated. Winer R.W. i. p. 103 has enumerated the
altogether uncertain conjectures concerning it. Most after
Biisching (see Ges. thes. i, 387), take Hena for the city ju|£, men
tioned by Abulf., on a ford of the Euphrates ; comp. Abulf.
Mesop. in Paulus' neu. Repert. iii. p. 33, and Assemanni bibl. or.
iii. 2, p. 717. — Hitzig (on Is. p. 425) explains it by lowland
from wjji inflexit se, demisit = i--jS, connects it with Canaan,
and understands by it a region of' the Persian gulf, from which,
according to Herodotus, the Phenicians emigrated. Obviously
false, as wj& to bow, be bent, crooked, stands in no logical connec
tion with lowland. Comp. with this our remarks on the here
with connected explanation given by Hitzig of my on xvii. 31.1
1 The names n^T J?2H are wanting here in the text of Isaiah for
the same reason for which this text has been several times abridged
they are here as genuine and essential to the completeness of the dis
course as in xix. 13.

2 kings xix. 1 — 4. 93
• — V. 34. The words ^xftf 13, " that they had delivered," for
which ^xjn 13^ stand in Is. v. 19, depend on t3^3n TJ htt. in"
asmuch as the God of Samaria also is included under these.
Vv. 36, 37. The people kept silence at this speech, because
Hezekiah had forbidden any answer, obviously in order not
to irritate the enemy any more, or to provoke them to tlie im
mediate storming of Jerusalem ; and the delegates returned with
their clothes rent in token of their grief on account of the speech
of Rab-shakeh which reviled not only their king, but at the same
time and still more Jehovah to Hezekiah, reporting to him the
substance of the speech. The Qy (v. 36)' is quite in its place,
inasmuch as the speech was addressed not merely to the king's
advisers, but to the whole assembled people. Its omission in Is.
v. 21 is therefore to be regarded as a change of the original com
position.

CHAPTER XIX.

DELIVERY OF JERUSALEM AND LIBERATION OF JUDAH FROM
THE ASSYRIANS. COMP. IS. XXXVII.
Vv. 1 — 4. After Hezekiah learned from his counsellors the
speech of Rab-shakeh, he rent his clothes in horror at the daring
mockery of God (v. 4), put on mourning garments as an external
sign of the sorrow of his soul (comp. on 1 Ki. xxi. 27), and re
paired to the temple, while he sent Eliakim and Shebna with the
elders of the priests clad in mourning to the prophet Isaiah, to
learn through him the answer of the Lord. AW' 6 aocpcoTaToc;
/SacrtXeu? oi>x oirXa Tat? eiceivov fiX-aaipr] plait, aXXa Trpotevxvv
ical Bdiepva, Kai adicKov avTera^e, Kal rov Trpocp-qT-nv 'Haatav yev-
ecrdai irpea^evT^v ¦hvTifioX'naev. Theod. The position of the
words, "Isaiah, the prophet, the son of Amoz," (v. 2), is un
usual, (comp. xiv. 25, xx. 1 ; 1 Ki. xvi. 7; 2 Chr. xxvi. 22, etc.),
and therefore changed in the narrative of Isaiah into " Isaiah,
the son of Amoz, the prophet." , V. 3, f. The delegates of the
king beseech the prophet to intercede for the people still re-

94 2 kings xix. 5—7.
maining, as the state was in a desperate condition and unable to
help itself, and express the hope, that perhaps the Lord his God
would hear the blasphemies, which Rab-shakeh uttered against
the living God, that is, would observe and punish them. nnSifi
Divine chastisement, p)jj^2 contempt, rejection of the people on
x x : t #
the part of God, comp. »^ in Deut. xxxii. 19 ; Jer. xiv. 21 ;
Lam. ii. 6. — The expression borrowed from women in labour,
" the children are come to the mouth of the womb, and there is
not strength to bring forth," is used as a proverb to denote the
highest danger, the most desperate condition and complete in
ability to help oneself. Hosea has a similar figure xiii. 13, and
for a kindred proverb of the Arabs see Schultens ad Job. p. 31,
and Ges. on Is. xxxvii. 3. — The designation of God as the living
(ir\) stands with special emphasis in opposition to the heathen
gods, which are only dead idols. ITSim according to Ges.,
Hitz., Knob, stands for fi^nSl " to revile ;" but (-^Sin never
means to revile, or blame, find fault with, at least in the passages
Gen. xxi. 25, and Ezek. iii. 26, quoted by Knobel, but only to
admonish, correct, and cannot here be understood otherwise-
than nn3'if1 (v* 3) ; ni2im 1S Praei- relat. depending on the
x *•
subject ;-pi;-p> " he will chastise him for the words, which Jeho-
vah thy GoA. hath heard." (Maur.) For this meaning of 3
comp. xiv. 6, and Gen. xviii. 28.
Vv. 5 — 7. Isaiah answers in the name of the Lord, that Heze
kiah is not to be afraid of the blasphemies he has heard from the
young men of the king of Assyria, for the Lord will terrify him
by a rumour, so that he will return to his own land, and cause
him to fall there by the sword, "rfyft lyyi the young men of
the Assyrian king is a contemptuous designation ofthe Assyrian
generals, j-pp means neither will nor sense, but the power of
God operating on man and determining his spirit. Theod. has
too narrow a view of it, ttjv $ei\lav olpai SrfKow. TiyyftQJi is the
report of the approach of Tirhakah, which Sennacherib very soon
heard (v. 9.) The predicted death of Sennacherib, also was ac
complished (see v 37.) But this prediction is not for that
reason to be regarded as either a vaticinium ex eventu (Gesen.)
or a mere presentiment of the politician Isaiah (Hitz. and Knob.),

2 kings xix. 8—13. 95
for that at that time the plague had commenced in the Assyrian
camp, as Knobel asserts, is a gratuitous assumption.
Vv. 8 — 13. Meanwhile Rab-shakeh had returned to his sove
reign to Libnah, to which he had set out, probably after the
taking of Lachish. Here Sennacherib heard the rumour of the
approach of the Ethiopian sovereign Tirhakah, in hostile array,
and therefore immediately made a second attempt, by sending
messengers to Hezekiah with a letter (v. 14), to force the sur
render of Jerusalem, inasmuch as he probably hoped, when in
possession of this city, to be able to make head against the
assaults of Tirhakah. Concerning Libnah comp. on viii. 22. —
V. 9. "yj^ ^, for which stands in Is. "yjy lyy, means in refe
rence to Tir. — Tirhakah (npm,n, LXX. OapaKa), is by ge-
neral and unquestionably correct assumption, the TapaKot of
Manetho, the successor of Sevechos (xvii. 4), the third king of
the twenty-fifth dynasty, and the TedpKav of Strabo (xv. 687),
who reigned, according to Jul. Afric, in Syncell. (i. p. 39, ed.
Dind.) eighteen years, according to Euseb. in Sync. (p. 140),
twenty years, according to which Hitz. (Is. p. 222) fixes the
period of his reign at 714 — 696, but Knobel, (Is. p. 127), at
717 — 696 B.C., comp. des Vignoles chronol. ii. p. 130 ff., and
Archinard, chronol. p. 67 and 85. Although here designated
king of Ethiopia, he ruled at the same time over Egypt, and is
represented, like Sesostris, as one of the great conquerors of
the old world, who penetrated to Europe and the pillars of Her
cules (Strabo I.e.) But how far Tirhakah had already ad
vanced cannot be determined from our verse. It was enough
that this report was a motive to Sennacherib for effecting, if
possible, the surrender of Jerusalem. Instead of n^©!,'1 2tU!,l>
" he sent again " stands in Is. n^tpYi 5fl3$>H> " when he
heard (this) he sent," which perhaps is more original than
our text. As Rab-shakeh had effected nothing by his vain
glorious speech, Sennacherib sent messengers with a letter, in
which he only repeats what was brought forward by Rab-shakeh
and merely enumerates still more of the lands conquered by the
Assyrians than the former had named, in order to make a still
stronger impression of the irresistible might of the Assyrian
arms on Hezekiah. V. 11. tSO^nnV properly to excommuni-

96 2 kings xix. 8—13.
cate, to strike with a curse, comp. Num. xx. 3 ; Deut. ii. 34, iii.
6, etc., here in the general sense, " to destroy them."— nnN"l
hmn. " an(i shialt thou be delivered ?" a question implying a
strong negative. V. 12. Gozan may here be Gauzanitis of
Mesopotamia, but equally well a properly Assyrian province or
district beyond the Tigris, as Gauzania (comp. on xvii. 6) ; for
its collocation with Haran does not certainly warrant the pre
sumption that the two places were contiguous, as the enumera-
S B - ff ff
tion is historical, not geographical, pn, (jj\y^>, rr", Xappdv
(LXX.), Haran, from -ppf to glow, scorch, as it were a dry
— T
scorched region (, . \1*=»), an ancient city in the north west of
Mesopotamia, in which Terah, Abraham's father, died (Gen.
xi. 31), situated according to Abulf. in an arid region, which
traded with Tyre (Ezek. xxvii. 23), called by the Greeks
and Romans Kdppai, Carrce, and celebrated for the defeat of
Crassus in its vicinity, exists still according to Pococke, Beschr.
d. Morgenl. ii. p. 235, and Niebuhr, Reise ii. p. 410, as a small
place two days' journey southeast of Orfa under tlie old name.
See the proofs in Rosenm. bibl. Althk. i. 2, p. 149, Winer's
R.W. i. p. 545, Ges. thes. i. 528, and Forbiger's Hdb. ii. p. 629.
r]T\ Rezeph is the Arab. xjL^. Under this name Jakuti in
his geogr. W.B. enumerates nine cities, of which the most cele
brated was XiLojJ! or J^ £5^, probably the same, that
Ptolein. (v. 15) calls 'Prjo-dcpa, in Palmyrene, on the way from
Racca to Emesa, a day's journey west of the Euphrates. This
is the place thought of by Mich. Suppl. p. 2264, Rosenm. Athlk.
i. 2, p. 269, Win. R.W. ii. 381, and Ges. thes. iii. 1308 ; on the
contrary Hitz. (Is. p. 424) understands by it another city of this
name situated according to Abulf. in the district of Bagdad.
because ppy by the omission of the particle j-|^ is separated from
ppj and connected with the following py 133, a somewhat pre
carious argument, although the other assumption also rests on
no decisive ground. *iyy iyy " the sons, that is, inhabitants of
Eden." <iyy is perhaps not the Damascene Eden or Betheden
(Am. i. 15), a city in a charming region on Lebanon, three

2 kings xix. 14—19. 97
hours from Kanobin, called in Ptolem. v. 15 IIapdSeiao<;, which
still exists under the old name Eden (comp. Winer, R.W. i- p.
198, and Ges. thes. i. 195), but the Assyrian Eden, which is also
named in Ezek. xxvii. 33, along with Haran and Calneh as an
important place of trade. But this is not the Arabic ^Js*
on the Indian Ocean (Mich. Suppl. p. 1840), but probably the
tract rriio, which Assemanni (bibl. or ii. 224) places in Meso
potamia towards the Tigris in the present province of Diar-bekr
(comp. Winer, R.W., i. p. 334, Ges. thes. ii. 995, Hitz. on Is.,
etc.)1 "iBft^fl Telassar, Gesen., Win , and others take to be
the same with -iD^N Ellasar (Gen. xiv. 1) ; but, first of all, this
T X V
assumption is extremely uncertain (comp. Tuch on Gen. p. 72),
and then Ellasar is likewise completely unknown. The phrase
" the sons of Eden, who were in Telassar," is probably to be
understood so that Telassar was a city or even the capital of the
district of Eden.
Vv. 14 — 19. Hezekiah brings Sennacherib's letter into the
temple and spreads it before the Lord, that he may observe and
punish the taunts it contained. The spreading of the letter
before the Lord in the temple, wherein unbelief can only think
of the praying machine of the Tibetans (Ges. on Is. xxxvii.
14), is explained by that childlike confidence of faith, which
feels itself impelled to utter in prayer all the concerns of the
heart before the all-knowing God, although he as all-knowing
sees and knows all things, before man presents them to him,
O'HQD means n°t letters, but a letter, as litterw ; for Sen
nacherib had no occasion to write several letters on the same
subject to Hezekiah. Hence also the singular suffix in sinftnQV),
whereas ?N"Tp"1 standing nearer to Qv^rjp has a plural suffix,
which is changed into ^n^"lp^ in ^s> ^or the sake of uniformity.
1 On the contrary Havern. Comm. onEzek. p. 473 identifies Eden with
the place of this name mentioned bjStephan. s.v."ABava on the Euphrates,
inasmuch as he following Bochart (Phal. iv. 18) and Vitringa on Is.
xxxviii. 12 takes Itoltf^n or "ito/D to he the same with the city
Thalatha mentioned by Ptolem. below the junction of the Euphrates
and Tigris (see Cellarii geogr. lib. iii. c. 16, p. 641.) But this assump
tion is in the highest degree uncertain, although Telassar cannot be.
otherwise ascertained; comp. Mich. Spicil. i. p. 251 f.
VOL. II. G

98 2 kings xix. 14—19.
How clear was Hezekiah's recognition of God is shown by his
prayer (v. 15), in which he connects the condescending grace of
the Lord who sits over the cherubim of the mercy-seat in the
sublimest manner with his true Godhead and sovereignty over
all kingdoms as creator of heaven and earth (comp. above 125.)
In direct opposition to the fancy of the Assyrians he designates
Jehovah the God of Israel as the only God, Lord and creator of
the whole world. 'EksIvoi ae, cfynaiv, eva vopCCpvai twv ttoWwv
t&v ovk ovtoov iycb he ere ptovov olSa Bebv, Trovryrry) twv enravrav.
Theod. Equally happy is the remark ofthe same father on the fol
lowing words, "bow down thine ear and hear," to Se kXIvov Kal
aKovaov dvdpooirivcos reBeiice, peT evpeveiat Ze^Orjvai Ttjv iKereuxv
dvTt/3o\£v. — In v. 15 after l-fii-p stands in Is. fyiN32> which the
prophets, especially Isaiah, frequently use, but which occurs in
the historical writings only in the mouth of the prophets (see iii.
14, 1 Ki. xviii. 15.) On "-\y) ^Vl TlfttA comp. Ew. Gr. § 548.
The plur. wyiy in contrast with the sing. ^^ is alone correct,
inasmuch as the constant phrase, to incline the ear (Ps. xvii. 6,
xxxi. 3, xiv. 11, and others, even in the plural, incline your ear,
D32TN -Ps- Ixxviii. 1 ; ls. lv. 3) and to open the eyes (Job xxvii.
19; Prov. xx. 13; Zech. xii. 4; Dan. ix. 18); because we
always open both eyes to see anything, whereas one ear is
inclined to the speaker. In the text of Is. stands "yyiy, which
is perhaps also plural, only written defective, as 1 Ki. viii. 29 ;
Job xiv. 3. — The suffix in "iJ-lVttJ ~\ttJN> which is wanting in
Isaiah, belongs to ^\jj^ and refers as this to 1-^3^, inasmuch as
0^13"! has the singular meaning speech, "the speech, which
Sennacherib has written in his letter." V. 17 ff. After Heze
kiah has besought the Lord to regard, that is, resent the insults
of his majesty on the part of Sennacherib, he mentions the
fact, that the Assyrians devastated the nations and their lands,
and burned their gods in the fire, but immediately adds in
explanation of this, that these gods were not God, but the work
of men's hands,' wood and stone, and founds on this the petition,
that the Lord would, by saving Judah from the hand of the
Assyrians, show all the kingdoms of the earth, that he Jehovah
was God alone. Instead of '^ D^SP^nN 'Q'Hnn • •

2 kings xix. 20—24. 99
" the kings of Assyria have destroyed the nations and their
lands," the text of Isaiah has, '^ rtiTlNiT^lD-nN " a^ ^m
1 1 X — I T X V
lands and their (own) land," obviously the more difficult and
original reading, which our author has changed, in order to set
aside the not so easily understood thought, that by making war
on foreign lands they at the same time desolated their own land,
that is, they depopulated and thereby desolated it with their con
tinued wars. Ges., Hitz., Knob., and others, explain the devia
tion otherwise, but incorrectly, see my apol. Vers. p. 230. ^fiyi
also of our text is easier and more usual than \*\jyfi in Isaiah.
The same holds good of the addition qij-j ^ after j-j^^-ji in v.
19, inasmuch as the use of Jehovah as predicate, "that thou art
Jehovah alone" (comp. Neh. ix. 6) is rare, and therefore also
was misunderstood by Gesen. (" that thou Jehovah alone art
this, namely, that which is only falsely asserted of idols.")
V. 20 ff. When Hezekiah prayed to the Lord, Isaiah received
a Divine revelation with respect to the prayer of the pious king.
This word of the Lord, which the prophet sends, that is, causes
to be presented to the king, contains three sections. In the first
(vv. 21 — 28, in Is. vv. 22 — 29) Sennacherib is addressed ; in the
second (w. 29 — 31, in Is. vv. 30 — 32), Hezekiah ; in the third
(vv. 32 — 34, in Is. vv. 33 — 35), the issue ofthe expedition of Sen
nacherib against Judah is announced in brief but very definite
terms. In the very introduction (v. 20), according to our nar
rative the following prophecy is announced to king Hezekiah as
the fruit of his prayer being heard. In Is. ijr^fttij is wanting,
-r-r * t — X
so that the words, " What thou hast prayed to me in reference
to Sennacherib," are to be connected with the following verse :
" this is the word which Jehovah hath spoken concerning him."
This was obviously the original text, and the author of our
books has simplified the construction by the insertion of 1J-)^J3^J,
whereas Ges., according to his erroneous view of the mutual
relation of the two narratives, asserts the contrary.
Vv. 21 — 24. The prediction begins with opposing to the
haughty boasting of the Assyrian, the contempt and infamy
which would befal him on his retreat from Judah without hav
ing effected his purpose. With the vivacity of poetry the
language is addressed to Sennacherib himself. The virgin, the
g2

100 2 kings xix. 21—24.
daughter Zion, despises thee, derides thee ; the daughter Jerusa
lem shaketh her head after thee. The phrase, daughter Zion,
daughter Jerusalem, denotes not the inhabitants of Zion of
Jerusalem, so that py is put collectively for 0^33, as Ges., Hitz.,
— • x
Maur., Knob., think, but the city itself, with its inhabitants
poetically personified as a daughter or virgin ; and the stat.
constr. 'fii^-j-Q is to be understood according to the analogy of
rnB~"l!l2 the river Euphrates (not of Euphrates) ; daughter
Zion, not, daughter of Zion. So the stat. constr. j-q j-piiJ-Q is
to be taken simply in the sense of apposition, not of subordina
tion ; comp. Ew. Kr. Gr. p. 579. The daughter Zion is called
rOITQ. ln reference to the Assyrian as a citadel inaccessible
to him, not to be conquered by him. Comp. the illustrations of
this figure collected from Arabic writers by Gesen. on Is. xxiii.
12. tofcO J^ii"!' Kiveiv ttjv KecfraXrjv (LXX.), to shake the head
is among the Hebrews a gesture of scorn and vindictive exulta
tion ; comp. Ps. xxii. 8, cix. 25, Lam. ii. 15. wv"fl-|N a^ter thee,
that is, after thee retreating with disgrace. — Vv. 22 — 25. With
his blasphemies, and his foolish boasting of his invincible might,
Sennacherib had reviled the Lord, the Holy One of Israel. In
v. 22 the reviling of Sennacherib is in the first place repre
sented in a series of questions as a reviling of the Lord. NteTll x • —
'<\y\ " and hast lifted up thine eyes on high against the Holy One
of Israel," that is, not, thou hast directed thy proud glance
against Jehovah (Gesen.) ; for ryiyiy Q'ny height of eyes, = lofty
eyes, is not proper here ; ryyyft is the accusative of direction,
comp. Is. xi. 26, and the phrase, to lift the eyes on high (to
heaven), has not in itself, as the passage quoted proves, the
secondary bad sense of haughtiness, but assumes it only in con
nection with %i Qj^p-ljy against the Holy One of Israel, or
merely through the context, as in Is., where "yp ^ stands for
"lp-hy. The designation of God, " the Holy One of Israel,"
that is, who manifests his holiness in and on Israel, belongs to the
peculiarities of Isaiah's phraselogy, and occurs in Is. twenty-seven
times and only three times elsewhere in the whole Old Testa-

2 kings xix. 21—24. 101
ment (Ps. lxxi. 22 ; Ixxviii. 41 ; lxxxix. 19), as the passages Jer.
1. 29 and li. 5, as acknowledged imitations of Isaiah, are not to
be reckoned; comp. Kleinert, Echth. des Jes. i. p. 221. — In v.
23 — 25 it is more distinctly stated in what the reviling of the
Lord consisted. In the supercilious boasting of his own all-
grasping power, whereby Sennacherib, as Hab. i. 11 says ofthe
Chaldeans, made his power to be his God. This boasting is in a
strain of genuine poetry couched in a speech, in which Senna
cherib declares that he can and will, with his warlike force,
ascend the highest and most inaccessible mountains, destroy the
most glorious creations of God, and rule over the earth accord
ing to his arbitrary will. But at the same time this individual
izing of the general thought is put in the closest relation with
Sennacherib's actually conceived plans of conquest in Canaan
and Egypt, as the naming of Lebanon with its noble forests and
of the river of Egypt clearly indicates. "ift^JTi " that thou
saidst." By the Vau relat. the explanatory sentence is subordi
nated to the principal sentence in the form of an immediate
consequence (Ew. Gr. § 611.) The words, " With my chariots
upon chariots I ascended the height of the mountains, the utmost
sides of Lebanon, and will cut down the tall cedars thereof and
the choice cypresses thereof, and will come to the extreme
lodging thereof, to the forest of its garden," are not to be taken
with the exeg. Hdb. for a historical description of that which
Sennacherib had already done or wished still to do, or witli
Gesen., Hitz., Knob., in a purely figurative sense for a poeti
cal description of the otherwise frequent thought, " to go upon
the heights of the earth," according to which the hewing down
ofthe cedars would denote the fall of princes, kings, and warriors.
Both are equally false. The words are an individualizing pic
ture of the plans of conquest entertained by the Assyrian, in
which Lebanon is named on the one hand as a mountain inac
cessible to chariots, on the other as the northern barrier of the
land of Canaan, by the conquest of which he would have made
himself master of the country, comp. Hengstenb. Christol. ii. p.
201 f., and Delitsch, Hab. p. 94. So far then as Lebanon is put
by synecdoche for the whole land, of which it formed the frontier,
the hewing down of its cedars and cypresses, those glorious evi
dences ofthe creative power of God, denotes the devastation of

102 2 kings xix. 21—24.
the whole land with all its glorious works of nature and art.
,,23"1 3313. f°r which stands in the Keri and in Is. 133-^ yyy,
as tlie rarer diction, has the presumption of originality in its
favour. 133--, 33-13 " my chariots upon chariots" is a highly
poetical designation of a countless multitude of chariots, as y\%
vyQ of a countless multitude of locusts (Nah. iii. 17.) The ex
pression, " the height of the mountains," is enhanced by TOT
ttJ3^, " the utmost sides of Lebanon ;" for Lebanon is the
highest mountain of Palestine, and the utmost sides of it are its
highest ridges, as yiy iri^yi (Is. xiv. 15, and Ezek. xxxii. 23)
are the utmost depths of Sheol. VVM DOip' *he height of his
tx— : — *
cedars = his highest and most slender cedars. VUfi^S "YlPDO*
the choice of his cypresses = his choicest cypresses. The form
TPftQ stands here as in iii. 19 for "^n3?2' hut does not occur
elsewhere, pjsjp )$yft, " the lodge of its end," that is, the highest
point of Lebanon, on which man can repose ; and we are not to
imagine with Cler., Vitr., and Rosenm., a determinate lodge
built on the highest pinnacle of Lebanon. The ifoft of our text
is fairly taken in general to be more original than the Q*n»3 of
Is. ^D'lS yyi its garden forest, ^53*^3 a garden-like planta
tion of trees, comp. Is. x. 18. By this is obviously to be under
stood the garden-like cedar forest, which stood on a small area
between the highest summits at the present village Bsherreh,
comp. above p. 65. — V. 24 refers to Sennacherib's intended ex
pedition against Egypt, which was opposed by two mighty natu
ral obstacles, the arid desert el Tih (comp. Herodot. iii. 5, and
Rob. Pal. i. p. 296 f.), and the arms of the Nile which protect
Egypt. These two obstacles the proud king imagines he can
easily overcome. In the wilderness he digs and drinks strange
water, and he dries up the rivers of Egypt with sole of his feet.
The praeter. iftilyifi T\1p denote only that which is certain to
come to pass, and are to be translated by the praes. ; for Senna
cherib had not yet entered the desert. By the epithet, strange
water, it is indicated that the haughty sovereign intends to rule
over the water in a foreign land as in his own, though it is so
difficult to obtain in a wilderness. Even the arms of the Nile

2 kings xix. 25—28. 103
are to dry up under the footsteps of his innumerable host. T273
here and in Is. xix. 6, Mic. vii. 12, denotes Egypt.1
Vv. 25 — 28. This boasting is very foolish, as Jehovah has
long since decreed all this and now causes it to come to pass,
and therefore the Assyrian, without being willing to know and
acknowledge it, acts only as the instrument of the Lord, who has
furnished him with power to destroy, who knows all his ways,
and will soon restrain his rage against him, the true God.2 The
words, " from afar I have done it, from the days of old I have
formed it," denote the Divine ordering and governing of all
events, subsisting since the beginning of things, comp. Is. xxii.
11, xlvi. 11. The suffixes in pfn^, rTynJJ"1 an(^ rPjiN^n refer
to the following j-ymjn^ TlITl' " *hat there be to destroy," that
is, that fenced cities be destroyed into ruinous heaps. Many
expositors, including Gesen., Knobel, and Hendewerk, regard
T1FI as *he second person ; that thou shouldst be, tend, to destroy ;
but against this is on the one hand the reference of i^p to the
preceding suffixes, which require inn to be regarded as the third
person, gen. neutr., on the other the peculiar usage of Isaiah, in
which fytjy with an infinitive following is only a circumlocution
for the passive, for example, yyyy n^H 1S to burn — will or
•* x : xt
ought to be burned, Is. v. 5, vi. 13, xliv. 15 ; comp. Kleinert,

1 Herewith the expositors following Bochart (Hieroz. ii. lib. 5, c.
15 p. 766) very appropriately compare the similar boasting of Alaric
in Claudian de. bell. Geth. vs. 526 ss. cum cesserit omnis
Obsequiis natura meis ? Subsidere nostris
Sub pedibus montes, arescere vidimus amnes

V. 532 : Fregi Alpes, galeis Padum victricibus hausi.
2 Comp. as an actual parallel, Is. x. 5 ff. This prediction belongs
without doubt to the first period of the Assyrian invasion, when Sen
nacherib advanced against Judah to take all the fenced cities. If the
modern expositors of Isaiah, on account ofa supposed difference, namely,
that in Is. x. 28 — 34, the Assyrian army is to set out from the north
to Jerusalem, but in our narrative from the south-west (xviii. 17),
have placed this prediction in other times and referred it to other
events, this could only happen under the supposition, that a prediction
expressed in an individualizing picture is a chronological bulletin of
the warlike operations of the Assyrian army.

104 2 kings xix. 29-31.
Echtli. des Jes. p. 275 f. That p^nS inn 1S to be explained
according to this idiom, " there is to destroy = there are to be
destroyed," is obvious, though it has not been observed by any
ofthe recent expositors of Isaiah. On the form j-filUn'? f°r
niNttJil^ (Keri and in Is.) comp. Ges. Lehrgeb. p. 137. — V. 26
still depends on the foregoing. This also comes from Jehovah,
that the inhabitants of the cities devoted to destruction are weak
and frail, and can easily be conquered by the Assyrians, -p-i-i2p
short of hand, that is, powerless. The hand is the instrument of
active power ; the short-hand is therefore a figure of inability to
deliver oneself, comp. Num. xi. 23 ; Is. 1. 2, lix. 1. The oppo
site is paKpoxeip, longimanus, that is, the mighty, the high and
mighty, the well-known surname of Artaxerxes I. The com
parison with the grass of the field, the green herb, denotes the
frailty, the rapid withering away, Ps. xxxvii. 2, xc. 5 f. ; Is. xl.
6 f. etc. nlSil "P^n grass of the roofs, that sprouts forth on the
floor of the roofs, and still sooner withers, because it can strike
no deep roots, Ps. cxxix. 6. TTOp **tth riDltl? " corn blasted
before the stalk," that is, corn which is blasted and dries up,
before it shoots up into stalks. For nD~N£J stands in Is.
n!2"KZ) wl*h a change of the labial, which is not to be con
founded with n?3"TO field, but not seed, as Knobel thinks, see
Delitsch, Habak. p. 197. In vv. 27 and 28 judgment is pro
nounced on Sennacherib. The Lord knows his ways and rage
against him, and will therefore control him as an irrational
animal, and lead him back to his country without having at
tained his object. The sitting and going in and out denote not
merely the doing, but the collective doings of men; as the sitting
and rising in Ps. cxxxix. 2. Instead of rising it is usual to say
going in and out, Deut. xxviii. 6 ; Ps. cxxi. 8.— p^tl) to be
quiet (v. 28) denotes the security, that is conscious of its own
strength, therefore the security of haughtiness, confident haughti
ness—" and because (mi is to be repeated) thy haughtiness is
come to mine ears, I will put a ring in thy nose, a bridle in thy
lips (mouth.)" The figurative expression is taken from wild
animals, which men restrain in this way, the ring in the nose of
lions (Ezek. xix. 4), and other wild beasts (Ezek. xxix. 4 ; Is.

2 kings xix. 29—31. ,105
xxx. 28), the bridle in the mouth of intractable horses (Ps. xxxii.
9.) " To turn any one back by the way by which he came,"
means to send him back disappointed in his object.
Vv. 29 — 31. This sentence concerning the end ofthe under
takings of Sennacherib is more fully particularized in the last
section of our prediction, first, however, in the second section
(vv. 29 — 31) a sign is given to Hezekiah for the confirmation
of its truth. The ]-\iN5 ffijfielov is here no miracle, no fiQ'ift as
1 Ki. xiii. 3, but consists in the foretelling of natural and nearer
events, which serve to accredit the proper prediction, on the con
trary Is. viii. 14, in the presaging of a supernatural event, which,
while connected with the expectation of the people, was given for
the confirmation of a prophecy more difficult to be believed when
the view was directed only to the visible state of present things.
The purport of the sign is, that this and the next year the
country will be still occupied by the enemies, so that men can
not ordinarily sow and reap, but must live on that which grows
without sowing ; but in the third year they will again be able to
cultivate their fields and vineyards, and reap as usual. The
infin. absol. ^3fc$ stands not for the perfect, but for the impera-
x
tive, as the following imperatives show, comp. Ew. Gr. § 583 —
j-pQD new growth, after growth (from nDD_nQD to add, annex,1
i" * x
properly what is added to that which is already gained in the
previous harvest, comp. Delitsch, Hab. p. 88) denotes the corn
which comes up from the dropped seed of the previous year,
Lev. xxv. 5 — 11. ttJinD or with transposition of the letters
• x
DTTtt? in ^s- -A-bulwal. explains, " that which germinates from
the root of the seed." The etymology of the word is uncertain,
it cannot therefore be determined which form the original and
which is the transposed.2 V. 30 f. The remnant that is escaped

1 The current explanation of p^GD ^rom t&&-»
" that which grows from the dropped grains of the previous harvest,"
is proved to be inadmissible by Lev. xxv. 11.
3 Neither the Arabic (jascu* elala est (vox), sustulit (visum) in
caelum, which Ges. compares in lex., nor ^^^Ji, dispersus, dissipatus
est, which Winer in lex. proposes, presents a suitable meaning, and the
old writers only conjectured from the context and fluctuated (comp.

106 2 kings xix. 32—34.
of the house of Judah will again grow and flourish, for out of
Jerusalem will go forth a remnant that has escaped. The theo
cratic people will not be exterminated by this judgment, but
only winnowed through the jealousy of the Lord, who cannot
utterly cast off his chosen people and leave them to perish by the
heathen. ntO""^S denotes those who have escaped destruction
x •* :
in the judgment, Is. iv. 2, x. 20. The deliverance is connected
with Jerusalem and Mount Zion, from which, according to Is.
ii. 3, the salvation of the Messiah is to go forth, and is based
upon the niiT1 nfrWp> as ln -"-s- lx- 6, the appearance of the
Messiah for the establishment of the eternal kingdom of peace
and righteousness. For the deliverance of the covenant-people
from the power of the Assyrians, is a type of the deliverance of
the people of God from the bondage of sin and death through
the Messiah, pnj-p nN3p> 1S *he jealousy of Jehovah's love,
which cannot altogether and for ever reject his betrothed and
confiding people. Comp. the remarks on ^p P- 210. After
m^i the ]-|")N32> which is quite in keeping with the phraseology
of Isaiah (Is. v. 22), is omitted in our text, comp. Is. ix. 6.
Vv. 32 — 34. After this sign given to Hezekiah, the prophecy
returns to Sennacherib, announcing tbat he will not come to
Jerusalem, besiege or shoot against it, but return without having
effected his purpose, because the Lord defends it to save it
for the sake of his promise.1 fty*p with double accus. means to
come to meet any one with anything, sometimes sensu bono, for
ex. Ps. xxi. 4, sometimes hostili modo, as here, with shield to
advance against (the city.) V. 34. " For mine own sake and
for my servant David's sake," that is, because Jehovah as the
covenant-God, unchangeable in his engagements, must perform
his promise made to David, comp. the remarks on 1 Ki. xi. 13,
above p. 171.
Mich. Suppl. p. 1739 f.) J. Furst (Concord, p. 762 f.) takes ««-, to
be the root, which has vim status exsucculenti, aridi atque serotini, and
explains ^lpD Planla serotina quae tempore succositatis praelerito
germinat, an aftershoot.
1 The reasons for which Hitz. and Hendew. wish to refuse these
verses to Isaiah, have been already rejected as inconclusive by Knobel.

2 kings xix. 35—37. 107
Vv. 35—37. In v. 35, f., the historical fulfilment is immedi
ately annexed to the prediction, although, in reality, about two
years intervened in order to conclude the narrative of Sennache
rib's invasion with this chapter. There is a difficulty in the
expression ^^ nS,,V3 'invl> " ancl it came to pass that night,"
because no night is mentioned in the preceding context, to which
j^nn might refer. The whole particulars can only refer to the
time when Sennacherib advanced to Jerusalem to commence
the siege, for this is the point of time given in the verses imme
diately before, which is to be placed about two years after that
prediction of the prophet, or, which is the same thing, after the
sending ofthe messengers of Sennacherib, mentioned in v. 9, ff,
to summon Hezekiah to surrender Jerusalem. 1 j-j^n'1 TTN^ftj
" the angel of the Lord," is the same, who as pintlJQ) " the
1 Most ofthe old interpreters erroneously understand ^ntl n^Vi
of the night, which followed the day in which Isaiah delivered his
prophecy, with which they reconcile the determination of time in the
sign given to Hezekiah (v. 29), by the aid of a sabbatical year, which
Scaliger places in the thirteenth, most others in the fifteenth or six
teenth year of Hezekiah's reign (comp. Vitr. ad Jes. xxxvii. 30), or
even by the assumption of a sabbatical year followed by a jubilee
year (see J. Ode de anno Hebr. jubil. in Oelrich's collectio opusc. hist.
phil. theol. ii. p. 461, 484), while Hitzig, who thus understands pJ7i^3
^ji;-j, offers no explanation. This assumption is opposed not only
by the want of any allusion to the sabbatical or jubilee year in either
text, but also by the circumstance, that the sentence of the prophet,
" this year and the following sabbatical year (or in this sabbatical and
the following jubilee year), ye will live on that which grows without
sowing, but in the third year again ye will be able to sow and reap,"
could scarcely be a sign given by God for the satisfaction of Hezekiah,
as it left him entirely uncertain whether the present severe oppression
on the part of the Assyrians would cease immediately or only after two
years. Equally inadmissible is the expedient, by which Gesen. pro
posed to obviate the difficulties, that is, to take the infin. abs. ^yy^ X
(v. 29), as praeter., and so determine the sense of the verse thus,
" Two years has the land now been wasted by the enemy, so that there
was neither sowing nor reaping, in this third year delivered from the
enemy ye will again sow and reap." For that S*|1M cannot here be
X
understood of the past, was already remarked on v. 29, and that ;-f2l#3 xx —
j.„t^l«-. cannot mean, in this third, that is, in the present year, does
not require to be remarked.

108 2 kings xix. 35—37.
destroying angel," smote the first-born of the Egyptians (Ex.
xiii. 23, comp. with vv. 12, 13), and after the enumeration of
the people in David's time, inflicted the punishment of pestilence
on Israel (2 Sam. xxiv. 16), from whom proceed as well the
preservation and protection of the true members of the theocracy
as the destruction of all their enemies, comp. Hengstenb.
Christol. iii. p. 202 f. The means which he employed for the
destruction of the Assyrian host, was most probably a fearfully
violent pestilence, as in David's time (2 Sam. xxiv. 13, 15 f.),
and perhaps also in the death of the first-born, comp. Hengstenb.
d. BB. Mos. u. Aeg. p. 126 ff1 "^ }J3i3ttjv}, " and when they
(sc. pauci qui reliqui erant, J. H. Mich., to whom belonged the
king himself), arose in the morning, behold they were all (the
185,000 men), dead corpses." qv^q " lifeless bodies," is used
• x :
of the bodies of men as well as animals. According to Hengstenb.
(Christol. iii. p. 597), it properly stands only for animal bodies,
1 As the plague often carried away several thousand men in one day,
but in no other account were 185,000 men killed by it in one night,
Gesen., Hitz., Knobel, and others, who think of nothing more than a
natural plague, pronounce partly the statement, " in one night,"
which is also implied in the parallel narrative of Isaiah, although it
has not ^inn n7",'?3> Partly the number ofthe slain to be a mythical
exaggeration, in reply to which Hendew. thinks that no one will con
sider the number mythical, who has any historical knowledge of the
frightful ravages which the plague makes, and is aware that for example
in 1714, it swept away 300,000 men in Constantinople, and often
carries off 30,000 in Smyrna (Jahn's Archeeol. i. 2, p. 392), while in
an army stationed in a hostile country, it might easily effect a still
more extensive desolation. This defence of the historical truth of our
narrative is still weaker than the attack upon it, as the expositors,
whom Hendew. opposes, have quoted before him the self-same fact,
from Jahn's Archseol. But according to the express statement of our
narrative the destruction of the Assyrian army was no mere natural
consequence of a plague breaking out in the country, but a Divine
judgment executed by the angel of the Lord, which is not to be mea
sured by the rationalistic standard of an ordinary plague, even if the
plague was the means by which the army of the proud Sennacherib
was destroyed. There is great probability in the opinion of Vitringa
on Is. xxxvii. 36, in tempestate horribili ab Angelo excitata haec
hominum millia prostrata esse fulmine, corporibus intus adustis, vestibus
salvis. — The various natural explanations of the miracle, for example,
by the poisonous simoom, by an earthquake, by a nocturnal attack of
Tirhakah, by the poisoning of the water and the provisions, and the

2 kings xix. 35—37. 109
but is afterwards transferred to the bodies of those, who by their
wickedness have incurred the Divine judgment and been de
stroyed by it.1 V. 36. The accumulation of the verbs yQ^
211^1 Tib*1!' " departed and went and returned," expresses the
haste with which Sennacherib departed. Nineveh ni2',2> that
is, dwelling of Ninus, called by the Greeks and Romans Nivos,
like, are enumerated in the exeget. Hdb. on the passage and in Winer's
R.W. i. p. 587 f. — In the parallel passage 2 Chr. xxxii. 21 the number
of the dead is not given, but it is merely said, " The angel of the
Lord destroyed all the valiant men and leaders and captains in the
camp of the Assyrian king," a statement which Gramberg in his
blind zeal against Chronicles, and copying him Winer (R.W. i. p.
588) have distorted into this, that according to Chr. " only the leaders
and officers " were killed.
1 Herodotus (ii. 141) gives a very distorted tradition of this defeat
of Sennacherib, without doubt after the narrative of the Egyptian
priests, according to which the Deity promised to king Sethon a priest
of Vulcan at his entreaty the victory over the mighty advancing host
of Sennacherib, whereupon in the night mice spread themselves among
the foes (in the Assyrian camp), and gnawed the quivers, bows, and
straps of the shields, so that they were obliged to flee the next morn
ing without weapons, and many of them were put to the sword. That
in this priestly legend the defeat of the Assyrians is ascribed to mice,
J. D. Mich, explained by the fact, that among the Egyptians the
mouse was the hieroglyph of devastation and extermination (comp.
Herapoll. Hieroglyph, i. 50.) As historical element of the legend this
only can be retained, that the knowledge of the annihilation of the
Assyrian army by a miraculous interposition of the Diety had reached
the Egyptians, and that they ascribed it to the prayers of their king,
inasmuch as the expedition of Sennacherib was directed at the same
time against Egypt. Nothing more can be inferred from it, certainly not
that Sennacherib actually advanced to the district of Pelusium. On
the contrary we may without hesitation infer from the definite predic
tions of Isaiah in our chapter, especially in vv. 32 — 34 and in Is. x.
32  34 that Sennacherib himself, after his messengers, sent from
Libnah with a letter by his own hand to Hezekiah, could not procure
the surrender of Jerusalem, and after he had taken all the other fenced
cities of Judah, advanced with his whole army against Jerusalem the
capital in order to conquer it by force of arms, and that here his army
was smitten by the destroying angel, before he had actually begun the
siege. This conjecture has also, irrespective of these predictions, the
greatest probability in itself. For if the report of the approach of
Tirhakah induced him to make every effort to force the surrender of
Jerusalem he would not certainly venture, after the failure of his
negotiations there, to advance towards Egypt, so long as he had not
conquered Hezekiah and taken Jerusalem.

110 2 kings xix. 35—37.
Ninus, the capital of the Assyrian empire, and residence of the
Assyrian kings, built by Nimrod (Gen. x. 11), a very great and
strong city. According to Jon. i. 2, iii. 3, iv. 11, it was a great
city of three days' journey ; according to Diod. Sicul. ii. 33 it
was 480 stad. in circumference, and had very high and extremely
thick walls, and was almost impregnable as well by these walls
as by its position on the eastern bank of the Tigris, but yet was
taken in 625 B.C. by Cyaxares of Media and Nabopolassar of
Babylon, and razed to the ground (comp. our remarks on xv.
19), so that from that time only heaps of ruins remain, on which
at present opposite Mosul stand several villages, as Nunia or
Nebbi Yunus, Nimrud, Kalta, Numia, and Khorsabad, slx^yji.
Comp. Rosenm. Althk. i. 2, p. 94 ff. 114 ff, Gesen. thes. ii. 881
f., Winer R.W. ii. p. 187 ff. and Forbiger Hdb. ii. p. 611. Only
two years ago the French consul Botta at Mosul caused diggings
to be made in these ruins, by which, especially in the village
Khorsabad, many interesting remains of masonry with sculp
tures and cuneiform inscriptions were brought to light. Comp.
the description and drawings of these in the Journ. Asiat. quatr.
serie torn. ii. sqq. Paris 1842 — 43. — V. 37. In conclusion the
fate of Sennacherib is recorded. That his murder did not occur
immediately after his disgraceful return, appears from the clause,
" and dwelt at Nineveh." He must have lived fourteen or
fifteen years longer. Nothing certain is known of the god Nis-
roch ("rpM.) Most derive the word from ytfcy ^i an eagle,
with reference to the circumstance, that the Oriental astronomers
call two constellations eagles (comp. Ideler, Urspr. der Stern-
namen p. 416), that the eagle was adored by the ancient Arabs
(Pococke, spec. p. 94, 199) and in the Persian religion was a
symbol of Ormuzd; comp. Comm. on Is. i. p. 975 f. and Win.
R.W. ii. p. 189. Other explanations see in Selden de Diis Syr.
ii. 10 and Addit. p. 323 f, Carpz. Appar. p. 519 and Gesen. thes.
ii. 892.— Movers (Rei. d. Phon. i. p. 68, 506 f.) takes Nisroch to
be the supreme deity of the Assyrians, of whom Philo in Euseb.
prasp. ev. i. 10 says, "that Zoroaster teaches, that the supreme
deity is represented by the eagle's head, and also assumes, that
the same corresponds to the Egyptian Sun-god Phre with the
head of an eagle or hawk. — Sennacherib's murderers were his

2 kings xix. 35—37. Ill
sons Adrammelech, who according to widely prevalent custom
(comp. Gesen. on Is. vii. 6) derived his name from deity, and
from him indeed whom the inhabitants of Sepharvaim wor
shipped (xvii. 31) and Sharezer (i2JN~^)> that is, probably
prince of fire, 1133 moreover is wanting in our text. The country
of Ararat is a part of the Armenian highlands, comp. Ges. thes.
i. 155. Ararat still denotes the highest summit of a branch of
the great Taurus range, which rises in two peaks far above the
other mountains on the high table land of the Araxes, twelve
hours southwest of the city Eriwan. This is the mons Abus
covered with perpetual snow, 6 'A/3os of Strabo, Plin. and
Ptolem., called by the Persians Kuhi Nuch, or Noah's moun
tain. The highest peak of it, the great Ararat, Aghri Dagh,
rises, according to the measurements of Parrot, who ascended it
for the first time, Sept. 22—28, 1829, 13,530 feet above the
plain of Araxes, and has an absolute height of 16,254 feet. The
Little Ararat, Kutshuk Dagh or Kutshuk Aghri Dagh rises
12,284 feet above the level of the sea. Comp. Fr. Parrot's
Reise Zum Ararat, Berlin, 1834, second part, and the extracts
from it in Ritter's Erdk. x. p. 477 ff, 486 ff— " And Esarhaddon
his son became king in his stead." This king, whose name
teypf-^DN> AcropSdv, AaapaBdv (Ezr. iv. 2 LXX.) is not yet
satisfactorily explained (comp. Gesen. and Hitz. on Is. xxxvii. 38
and Ges. thes. i. 133) is mentioned also in Ezr. iv. 2 and Tob. i. 21
(Xaj(ephov6<;, Cod. Al. Ila^ephcov, Compl. A-xeipScovot) and by
Berosus in Euseb. chron. arm. p. 19 f. under the name Asor-
danus according with the LXX. According to Berosus he was
first viceroy of Babylon, afterwards eight years king of Assyria.
In the canon of Ptol. he is called 'Icraplv8ivo<;, and said to have
reigned thirteen years.1
1 Of v. 37 Berosus and Abydenus in Eusebii chron. arm. afford some
fragmentary confirmations. According to Berosus (I. c. p. 19) Sen
nacherib was murdered by his eon Ardumuzanes. In Abyd. (I. c. p.
24) Sennacherib was succeeded by Nergilus, whom his son Adrameles
murdered while Adram. again was murdered by his brother Axerdis.
Axerdis is said to have pursued his army with mercenary troops to
Byzantium, and besides, to have gained possession of Egypt and the
interior of Syria. The identity of Axerdis with Aserdan or Esar
haddon is scarcely to be doubted. The notice of Nergilus and his

112 2 kings xx. 1 — 3.

CHAPTER XX.
sickness and recovery of hezekiah, vv. 1 — 11. arrival
of a babylonian embassy at jerusalem, vv. 12 — 19.
hezekiah's death, vv. 20, 21.
A parallel account also of the first two events here mentioned,
agreeing almost word for word with our text, is found in Is.
xxxviii. and xxxix., the relation of which to our own is indicated
in the remarks on xviii. 13. But the narrative of Hezekiah's
sickness is there followed by his song of thanksgiving after his
recovery (Is. xxxviii. 9 — 20), which is here wanting.
Vv. 1 — 3. "In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death."
By t3i"in D*'?3!,2 the sickness of Hezekiah is placed in the same
time with the preceding event, in which case it was certainly
still possible, that it occurred shortly after the departure of the
Assyrians, as the last verses of the preceding chapter anticipate
a later occurrence ; but decidedly against this view laid down by
Vitr. and Ges. on Is. xxxviii. 1 is the circumstance, that, as
murder by Adrameles appears to be a distortion of the murder of Sen
nacherib by his son related in our text and confirmed by Berosus. But
at the foundation of the account of the conquest of Syria seems to lie
the historical fact, that Esarhaddon undertook an expedition against
hither Asia, in which he not only brought Babylonian colonists into
the depopulated kingdom of the ten tribes, but also by his generals
carried away king Manasseh captive to Babylon. (2 Chr. xxxiii. 11.)
Against this a chronological difficulty no doubt arises. For if Sen
nacherib reigned only eighteen years, and attained to the sovereignty
in 716 (see on xviii. 13), his successor Esarhaddon would have
ascended the throne almost simultaneously with Manasseh, at most one
or two years later. But the carrying of Manasseh to Babylon must
have taken place at the earliest in the twenty-second year of his reign
(comp. on xxi. 15), when Esarhaddon would have been no longer alive,
if he had reigned only eight or thirteen years. But this chronological
difference can by no means induce us to abandon the connection of the
captivity of Manasseh with the said expedition of Esarhaddon to Syria
and Palestine, as the statements of Berosus concerning the reigns of
Sennacherib and Esarhaddon are proved false by the fact that he has
made the period from Sennacherib to Nebuchadnezzar twenty years too
short. Comp. the remarks on xx. 12.

2 kings xx. 1 — 3. 113
according to v. 6 fifteen years are to be added to the life of
Hezekiah, his sickness must have occurred in the fourteenth year
of his reign, since according to xviii. 2 he only reigned twenty-
nine years. With this also agrees the farther Divine promise,
v. 6, that the Lord would deliver him out of the hand of the king
of Assyria. We must therefore with the Rabb. in the Sed. Ol.
rab., with Ussher, and the majority of interpreters, place Heze
kiah's sickness in the fourteenth year of his reign, or in the be
ginning of the invasion of Sennacherib, when Jerusalem was first
threatened by the enemy. Some earlier and all later expositors
take the sickness of the king to be an attack of the plague, and
connect it with the destruction of the Assyrian army by the same
plague breaking out in the camp. But this connection is dis
proved by the fact that Hezekiah's sickness falls in the first year
of the Assyrian invasion, whereas the destruction of the host
took place, according to xix. 19, only in the third year of it. To
this is added, that pnttj 1S nowhere used in the Old Testament
of the plague or plague boil, but only either of the ulcers of the
leprosy (Job ii. 1, 7, 8) or of other inflammatory ulcers (Ex. ix.
9), and poultices of figs are indeed laid on plague boils by the
Arabian physicians, but are equally often, according to the testi
mony of the ancients as well as universal experience, applied to
other ulcers, because the fig Biacpopei o-K\r)pia<; (Dioscor.) and
ulcera aperit (Plin.) Comp. the many testimonies on this point
collected by Celsius in the Hierobot. ii. p. 373. We must there
fore think of another disease with an inflammatory ulcer, because
not the slightest trace can be discovered in the text of the plague
raging at that time in Jerusalem, though the disease cannot be
more particularly determined. See the various conjectures about
it in Schmidt's bibl. Medicus p. 567 ff. — ^jn*,27 12 " Slve charge
concerning thine house," put thy house in order, arrange thy
last will (2 Sam. xvii. 33), " for thou shalt die and not live," that
is, thy sickness is unto death, namely, without the miraculous aid
of God. V. 2. " He turned his face to the wall," not as Ahab
(1 Ki. xxi. 4) from displeasure and vexation, but " away from the
bystanders to be more collected in prayer" (Gesen.) The Chald.
understands yip quite erroneously of the wall of the sanctuary. —
V. 3. In his prayer Hezekiah appeals to his walk before the Lord
VOL. II. H

114 2 kings xx. 4 — 7.
in truth and with a perfect heart, quite in keeping with the legal
stand-point of the old covenant. On Q^© 33^7 see above p.
132. "And Hezekiah wept sore," not merely because he must
die without having an heir to the throne, as Josephus states, but
because he was to die in the middle of his life, whereas tbe Lord
had promised long life to the pious.
Vv. 4 — 7. The prayer of the pious king is immediately heard.
Before Isaiah returned to his dwelling, he receives a Divine reve
lation to return to tbe king and announce to him, that the Lord
will heal him within three days and add fifteen years to his life,
that he will also deliver him from the power of the Assyrians
and protect Jerusalem, whereupon the prophet returns and
causes a lump of figs to be laid on the ulcer, in consequence of
which Hezekiah recovered, and at the sametime gives the king
at his request a miraculous sign in confirmation of the restoration
announced to him.1 V. 4. -^ ^I"^^ ^TV} " And Isaiah had
not yet gone out of the inner city," . . . J-^^nn *Y*vn ls
x • — * X
the city of David on Mount Zion, or more probably the inner
part of the city of David, the royal castle. To this leads the
Keri "jyn y^n which has been erroneously understood of the
•¦ T
temple-court ; the word yiy denotes here probably, as in x. 25,
the royal castle, so that the Keri expressed by all the old versions
is a correctly explaining gloss ; comp. the remarks on x. 25.
V. 25. Instead of 3^ stands in Isaiah Tn^n> and the very
suitable designation of Hezekiah as ifty yiy% is there omitted.
The determination of time added to the words, "I will heal
thee," namely, " on the third day thou shalt go to the house of
the Lord," ensures to the king the promised recovery. There is
no foundation for Hitzig's assertion, that " on the third day"
means often a very short space, that is, of several weeks. The
1 This narrative is abridged in Is. xxxviii. 4 — 6. In v. 4 the
particular determination of the time of granting his prayer, in v. 5 the
words, " behold I will heal thee ; on the third day thou shalt go intQ
the house ofthe Lord," and in v. 6 the words, "for mine own sake and
for the sake of my servant David," are omitted. Besides, vv. 7, 8 of
our narrative are in Isaiah placed at the close of the chapter, after
Hezekiah's song of thanksgiving, which is there inserted (vv. 21, 22),
and vv. 8 — 11, which narrate the miraculous sign, are there consider
ably abridged in vv. 7, 8.

2 KINGS XX. 8—11. 115
passage Hos. vi. 2 does not prove this pretended usage, for there
it stands, " after two days" and " on the third day." The pre
sumption, that Hezekiah could not have been able actually to go
to the temple on the third day, rests partly on the denial of
every definite prediction, partly on the erroneous assumption
that he was seized by the plague. V. 6. The announcement,
also, that the Lord would add fifteen years to his life, we cannot
with the rationalists take to be a vaticinium ex eventu, because
definite statements of time by no means belong to the impossibi
lities of prophecy. On the second half of v. 6 comp. on xix. 34.
— V. 7. D^^n n^ni lumP of figs, cake of figs, •jrakaOi), from
 \j$ in unum coegit idque rotundiori forma. Comp. on these
fig-cakes Faber on Harm.'s Beob. i. p. 389 f. and Ges. thes. i.
311. On liftij see on v. 1. At the close the event of his
recovery is immediately appended by \fysy. It is possible that
the whole verse belongs to the close of this narrative after v. 11,
that the prophet first prescribed the means, after he had given
the king the miraculous sign recorded in the following verses.
Still this assumption is not certain, but it may with equal proba
bility be assumed, that Hezekiah only after the lump of figs was
prescribed sought and also received the sign assuring him of the
promised recovery.1
Vv. 8 — 11. This sign (j-yiN comp. on xix. 29) consisted in the
miraculous return of the shadow on the dial-plate of Ahaz,
because Hezekiah, when the choice between the progress or re
gress of the shadow was granted, as formerly the choice between
a sign from the height and a sign from the depth was given to
Ahaz, decided for its regress. The phrase fl-jN ni^2ft3 " stePs
xx-:-
of Ahaz," is perhaps scarcely to be understood with the LXX.,
Syr., and Joseph. (Ant. x. 11, 1), of the steps of stairs or of a
stair in the palace of Ahaz, which, as Martini (Abhdl. von den
Sonnenuhren der Alten. Lpz. 1777 p. 36 f.), and others assume,
1 At all events the transposition of those verses in the narrative of
Isaiah to the end of the chapter has its grouud in the former assump
tion and cannot be set down with Gesen. merely to the account of a
transcriber who may have omitted it in the right place and afterwards
appended it. The 21st verse of Isaiah may conveniently stand at the
end of the chapter after the song of thanksgiving ; the 22d verse only
seems to me to have been appended afterwards from our narrative.
h2

116 2 KINGS XX. 8—11.
was so constructed, that at the same time the shadow of an
object, perhaps of an obelisk, falling on it indicated the hours,
but denotes probably, as most expositors following the Chald.
think, a proper dial-plate, which Ahaz might have received from
Babylonia, where sun-dials were invented (Herod, ii. 109), the
nature of which, however, as nothing definite can be elicited from
the text, must remain undetermined, namely, whether, as R.
Elia Chomer in Grotius on the passage thinks, it consisted of
a hemispherical cavity in a horizontal square stone, provided
with a gnomon or index in the middle, the shadow of which
fell on different lines cut in the hollow surface, in the form
of the sun-dials, which Vitruvius calls Hemicyclium, and the
invention of which he ascribes to the Chaldean Berosus1 (de
archit. ix. 9 or 8 edit. Schneid), or whether it consisted (Hitz.)
merely in a vertical index (yvtopav) surrounded by twelve con
centric circles (iroKot), or in an obelisk-like pillar set up in an
open elevated place with encircling steps on which the shadow
fell (Knobel.) The last view appears, indeed, to correspond
most with the words of the text, though jy^yyft may very well
denote merely degrees, and in a vertical gnomon we may also
speak of the going down and returning of the shadow. The
mSjJD degrees denoted not whole hours, but much shorter
portions of time, as the dial corresponding to the words, " shall
the shadow go (forward) ten degrees or go back ten degrees " must
have had more than twenty jyfoyft- Now, with regard to the
miracle itself, Lilienthal (d. gute Sache d. Offenb. ix. p. 422 ff.)
has satisfactorily proved that the text does not require the
assumption of a regression of the sun or a reversion of the ro
tation of the earth, as the church fathers Ephr. Syr., Jacob
of Edessa in Ephr. (Opp. i. p. 563), Theod., and many others
1 Not the celebrated historian but an older mathematician of this
name ; comp. Martini, Abdhl. v. d. Sonnenuhr. p. 40 ff. There also
p. 48 ff. is found a description of the time-pieces invented by Berosus,
and drawings of them after some old specimens dug up in Italy.
Gesen. (Comm. on Is. i. p. 983) erroneously says, that this kind of
sun-dials was called o-Kacpls or r)p.ia-(f>atpiov, aud that Vitruvius ascribes
their invention to the Chaldean Berosus. For Vitruvius says I.e.
Hemicyclium excavatum ex quadrato ad enclimaque succisum Berosus
Chaldaeus dicilur invenisse ; Scaphen sive hemisphaerium Aristarchus
Samius. On the nature of the Scaphae invented by Aristarchus comp.
Martini i. p. q. p. 98 ff.

2 kings xx. 12—19. 117
believed, but only asserts a miraculous recession of the shadow,
in explanation of which, however, we do not need the hypothesis
of a rising and sinking, by means of an earthquake, of the body
that cast the shadow on the steps, but only the assumption of a
miraculous refraction of the sun's rays effected by God at the
entreaty of the prophet, for which faint analogies occur in the
usual course of nature, as, for example, the phenomenon quoted
by all expositors, observed in the year 1703 at Metz in Lothrin-
gen, by the prior of the monastery there, P. Romuld and others,
namely, that the shadow of a sun-dial went back an hour and
a half.*1 Vv. 12 — 19. Arrival ofthe Babylonian ambassadors of Mero-
dach-baladan at Jerusalem, comp. Is. xxxix. — Vv. 12, 13. ]-n>3
N^nn "-A-t that time," when Hezekiah was recoveredfrom his sick-
• T
ness. Merodach-baladan2 is the same as well with the Mapho-
1 In our text the regress of the shadow only is mentioned, as in Is.
xxxviii 8, at the beginning. When, therefore, it is there said again,
" and the sun returned ten steps (degrees)," it is obvious that by a usual
metonymy causa pro effectu, the sun is named instead of the shadow of
the sun's rays falling on the dial. The various opinions concerning
this miracle, which has been mythically expounded in a natural way by
the rationalists, see in Carpzov. Appar. erit. p. 351 ff., Schmidt bibl.
Mathem. p. 534 ff., Lilienthal i. p. q. p. 414 ff., in the exeget. Hdb.
on the passage, in Gesen. Comm. on Is. xxxviii. 8, and the works there
quoted. 2 So is this Babylonian king called, Is. xxxix. 1, ni"$ 73 "mtSlQ i
in our text, on the contrary, by a frequently occurring change of the
labials ^^^3 TTTN13, In Jer b 2 tn 113 occurs along with Bel as
the name of a Babylonian idol, probably Mars (comp. Ges. thes. ii. 818),
as in general among the Assyrians and Babylonians the names of the
gods are often found repeated in the names of kings and nobles ; comp.
Ges. Comm. on Is. i. p. 281. At all events P. v. Bohlen's explana
tion is to be rejected, according to which ^t-j^-iq =^r^ merdeli
homunculus, and }-JN72 = ( • >Vs5L ^e- homo laudatus. Comp. on
the contrary Kleinert in the Dorpt'schen Beitragen i. p. 214 ff. —
Gesen. thes. ii. 818 wishes to derive bi-JN"TO a &tirpe Mord, Mort,
quae et mortem et caedem significat. "cy^yy h° takes, I.e. i. 226, to
be contracted from }-jfc$ ^V3> c"z' &el esl dominus, according to which
the Greek name MapSoKepnaSos may, with Kleinert I.e. p. 218, be ex
plained from w^ yy} ~T~n?3 cu' ^ebo est dominus.

118 2 kings xx. 12—19.
Kepvaho's in the can. of Ptol., as with the Merudach Baldanes of
Beros. in Polyh. in Eusebii chron. arm. p. 19, and reigned accord-
to Ptol. twelve years, 721 — 709, in Babylon According to
Polyh. after the murder of Hagises (or Arises) he assumed to be
independent sovereign of Babylonia ; but was, after six months,
slain by Elibus ; but the latter again, in the third year of his
reign, was subdued by Sennacherib and carried to Assyria,
whereupon Sennacherib appointed his son Asordan (Esarhad
don) king of Babylon.1 The yftifl 13 of our text for jftjjjjvi
1 The identity of Merodach-baladan with Mardocempadus is pretty
generally acknowledged in modern times, whereas its identity with the
Marudach Baldanes of Berosus has been denied by Winer (R.W. i. p.
123 and 256 f. ii. p. 100) and Hitzig on Is. xxxix. 1 on chronological
grounds, while Knobel on Is. xxxix. 1 maintains the latter and dis
putes the former. Knobel rightly maintains for his opinion the full
agreement of the names (in Beros. and the biblical text) ; jjut when he
attempts to prove from Is. xxix. 2, comp. with 2 Ki. xviii. 15 f., and
2 Chr. xxxii. 25 — 31, that the arrival ofthe Babylonian ambassadors
at Jerusalem falls in the year 703, in which, according to Berosus,
Merodach-baladan reigned, whereas Mardocempadus was king from
721 — 709, the untenableness of this argument is easily shown. The
verses quoted from Chronicles contain a summary of that which was
to be communicated concerning Hezekiah, from which, however, it does
not follow that the acts of this king here brought together were all per
formed in the interval between his sickness and the arrival of the
Babylonian embassy. The circumstance also that Hezekiah showed
the ambassadors his whole treasury, the silver and gold, the spicery
and the precious oil, his whole armoury, and all that was found in his
treasures (v. 13 and Is. xxxix. 2), does not imply that he must have
been in possession of greater treasures and power than he could have
had in a year or two after the departure of Sennacherib ; comp. our re
marks on v. 13. But the arrival of the Babylonian ambassadors must
not for this reason be placed ten years after Hezekiah's sickness,
because they assigned as the ostensible object of their mission to con
gratulate the king on his recovery (v. 12), and at the same time to
enquire concerning the miracle of the recession of the shadow on the
sun-dial of Ahaz (2 Chr. xxxii. 31), an object which they could not
pretend to have ten years after the event. To reject with Knobel this
historical statement as unhistorical is uncritical caprice. As the Baby
lonian ambassadors had besides this ostensible object a still weightier
one, in fact, according to universal and undoubtedly correct conjecture,
to form an alliance with Hezekiah, or at least to seek his friendship in
order to gain in him if possible a support against the Assyrians, we
may certainly place their arrival not before the departure of Sennacherib,
but also not long after it, and we believe we shall not be far astray, if
we place it in the year 710, when Merodach-baladan, after the annihi-

2 kings xx. 12— 19. 119
hi Isaiah is at all events clearer, although the reading of Isaiah
may be original : on the contrary the itf-j^n of our text appears
x' . : *
lation of the best part of the Assyrian army, had the fairest opportunity
of revolting, as he intended, from Assyria, and obviously with this
design sought the friendship of Hezekiah. Now, as according to the
canon of Ptol., Mardocempadus was at this time still alive, there is
nothing on this side to hinder the identification of Merodach-baladan
with Mardocempadus ; but with regard to the chronological difference,
on account of which Hitz. and Win. take the Merudach B., mentioned
by Beros., to be different from our Merodach-baladan, Hitz. especially
urges, that in Polyh. Merodach B. was slain by Elibus after a reign of
scarcely six months, and against the latter again in the third year of
his reign, Sennacherib took the field, slew him, and appointed his own
son king of Babylon : but that Elibus is unquestionably the Belibus,
whose reign the canon likewise states at three years, and dates from
the 45th year after Nabonassar, that is, from the year 703. — Here
there is certainly a difference between the canon of Ptol. and Polyh.,
while the identity of Elibus in Ptol., with the Belibus of Polyh., even
if probable, is by no means certain. To this is added, that the canon
knows nothing of an Asordan as regent of Babylon at this time, and
thus at all events a difference between it and Polyhistor remains, which
cannot with Hitzig be obviated by the assumption, that Asordan is
concealed in the Apranadius of the canon, for to Asordan corresponds
in the canon Asaradinus, who reigned from 680—667. We must
therefore either assume, that Berosus passed over several sovereigns
(Ges.). or that Polyh. has inaccurately extracted Beros. (Win. R.W.
i. p. 258) and need not on account of this difference surrender the iden
tity of Merodach-baladan with Mardocempadus. But Winer has urged
another chronological difference. " Through Beros.," says he i. p. 256,
" we reach with Merodach-baladan at the farthest to 697 B.C., whereas
the canon of Ptol. places the beginning of his reign in 721 B.C., which
comes nearer to the biblical accounts." This remark is founded on
the circumstance, that the four sovereigns already enumerated on xv.
19, from Berosus (Sennacherib, his son Asordan, Sammughes, and his
brother Sardanapalus) reigned altogether only sixty-eight years, ac
cording to which, if Nabopolassar, who succeeded Sardanapalus, attained
to the sovereignty in 625 B.C., Sennacherib would have ascended the
throne sixty-eight years earlier, that is, in 693, or if we assume for
Asordan instead of eight, according to the canon of Ptol. and Syncellus
thirteen years, in 698, whereas he must have become king about 716
B.C. The difference between Berosus, on the one hand, and the biblical
accounts and the canon of Pt. on the other, has been long known and
variously expounded. In my apol. Vers. p. 429 ff, I have shown that
we cannot reconcile it either with Niebuhr (KI. hist. u. philol. Schr.
1 Samml. p. 209) by shortening the fifty-five years' reign of Manasseh
to thirty-five, or with Hitzig (Begr.d. Krit. p. 197 f.) by the gratmi-
tous introduction of a king with a reign of twenty-one years between
Sammughes and Sardanapalus in Berosus, but that the deficient years
in Berosus must be attributed to his statements concerning the reigns

120 2 kings xx. 12—19.
i
more original than n&tn'11 in Isaiab, inasmuch as the reflection
that the ambassadors might congratulate the king, not certainly
on his sickness, but only on his recovery, might lead the redactor of
Isaiah to change the words, " that Hezekiah had been sick" into
"that he had been sick and was recovered." — V. 13. The jfl^vy
also of our text has the presumption of originality in preference
to the nDfeW °^ Isaiah. " When Hezekiah had hearkened to
of Esarhaddon and Sennacherib. Subsequently Havernick (Einl. ii.
1, p. 224) endeavoured to account for the difference by adopting the
conclusions of Hofmann (die siebenzig yahre des Jer. 1836, p. 30 ff.),
who by a comparison of the sovereigns from Asaradan to Nabonadius
according to the received canon of Ptolemy, according to the astrono
mical one of Syncellus, and according to the ecclesiastical one of Syn-
ccllus, endeavoured to prove, that Esarhaddon reigned not eight or
thirteen, but rather thirty-two years, and his two successors Saosdu-
chin and Kyniladan not twenty and twenty-two = forty-two years, as
the received canon states, but only nine and fourteen, that is, altogether
twenty-three years, and that the numbers twenty and twenty-two were
only transferred from the series of Assyrian sovereigns in Euseb. chronic.
to that of the Babylonian kings, and the nineteen years deducted from
these sovereigns in the canon were assigned to the reign of Asaradan.
But Havern. has allowed himself to be deceived by the extremely bold
as well as arbitrary combinations of Hofmann, as he has altogether
overlooked the fact, that they were designed for quite a different object,
namely, to furnish the proof, that Jerusalem was destroyed by Nebu
chadnezzar 605 b.c, and Nebuchadnezzar, as he destroyed this city
according to Jer. Iii. 29, in the 18th year of his reign (?), reigned from
623 — 580 b.c For this purpose Hofm. rejected as well the chronolo-
logical statements of Polyh. as those of the canon of Ptol., and arrived
at the given result, which can by no means be brought into harmony
with the biblical chronology. For according to the Books of Kings
and Chronicles, there are from the death of Hezekiah to the destruc
tion of Jerusalem 110 years and six months (namely fifty-five years
of Manasseh, two of Amon, thirty-one of Josiah, three months of Jehoa
haz, eleven years of Jehoiakim, three months of Jehoiachin, and eleven
years of Zedekiah) ; on the contrary, Hofm. puts for Asaradan thirty-
two years, for Saosduchin nine, for Kyniladan fourteen, for Nabopolassar
twenty-one, and for Nebuchadnezzar eighteen, that is, altogether ninety-
eight years, so that Asaradan (Esarhaddon) would have ascended the
throne sixteen and a half years after Manasseh, and the death of Sen
nacherib could not possibly be, as Hav. with Niebuhr assumes, almost
contemporary with that of Hezekiah. But Hofmann's arrangement is
in decided contradiction not only with the Bible, but also with the
cation of Ptol. ; for according to the latter Nabapolassar reigned from
625 — 604, arid Nebuchadnezzar from 604 — 561 ; according to Hofm.
the former should have reigned from 644 — 623, the latter from 623 —
580,

2 kings xx. 14—19. 121
them," that is, to their congratulations and their business. The
nftto1^ of Isaiah preferred by the modern expositors is nothing
but a critically objectionable change. nnbj ^2 "his trea
sure-house " (Chald., Syr., and Saad.) j-^ is not connected
with j-)^^^ spice (Gen. xxxvii. 25), as Ges. thes. ii. 883, follow
ing Aquila, Symon., and the Vulg., assumes, but comes from
the unused root jy>y (comp. CtlS farsit, implevit loculum) and
signifies properly that which is laid up, the treasure, as <n^
Job xx. 26 ; comp. Hitz. and Knob, on Is. xxxix. 2, and Furst,
Concord, p. 551. -p^S piy his armoury, arsenal. ixil7t2JD!3-V22
in his whole dominion, that is, in every department of it, which
he could command as his own. As Hezekiah, in 714 B.C., gave
Sennacherib (xviii. 15) all the silver that was found in the house
of the Lord and in the treasures of the king's house, it might
seem strange that only four years later, not long after the depar
ture of the Assyrians, he should have again collected great trea
sures of gold and silver. But let us remember that it is not
here said that his treasure house was filled with gold and silver,
but only that he showed the gold and silver therein along with
the other treasures and precious things. But with whatever
reason it may be doubted that Hezekiah, after the payment of
tribute made to Sennacherib, could have already again collected
much treasure even in gold and silver, yet it is expressly observed
in 2 Chr. xxxii. 23, that after Sennacherib's overthrow, many
brought presents to Hezekiah from respect to him who by his
steadfast confidence in the Lord, and by his prayer, had saved
the country. Besides, it is not quite so improbable, that, as
Vitringa and others have hinted, Sennacherib, in his hasty flight
with the remnant of his army that was not slain by the destroy
ing angel, might have left many valuable things in his camp,
which as booty came into the royal treasury of Hezekiah.
Vv. 14 — 19. Hezekiah showed the Babylonian ambassadors
all his treasures and precious things, because he obviously felt
his vanity flattered by their arrival, as may be discovered from
the answer he gave the prophet, from a far country, from Baby
lon are they come. Isaiah therefore announces the word of the
Lord, that hereafter all his treasures would be carried away to

122 2 kings xx. 14— 19.
Babylon, and some even of his sons would be made courtiers in
the palace of the king at Babylon. The sin of vanity is to be
punished with the withdrawal of that of which the heart is proud.
Moreover this prediction has not proceeded merely from the pro
phetic custom to threaten destruction directly from that people
with whom the treaty was intended to be made. For this " pro
phetic custom," asserted by the rationalists, rests itself on a deeper
Divine law lying in the nature of the theocracy, namely, that
God the Lord punishes man by that wherein he has sinned ; and
this sentence of the prophet is no mere menace of human device,
but a prediction inspired by the Spirit of God, which was also
literally carried into effect by Nebuchadnezzar. f\pi, " one will
take" (v. 18), is to to be preferred as the more difficult reading
to the yjypi of Isaiah, which stands here also in the margin as
It ¦
Keri. The words, " of thy sons that shall issue from thee, which
thou shalt beget," denote not necessarily the sons of his body,
but in general the descendants of his body, so that from these
words alone nothing certain can be drawn as to the time when
the punishment denounced would be carried into execution.
CD'HD ennuchi stands here as often sensu latiori for courtiers,
* , X
court-officers in general, as for example Daniel and his compa
nions were (Dan. i. 8), without being castrated. V. 19. The
answer of Hezekiah, " Good is the word of the Lord, which thou
hast spoken. And he said, Well, may only peace and truth be
in my days," Gesen., Hitz., Knob., and others, take to be an
expression of that easy egotism, which is little affected by the
fate of others. But, on the contrary, the author of the exeg.
Hdb. has remarked : " Such a sentiment does not suit Hezekiah."
The older expositors (Vitringa, J. H. Mich., and others) found
in it the utterance of an humble acknowledgment of the right
eousness and mercy of God. Hiskias erroris monitus et sentiens
se divinam indignationem in se juste provocasse, agnovit culpam et
se coram Deo profunde humiliavit (Vitr.) " Good is the word of
the Lord," means, I am content with that which the Lord has
determined, I resign myself to his will (comp. 1 Ki. ii. 38 — 42.)1
1 Bonum vocatur id in quo acquiescere par est, qu ippe abeo profectum,
qui nihil facit, quod non sit non tantum justissimum sed quod summa
bonitate non sit temperatum, etiam cum poenas sumit. Cleric.

2 KINGS XXI. 1. 123
Acquiesrit in decreto divinae justitiae sibi a propheta denunciato
 persuasus omne verbum Dei et rigidiores etiam sententias
decretorum ejus esse aequas, justas et bene meritas (Vitr.) And
with regard to the other statement of the king, " Well, may only
etc.," the same excellent scholar remarks : laudat decreti divini
temperamentum, quod cum Deus pro rationibus justitiae suae se
ipsum huic calamitati potuisset objicere, sibi tamen pro dementia
sua voluerit parcere et malum transferre in posteritatem. Comp.
1 Ki. xx. 29. — jyfti$ is not status rerum stabilis (Vitr.), con
tinuance (Gesen., Umbr.), security (Knob.), but fides, fidelity,
though not human fidelity, " which keeps peace, observes the tacit
covenant " (Hitz.), but the fidelity of God, which keeps the
promised grace for the humble. The sense is, may the Lord
not withdraw from me his peace and his fidelity during my life.
— The second -tf3^-Vi shows, that Hezekiah uttered the last words
after a short pause, and no longer directly to Isaiah. For ^^7^7
Qk$ stands in Is. v. 8 13 truly, profecto, not quod (Win. lex. p.
473.) NiSi"! nonne has often the affirmative sense, yes, well,
comp. Gesen. Lehrg. p. 834. Qk$ is here an optative particle,
as Ps. lxxxi. 9.
Vv. 20, 21. End of the reign of Hezekiah. Tf^yy is the
pond formed between the two city walls, and n^Vn t^le aque"
1 t t :
duct, by which the water of the upper Gihon was conveyed into
this n3"Q' anc^ fr°m ** again into the city, see on xviii. 17. —
With v. 21 comp. 2 Chr. xxxii. 33.

CHAPTER XXI.

REIGN OF MANASSEH, VV. 1—18, COMP. 2 CHR. XXXIII. 1—20 ;
AND OE AMON VV. 19—26; COMP. 2 CHE. XXXIII. 21—25.
V. 1. "Manasseh was twelve years old when he became
king." He was therefore born after that mortal sickness of
Hezekiah, and ascended the throne very young, by which it is

124 2 kings xxi. 2—9.
in a great measure explained, that he inherited only the throne
of his father, and not also the theocratic principles of his reign.
Vv. 2 — 9. Manasseh, as sovereign, pursued the path of his
grandfather, Ahaz, promoted idolatry like him, and went even
farther in order to fill up the measure of iniquity, so that under
his long reign idolatry attained to a hitherto unknown height,
and drew inevitably after it the sentence of Judah's rejection
(comp. xxiii. 26.) This relapse into idolatry, which Hezekiah
had endeavoured to eradicate with all zeal, can only be explained
by this, that the reform of Hezekiah had wrought in the people
only an external conversion to the legal worship of Jehovah, no
real change of mind or heart ; as we may infer with certainty
from the predictions of Isaiah under Hezekiah, especially from
chap, xxviii. — xxxii. The powerful ungodly party of the people,
at the head of which stood the leaders of the people, the priests
and prophets, who reeled through strong drink, were over-mas
tered by wine, who reeled in prophesying, stumbled in judgment,
(Is. xxviii. 7, 14 ff), who also sought help against the Assyrians
in Egypt and its power instead of Jehovah, the rebellious people,
the lying children, who would not hear the law, who said to the
seers, see not, and to the prophets, prophesy not unto us true
things, speak to us smooth things, prophesy deceit, get you out
of the way, turn aside out of the path, remove from our sight the
Holy One of Israel (Is. xxx. 9 — 11), and all the hypocrites who
honoured the Lord only wilh the mouth and the lips, but were
estranged from him in heart, and whose fear of God consisted in
the learning of human precepts (Is. xxix. 13), were not altoge
ther extirpated by the Assyrians and with them from the theo
cracy, but were still to be exterminated by farther punishments
(Is. xxix. 14 ff.) This antitheocratic party of the people had
certainly encreased in power and extent during the latter flourish
ing years of Hezekiah, so that after his death, while Manasseh
was still a minor, it gained the superiority, assumed the guidance
ofthe young inexperienced king, and seduced him to the open in
troduction of idolatry. Seb. Schm. has very justly remarked;
Quamquam Iliskias rex fuit piissimus, tamen inter ministros
ejus necdum subditos erant multi insignes hypocritae et idololatrae,
inter quos Magister domus Jes. 22 expresse indicatur. — V. 2,
comp. on viii. 18, and xvi. 3. — V. 3. ryy yrji1) " he built again

2 kings xxi. 2—9. 125
the high places," etc. comp. xvii. 4, and 1 Ki. xvi. 31—33. " He
worshipped all the host of heaven." The worship of all the host
of heaven first introduced in the times of the Assyrians is ob
viously of upper Asiatic, Chaldaic, and Assyrian origin. This
worship " was not idolatry, as the Israelito-Phenician, but pure
star-worship" (comp. Mov. d. Rei. d. Phon. i. p. 66.) The sun
had, as among the Persians, sacred chariots and horses (xxiii.
11), and incense was offered to the stars (xxi. 4, xxiii. 12 ; 2
Chr. xxxiii. 5 ; Jer. xix. 13; and Zeph. i. 5) on the house-tops,
as among the Nabataeans (Strabo I. xvi. 4, p. 441), or in the
temple area, in the two courts, under the open sky, with the face
turned towards the sun-rise (Ezek. viii. 16),1 and indeed not
merely to the sun and moon, but also to the signs of the zodiac
and the whole host of heaven, that is, all the constellations
(xxiii. 5) ; which is to be so understood, that the sun, moon,
planets, and the other stars, in conjunction with the zodiac, were
worshipped (Mov. i. p. 164), wherewith astrology, the interpre
tation of the stars and the calculation of nativities, as we find
them among the later so-called Chaldeans, are closely connected.2
1 The far-spread assertion, that the star-worshippers therein like the
Magi held the holy branch Barsom at the nose (comp. Mov. i. p. 66,
de Wette, Archaeol. p. 325), cannot be proved from Ezek. viii. 17.
Comp. Hav. Comm. on Ezek. p. 117 ff.
2 Movers, Rei. d. Phon. i. p. 65, justly remarks, " In all the books
of the Old Testament which are written before the Assyrian period, no
trace of star-worship is to be found ; not as if the Phenician (Canaan
itish) gods had not also a sidereal signification, but because this
element was subordinate, and the expressions sun, moon, stars, and all
the host of- heaven, which did not occur before, become now very fre
quent." But when this scholar cites in proof of this, besides the pas
sages already quoted by us in the text, Deut. iv. 19 and xvii. 3, with
the design of proving that Deuteronomy is certainly Mosaic in spirit
and essential form, but in its present condition belongs to the Assyrian
period, we cannot assent to this assertion borrowed from rationalistic
criticism, as it is not proved, and reject it the more unhesitatingly, as
Movers himself afterwards (p. 157 ff.) distinguishes a threefold aspect
of the adoration of the stars, (a) the pure star- worship of the Magi,
which tolerates no image of the deity, and worships the stars by contem
plation under the open heaven or on the house tops (comp. Job. xxxi.
26 f.) • (b) the Syrophenician star-worship, which regards the stars as
the authors of all becoming and perishing in nature, and makes the
sun an idol, image, and bearer of the male power of nature, which is
then associated with the moon as the female power of nature ; (c) the

126 2 kings xxi. 2—9.
Vv. 4 and 5 go together forming one period. The jnh3't?3 n22*l
(v. 4) is taken up again (v. 5) by "y^ft yyy, and the ^22
7f\fti (v- 4) more exactly defined by (V. 5) "y Tt7y$7l "\nttJ2
"pii. The two courts of the house of the Lord are the court of
the priests and the great court of the people. The temple of
Solomon had no more courts, comp. my treatise, d. Tempel Salo-
mo's p. 112. — V. 6. Comp. on xvi. 3. vy^y denom. from py,
properly to be employed about the clouds, to predict from the
clouds. So here and Lev. xix. 26 ; Deut. xviii. 10, where it is
connected with {jjj-|3 5 then again in the farther sense, augurari,
for example Is. ii. 6 ; Jer. xxvii. 9 ; Mic. v. 11. Other divisions
and explanations of the words see in Carpz. Appar. erit. p. 540 f.
and Ges. thes. ii. 1053. — As to \y)-|2 see on xvii. 17. — " He pre
pared necromancers and cunning men." 3^ not from ,  ,\
rediit = le revenant, the ghost (Millius, Simonis, Hitz. on Is.
viii. 19 and others), but from 3^ =33^ cavum esse, whence the
Aram. 3^3^ tibia, fistula propter cavitatem, means (a) uter, the
T
leather bag (Job xxxii. 19), (b) venter pylhonis, qui obsessus in-
star utris infiati turgeseit, ex quo spiritus immundus de futuris
interrogatus respondet. Deinde partim de ipso daemone ventrilo-
quo, partim de ipso pythone, necromanti et hariolo. Furst Con-
view which, flowing from the immutability of the stars in opposition to
the mutability of all earthly things, worships the stars not only as the
authors of all becoming, and perishing, but at the same time as the dis
posers and rulers of all sublunary things, and produced the astrology
of the Chaldeans and in later times Zabaism. The distinction of these
three views, which Movers calls the upper Asiatic or Assyro- Persian,
the Syrophenician and the Chaldaeo-Babylonian, is founded in fact,
but not, as Movers seems to think, as if one of these three views was
always peculiar to one of the nations named, of which historical proofs
are wanting, but so that we may regard the first and third as two suc
cessive steps of development, and oppose the two together to the form
of star-worship cultivated among the Syrians and Phenicians. But
the first form of pure star-worship existed in Chaldea and Arabia from
the oldest historically known times, and against this kind of star-wor
ship warning is given in the passages quoted from Deuteronomy, not
against that introduced into Judea by Ahaz and Manasseh after the
Assyrian period, which was connected with astrology. The farther
proofs, also, which Movers p. 66, 67, adduces for the diversity of the
Assyrian star-worship from the Phenician and Babylonian image-wor
ship, are quite untenable.

2 kings xxi. 10—15. 127
cord. p. 21. The Rabb. explained it by ain^E)* that 1S ^dav ;
LXX. fyyaa-Tpipvdo". Other explanations see in Ges. thes. i. 35
and Win. lex. p. 26 f. Here it signifies the necromancer, ijjy-p,
which occurs only in connection with 3^, properly sapiens, de
notes (a) the soothsaying spirit, Lev. xx. 27, irevpa Trodm-vot,
Acts xvi. 16, (IS) the soothsayer, 1 Sam. xxviii. 3 and 9 ; Is. viii.
19, etc. — V. 7. The image of Asherah, which he had made (v. 3),
Manasseh set up in the very temple, which, according to the
express declaration of the Lord, was to be the dwelling-place of
his name (2 Sam. vii. 13; 1 Ki. ix. 3; 2 Chr. vii. 16 comp.
with 1 Ki. vii. 16.) On xzh\yh see above p. 121 f.— The words,
" Neither will I make the foot of Israel move any more out of
the land which I gave their fathers" (v. 8), refer to the promise
2 Sam. vii. 10, " I will appoint a place for my people . . .
that they may dwell in a place of their own and move no more,"
which was fulfilled by the selection of the temple for the abode of
his name, see above p. 71. -p^n vagari fecit, expulit. Concern
ing the condition, " only if they will observe to do," etc., comp.
the remarks p. 123 f. — V. 9. But this condition Israel did not
keep. Manasseh seduced them to do more evil than the
Canaanites, whom the Lord had destroyed before them.
Vv. 10 — 15. The Lord also by his prophets warned Manasseh
and the people that were seduced into sin by him, and threatened
them with the fearful sentence of the destruction of Jerusalem
and the surrender of the remnant of his people into the power of
their enemies ; but they did not hearken, as is expressly men
tioned 2 Chr. xxxiii. 10, and in our narrative may be inferred
from this, that it never speaks of a trace of repentance. The
prophets who warned Manasseh are not named; Habakkuk pro
bably belonged to them ;J but their addresses were recorded in
1 It is still disputed, indeed, whether Habakkuk delivered his pre
dictions that are found in the canon in the time of Manasseh or in the
first half of the reign of Josiah ; but the sole ground which, according
to Delitsch (d. Proph. Hab. p. xvii.), can be alleged against placing
Habakkuk under Manasseh, namely, that the work of the Divine judg
ment to be executed on Judah by the Chaldeans is to be accomplished
in the days of those to whom the message is addressed (Q3IJ313 Hab.
i. 5) does not appear to me to be absolutely cogent, as the passage
Joel i. 2 is not quite adequate to prove, that in the expression, " in

128 2 kings xxi. 10—15.
the annals of the kingdom of Judah (2 Chr. xxxiii. 18.)— V. 11.
"HfoN!"T the Amorites are mentioned here, as 1 Ki. xxi. 26 and
Ezek. xvi. 3, instar omnium as the supporters of Canaanitish
ungodliness. Concerning Qi^a see on xvii. 17. — The phrase,
" that whosoever heareth it both his ears shall tingle," (v. 12),
denotes an unheard of event causing horror and amazement,
comp. 1 Sam. iii. ll ; Jer. xix. 3. Habakkuk also (i. 5), an
nounces the Chaldean judgment as a work of the Lord creating
astonishment and exceeding belief. — V. 13. "I will stretch over
Jerusalem the line of Samaria and the plummet of the house of
Ahab." The line (yp) and the plummet (rfaptyft tlie level) was
applied to that which was built (Zech. i. 16), but also to that
which was to be levelled with the ground, utterly razed (Am.
vii. 7.) Even prisoners were measured off with the line (^3f-j)
in order to be slain or pardoned (2 Sam. viii. 2). Hence arose
the expressions, " line of desolation, plummet of emptiness," Is.
xxxiv 11. The line of Samaria accordingly means the line
which is drawn for destruction over Samaria, the plummet
of the house of Ahab, the extirpation which befell the house of
Ahab. The sense therefore is, I will destroy Jerusalem as I
destroyed Samaria, and exterminate its inhabitants, as I extermi
nated the house of Ahab. The following figure, " I will wipe
Jerusalem as a man wipeth the dish, who wipes it and turns it
upside down," denotes still more strongly the complete extirpa
tion of all the inhabitants of Jerusalem together with its total
destruction. V. 14. " And I will forsake the remnant of mine
inheritance," that is, the people of the kingdom of Judah alone
remaining of all the peculiar people of the Lord. Concerning
jjjj22 see above p. 132. The necessary consequence of the
— T
Lord's forsaking his people or withdrawing his grace from them,
your days," the life-time of the sons, who were partly born, partly to
be born to the generation then arrived at manhood, must have been ex
cluded. On the other hand, it must also be admitted, that the grounds
for this view advanced by Hav. (Einl. ii. 2, p. 387 ff.) do not compel
assent. Moreover, we may very fairly assume that Habakkuk de
livered predictions under Manasseh concerning this sovereign and his
ungodliness, and yet his predictions transmitted to us in the canon be
longed to the times of Josiah,

2 kings xxi. 10—15. 129
is the delivery of them into the hand of their enemies, that they
may become a prey and a spoil to them, fy and pjDffiD occur
together also, Is. xlii. 22, and Jer. xxx. I6.1
1 While hitherto Chronicles agrees with our narrative in the descrip
tion of the idolatrous conduct of Manasseh, henceforth deviating from it,
it relates farther (2 Chr. xxx. 11 — 17), that Jehovah brought the
generals of the king of Assyria against Manasseh, who bound him
with chains and carried him to Babylon. But when in his affliction he
besought the Lord, the Lord brought him again to Jerusalem to his
throne, whereupon he raised a second high wall on the west side of the
city, and put garrisons in all the fenced cities of Judah, removed the
strange gods and the idol from the temple, and cast out of the city all
the altars of idols built on the mount of the temple and in Jerusalem,
repaired the altar of Jehovah, sacrificed thereon peace-offerings and
thank-offerings, and commanded the people to serve the God of Israel;
but the people still sacrificed on the high places, though to Jehovah
their God. This account appears, on a superficial examination, so little
in accordance with the narrative of our book concerning Manasseh and
* the extirpation of his idolatry, effected only under Josiah (chap, xxiii.),
that it cannot surprise us, that not merely Rosenm. bibl. Althk. i. 2,
p. 131 f., Winer (R.W. ii. p. 63), Hitzig (Begr. d. krit. p. 180 f.),
and others following Gramberg, have rejected it as unhistorical, but
also Mov. (Krit. Unters. v. 327, ff.) has abandoned the narrative of
Manasseh's repentance as a traditional invention of a religious didactic
tendency, and only endeavoured to maintain the fact of the carrying
away of Manasseh to Babylon as a historical event, whereas the whole
narrative has been very ably defended by Havern. (Einl. ii. 1, p. 221
ff.) Thus much is antecedently certain, and is acknowledged even by
Mov. himself notwithstanding his erroneous view of the sources of
Chronicles, that the silence of our narrative as to these events concern
ing Manasseh can afford no reason for their rejection. For as our
author often contents himself with a general account of the sovereigns,
and is silent about such of their doings as exercised no important influ
ence on the development of the theocracy, he might here also omit the
captivity of Manasseh and his reformation after his return from
Babylon, if it put no effectual hindrance to the corruption which he
had introduced into the kingdom by his idolatry. In favour of the
historical truth of Manasseh's removal to Babylon is (a) the circum
stance, that no reason can be imagined for the invention of such a fact,
inasmuch as neither his removal nor his release and return had lasting
effects on the kingdom of Judah; (b) the agreement of this account
with that which is remarked on xix. 37, concerning Esarhaddon's ex
pedition against hither Asia and especially to Palestine. As shortly
before the king of Babylon, Merodach-baladan, is mentioned as a
sovereign independent of Assyria, the later unhistorical legend would
certainly have made Manasseh be carried away either by Assyrian
generals to Nineveh, pr if, according to Hitzig's conjecture, it was copied
after Is. xxxix. 6, by Babylonian generals to Babylon, but not by
VOL. II. l

130 2 kings xxi. 16—18.
Vv. 16—18. Besides his idolatry, to which he seduced his
subjects, Manasseh sinned very grievously in this, that he shed
so much innocent blood, that Jerusalem was filled with it from
one end to the other. This statement Josephus (Ant. x. 3, 1),
has thus paraphrased : A-rro <yap t?j? et? tov ©ebv KaTa<f>povrjo-eco<i
6ppa>p,evo<i, irdvTas opcos toik; BiKaiow; toiis iv toi? Efipaiois cnreK-
reivev, dX!\!ovBe twv irpocp'nTGOv eaye ajeiBw' Kal tovtwv Be Twas Ka9
rjpepav direa-ipa^ev, ware a'Lpari peiaOai to, 'lepoaokvpa.1 V. 18.
" He was buried in the garden of his own house, in the garden
of Uzza," thus in a separate family sepulchre probably on Zion
(comp. Rob. Pal. ii. p. 189), in which also his son Anion was
interred (v. 26.) This royal garden bore the name, Uzzah's
garden, probably from its former owner, but by no means from
the place, ubi Usa occisus est, 2 Sam. vi. 8, as C. a Lap. and
Calm, think. The name Uzza (^\y) occurs also elsewhere, for
example 1 Chr. viii. 7; Ezr. ii. 49; Neh. vii. 51.
Assyrian generals to Babylon, as the later Jews, it is well known,
were not so conversant with the ancient history of the Asiatic king
doms, as to know that the territory of Babylon, having become inde
pendent of Assyria in the time of Hezekiah, was again, under Manasseh,
an Assyrian province. — Concerning the time of the deportation of
Manasseh to Babylon, which no doubt coincides with the expedition of
Esarhaddon against hither Asia, in which the heathen colonists were
brought to Samaria, as historical documents here fail, the prediction,
Is. vii. 8, " that within sixty-five years Ephraim should be no more a
people," furnishes a hint, inasmuch as the ceasing of Israel to be a
people, was determined by the settlement of the heathen colonists in
Samaria. But this point of time named by Isaiah is the twenty-third or
twenty-fourth year of Manasseh's reign, in which the Rabbins in the
Sed. Ol. p. 67 ed. Meyer, likewise Ussher (Annal. ad. a. M. 3327), and
des Vign. chronol. i. p. 428 f. had fixed his captivity, comp. my apol.
Vers. p. 428. — But of the duration of his exile there is no historical
trace. Though from the fact that his reign is represented in the Old
Testament as uninterrupted, we may perhaps conclude that he very
soon received his freedom again, by a circumstance totally unknown to
us. Havern. indeed i. p. q., thinks with Hoffman, that his release un
questionably took place after Esarhaddon's death, but this " unquestion
ably" may very easily be questioned.
1 There is also a well-known tradition among Jews and Christians,
that Manasseh put to death the prophet Isaiah, and indeed caused him
to be sawn asunder, to which very probably allusion is made in Heb.
xi. 37 (comp. Gesen. Comm. on Is. i. p. 9 ff., and Bleek, d. Brief a. d.
Hebr. ii. 2, p. 832 ff.), but which, as Gesen. i. p. q. and Hav. Einl.
ii. 2, p. 57 certainly conjecture with right, was perhaps formed only on
the foundation of our verse by the Hagadah of Judaism.

2 kings xxi. 19^-26. 131
Vv. 19—26. Reign of Amon. Comp. 2 Chr. xxxiii. 21—25.
Amon walked in all the way of his father Manasseh, serving all
the idols his father had introduced, and was murdered in the
second year of his reign by his servants, who had conspired
against him, whereupon the people, however, slew all the con
spirators and placed his son Josiah on the throne. Concerning
Amon, Seb. Schm. remarks : Hie rex Amon praeter impietatem
notatu dignum nihil fecit. — V. 19. The place pftfti Jotbah, from
which Amon's mother came, was, according to Hieron. (s. v.
Jeihaba) urbs antiqua Judaeae, but it is no farther known. Joseph.
(Ant. x. 3, 2) writes it 'IafidTrj, and Grotius identifies it with
nn3tfl>,j one °f the Israelitish stations in the wilderness of
T T : T
Arabia, comp. Num. xxxiii ; Deut. x. 7.

CHAPTER XXH.— XXHI. 30.
KEIGN OF KING JOSIAH, W. 1, 2 ; DISCOVERT OF THE BOOK OF
THE LAW ON THE OCCASION OF REPAIRING THE TEMPLE, VV.
3 — 20 ; READING OF THE LAW IN THE TEMPLE AND RENEWAL
OF THE COVENANT WITH THE LORD, CH. XXIII. 1 — 3 ; ABOLI
TION OF IDOLATRY AND SOLEMNIZATION OF THE PASSOVER,
w. 4 — 24 ; end of josiah's reign, vv. 25 — 30.
Vv. 1, 2. Duration and spirit of the reign of Josiah. His
mother Jedidah was the daughter of Adaiah of Boscath (j-|p22)>
a town no farther known in the plain of Judah, comp. Jos. xv.
39. Josiah again walked like Hezekiah in the footsteps of his
ancestor David, adhering undeviatingly to the law of the Lord.
He had probably, as his ungodly father had died early, on his
ascending the throne a child of eight years, come under the
guidance of pious men truly devoted to the law of the Lord, who
turned him to the God of his fathers, inasmuch as his rule was
so theocratically righteous. The phrase, " turned not aside to
the right or to the left," namely, from that which was right in
the eyes of the Lord, is a description of undeviating adherence
i 2

132 2 kings xxii. 3.
to the commandments of the Lord borrowed from Deut. (comp.
v. 29, xvii. 11, 20, xxviii. 14.)
V. 3 ff. The following narrative from v. 3 to ch. xxiii. 24
forms a closely connected section, in which all that Josiah did
for the resuscitation of the true worship of Jehovah and the
extirpation of idolatry during his reign is united into one grand
scene, and the whole reform accomplished by this pious king is
referred to the eighteenth year of his reign, because in this year
the discovery of the Mosaic book of the law took place, by means
of which tbe complete reformation of religion could be under
taken, and was actually carried into effect. How closely all the
several events and undertakings of Josiah presented to the
reader in this collective picture are connected together, the
narrator himself indicates by placing the date, " it came to pass
in the eighteenth year of Josiah," not merely at the opening, but
also repeating it at the close of this section. But if we consider
all the particular incidents that are brought before us in this
section, the repair of the temple, the discovery of the book of the
law made on this occasion, the reading of it before the king, the
consulting of the prophetess Huldah, the summoning of the
elders of Judah, and the solemn reading of the law in the
temple along with the renewal of the covenant, the extirpation
of idolatry, not only in Jerusalem and all Judah, but also in
Bethel and all the cities of Samaria, finally, the arrangement
and solemnization of the passover, it will appear of itself that
they could not all be completed within a year, even if we should
with Ussher (Annal ad a.m. 3381) delay the solemn festival of
the passover to the end of the eighteenth year of Josiah's reign.
But this delay of the passover is quite an unnecessary expedient,
as, notwithstanding de Wette's protest against it (Einl. p. 257),
it is established, that the years of the reign were always com
puted from Nisan (see above p. 184), so that the passover fell in
the first month of the eighteenth year (xxiii. 23) ; whereas the
date placed at the head of the section, " it came to pass in the
eighteenth year" (xxii. 3), can decide nothing, because it is to
be regarded as a superscription, and proves merely this, that the
narrator comprehended the efforts of Josiah for the restoration
ofthe legal worship of Jehovah, which were contiguous in point
of time, and occupied a space of several years, according to the

2 kings xxu. 3. 133
order of nature under one general point of view. Hence alone
it is explained that the account of the repairs of the temple is
only inserted in vv. 3 — 5, and compressed into a single antece
dent sentence, which presents the occasion for the discovery of
the law. For the apodosis to ^ niOty2 ""fTI (v> 3) follows
only in v. 8, and the period is to be thus construed in plain Eng
lish : " It came to pass in the eighteenth year of king Josiah,
when the king sent Shaphan .... to Hilkiah the high
priest, to count the money that was brought into the house of
God, and give it to the masters and builders who repaired the
temple, . . . that Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan
the scribe," etc.1 The remaining events indeed follow one another
in the narrative, so that they all appear to have happened in suc
cession. But that the arrangement within this section is not
chronological but natural, appears clearly from this, that the re
pairing of the temple must have commenced before the eighteenth
year of Josiah, under which it is recapitulated, since in the very
beginning of this year, in which at all events the transaction re
corded in xxii. 3 — 7 falls, not only the builders were engaged in
the repairs, but money had been already brought by the whole
people to the house of God and collected by the Levites who
kept the door. Farther, a restoration of the dilapidated temple
1 Through this compression of the account of the repairing of the
temple into one preliminary sentence not merely is the statement, that
the royal scribe executed the commission received, omitted, but even
the particulars concerning the occasion of the discovery of the book of
the law in the temple. Besides, v. 5 is rendered obscure and ambi
guous by the omission of a determination essential to perspicuity, and
v. 7 wants the suitable connection with that which precedes. In the
parallel passage, 2 Chr. xxxiv. 8 — 15, indeed, the narrative of the com
mission which the king gave to Shaphan, and of its execution also,
serves only to bring out the discovery of the book of the law, but the
whole progress of the affair is there much clearer, and is related more
accurately and completely by the addition of several accompanying cir
cumstances, from which at the same time it appears that the high
priest found the book of the law, when he with the king's officers was
bringing the money out of the temple. This relation of the two nar
ratives presenting itself at once to the eyes of the unprejudiced reader,
has, however, been so perverted by de Wette (Beitr. i. p. 67 ff.), that
he charges Chronicles with " distortion of the sense, confusion and ob
scurity," applauds, on the contrary, the harmony and intelligibility of
our narrative, and finds all clear and perspicuous. Compare, on the
contrary, my apol. Vers, p 279.

134 2 KINGS XXII. 3.
cannot in the nature of things be thought of, without the removal
of the superstitious abominations that were found even in the
temple. Equally inconceivable is the supposition, that all the
people entered into covenant with the Lord (xxiii. 3), before a
beginning was made in removing the prevailing superstition, or
that the pious king himself should have read the book of the law
in the temple and made a covenant before the Lord, while the
Asherah was still standing in the temple, and the idolatrous
altars erected by Manasseh, with the horses and chariots dedicated
to the sun, were still in its courts. If the making or renewing of
the covenant in consequence ofthe law having been publicly read
was to be an act correspondent to the law, it could not have been
completed without sacrifice. But would the king, who was so
deeply alarmed by the curse ofthe law, have undertaken so solemn
a transaction in the presence of the idolatrous altars and other
apparatus of superstition in the house of Jehovah, would he not
much rather have shrunk from such an undertaking as the most
reckless impiety ? Lastly, if the narrative were strictly chrono
logical, it must be assumed that after the king had before the
passover not only destroyed the idols and idolatrous altars in
Jerusalem, but gone round to the whole land of Judah and to
Samaria to destroy the altars of the high places and buru the
idolatrous priests upon the altars (xxiii. 4 — 20); again after this
passover the necromancers and cunning men, the teraphim and
the idols and all the abominations in the land of Judah were
spied out and now for the first time destroyed (v. 24). But
these considerations sufficiently prove, that the several events of
this section are arranged according to their natural connection, not
in chronological sequence, and at the same time show that Josiah
had begun his reform before the eighteenth year of his reign, and
prosecuted it afterwards with still greater zeal. How much of it
was effected before, and how much after the passover, cannot be
determined from our narrative alone.1
1 The result of the more particular consideration of our narrative
tends to confirm the parallel account of Josiah's religious reform in
2 Chr. xxxiv. 3 — 33. According to 2 Chr. xxxiv. 3, Josiah began in
the eighth year of his reign, when a youth of sixteen years, to seek the
God of his father David, and in the twelfth year of his reign to purge
Judah and Jerusalem from the high places, Asherim and the carved
and molten images. But in his eighteenth year he sent also, according

2 kings xxii. 3—10. 135
Vv. 3 — 10. Comp. 2 Chr. xxxiv. 8 — 18. On the construction
of these verses all that is necessary has been already remarked.
to this narrative, his scribe Shaphan to the high priest to take account
with him of the money collected for the repair of the temple, and to
deliver it to the builders. On this occasion the book of the law was
found by Hilkiah, and through Shaphan delivered to the king, the
prophetess Huldah consulted thereupon, the book of the law read in the
temple in a solemn assembly of the people, and the covenant with the
Lord renewed. This narrative closes with the words : " And Josiah
took away all the abominations out of all the countries that pertained
to the children of Israel, and made all that were present in Israel to
serve Jehovah their God ; so long as he lived they departed not from
Jehovah the God of their fathers" (v. 33.) Fi-om these words we
may indeed infer that even after the making of the covenant consequent
upon the reading of the newly discovered book of the law, the exter
mination of idolatry was still continued ; but not with certainty, inas
much as they too clearly evince themselves to be a closing formula ter
minating the section concerning the abolition of idolatry. The pass-
over festival is mentioned in Chronicles (2, xxxv. 1 ff.), only after this
concluding formula. Now, if it appeared to us above from the nar
rative in the Book of Kings, that Josiah prosecuted his reform even
after the passover, the narrative of Chronicles may harmonize also with
this. For even if Josiah laboured zealously from the twelfth to the
eighteenth year of his reign for the removal of superstition, it may
be easily conceived that the many monuments of an idolatry pur
sued for more than half a century, which were spread over the
whole land, could not have been all at once eradicated. We must
therefore perceive it to be antecedently probable, that after the
king and people had, in consequence of the discovery and reading of
the book of the law, renewed the covenant with the Lord, many a
remnant of superstition will have been found, which was then first
destroyed. Thus much, however, appears from the more chronologi
cally exact narrative of Chronicles, that the principal steps for its
removal took place before the eighteenth year of Josiah and before
the finding of the law. For though it is natural to assume, that the
efforts of Josiah for this purpose might have been summarily stated in
2 Chr. xxxiv. 3 — 7, and that the king should have in the first place
only destroyed the superstitious abominations in Jerusalem and its
immediate neighbourhood, and only when encouraged in his zeal by
the discovery of the law have carried out its extermination in the
whole land and beyond the boundaries of his own kingdom into the
cities of Samaria, yet the express statement that money was collected
for the repair of the temple not only from Judah and Benjamin, but
also from Manasseh, Ephraim, and the whole remnant of Israel (2
Chr. xxxiv. 9), presupposes the contrary, and compels us to assume,
that even before the eighteenth year of the king at least an important
beginning had been made in the removal of idolatry as well in the
whole land of Judah as in all the cities of Samaria. Without such a
beginning the people of Judah and Israel would have taken little con-

136 2 kings xxii. 3— !0.
V. 3. Besides Shaphan, the king sent also, according to 2 Chr.
xxxiv. 8, Maaseiah, the governor of the city, and Joah the chan
cellor, because the repair of the temple was no mere private con
cern ofthe kingand the priests, but an affair ofthe whole kingdom,
and especially of the capital. V. 4. QflV) (from Qfoft perfedt,
absolvit), " that he deliver, pay over the money." In what
manner the Levites who kept the doors collected the money from
the people is not mentioned. According to 2 Chr. xxxiv. 9,
they appear to have collected it from the people round the country,
and not merely at the gates from the visitors of the temple. The
arrangement once made by Joash for this object with chests
(comp. xii. 10) is not mentioned here. — V. 5. The Keri y^^p\f\
is a bad alteration ofthe Kethibh n2n"H or nin,,,1 = ion*1"!' " that
he (one) should hand it over." The expression n^N^Sil ^V ls
used in a twofold sense ; in the first place it signifies the masters of
the work, as appears from the addition, " who had the oversight of
the house of the Lord ;" in the second place the builders, ygj^
7V\7V n>,22> " w^° were (employed) in the house of the Lord ;"
for which it is more explicitly said in 2 Chr. xxxiv. 10, -^N
"i "yy Qijjjy, The construction "i ]-p33 CHpQjj does not need
the alteration of the keri, as the hiph. y*iygr\ is also construed
cern in the repair of the temple of Jehovah, and would scarcely have
appeared at the passover (2 Chr. xxxiv. 9 and xxxv. 18). In
the interval between the finding of the book of the law and the
passover the work begun might certainly have been continued, but the
matter could not have been taken up from the first, because the pass-
over fell on the fourteenth day of the first month. Upon the whole I
cannot admit the correctness of the result obtained by Delitzsch (der
Proph. Hab. p. xx.) from the comparison of the two accounts, that
"the purification ofthe temple from idolatrous furniture is to be
placed in the eighteenth year of Josiah." But there is absolutely no
ground for the violent expedient of Movers (Krit. Unters. p. 334 ft'.),
that the narrative of Josiah's earlier reformation is introduced in our
text in the wrong place, inasmuch as it belongs to tho time before the
finding of the book of the law ; but its insertion in the wrong place is
only due to an interpolation, which was affected in the source used by
our author. The two learned men proceed on the unfounded as
sumption, that the author of our books intended to relate the several
facts of the religious reformation effected by Josiah in exact chrono
logical order.

2 kings xxii. 3—10. 137
cum ace. pers. et y rei, comp. Jer. xl. 5. But the construction
of Q'HpQ^j cum accus. rei in v. 9 is unique, ^j-)^ ^n*1! 1S no
resumption of n3nvV but connected with the subject ityy
"'yftn " the masters of the work." — Vv. 6 and 7. Comp. on
xii. 12, 13, 16. In 2 Chr. xxxiv. 12 the names of the inspec
tors of the works are also given. V. 8. mini"! IOD the book of
the law (not, a book of the law, or a roll of the book of the
law) can literally and historically mean nothing else than the
book of the law of Moses or the Pentateuch. The finding of
the book of the law in the temple presupposes that it was long
lost. Although it by no means follows from this, that before its
discovery there was no other copy of it in the hands of the
priests or the people. For the book ofthe lawfound is no other than
the temple copy,1 which was deposited beside the ark in the holy
of holies, and during the ungodly reigns of Manasseh and Amon,
perhaps under Ahaz, when the temple itself had been profaned
by idols, and as we may infer from the notification, 2 Chr. xxxv.
3, the ark also removed from its place in the holy of holies, was
somehow lost, and was now found again during the repair of
the temple. In what place of the temple it had hitherto lain,
cannot be ascertained either from our text or from the words,
" when they brought ont the money that was brought into
the house of the Lord, Hilkiah found the book of the law by
1 Whether the exemplar written by Moses' own hand, as Grotius
infers from the 'ffQift T3; ^ Chr. xxxiv. 14, or a later copy of it, is
quite a frivolous question. For, as Havern. Einl. i. 2 p. 603 very
justly remarks, " even in the latter case it was to be considered as
good as the autograph, with the same right with which the temple
repaired by Josiah still remained the temple of Solomon." The
assertions frequently made in the present day in connection with the
attacks on the genuineness of the Pentateuch, that the book of the
law found was not the whole Pentateuch, but only a part of it,
Exodus or Deuteronomy, or a short abstract of the law, or a collection
of passages from the last four books of it, or the substance of the older
legislation, in reply to which Havern. Einl. i. 2, p. 601 f. is to be
compared, may now be regarded as set aside, since de Wette, the
champion against the genuineness of the Pentateuch, in his Einl. p.
212, has acknowledged that our narrative contains "the first certain
trace of the existence of our present Pentateuch." The assertion also
of the rationalistic critic, that Hilkiah forged the law-book found by
him under the name of Moses/ has been already so ably refuted by
Havern. p. 597, that we need not farther dwell on it.

138 2 kings xxii. 11—14.
Moses," (2 Chr. xxxiv. 14), and is of little importance for the
main object of narrative. The different conjectures on the point
see in Seb. Schm. ad h. I. and Buddei hist. eccl. 'ji. p. 447 f.
From }nfcOP!,l it does not follow, that Shaphan read through
the whole book at once. Neither is it implied in the words,
" Shaphan read it before the king " (v. 10), that he read to him
the whole book from beginning to end, for in the reading of the
whole law in the temple (xxiii. 2) "yy yQQ ^yyi-h^~DcA ™ ^e
form of expression. But what passages or sections Shaphan
himself perused and what he read to the king cannot be deter
mined with certainty ; but it is probable that among others he
read especially the threatenings and curses of the law against
its transgressors (Deut. xxviii. and perhaps Lev. |xxvi.), because
the reading made so terrifying an impression on him, that he
rent his clothes from distress of mind.1 Moreover whether the
king was hitherto entirely unacquaiuted with the book of the
law, or was instructed in the law only in a traditional way, or
whether he had a copy of the law and had not yet read it
through, or had not read it with due attention, so that the
passages now read to him made so deep an impression, it is
impossible to decide with certainty. Either case is conceivable,
as it is known by experience, that books already read, by being
read again under peculiar circumstances, make an impression
upon us not before received. It is more probable, however, that no
copy of the law had been hitherto seen by him, without however
inferring from this, that there were no copies among the people
except the long lost and now recovered temple copy. The deep
and fundamental knowledge of the law, which all the prophets
display, necessarily presupposes the dissemination of copies of
the Pentateuch among them.
Vv. 11—14. Comp. 2 Chr. xxxiv. 19—22. In order to
obtain advice in the distress of his heart concerning the punish
ments denounced against transgressors in the law, the king sent
a deputation consisting of the high priest Hilkiah, his secretary
1 J. D. Michaelis in his remarks on our verse wishes to explain this
deep impression partly by the state of the times, the incursion of the
Scythians into Asia, and the victories of the Nabopolassar. An
explanation as unnecessary as far-fetched and improbable.

2 kings xxii. 11—14. 139
Shaphan, and other distinguished persons of his court (yitfi$
"n~>137 2 Chr. xxxiv. 22), to the prophetess Huldah to enquire
through her the will of the Lord. Ahikam, the son of Shaphan,
a different person from the king's scribe, appears afterwards as a
friend and patron of the prophet Jeremiah (Jer. xxvi. 24) ; he
was the father of Gedaliah, whom Nebuchadnezzar after the
destruction of Jerusalem appointed deputy governor over the
people who remained in the land (xxv. 22 ff. ; Jer. xxxix. 14,
xl. 5 f., xiv. 1, xliii. 6.) — Of Achbor (-yi|33J?) nothing farther
is known than that his son Elnathan belonged to the courtiers of
Zedekiah (Jer. xxvi. 22, xxxvi. 12.) In 2 Chr. xxxiv. 20
stands instead of him fi^y, an obvious mistake of the pen.
Asaiah ()-pto5?) 1S mentioned nowhere else. Other men of this
name occur, 1 Chr. iv. 36, vi. 15, xv. 6, 11, ix. 5. — V. 13. yftfij
construed with ^y means here, " to hearken to anything, to
obey," for which ^ is elsewhere used, as xix. 9 ^ yftlfi stands
for *yy yftQj " to hear of some one." The explanation given by
Hertz i. p. q. p. 160 f., "our fathers have not heard ofthe words
of this book to do according to all that is prescribed to us," gives
no appropriate sense. — V. 14. Of the prophetess Huldah we
know nothing more than is here stated.1 Her husband was
keeper of the robes, that is, overseer, perhaps not of the priests'
garments kept in the temple, as after the Rabbins Witsius (de
prophetissis in his Miscellan. ss. i. p. 366, ed. 3, 1712) thinks,
but over the royal wardrobe, and dwelt in Jerusalem pj2tl?532
" in the other part," that is, of the city, probably the lower city,
which Joseph. (Antiq. xv. 11, 5) calls aWn ttoXk, on the hill
'AKpa (comp. Rob. Pal. ii. p. 50), as appears evident from
Zephaniah i. 10 and Neh. xi. 9, where fyyijft yiy stands. Seve
ral Rabb. with the Chald. arbitrarily make n2©)2 a school- house,
Mc'riN TV2. in *^e neighbourhood of the temple ; and as ar
bitrarily the author of the quaestiones in Paralip. xxxiv. 22
ascribed to Hieronymus understands thereby locum extra murum
civitatis et antemurale, and Hitzig on Zeph. i. 10, a new part of
1 The conjectures of the Rabbins concerning this prophetess, see in
Jarchi ad h. I. et 2 Chr. xxxiv. 22 and in Meyer's Annotat. ad Seder
Ol. p. 117 f.

140 2 kings xxii. 15—20.
the city on the west within the external wall built by Manasseh ;
comp. on the contrary Maur. and Strauss on Zeph. i. 10. —
For the names pjlpn an(^ Dn"in stand in 2 Chr. xxxv. 24 the
forms j-inpi^ and i-pOPl. ^-^ expositors here raise also the
question, why the king applied to Huldah and not to the prophet
Jeremiah, who had then made his appearance. Kimchi has
given the most probable answer to this, that Jeremiah was at
the time in Anathoth, his native town.
Vv. 15 — 20. The prophetess Huldah confirms the apprehen
sion expressed by the king, that the anger of the Lord was
kindled against the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judah on
account of their opposition to his word, and announces that the
Lord will bring all the words of the book read -by the king, that
is, all the punishments denounced in the law of Moses against
backsliders and idolaters, upon Jerusalem and its inhabitants,
but adds for the pious king the consolatory promise, that, on ac
count of his sincere penitence and humiliation before the Lord,
be shall not live to see the evil or the punishment threatened,
but be gathered to his fathers in peace. In this answer of Hul
dah are distinguished, " the man that sent to her" (v. 15), and
" the king of Judah who sent to enquire of the Lord" (v. 18.)
J. D. Mich, understands by "the man" the individual person
of Josiah, and by the king, the Jewish king in abstracto, and
thinks, therefore, that the words "man" and "king" are mis
placed by the fault of the transcriber. But the distinction is
false, and the position of the words is quite correct. The man
who sent to the prophetess is certainly in fact the king Josiah ;
but the general designation of him as " the man who sent to me,"
proves that by this is not to be understood the individual person
of Josiah, but every man who wished to enquire of the prophetess
the will of the Lord concerning the book of the law. To this
man should the truth and certain fulfilment of the word of God
be simply announced. But by the king of Judah is not to be
understood the king in abstract generality, but the concrete
person of the penitent and God-fearing king Josiah, to whom
it was to be announced, that he should not live to see in his
own person the threatened misfortune. — To the words Q^3^;-j
nytollj "IttfN (Vi 18) we are not to supply a preposition, as <yy or

2 KINGS XXIII. 1 — 3. 141
<y (Cler.), nor the thought eventura quidem erunt (Vatabl.) ; but
they stand absolutely, forming a protasis, the apodosis to which
follows at the end of v. 19, but so that by an anacoluthon the
apodosis attaches itself in form to the intervening sentence in
v. 19, " As regards the words which thou hast heard, because
thine heart was tender . . . and thou didst weep before me,
I will also hear thee, saith tlie Lord." . . . Comp. L. de
Dieu and Starkii not. sell, ad h. I. — V. 19. 333^-^ \yi " be
cause thine heart was tender," that is, was faint because of the
punishment threatened to sinners, comp. Deut. xx. 3 ; Is. vii.
4 ; Jer. li. 46. — 'y$\ \yftl$? niTlV " that they should become a
desolation and a curse." These words often employed by the
prophets, but occurring thus connected only in Jer. xliv.
22, rest on Lev. xxvi., and Deut. xxviii., where the trans
gressors of the commandments of the Lord are threatened with
desolation of the land and every kind of curse. V. 20. " Be
hold, therefore, I will gather thee unto thy fathers, and thou
shalt be gathered into thy grave in peace." The phrase, to
gather to his fathers, means merely, to cause to die, and is
commonly indeed used of a gentle peaceful death, though some
times also, as the cognate expression, to lie with his fathers,
of a violent termination of life by murder, comp. xiv. 19, 22 ; 1
Ki. xxii. 34 — 40, so that this consolatory promise may be very
well reconciled with Josiah's being slain in battle (xxiii. 29.)
?1^272? which is in the most natural manner related to both
sentences, denotes not so much a peaceful end by death on a sick
bed, but is much rather determined by the following sentence to
this, that he is to die, and be laid in his grave in peace, before
the threatened judgment will have broken upon the city and
land. Chap, xxiii. vv. 1 — 3. Comp. 2 Chr. xxxiv. 29 — 32. Instead
of resting satisfied with this, that freedom from this judgment
was promised to him, Josiah much more did all that was in his
power to bring his people to true conversion to the Lord, thereby
to avert as much as possible the threatened curse, as the Lord
had promised in his word forgiveness and grace to the penitent.
He therefore assembled the elders of the people, then proceeded
with them, the priests and the whole congregated people, to the

142 2 kings xxiii. 4—20.
temple, there caused the book of the law to be read to the con
gregation, and made a covenant with the Lord, to which the
people assented, binding themselves to walk uprightly in the
commandments of the Lord. V. 2. Instead of ^N^il in 2
Chr. xxxiv. 30 we have QV^n- The older interpreters reconcile
the two statements by the assumption, that these prophets were
of the priests and Levites, as Jeremiah, who was of the priestly
city Anatboth, and Urijah, who came from the Levitical city,
Kirjath-jearim (Jer. xxvi. 20.) But this method is unnatural.
The difference consisting of one word only, while all else agrees,
can only be explained by an error of the pen, and this error falls
to the charge, not ofthe author of Chronicles, but of that of Kings,
or a transcriber ofthe latter book. For as there were at that time
not more than two or three prophets (Zephaniah, Urijah, and
perhaps Jeremiah) in Jerusalem, we should not expect special
mention of them, though we might of the Levites along with the
priests, ^"^1 he read, that is, caused to be read ; for the king,
who had the book already read to him, was certainly not himself
the reader in the temple before the assembled people, as Abarb.
and others thought. — V. 3. On '^y\ yftyiy comp. xi. 14 ; on
'"Ul ri'"l3^1 xi- 17 ; and on '•yfl "ifo^'i see above p. 20. —
"til Cpnb " to establish the words of this covenant," that is, to
realize them by deed, by fulfilling the commandments in the life,
comp. Deut. xxvii. 26. — fYH22 — "ifoyi " and all the people
stood to the covenant" (Luth., D. W., and others), that is,
accepted it, bound themselves to its observance. On the con
trary Maur. and Ges. (thes. ii. 1039) explain, et perstitit, perse-
veravit in fcedere. The first view has the connexion, the second
the grammar in its favour. We must therefore reconcile the
two by assuming the construction to be pregnant : " they as
sented and adhered to the covenant."
Vv. 4—20/ Comp. 2 Chr. xxxiv. 3—7, 33. Farther, Josiah
caused all the monuments and remnants of idolatry existing in
his whole kingdom to be exterminated, and even in Bethel and
the other cities of Samaria the altars and houses of the high
places to be destroyed, and the high priests to be slain. That
the extirpation of idolatry effected by Josiah, which is here
described, belongs not entirely but only in its close to the time

2 kings xxiii. 4—14. 143
after the finding of the book of the law and the renewal of the
covenant, has been already shown on ch. xxii. 3 ff.
Vv. 4 — 14. Extirpation of idolatry in Jerusalem and Judah.
V. 4. j-pttftpn ">2i"T'3 sacerdotes secundi ordinis (Vulg., Luth.,
and others), the ordinary priests. The Rabb. falsely explain it
of the vicariis summi sacerdotis. Q^3n~V2 "every vessel"
(Luth.), that is, the whole apparatus that was used in the worship
of the gods, to which belonged the altars, idols, and other
materials of worship. All these objects Josiah caused to be
burned, as the law required (Deut. vii. 25), and indeed as un
clean things without the city Jerusalem at the fields of Kidron.
The TYYp ntoTE) are probably to be sought north-east of the
city, where the valley of Kidron is broader than between the
city and the Mount of Olives, and expands itself especially in a
basin of some extent, which is at present cultivated, and contains
plantations of olives and other fruit trees (Rob. Pal. ii. p. 33.)
The brook Kidron in the east of the city (comp. 1 Ki. ii. 37)
"is now nothing more than the deep bed of a winter torrent,
that bears evident traces of being sometimes overflowed with a
great body of water." Only during the heavy rains of winter
does a stream flow in it, and even then not constantly, and the
valley appears to have had no more water in former times than
now (Rob. p. 38.) — " And carried their dust to Bethel," that is,
the ashes of the wooden things burned, and the dust of the stone
and metal articles of worship that were broken down, he caused
to be carried to Bethel, in order to defile with these the idola
trous places of worship there. — V. 5. " And he removed the
priests of the high places." £3^Q3 occurring besides here only
in Hos. x. 5, and Zeph. i. 4, denotes not priests of idols or even
prophets of Baal (Hitzig on Zeph.), but, according to the express
statement of our author, those priests whom the kings of Judah
had appointed to offer incense on the altars of the high places,
from whom the priests of the idols and those who offered incense
to Baal, the sun, etc., were distinct. In Hos. x. 5 the priests
appointed for the golden calves at Bethel are called 131^)33.
In Zeph. i. 4 also, QIIJ33 are not exclusively priests of idols,
but illegitimate priests in general, as well those who served
Jehovah degraded into Baal as those who worshipped pro-

144 2 kings xxiii. 4 — 14.
per idols. As, moreover, in v. 8, there are q^HS mentioned,
who burned incense on the high places, we must understand
by the ft"HJ33 non-levitical priests of the high places, and by
?"13773 (v. 8) levitical priests consecrated to the worship on
high places. The proper meaning of qi^J33 is contested, comp.
the different explanations in Pfeiffer, dub. vex. p. 455, and Iken,
dissert, philol. theol. num. 12. The derivation, proposed after
some Rabbins by most expositors, even by Ges. (thes. ii. 693),
from -^3 nigredo, according to which they must have received
their name from their black dress, is decidedly opposed by the
fact that neither the priests of the idols nor of the high places
were ascetics or monks, and in ancient times the priests from
India to Gaul wore robes of a white, and if possible of a brilliant
white colour, comp. Bahr's Symbol, ii. p. 87 f. and the works
there quoted.1 It comes much rather either from yft^ in the
Talmudical signification abscondere (comp. Buxt. lex. rabb. p.
1051) and denotes eos qui latebras et secessus quaerebant, quo
tutius imponerent vulgo (Pfeiffer I. c), or more probably a voce yft^
(jJ35' *113p> 12^^) w' occulendi magicasque h. e. arcanas et recon-
ditas artes exercendi dicti esse videntur (Furst, Concord, p. 559.)
"^tflpV) and burned incense, namely, each of them, that is, that
they might burn incense. ]-\V>tO are *^e signs of the zodiac,
x —
comp. Ges. thes. ii. 869. Concerning this worship see on xxi. 3.
—V. 6. ;-nttfNn is bere = j-ntENil ^D3 comp. xxi. 3 and 7.
T •• -: It t •• -: It V V
This figure of Asherah Manasseh had made and placed in the
temple, and after his return from Babylon no doubt removed
(2 Chr. xxxiii. 15), but Amon had again replaced. Josiah de
stroyed it, burned the wood to ashes, and ground the metallic
plating to powder. In the valley of Kidron, Asa had once
burned an image (1 Ki. xv. 13), and Hezekiah had deposited
(2 Chr. xxix. 16) the impurities (of idolatry) removed from the
city. This valley was thus already defiled, even if it had not
been regarded as unclean, because, according to our author, the
1 Priests only sometimes wore black robes, when they sacrificed to
subterranean gods, comp. Braun, de vestitu sacerd. i. p. 181 f., and the
priests of Isis, when th"y awaited the return of the moonlight, rdis be
fitXavocrToKois ep.ipaivovo-1 ras Kpiyji-eis Kal roiis TrepKTKiaajxovs, ev ols Sicoiwi
¦noBovaa tov "HXiov. Plutarch de Iside in Calmet ad h. I.

2 kings xxiii. 4 — 14. 115
burial ground of the common people was there. "The powder
of the Asherah he cast upon the graves of the children of the
people." j3vrt 133 denotes the people, the eminent and the
humble, who had polluted themselves by idolatry, 2 Chr. xxxiv.
4 — , in order to profane the graves of these idolaters (in contem-
tum, si non etiam maledictionem mortuorum et in terrorem viven-
tium. Seb. Schm.) — V. 7. QUinpn in2 tbe houses of the para
mours (see above p. 227 f.) are perhaps only tents, that were
erected in the court of the temple for the residence of these para
mours, in which at the same time women lived, who worked
shrines for Asherah, comp. on xvii. 30. On this worship, among
others, Movers (d. Rei. d. Phon. i. p. 686) remarks : the castrated
gallus (flj"fp) imagines himself to be a woman : negant se viros
esse .... mulieres se volunt credi. Firmic. He lives in the
society of the women, and these again are singularly attached to
the gallus ; and offers at the same time the conjecture, that the
women of Jerusalem prostituted themselves in honour of the
goddess in the tents of the galli pitched in the court of the
temple, for which the 3^3 "Tin?3 came into the treasury of the
temple. — Verses 8 and 9 can only have the sense, that Josiah
brought the Levitical priests who had offered incense on the
high places in the cities of Judah to Jerusalem, and forbade
them for the future to make offerings on the altar of Jehovah,
and thus excluded them from all priestly functions, but allowed
them, as those priests who were excluded from the service of the
altar on account of a corporeal defect, to draw their support from
the revenues of the sanctuary according to the law Lev. xxi.
17 — 23. The high places throughout the whole land he defiled
probably by scattering upon them the dust of men's bones (v. 14),
and broke down the altars of high places erected at the gate of
Jerusalem. D^PO are not sacerdotes falsorum deorum (Cler.),
but priests of the tribe of Levi, who had addicted themselves to
the worship ofthe high places (S. Schm. and others), on which
account they are called (v. 9) nili22n "OnS' — " From Geba to
Beersheba" denotes the kingdom of Judah in its whole extent
from north to south. Geba (yy%) assigned to the tribe of Ben
jamin, but transferred from this to the priests (Jos. xviii. 24, xxi.
17; 1 Chr. vi. 45), formed, according to our author and Zech.
VOL.. II. K

146 2 kings xxiii. 4 — 14.
xiv. 10, the northern boundary of the kingdom of Judah, and
lay, according to Euseb. and Hieron., five Roman miles from
Gophna, towards Neapolis. This place is, therefore, neither to
be identified with Jeba or Gibeah of Saul or Benjamin, between
es Suweinit and Wady Farah, or between Mukhmas and er Ram,
nor to be sought in its neighbourhood, but is preserved in the
Moslemite village Jibia (Lx«s») in the Wady el Jib (Rob. Pal.
iii. p. 298), between Sinjil, that is, Bethel (see above p. 326),
and Jifna (Gophna).1 — Concerning Beer-sheba, see vol. i. p. 288.
1 As much obscurity and contradiction still prevails among exposi
tors and biblical geographers concerning Geba and Gibeah, inasmuch as
most of them, down to v. Raumer, (Pal. p. 194), and Rob. (Pal. ii. p.
. 328), seek Geba in the vicinity of Gibeah and Ramah, and Winer
(R.W. i. p. 465), on this presumption, declares the statement of Euseb.
and Hieron. concerning the situation of Geba to be manifestly false,
whereas Knobel, on Is. x. 29, absolutely denies the existence of a
Geba in the tribe of Benjamin distinct from Gibeah, a revision of this
question will not be superfluous. It may be regarded as generally ad
mitted, that the Gibeah so often mentioned in the book of Judges, xix.
and xx., and in 1 Sam., especially in xiii. and xiv., is one with Gibeah
of Benjamin or Gibeah of Saul, east of Ramah (er Ram) and south of
Michmash (Mukhmas), which is preserved in the village Jeba, be
tween the Wady es Suweinit and W. Farah, comp. Rob. p. 325 f., and
Thenius in Kauffer's Studien ii. p. 149. But this Gibeah is sometimes
called Geba also in the Old Testament, as in Judg. xx. 10 and 33 ; 1
Sam. xiii. 3, xiv. 5, or even Geba of Benjamin, as in 1 Sam. xiii. 16,
whereby the assumption of a Geba in the neighbourhood of Gibeah and
Ramah has arisen. But that this assumption is quite unfounded, and
that Geba in these places is only a variation of Gibeah, every one will
be convinced who will carefully peruse these chapters ; we may compare
only in Judg. xx. v. 9 and 10. — But in 1 Sam. xiii. and xiv., Thenius
(Comm. on the passage), has already recognized the identity and ex
plained yy^, as written for piV32)- But the notion of a Geba in the
vicinity of Gibeah, derives its chief support from Is. x. 29, where the
names Geba, Ramah and Gibeah of Saul, occur together. But even
this passage proves nothing, and may easily with Knobel be so ex
plained, that Geba is one with Gibeah of Saul, only another form of
Gibeah. Besides the passages quoted here and above in the text,
Geba is also mentioned in 2 Sam. v. 25 ; 1 Ki. xv. 22 ; 1 Chr. viii. 6 ;
2 Chr. xvi. 6, and after the exile, in Ezr. ii. 26 ; Neh. vii. 30, xi. 31,
and xii. 29. In 2 Sam. v. 25, (" David smote the Philistines from
Geba unto Gazer), Geba stands for Gibeon, as may be seen from the
parallel passage, 1 Chr. xiv. 16, and in 1 Ki. xv. 22 ; 2 Chr. xvi. 6,
probably for Gibeah, as has been already remarked above, p. 235.
Lastly, the passage, 1 Chr. viii. 6, affords no decisive ground for

2 kings xxiii. 4—14. 147
— The following somewhat obscure sentence, r\1?33n ]-\fr$ WIS"!
'"131 1S to be apprehended thus : " he broke down the high places
at the gates, (especially) those before the gate of Joshua, the
governor of the city, which were at the left hand of any one
(going in or out) at the gate of the city." At the city gates also
altars of high places were erected, that those coming into the
city and going out might there worship and offer. Now as
besides these Qi-^y^n n*l732 the fifty before the gate of Joshua
is mentioned, this can only thereby be rendered prominent as
being particularly celebrated and specially sought after by the
idolaters, although this is not indicated in the text by any
particle. Hence Cler., Dathe, Maur., and others have supplied et
praesertim before "^fc$. The following "^jn before 'yiNftto-^y
may not be referred with J. H. Mich, to yyty but only to the
high place (J-R32) before the gate of Joshua, and VlNDto-^
£}ij$ can only mean to the left of any one, namely, who goes in
or out (Cler., Schulz, Dathe, and others). At which of the
gates of Jerusalem the governor of the city dwelt, so that it was
named after him, is totally unknown. — V. 9. J-yiSito 72&< to eat
— - x
unleavened bread, means to derive his sustenance from the offer
ings brought to the altar, not, however, burned on it but designed
to be eaten by the priests, comp. Lev. vi. 9, and xxii. 11 — 13,
with xxi. 21 f. — V. 10. ]-\Qn from wy^ to spit out, is an object
of abhorrence, an abomination, Job xvii. 16, an abominable
place. Hence the place in the valley of Benhinnom was tot
the determination of the place. Knobel on Is. x. 29, however, goes too
far when he rejects the existence of a Geba in the tribe of Benjamin
distinct from Gibeah. For, not to speak of 2 Ki. xxiii. 8, and Zech.
xiv. 10, where Geba is named as the northern boundary of the kingdom
of Judah, which the Gibeah lying south of Mukhmas could not be,
and to omit the testimony of Euseb. and Hieron. concerning the situa
tion of Geba on the northern border of Benjamin, this assertion is con
tradicted by the list of the Benjamite cities in Jos. xviii., where, besides
Geba (v. 24), a j-|V35 ln the south, not far from Jerusalem, is men
tioned (v. 28), and still more by the fact that both places are still pre
served to this day with their old names. On the contrary the circum
stance that after the exile, Geba only, and not Gibeah, is mentioned,
can prove nothing, as the passages Ezr. ii. 22 — 28 ; Neh. vii. 27 — 33,
and xi. 31 — 35, contain no complete lists ofthe Benjamite towns.
k2

148 2 Kings xxiii. 4—14.
e^oxyv called r\r,F\r\, the abominable place, which served for a
slaughtering place to the city, inasmuch as here on the funeral
piles the carcases of the dead animals were burnt, comp. Is. xxx.
33, and Hengstenb. Christol. iii. p. 598. In this valley, when
Ahaz introduced the worship of Molech into Judah (xvi. 3), the
statue of Molech was erected, and Tophet chosen for the burn
ing of children in the fire to Molech. The valley ry\*pi 133 or
Ci2i"M2 (J°s- xv- 8, and elsewhere), lies on the south side of
Mount Zion, see the description of it in Rob. Pal. ii. p. 38 ff. —
V. 11. Josiah also removed the horses consecrated to the sun,
and burned the chariots of the sun. Although horses were sacred
to the sun'and were offered to him among many nations, Arme
nians, Persians, Massagetans, Ethiopians, and Greeks, (see the
testimonies in Bochart's Hieroz. i. lib. 2, c. 10), yet the Israelites
certainly received this religious practice first with the proper sun-
worship, from upper Asia through the Assyrian, so that by the
ni^i-p ^hl2 carl oniy ^e understood Ahaz, Manasseh, and Amon.
The horses consecrated to the sun were not merely picti aut
sculpti or equorum quadrigarumque fusae imagines (Selden de diis
Syr. ii. 8), but real horses, as Corn, a Lap., Boch., and others
have rightly concluded from the circumstance, that they were not
burned or broken together with the chariots, but merely removed,
(jl3tiJV|). But whether, according to the uniform statement of
the Rabbins (Jarchi, Kimchi, Levi Gers.), they were only de
dicated to the sun, and were kept to meet the rising sun, or,
as Boch. and many expositors conjecture, were also slain, as
offerings to the sun, cannot be certainly determined. Probably
the former only was the case. — The words '^ pppp ]-^3 N3Q
are variously conceived. De Wette renders : " that they came
no more into the house of the Lord into the chamber of Nathan-
melech the eunuch, who dwelt in the suburbs." Decidedly
wrong ; for J-Q^ri needs no stricter determination, as appears
from v. 5 and from the thing itself. If the horses consecrated to
the sun were removed it is manifest of itself they could no longer
come into the temple. Others render : " from the entrance into
the house of the Lord to the chamber of Nathan-melech," wherein
it is pre-supposed either that the horses were kept loose within

2 kings xxiii. 4—14. 149
this space, or that their stables were there. The words are con
nected not with j-Q^jv^ but with ^3^3, and are to be rendered :
ab introitu domus Jovae in cellulam etc., that is, from the temple-
entrance, or on the side of the temple entrance, into tbe cham
ber .... The horses were quartered in the chamber
of Nathan-melech. The chamber which obtained its name
from Nathan-melech, a courtier not otherwise known, perhaps
its builder, was Qvyy^g*, that is, not in the suburbs, but
in the outer court of the temple. Ges. (thes. ii. 1123) rightly
identifies qi^^q with -^3-13, 1 Chr. xxvi. 18, and understands
it de parte quadarn atriorum templi Salomonei, or of open halls,
porticus apertae, quae templi atria cingebant, ex quibus introitus
erat in cellulas. But the etymology and primary meaning are
still doubtful. Bottcher (Proben p. 347) understands Qi-yns,
13*13 °f a " suburb-like separate building ;" Ges. I. c. explains
it from the Persian. — V. 12. The altars erected on the roof
of the alijah of Ahaz, which were consecrated to the Lord of
heaven (Zeph. i. 5; Jer. xix. 13, xxxii. 29), can only have been
built by Ahaz, and, as Hezekiah in his religious reform would
scarcely allow them to remain, must have been restored by
Manasseh and Amon. nTirP ^^712 1S *° be understood as in
v. 11. Concerning the altars built by Manasseh in the two
courts of the temple see on xxi. 5. D©73 V"^ "^e broke
1 » 1 TT —
them off, destroyed them from thence;" y^i fromwjlj not from
yy-\ " he ran from thence" (S. Schm., de Wette, and others.) —
On the high places mentioned v. 13 comp. on 1 Ki. xi. 5 — 8. It
is to be observed that here not destruction but only defilement
(Nt2to) °fthe JTV33 is mentioned, from which it is plain that the
altars erected by Solomon to the gods of his wives were no
longer extant in the time of Josiah, but only the high places
G"Vl(22)? earth or stone heaps, on which, perhaps, the supersti
tious people still occasionally burned incense and made offerings
to the gods. nTltWSn "IH denotes at all events the mount of
Olives on the east side of Jerusalem, even if j-^nEJ?2 be variously
explained, inasmuch as some connect it with jy$)ft to anoint,
mons olioarum est mons nntWSil *',e- unctionis (Jarchi, Cler., and
t : • —
others), others more correctly derive it from finttj to corrupt.

150 2 kings xxiii. 15 — 20.
But fyniWft 's bere not Partic. hiph., as for example Ex. xii. 13,
23, 6 oko'dpevwv, but a noun-form with ft = nn#?3 corruptio ;
comp. Havern. Comm. on Dan. p. 427. The mount of Olives is
called the mount of corruption on account of the idol altars built
on it. The Vulg. renders mons offensionis ; accordingly in
ecclesiastical tradition the southern part of the mount of Olives
still bears the name of the mount of offence. — V. 14 does not
treat of the objects of Solomon's idolatry, but the still remain
ing idols removed by Josiah are here mentioned in order to close
the description of that which this pious king did for the extirpa
tion of all monuments of idolatry within the bounds of his king
dom. On rVQaft and ?v-)C?N comp. vol. i. p. 240.
Vv. 15 — 20. Not content with having eradicated every rem
nant of idolatry from his own kingdom, Josiah proceeded to the
territory ofthe former kingdom of the ten tribes, and in Bethel
and the other cities of Samaria destroyed the altars and temples
of the high places, burned the Asherim that were in them, and
profaned these places of worship for ever by taking the bones of
the priests of the high places from their graves, and burning them
upon the destroyed ffl^,1 as the man of God from Judah had
1 Here the question may arise, by what right Josiah could eradicate
idolatry in the cities of Samaria, as neither Bethel nor the remaining
cities ofthe former kingdom of Israel were under his dominion. Many
learned men, as Prideaux (Connexion i. p. 48) and Hess (Gesch. d.
Kg. ii. p. 223 f.), think, that Josiah as vassal of the king of Assyria
had a certain, not indeed unlimited dominion over this region, and
might regard it in some measure as his territory, and this was the
more readily conceded to him on the part of the Assyrians, as they
were secure of his fidelity in regard to Egypt. But that Josiah was a
vassal of the Assyrians can neither be inferred from the release of Ma
nasseh from his imprisonment in Babylon, nor proved from any other
historical testimony. There is more probability in the remark of
Jahn (bibl. Archaeol. ii. 1, p. 195), that the remaining Israelites
could not resist the designs of Josiah, because their masters, the kings
of Assyria, were involved in dangerous wars, partly with the invading
Scythians, partly with Nabopolassar, who had shortly before ascended
the throne of Babylon. Meanwhile the circumstance, that before the
eighteenth year of Josiah the Levites had collected contributions from
the remaining Israelites for the repair of the temple, rather presupposes
a friendly relation of the Israelites to the kingdom of Judah, so that
Josiah might extend his reform over the former Israelitish territory,
not against their will by force, but with the consent if not of all, yet of

2 kings xxiii. 21—23. 151
predicted to Jeroboam, 1 Ki. xiii. — V. 16. y^y 73^5 -^j^ " that
X X X V -".
were there in the mount," that is, the mount at Bethel, on which
now lies the village Singil, see p. 325 f. — V. 17. wkj a monu
ment, here a tomb stone, comp. Ges. thes. iii. 1156. — The words
I'nttttJft N3~"TON (v- 18) are to be explained according to
m!irT,1!3 N2~"1ttJN (v- 17) 5 they denote merely the coming from
T 'TV -:
the land of Israel (Samaria), from an undefined part of the
kingdom of the ten tribes, from which that old prophet came
to Bethel, and was buried there. On v. 17, 18, comp. 1 Ki.
xiii. 26—32.
Vv. 21 — 23. On this Josiah ordered a passover festival, in
which not merely his own subjects, the inhabitants of Jerusalem,
Judah, and Benjamin should take part, but the surviving rem
nant ofthe tribes of Israel (2 Chr. xxxv. 18) should appear in
Jerusalem. This festival is described more fully and circum
stantially in 2 Chr. xxxv. 1 — 19, both in respect to that which
the king and his nobles did for the celebration of it, and with
regard to the zeal displayed by the priests and Levites in its
preparation. This festival was undertaken so solemnly and so
exactly according to the precept of the law, that the historian
remarks of it : such a passover was not holden from the days of
the judges, or during the whole time ofthe kings. The older
interpreters have rightly observed, that earlier passover festivals
are not denied in this remark. Dicendum — says for example S.
Schm. — quod istorum (that is, of David and other pious kings) etiam
tempore Pascha non intermissum, non tamen tanta frequentia et ritu
publico Hierosolymis et exacte juxta legem factum sit. Cler. has
given prominence to the last point alone, when he says: credi-
derim hoc velle scriptorem sacrum, per tempora regum nunquam ab
omnibus, secundum omnes leges Mosaicas tam accurate Pascha cele-
the better disposed majority of the Israelites, the remainder of whom,
together with the heathen colonists, must have acquiesced. To assume
such a friendly approximation of the Israelites remaining in the coun
try to Judah, involves no improbability, as it is known, that at a sub
sequent period the Samaritans wished to take part in the building of
the temple under Zerubbabel. But their Assyrian sovereigns were
unable to oppose either this approximation or the proceedings of
Josiah, as the Assyrian empire was at that time approaching its fall,
if not already subjugated by the Chaldeans and Medes.

152 2 kings xxiii. 25—27.
bratum fuisse. Consuetudinem antea, etiam sub piis regibus-,
videntur secuti potius quain ipsa verba legis ; quod cum fit, multa
necessario mutantur ac negliguntur. Sed invenii nuper libri verba
attendi diligentissime voluit Josias. Even the pious Hezekiah in
the passover celebrated by him must of necessity have deviated
in many points from the law of Moses ; comp. my apolog. Vers.
p. 399 f. — Instead of, " from the days of the Judges who judged
Israel," (v. 22), in 2 Chr. xxxv. 18, it is, " from the days of
Samuel the prophet," who it is well known closed the period of
the judges.
V. 24. In conclusion it is stated, that Josiah put away from
the land the necromancers and teraphim, and all other traces of
idolatry in order to raise (t3">p;-j) the discovered book of the law
'• T
to full legitimate authority. Concerning fVQ^ and Q^yT*
comp. on xxi. 6. D"i3~in are not middle gods, serving for the
¦ x ;
investigation of the future, which might be set up in connexion
with every system of religion (Hengstenb. Christol. ii. p. 177,
and iii. p. 129), but family gods, to which were attached notions
of a blessing proceeding magically from them to their possessors,
Penates, which the ancestors of the Israelites brought with them
from Mesopotamia, which were admitted into Hebraism from the
time of the judges, and connected with the worship of Jehovah,
and first became oracle-speaking gods by being associated (Judg.
xvii. 5) with the ephod, the robe of the high priest, "inasmuch
as the more general older notion of their magic power passed
into the more special one of their soothsaying efficacy ;" comp.
Havern. Comm. on Ezekiel, p. 347 ff. In this sense are the
D^Din named here and Ezek. xxi. 16 ; Zech. x. 2. The name
is connected with <JV bonis commodisque vitae affluxit ; comp.
Hav. p. 349.
Vv. 25 — 27. After our author has described Josiah's zealous
labours for the restoration of the true worship of the Lord, he
adds a general judgment concerning the real conversion of this
king to the Lord, but immediately annexes to it the farther
remark, that the Lord did not cease from his great anger kindled
against Judah by the sins of Manasseh, but announced the deter
mination to cast out Judah from his sight, as he had cast Israel

2 kings xxiii. 28—30. 153
and to withdraw his grace from Jerusalem, the chosen city, as
well as from the temple, which was designed to be the place of
revealing his presence. This introduces not only the end of the
reign of Josiah, but at the same time the end of the kingdom of
Judah henceforth hastening with rapid steps to its fall. — V. 25.
The formula, with which Hezekiah's piety was described (xviii.
3), that his like was not among all kings, is here applied to
Josiah's sincere conversion to the Lord according to the law of
Moses. The description, " with all his heart, with all his soul,
and with all his might," contains the law of love to the Lord,
Deut. vi. 5, comp. Luk. x. 27.— V. 26. QiD^3n-^3 hv "be"
• x : - x x
cause of all the provocations with which Manasseh had provoked
him." Manasseh is named here, in xxiv. 3 and Jer. xv. 4, as the
one who, by his idolatry and wickedness, brought the Divine
sentence inevitably on Jerusalem and Judah, not as the only
godless king of Judah, but as the one who pushed his godless
ness to the greatest extreme, so that the genuine repentance of
the people was no longer possible. By the zeal of the pious
Josiah, indeed, the external worship of idols was abolished, and
the people assented to the covenant made with the Lord, but they
did not turn to the Lord with all their heart. Quamvis enim rex
religiosissimus esset populusque metu ei pareret, propterea tamen
animus populi non erat mutatus, ut satis liquet ex castigationibus
Jeremiae, Sophoniae et aliorum prophetarum, qui circa haec tem-
pora et paulo post vaticinati sunt. Cler. Jeremiah particularly
discloses the deep degradation and gross moral corruption of the
people during and after Josiah's reformation of religion, in the
first ten chapters of his prophecies, which contain a recapitula
tion of his prophetic activity under Josiah (comp. Hav. Einl. ii.
1, p. 209 ff.) The sentence of Judah's rejection already an
nounced to Manasseh himself (xxi. 16 ff.) could not therefore be
averted by Josiah. On v. 27 comp. xvii. 20 and 23.
Vv. 28—30. Comp. 2 Chr. xxxv. 20—27. Towards the end
of Josiah's reign the catastrophe began to unfold itself, by which
the kingdom of Judah was to be overturned, when the Egyptian
king Nechoh entered upon his expedition to the Euphrates. On
his march through Palestine Josiah encountered him, but lost
his life in the battle of Megiddo, and was carried dead to Jeru-

154 2 kings xxiii. 28—30.
salem, and there laid in his grave t3^$3 (xxii. 20.) This event,
t :
which is very briefly stated in our narrative, is more fully and
particularly related in Chronicles i. p. q. ; comp. my apol. Vers.
p. 431 f. — The Egyptian king Nechoh (j-jb3 or ^1 Jer. xlvi. 2
and 2 Chr. xxxv. 20), called in the LXX., by Josephus (Antiq.
x. 5, 1), and Manetho in Jul. Afric. and Euseb., Ne%a<0, by
Herod, ii. 158 f., iv. 42, and Diodor. Sic. i. 33, Ne^ta?, was,
according to Manetho, the sixth king of the twenty-sixth or.
second Saitic dynasty, the second Pharaoh of the name, the son
of Psammitichus and grandson of Nechoh I., and, according to
Herodotus, celebrated for a canal which he caused to be dug in
order to connect the Nile with the Red Sea, as well as for the
circumnavigation of Africa ; comp. Winer R.W. ii. p. 172 f. and
Ges. thes. ii. 885. — By the " king of Assyria," whom Nechoh
calls his hereditary foe (''fiQnbft ^3 ^ Ghr. xxxv- 21) can only
be understood here Nabopolassar, king of Babylon, who put an
end to the Assyrian monarchy by the destruction of Nineveh,
and had transferred the sovereignty hitherto exercised by Assyria
over upper Asia to the Babylonians or Chaldeans. He is
called king of Assyria, because he ruled the Assyrian empire.
In the same sense Jeremiah (ii. 8) uses *^$N for 733.1
1 Wilh. Hupfeld (exercitt. Herodot. i. p. 7) has indeed cursorily in
ferred from our author, that the Assyrian empire was at that time still
standing ; others, for example Ges. thes. ii. 882 and Hitzig in his pre
liminary remarks on Nahutn, have concluded from Herodotus, that
Nineveh was conquered and destroyed in the interval between 606 —
597 b.c, or even later. But our author affords no proof of this, and as
to the account of Herod, i. 103 and 106, that Cyaxares in his first
attempt upon Nineveh was prevented from conquering it by the inva
sion ofthe Scythians, and only after the Scythian dominion over Asia,
which lasted twenty-eight years, began anew the siege of the Assyrian
capital, conquered Nineveh and put an end to the Assyrian empire, it
is at the same time assumed in it, that Cyaxares became king of
Medea in the year 633, so that, if we place his first attempt against
Nineveh between 633 and 625, the conquest of it occurring twenty-
eight years later cannot have been earlier than between 605 and 597.
But this opinion concerning the beginning of the reign of Cyaxares
rests again on the presumption that Cyrus was twenty-nine years king
over the Medes, and therefore ascended the Median throne in 558,
whereas Herod, i. 214 merely says : pao-tKeio-as to irdvTa iv6s Seovra
rpirjKovra irea, which we must necessarily understand of the time when
he became king of the Persians, as according to Xenoph., Cyrop., Cyax-

2 kings xxiii. 28 — 30. 155
Since Josiah marched against the Egyptian king and encoun-
ares (II.) was king in Media after the conquest of Babylon, and then
first gave him his daughter to wife and with her the right of succession
in Media (Cyrop. viii. 5, 18 f.), but Cyrus, according to Euseb. Chron.
arm. i. p. 21, ruled over Babylonia only nine years, and according to
Xenoph. Cyrop. viii. 7, 1, died in the seventh year of his reign (that
is, of his sole sovereignty over the Babylonio-Medo-Persian kingdom
after the death of Cyaxares). But even if we overlook the contradiction
in which Herodotus is involved with Xenophon and the Bible, which
recognizes Cyaxares IT., the son of Astyages, under the name of Darius
Medus, as sovereign ofthe Chaldean kingdom (Dan. ix. 1), inasmuch
as he makes the sovereignty of the Medes to cease with Astyages, and
is totally silent about the son of Astyages, Cyaxares II., yet the two
fold siege of Nineveh by Cyaxares (I.), mentioned by Herodotus, to
gether with the intervening twenty-eight years' domination of the Scy
thians, cannot be placed in the interval between 630 and 600, or even
later, because the Lydian war of Cyaxares, which was terminated by
the solar eclipse foretold by Thales, and occurring, according to the
investigations of Ideler and Waltmann (see Ideler Hdb. d. Chronol. i.
p. 209), in 610, falls not before but after the end of the Scythian
dominion, and in all probability only after the conquest of Nineveh, as
the Scythians, when they gave occasion to this war, appear no longer
as masters, but rather as servants and adherents of Cyaxares, and
Labynetus (Nabopolassar) of Babylon intervenes as mediator, for
which purpose an Assyrian deputy would scarcely have been selected
(Herod, i. 73 and 74 comp. with 106.) But had the twenty-eight years'
dominion of the Scythians already ceased in 610, Cyaxares, under
whom it should have begun, must have come to the sovereignty a con
siderable time before 633. Accordingly, the accounts of Herodotus
concerning Cyaxares prove to be of no avail to determine the year, in
which, with the destruction of Nineveh, the Assyrian empire fell ; and,
as from the biblical statements it only appears with certainty that
Nineveh was destroyed before the year 606, comp. Delitzch on Habak.
p. xix., we are left merely to the scanty notices of Alex. Polyhistor
and Abydenus compared with the canon of Ptolemy. According to
Abydenus, in Eusebii chron. arm. p. 25, the last Assyrian king
Saracus, on the intelligence that hostile troops were advancing to his
kingdom from the sea, sent his general Busalosor to Babylon ; but the
latter here formed the determination to rebel against him, betrothed
Amuhia, the daughter of the Median prince Asdahages, to his son
Nabucodrosor, and soon after made an assault upon Nineveh, in con ¦
sequence of which Saracus set fire to his palace. Still more scanty is the
notice of Alex. Polyhistor in Eusebii chron. arm. p. 20, that Sardana
palus, who ruled over the Chaldeans twenty-one years, sent auxiliaries
to the prince and satrap of the Median nation, videlicet ut filio suo
Nabucodrossoro desponderet Amuhiam efiliabus Asdahagis unam. That
Polyh. here calls Nabopolassar Sardanapalus, has been already noticed
by Syncellus (i. 396 ed. Dind.), who farther adds : ovror (Nabopolassar)

156 2 kings xxiii. 28—30.
tered him at Megiddo (in the plain of Esdraelon, see above
p. 48), Nechoh must have come by sea to Palestine and landed
at Acco ; comp. my apol. Vers. p. 436 f. This is confirmed
by Herodotus, inasmuch as to the account that Nechoh built
ships (al p,ev eVt Ty $opr\ty daXdcrag kiroirjdno-av — naves in
mare septentrionale s. mediterraneum mittendas cf. Bahr ad. h. I.)
he adds : Kal Tavrgal re iypdro iv tw Beovrr Kal "Xvpoiat ire^fj 6
NeKo)? avp.f3aX<bv iv Ma780A.1i) iviK-ncrt (ii. 159.) These words
show, as Kalkar, Critical essay on the last times of kingdom of
Judah in Pelt's theol. Mitarb. ii. 2, p. 79, has justly remarked,
that the arrival was by sea, but the battle took place on land. —
" He slew him at Megiddo, when he saw him." Cler. explains
"ini^ 1n^"l3 rightly according to the sense, pradio cum eo com-
misso, comp. xiv. 8, where the hithp. ni^"inn 1S used in a similar
*.* x : *
sense. This brief notice of our verse is elucidated in the detailed
narrative of this event in 2 Chr. xxxv. 21 f. by the fact, that
Josiah, when he gave battle 'to Nechoh, notwithstanding his
declaration that he should not contend with him, as he took the
field, not against him, but against his hereditary foe (the Baby
lonian as heir of the Assyrian kingdom), was hit by the Egyptian
archers and mortally wounded, so that when he was brought
from his war chariot into his other chariot, and carried to Jeru
salem, he expired by the way. The reason why Josiah did not
desist from the war after such a declaration from Nechoh is not
to be sought in this, that he was under the dominion of Babylon,
but merely in the fact that he cherished the conviction that
he could not remain neutral in the war that was breaking out
o-TpaTT]ybs viro SdpaKOs tov XaX8atG>i> ftao-iXeats oraXeiff, Kara tov avrov
2dpaK0s els NiVoj/ eVior par ever ov tt)v e<pooov 7rrori9els o SdpaKos eavrbv <riiv
rois fiao-Ckeiois eveirpT]<Te, Kal tt)v dpxr)v XaXSatav Kal BafivXavos TrapeXafiev 6
avrbs Na/3o7raXaa,apos', 6 tov Na/3ov^oSovotro)p Trarrjp. From these brief
notices this at least is manifest, that Busalosor or Nabopolassar was a
general of the last Assyrian king, and was sent by him to Babylon,
but here joined with the Median prince, rebelled against his master
and by the conquest of Nineveh made an end of the Assyrian monarchy.
Now, if the canon of Ptolemy represents Nabopolassar as among the
Assyrian and Median kings, and, in accordance with Polyhistor
assigns to him twenty-one years, the beginning of his reign can only
be placed in the year 625 B.C., coinciding with the end ofthe Assyrian
monarchy, and therefore the conquest of Nineveh not later than this
year.

2 kings xxiii. 28—30. 157
between Babylon and Egypt, and perhaps hoped by the defeat
and conquest of the Egyptians to avert further evil from his
country and kingdom. For in the desire for conquest which
distinguished the two nations, it was not difficult to foresee that
the kingdom of Judah, lying between the two hostile powers,
would inevitably be swallowed up by the conqueror. With
this conviction Josiah took the field and sank under the Divine
decree, to which reference is made in the words 2 Chr. xxxv. 22,
" he hearkened not unto the words of Nechoh from the mouth
of God." — Instead of Megiddo Herod. I. c. calls the place of the
battle MdyBoXov, confounding the two names with one another, as
with most expositors even Forbiger, Hdb. d. a. Geogr. ii. p. 695
thinks probable, but in p. 798 in contradiction with himself
takes MdyBoXov to be the same with ~)^J3, Ex. xiv. 2, situated
twelve Roman miles south of Pelusium, and without reflecting
on the impossibility of this assertion adds, that Nechoh there
smote the Syrians. — The death of the pious Josiah was deeply
lamented by his whole people ; Jeremiah composed lamentations
for him (2 Chr. xxxv. 24 f), which however have not come down
to us, and the mourning of the people was so great, that it was
used as a proverb even after the exile to denote the deepest
mourning, comp. Zech. xii. 11 and my apol. Vers. p. 432. — His
younger son Jehoahaz was chosen1 by the people as king in his
stead, and because he was not the legitimate successor anointed
as sovereign (comp. above p. 12.)
1 Jeremiah calls king Jehoahaz (xxii. 11) Shallum, yy$], that is,
the requited, in order to indicate the fortune that befell him. Jehoahaz,
that is, he whom the Lord should hold, became a Shallum, one to
whom the Lord had requited the evil of his doings, comp. Hengstenb.
Christol. iii. p. 540. This designation cannot therefore be regarded
as the actual name borne by Jehoahaz. It is found indeed in 1 Chr.
iii. 15, but there (v. 16) Jehoiachin also is mentioned only under the
name Jechoniah applied to him by Jeremiah, and Josiah's sons Elia-
kim and Zedekiah ; from which it is manifest, that the writer of
Chronicles herein follows the prophet Jeremiah.

158 2 kings xxiii. 31—35.

CHAPTER XXIII. 31— XXIV. 17.
REIGN OF KING JEHOAHAZ, VV. 31 — 35, OF JEHOIAKIM,
V. 36— CH. XXIV. 7, AND JEHOIACHIN, VV. 8 — 17.
Vv. 31-35. Comp. 2 Chr. xxxvi. 1 — 4. Three months'
reign of Jehoahaz. Why the people passed over Eliakim, who
was twenty-five years of age, and elected Jehoahaz, the younger
son of Josiah, who was twenty-three years old, king, is not men
tioned, probably on account of his warlike character, by which
they considered him better fitted to be sovereign than Jehoiakim.
From Jer. xxii. 10 — 12 it appears, that the people formed great
hopes of him, that they expected him as a vigorous sovereign to
repel the danger threatening the kingdom from Pharoah, and on
that account lamented very much his removal to Egypt. As
sovereign he was not like his pious father, but followed the steps
of the earlier untheocratic kings ; " he did that which was evil
in the eyes of the Lord, as all his fathers had done." The pro
phet Ezekiel compares him to a young lion, that learned to
catch the prey and devoured men ; but as soon as the nations
heard of him, he was taken in their pit and brought with nose
rings to Egypt (xix. 3 f.) and characterizes him as a tyrant
inclined to deeds of violence ; Josephus (Ant. x. 5, 2) designates
him therefore as do-eftr)? Kal piapbs tov rpbirov. — V. 33. " And
Pharaoh Nechoh put him in fetters at Riblah in the land of
Hamath, when he was king in Jerusalem." Instead of this in
2 Chr. xxxvi. 3 it is, " And the king of Egypt removed him at
Jerusalem." The contradiction which Schmeidler (d. Unter-
gang des R. Juda. 1831, p. 58 ff.) observed between these two
passages, Cler. ad 2 Chr. I.e. removed by the just remark : Jero-
solima prius amoveri oportuit Jehoachazum, quam in vincula
conjici ; nee quidquam. vetat Jerosolimm prius solio dejectum quam
Riblam abductum. The Masoretic change of "^'7^33 into "tt'^^q
is an unnecessary conjecture ; and 0^11^13 1jSd2 is not to be
explained with Cler. dum Jerosolimitani eum pro rege haberent, but

2 kings xxiii. 31—35. 159
the strangeness of the expression arises from the unusal connec
tion of the history, inasmuch as our author has omitted to state,
that Nechoh came to Jerusalem and there removed Jehoahaz
from the throne and seated on it his elder brother Jehoiakim.
Many indeed have denied the taking of Jerusalem by Nechoh,
but quite erroneously ; for this event is not merely testified by
2 Chr. xxxvi. 3, but confirmed also by Herodotus,1 and besides
has in itself the highest degree of probability. For even if we
were to assume with J. D. Mich, and others, that the elder
brother Eliakim, dissatisfied with the election of Jehoahaz as
king, had applied to Nechoh at Riblah to recover through him
his paternal throne, yet Jehoahaz could not have been so foolish
as at the mere command of Nechoh at Riblah to submit to the
enemy of his country and abdicate the sovereignty, when he was
perfectly safe in Jerusalem, because the people had raised him to
the throne. If Pharaoh wished to interfere in the internal affairs
ofthe kingdom of Judah, he would not proceed, after the battle of
Megiddo, from Palestine to Syria, but must first at Jerusalem have
deposed Jehoahaz, who was raised to the throne without his con
sent (comp. Kalk. i. p. q. p. 83.) We must, therefore, conceive the
course of events somewhat thus : Nechoh, on the intelligence of
the accession of Jehoahaz to the throne, and perhaps also in con
sequence of the complaint which Eliakim brought before him in
regard to this matter, set out with a part of his forces to Jerusa
lem, while the remainder of his troops pursued their way at
leisure towards Riblah, took Jerusalem and captured king
Jehoahaz, laid a tribute on the country, raised Eliakim as his
vassal to the throne, and on his- departure brought Jehoahaz
captive with him to Riblah, where he put him in chains and car-
1 Comp. Herod, ii. 159 : Mera. 8e rr)v pdxiv (the above mentioned
battle at Megiddo) Kd8vTiv irdXiv ttjs Svpirjs eovarav p.eydXrjV elXe. That
Jerusalem is to be understood by KdSvTis the most eminent modern
theologians, philologists, and historians admit, the names of whom are
enumerated in my apol. Vers. p. 434. I have there (p. 433 — 439)
refuted both the opinion advocated by Hitzig in his Dissert, de Cadyte
urbe Herod. Gott. 1 829, that KdSims denotes the Philistine city Gaza,
and the conclusions drawn from it by this learned man and adopted by
Schraeidler i. p. q. p. 54 ff. against the taking of Jerusalem by
Nechoh, and I have not yet heard of any protest against this refu
tation.

160 2 kings xxiii. 31—35.
ried him to Egypt.1 — Riblah in the land of Hamath, situated
according to Num. xxxiv. 11 on the north east border of Pales
tine, is preserved " in the present Riblah, a village ten or twelve
hours S.S.W. of Hums (Emesa) on the river el Asy (Orontes)
in the northern part of the great valley el Bukaa" (comp. Rob.
Pal. iii. p. 747.) It thus lay on the great caravan road, which
led from Palestine by Damascus, Emesa, and Hamath, to Thap
sacus and Carchemish on the Euphrates, on which account, per
haps, Nebuchadnezzar made it his head-quarters in his last ex
pedition against Judea, comp. xxv. 6, 20, 21 ; Jer. xxxix. 5, Iii.
10. — A hundred talents of silver are, according to Bertheau's
computation, 261,800 pr. rixd. (about £34,217) : a talent of gold,
according to Michaelis' reckoning, amounts to 4412 ducats (about
£5475.)— V. 34. " And Pharaoh Nechoh made Eliakim, the son
of Josiah, king in the room of Josiah his father." These last
words indicate that Nechoh did not acknowledge the sovereignty
of Jehoahaz, namely, because he was elected by the people with
out his concurrence. " And turned his name to Jehoiakim."
The change of name is a sign of dependence of the loss of his
freedom. In ancient times princes were wont to give the per
sons who entered into their services, as masters their slaves, new
names, comp. Gen. xii. 45 ; Ezr. v. 14 ; Dan. i. 7, and the docu
ments quoted by Havern. on this passage. But whereas heathen
princes were fond of giving those who entered into their service
as slaves heathen names after their deities, Eliakim and Matta-
niah (xxiv. 17) receive the purely Israelitish names Jehoiakim,
Jehovah will establish, and Zidkijahu, the righteousness of
Jehovah. Hence we may infer with certainty that Nechoh and
Nebuchadnezzar treated the vassal kings appointed by them not
altogether as slaves, but permitted them to choose themselves the
new names, which they only confirmed in token of their supre-
1 The older expositors mostly assumed that Nechoh, after the battle
of Megiddo, advanced without delay to the Euphrates, and took Carche
mish, and only on his return thence came to Jerusalem, deposed
Jehoahaz, and appointed Jehoiakim king. But the improbability,
indeed impossibility, of this assumption has been shown by J. D.
Mich., who pointed out, that Carchemish was from 400 to 500 miles
from Megiddo, so that within three months an army could not possibly
make its way thither, conquer the fenced city Carchemish, and then
march back a still greater distance to Jerusalem and take this city.

2 kings xxiv. 1. 161
macy. On the change of Eliakim (God will establish) into
Jehoiakim, Hengstenb. (Christol. iii. p. 540) aptly remarks, that
Eliakim so changed the name given him by his father with
reference to the promise 2 Sam. vii. 12, "and I will establish
0in?3^prn) thy seed after thee," etc., that he put it in still closer
connection with the promise in which not El but Jehovah is ex
pressly named as the promiser, and adopted this change not
from piety but out of opposition to the sentence of the prophets
concerning the impending fall of the royal house of David. — V.
35. In order to raise the tribute demanded by Nechoh Jehoia
kim laid a tax on the land and exacted of the people, according to
the assessment of each, the requisite silver and gold. Tl'Hyn
means hereto assess, as Lev. xxvii. 8, 12. ^«q to press, to exact
— T
a debt or payment from any one, cum ace. pers. Deut. xv. 3, is
here at the same time construed cum ace. rei.
V. 36— Ch. xxiv. 7. Comp. 2 Chr. xxxvi. 5— 8. Reign of
Jehoiakim ; first invasion of Nebuchadnezzar. V. 36. Rumah
the place, from which Zebidah the mother of Jehoiakim came,
is quite unknown ; perhaps nft^n 1S the same with |-[)3*nN
x x - 1
(Judg. ix. 41) in the neighbourhood 6f Shechem. — V. 37.
Jehoiakim as regent is characterized like Jehoahaz (v. 32) ;
whence we perceive that they shared the same ungodly dis
position ; Jehoahaz only failed in time to display his ungodliness
on the throne, as Jehoiakim did during his reign of eleven years,
whom Jeremiah, xxii. 13 ff, characterizes as an unrighteous
prince enriching himself by the unjust oppression of his people,
" whose eyes and heart were directed to nothing but gain and
innocent blood to shed it, and to oppression and violence to do
it ;" comp. xxiv. 4, and Jer. xxvi. 22 f. Josephus designates
him accordingly as r-gv ipviriv dBiKO<; Kal Ka/covpyoi, Kal piyre
7T/30? Qebv oaios, p-gre Trpb's dvGpdyirovs iirieiK-i]^ (Ant. x. 5, 2).
Ch. xxiv. 1. " In his days Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon,
came up, and Jehoiakim became subject to him three years ;
then he revolted again from him." Henceforward the accounts
in our narrative, as well as in Chronicles, are extremely concise,
being limited to that which is indispensably necessary to represent
the fall of the kingdom. Nebuchadnezzar, written -|&NJ"T3*)33
or -|*2N"H3,)32 Jer* xx'" ^' "¦¦ xx"' ^> etc,» NaftovxoSovoaop
VOL. II. L

162 2 KINGS XXIV. 1.
LXX. NafiovxoBovoaopos in Berosus in Joseph. Ant. x. 11, 1,
and still otherwise, according to the explanation of Gesenius,
Mercurii rex princeps (comp. on the different orthographies and
explanations of the name Ges. thes. ii. 840), was the son of
Nabopolassar, the founder of the Chaldee monarchy, and reigned,
according to Berosus in Josephi c. Ap. i. 20, Alex. Polyh. in
Eusebii Chron. arm. p. 21, and the canon of Ptolemy, forty-three
years, from 604 to 561 B.C. His campaign against Jehoiakim
here recorded falls in the fourth year of the latter's reign, that
is, 606 B.C., thus properly before the beginning of his reign.
This appears from Jer. xxv. 1, comp. with xlvi. 2, and from
Berosus. The prophet Jeremiah xxv. announces the invasion of
Nebuchadnezzar in such a manner that it must have taken place
in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, comp. my apol. Vers. p. 21 f.
In the same year, according to Jer. xlvi. 2, Nebuchadnezzar
totally defeated the Egyptian king Nechoh at Carchemish (Cir-
cesium) on the Euphrates. But Berosus relates in a passage
quoted by Joseph. (Ant. x. 11, 1, and c. Ap. i. 19), that Nabo
polassar, on the intelligence of the revolt of his satraps over
Egypt, Ccelesyria and Phenicia, being no longer able from age
to bear the hardships of war, made over a part of his army to his
still 3'outhful son, and sent him against them ; that Nebuchad
nezzar conquered them in battle, and reduced this country again
under his dominion ; that, meanwhile, Nabopolassar fell sick and
died in Babylon, whereupon Nebuchadnezzar, on receiving in
telligence of his death, hastened with a few followers through
the wilderness to Babylon, and ordered his army, after regulating
the affairs of Egypt and the other countries, to follow at leisure
with the prisoners and heavy troops. From this narrative, not
withstanding much unhistorical embellishment,1 thus much is
1 To these embellishments belongs, for example, the motive assigned
for this expedition of Nebuchadnezzar, the revolt of the satraps placed
over Egypt, Ccelesyria and Phenicia, inasmuch as Berosus here, ac
cording to the just remark of J. D. Mich., " speaks the arrogant
language of the annals of the Asiatic monarchies, who regard all other
nations as subjects, as the Chinese, if perchance a European embassy
arrive, notify in their annals that they paid tribute." With this com
pare what Hengstenb. (Beitr. i. p. 103 ff.) has remarked upon the
encomiastic character of the accounts of Berosus concerning the Chal
deans and Nebuchadnezzar in particular. To take statements of a

2 KINGS XXIV. 1. 163
elicited as certain fact, that Nebuchadnezzar, before the death of
his father, not merely defeated the Egyptians, but penetrated to
the borders of Egypt. But that in this first expedition against
hither Asia, which was terminated by the intelligence of his
father's decease, he also took Jerusalem, appears partly from Dan.
i. 1 ff, partly from our verse and the parallel passage, 2 Chr.
xxxvi. 6.1 For without the taking of Jerusalem he could not
make king Jehoiakim his subject, still less bind him in chains in
order to carry him to Babylon. Farther, that the taking of the
city occurred in the fourth year of Jehoiakim and not later, we
do not require to prove from Dan. i. 1 ff, especially as this pas
sage is not pointed enough for this purpose, because here, pro
bably according to a somewhat different computation of the years
of Jehoiakim's reign, the third year of this king is named as the
similar kind, that are in contradiction with otherwise accredited facts,
for historical truth, and with Schroeer (regn. Babyl. p. 289 *ff.) and
others to form conjectures concerning these satraps, or with Winer
(R.W. ii. p. 169) to assume on this account a defect in history, is to
misapprehend the spirit of the old extra-biblical historians, who uni
formly proceed upon the principle of glorifying their heroes at the
expense of historical truth. Hengstenb. i. p. q., and in his comment.
de reb. Tyr. p. 35 f., has collected abundant proofs of this. To the
unhistorical exaggerations belongs also the notice of the regulating of
the affairs of Egypt, which was conquered by Nebuchadnezzar at a
much later period.
1 This passage indeed (2 Chr. xxxvi. 6) is referred by many ancient
and modern expositors, even by Kalkar i. p. q. p. 89, to the second
expedition of Nebuchadnezzar against Jehoiakim, but quite erroneously.
For this reference, even without regard to the consideration that his
first expedition against Judah, with which the seventy years predicted
by Jeremiah began, would not in that case be mentioned in Chronicles,
which cannot be conceived possible on account of 2 Chr. xxxvi. 21, is
proved to be false by this, that Nebuchadnezzar came no more to
Jerusalem in Jehoiakim's lifetime, but the second time only under
Jehoiachin. The correct view of our passage is found among others in
Schroeer, who, I.e. p. 282 f., has thus simply collected the various
biblical statements : Vix propheta Jeremias Jehcjakimo, a Pharaone
Neco in solium evecto, periculum a Nebucadnezare imminere prcenun-
ciaverat fc. 25), cum ille eodem adhue anno adveniens regnum Judaicum
sub jugum mitteret. Equidem Nebucadnezar regem catenis vinctum ad
perpetuos carceres damnaverat, pactis tamen servituiis conditionibus,
mutata sententia eundem in regnum utcunque restituebat, nonnullis
saltern ex sobole regia cum vasis sacris Baby/onem abductis (2 Reg.
xxiv. 1 sqq., 2 Chr. xxxvi. 6 sqq. With this comp. also my apol.
Vers. p. 24 and 440 f. l2

1 64 2 KINGS XXIV. 1 .
year of the conquest ; on the contrary, it follows from the natural
course of events. After the defeat of Nechoh at Circesium
Nebuchadnezzar would no doubt avail himself of his advantage
pursue the fleeing enemy, and forthwith subject to himself the
countries occupied by them, among which Judea was included.
But for the march from Circesium to Jerusalem he required at
most only two or three months, so that he might very well con
quer Jerusalem in the same year in which he defeated the
Egyptians at Carchemish. This probability is made a certainty
by Jer. xxxvi. 9. The fast proclaimed according to this passage
in the ninth month of the fifth year of Jehoiakim, to which all
the people came from the cities of Judah to Jerusalem, was in
stituted for no other purpose than to commemorate the taking of
Jerusalem the year before, with which the seventy years' Baby
lonian servitude ofthe Jews commenced, as also after the exile the
anniversaries of the various great catastrophes in the fall of the
kingdom of Judah were observed as fasts (comp. Zech. vii. 3 — 5,
viii. 19, and Winer, R.W. i. p. 426.)1 Jerusalem therefore was
taken the first time by Nebuchadnezzar in the ninth month of
the 4th year of Jehoiakim, that is, in December 606 B.C.2 Comp.
also Hengstenb. Beitr. i. p. 52 ff, and my apol. Vers, p. 19 ff
1 The supposition of Hitzig, Begr. d. Krit. p. 183, Schmeidler i. p.
q. p. 84, Maurer on Jer. xxxvi. 9, and Winer, R.W. i. p. 700, that
this fast was proclaimed from fear of the army of the Chaldeans when
first approaching, I have already refuted in my apol. Vers. p. 25.
2 Following Josephus (Ant. x. 6 — I) Winer, R.W. i. p. 700, and
ii. p. 170, and Kalkar i. p. q. p. 88 f. assume, that Nebuchadnezzar in
his first progress did not touch Judea, but first invaded this land four
years later, and made Jehoiakim subject to him. But this statement
of Josephus is founded on no historical source now accessible to us, hut
merely on an erroneous exposition of the passages in Kings and Chronicles
which relate to the point in question. The date, " in the fourth" year of
Nebuchadnezzar, which was the eighth of Jehoiakim," Josephus has
drawn from vv. 1 — 6 of our chapter, compared with 2 Chron. xxxvi.
6, and Jer. xxii. 19. For as from the prediction of Jeremiah (xxii.
1 9), that Jehoiakim should be buried as an ass, etc., he drew the con
clusion, that Jehoiakim was slain by Nebuchadnezzar, and his body
thrown over the city walls and left unburied, he was compelled to
assume farther, that Jehoiakim rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar only
at the end of his reign, according to which his subjection, if it lasted
only three years, must have commenced in the eighth year of his reign.
But how far Josephus is from inspiring confidence in these historical
averments, which arc in contradiction with Old Testament statements,

2 kings xxiv. 2, 3. 165
Vv. 2, 3. In order to punish the apostasy of Jehoiakim,
the Lord sent bands of the Chaldees, Aramaeans, Moabites,
and Ammonites against him, and against Judah to destroy it
("n^3fc$nS.) From these words it is clear that Nebuchadnezzar
himself was not in a position to punish the rebellion of Jehoiakim
against his authority, at least immediately, probably because he
was too much occupied with other affairs of the kingdom in the
first years of his reign after his father's death. He therefore
sent merely the forces that were in the neighbourhood of Judah
against Jehoiakim. The hostile bands named, beside the Chal
dees, were all perhaps already dependent on Nebuchadnezzar, so
that they attacked Judah at his command in conjunction with
the Chaldean troops that were left on the borders. How much
and how much rather these averments always rest on erroneous com
binations and conclusions, an unprejudiced criticism will, it is to be
hoped, sooner or later come to be convinced, and will cease to award to
the utterly uncritical Josephus the preference over the biblical writers.
The Old Testament writers know nothing of the slaying of Jehoiakim
by Nebuchadnezzar, nothing of an expedition of Nebuchadnezzar
against him in the eleventh year of his reign (comp. my apol. Vers. p.
440), but relate that after Jehoiakim's revolt from the king of Baby
lon, the latter sent Chaldee, Aramaean, and other troops against him,
but that Jehoiakim slept with his fathers, and his son Jehoiakim suc
ceeded him on the throne, and that Nebuchadnezzar himself only in
the beginning of Jehoiachin's reign advanced the second time against
Jerusalem, conquered the city, and carried away to Babylon the king
with his family, his nobles, the warriors and smiths (2 Ki. xxiv. 2 — 17);
whereas Josephus fabulously reports that Nebuchadnezzar, after the
slaying of Jehoiakim, carried away 3000 captives, among whom was
Ezekiel, to Babylon, and appointed Jehoiakim's son Jehoiachin as king,
but soon after repenting of this, sent a new army to Jerusalem and
took Jehoiachin captive, and brought him to Babylon (Ant. x. 6 — 3
and 7 — 1.) — The statement of Josephus, that Nebuchadnezzar in his
first campaign against hither Asia after the defeat of the Egyptians at
the Euphrates did not touch Judea, but only took rr)v &xpi lbp\ova-lov
Svplav irape£ t~s 'lovSalas is also contradicted by the account of Berosus
quoted by Josephus himself in another place, and gfren above, inas
much as Berosus not only knows nothing of this exception of Judah,
but even expressly says, that Nebuchadnezzar carried away to Baby
lon Toils alxpjaX&TOVS 'lovdalcov Te Kai Qoivikcov Kal "Svpiov Kal tS>v Kara ttjv
Alyimrov \6va>v; with which captives 'Iou8aiW Kalkar knows not what
to do, and, contrary to all historic probability, wishes to understand
the words of Jews who were compelled to serve in Nechoh's
army.

1 66 2 kings xxiv. 2, 3.
they accomplished, however, is not definitely stated ; but from
the circumstance that after the death of Jehoiakim his son Jehoia
chin ascended the throne (v. 6) this much may be inferred as
certain, that they had not been able to conquer Jerusalem. But
this chastisement was only a fulfilment of the Divine sentence
pronounced by the prophets on the land and people of Judah for
their sins ; comp. v. 2 (end) and v. 3 with xxi. 10 — 15 and xxiii.
26 f. The sending of these enemies is therefore ascribed to
Jehovah, who, as the supreme disposer of the destiny of the
theocracy, punished Jehoiakim for his apostasy. For after Judah
was given over by the Lord into the hands of the Chaldeans for
the punishment of his apostasy and his surrender to the princi
ples of heathenism, every rebellion against them appears as a
rebellion against the Lord, which he punishes. Comp. Heng
stenb. Christol. iii. p. 500. — V. 4. Comp. xxi. 16. " And Jeho
vah would not pardon," namely, because the mass of the people,
as is abundantly evident from the prophecies ofthe contemporary
Jeremiah, were incorrigible, and could only be purified by the
calamities of the exile, and the remnant brought to repentance.
God therefore would (j-q^) not and could not alter the decree
X T
for the rejection of Judah from his sight (xxiii. 27) because it
rested on his very being, on his holiness and righteousness. God
could not turn his heart to the godless people, even if the greatest
intercessors, Moses and Samuel, had appeared before him (Jer.
xv. 1 ff.) — V. 6. That the statement, " Jehoiakim slept with his
fathers," is not inconsistent with the prediction, Jer. xxii. 19,
" Jehoiakim will be buried like an ass, drawn and cast forth be
yond the gates of Jerusalem," and xxxvi. 30, " his dead body
shall be cast out in the day to the heat, and in the night to the
cold," is acknowledged even by Winer (R.W. i. p. 701), inas
much as, approving ofthe conjecture offered by J. D. Mich, on
1 Chr. xxxvi. 6, he thinks that the maltreatment of the body of
Jehoiakim announced by the prophet may have been practised
on the remains of the hated king in the conquest of Jerusalem,
that took place three months later, either by the conquerors out
of revenge for his revolt, or perhaps even by his own subjects.
But it is also possible, and perhaps still more probable, that
Jehoiakim met with his death in a battle with the hostile forces

2 kings xxiv. 8—17. 167
sent against him, and did not come to the grave, but was left
lying unburied (comp. my apol. Vers. p. 441 f.) : in which case
still his son Jehoiachin might ascend the throne unimpeded, as
Jerusalem was still in possession ofthe Jews. — V. 7. The notice
concerning the Egyptian king Nechoh is given here according to
S. Schm., ut indicaretur casus Jojakimi ; Jojakimus scil. fiducia
Aegyptiorum rebellavit adversus Babylonium, et eos sibi venturos
auxilio speravit, sed frustra. In the highest degree improbable,
as Nechoh had hitherto proved himself not the friend and ally
but the foe of Judah. Much rather is the account, that Nechoh
proceeded no more out of his land, because Nebuchadnezzar had
taken from him all the territory from the brook of Egypt to the
river Euphrates (which he had conquered), given, because Pha
raoh's march to the Euphrates had been previously mentioned,
and the reader at least expected an indication as to how Nechoh
acted on the taking of Judah by the Chaldeans. The words
moreover apply to Nechoh ; for even if his immediate successor
Psammis attempted nothing, yet Apries (Pharaoh Hophra) again
endeavoured to make conquests and come to the aid of Zedekiah
against the Chaldeans besieging Jerusalem (Jer. xxxvii, 5, xliv.
30 ; Ezek. xvii. 15—17.)
Vv. 8—17. Comp. 2 Chr. xxxvi. 9, 10. The three months'
reign of Jehoiachin, removal of the king with his mother, his
wives, his courtiers, and the most powerful portion of the nation
to Babylon. — V. 8. In the eighteenth year of his life (not the
eighth, as it stands in 2 Chr. xxxvi. 9 by an error of trans
cription), Jehoiachin j ascended the throne and held it only three
months and two days (2 Chr. xxxvi. 9), as he pursued the
ungodly principles of his father, " did that which was evil in the
eyes of the Lord, according to all that his father had done" (v. 9.)
Schmeidler indeed i. p. q. p. 108, and Kalkar i. p. q. p. 91, have
asserted the contrary of his character. Jeremiah, says Schmeid-
1 This name standing in obvious relation with 2 Sam. vii. 12
(<,»^3i"h), Jeremiah changes into the equivalent form Jechoniah
(Jer. xxiv. 1, xxvii. 20, xxviii. 4) in order to make from it the
form Coniah (xxii. 24 — 28, xxxvii. 1) and thereby indicate the fate
awaiting this sovereign. " The future is prefixed in order to be able
to cut off hope by the aphseresis of the i, a Jechoniah without J, a
God- will-establish without will. Comp. Hengstenb. Christ, iii. p. 541.

168 2 kings xxiv. 8—17.
ler, considers Jehoiachin by no means so bad, as the authors of
the second books of Kings and Chronicles do, and Kalkar
remarks : " To this sovereign, who is also called Jechoniah and
Coniah (Jer. xxii. 23) Josephus bears witness, that he was <pvo-ei
Xpno~To<i a>v Kal BiKaio^ ; and also several intimations of sacred
scripture speak for the excellent gifts of the prince, but he did
not answer the expectations awakened by his gifts." But from
the circumstance that he is compared, Jer. xxii. 24, to a signet
ring, the most precious among the possessions of an Eastern
man, and that the unbelieving Jews ask (v. 28), " is Coniah a
despised broken vessel ?" that does not follow, which Josephus
inferred from it, that he was <piiaei ^p^cto? Kal BtKaios. The
entirely hypothetical asseveration, " As I live, saith the Lord,
though Coniah were the signet on my right hand, yet would I
pluck him thence," says nothing of the character of Jechoniah,
neither that he was bad, nor that he was good ; but contains
merely the irrevocable Divine sentence of his being rejected and
given over to the Chaldeans ; and the question of the unbeliev
ing Jews can prove still less, first, because it comes from unbe
lievers, and next, because it only expresses their astonishment at
the ignominious lot that is announced to him. That Jehoiachin
was no better than he is described in the historical books,
appears from Ezek. xix. 5—7, where he is not only depicted
like- Jehoahaz as a young lion, who learned to catch the prey
and devoured men, but at the same time it is said of him that he
knew, that is, violated their widows (those of the slain) and laid
waste their cities, that he, as Havern. on the passage p. 303 has
rightly determined the meaning of the words, " did not confine
his violence merely to single acts of oppression, but extended it
to the inheritance of the slain, the widows and all their circum
stances, the cities where they dwelt. — V. 10 ff. fc^nn ni?2> that
is, during the three months' reign of Jehoiachin, in 2 Chr.
xxxvi. 10, the time is more exactly determined, n^ttfn PHWrh.
that is, in the beginning ofthe year, in the spring T(comp. above
p. 285), whence we at the same time perceive, that Jehoiachin
ascended the throne in the last months of the year. The kethibh
f-foy needs no alteration, as the verb often stands in the singular
before the plural subject, see Ew. Gr. § 567. — The ''33^ irnv

2 kings xxiv. 8—17. 169
are different from the QVpfl-i (v- 2) ; Nebuchadnezzar now sent
his generals with an army to Jerusalem, to besiege it, and
shortly after the siege was begun followed himself to punish the
revolt of Jehoiakim in his son and successor. V. 12. fc^")
"Jehoiachin went out," that is, surrendered, potestati ejus se
commisit (Seb. Schm.) Older expositors, as C. a Lap., Seb.
Schm. think that Jechoiachin took this step suadente Jeremia, ne
Hierosolima everteretur. Possible, but not probable, on account
of Jer. xxii. 25 — 27, and by no means proved by Jer. xxxviii. 2.
Thus much only is certain, that Jehoiachin, perceiving the
impossibility of being able long to withstand the Chaldee besieg
ing army, hoped by a voluntary surrender to gain the favour of
the enemy and perhaps to retain the throne as vassal. But
Nebuchadnezzar no longer exercised grace, as on the first taking
of Jerusalem towards Jehoiakim, but took the king captive and
carried him with his family to Babylon, as Jeremiah (xxii. 24 ff.)
had already predicted to him under Jehoiakim. — That immedi
ately after the king his mother Nehushta is mentioned in v. 12
among those going out to Nebuchadnezzar, and v. 13 among
those carried to Babylon, occurs not because she had the guar
dianship of the king not yet come of age (Mich., Der., and
others), but because she as ;rV23n (Jer. xxix. 2), that is, Sul-
t • : —
tana Valide, held a very influential position in the kingdom
(comp. p. 219 f.) *\r\s$ np*n "^e took him (Jehoiachin) cap
tive." The eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign is computed
from the time when his father made over to him the supreme
command of the army for the war with Nechoh, according to
which his first year coincides with the fourth of Jehoiakim (Jer.
xxv. 1.) Because Nebuchadnezzar henceforth appears before
the Jews as king, though at first only acting in his father's
name, the beginning of his reign is always computed from this
point of time in our books and in Jeremiah, comp. besides our
passage xxv. 8 ; Jer. xxxii. 1, and his reign, according to this
computation, amounts to 44 — 45 years, comp. xxv. 27, and Hitzig
on Jer. xxv. 1. — V. 13. After Nebuchadnezzar had taken Je
hoiachin captive, and as we must assume entered the city, he
plundered the treasures of the temple and the palace, and cut up
the golden vessels made by Solomon, that is, separated the

170 2 kings xxiv. 8—17.
golden plating from them : comp. on wjp the remarks on xvi.
17. On the first taking of Jerusalem in the fourth year of
Jehoiakim, Nebuchadnezzar had seized a portion of the golden
vessels ofthe temple and placed them in the temple of his god at
Babylon. These were obviously the smaller vessels of solid gold,
basins, dishes, cups, knives, tongs, and the like, perhaps also the
golden candlesticks ; comp. 2 Chr. xxxvi. 7, Dan. i. 2, which
Cyrus again delivered to the Jews when returning to the land of
their fathers (Ezr. i. 7 ff.) Nebuchadnezzar, therefore, now took
the gold from the larger articles, which were only plated with
this metal, as the altar of incense, the table of shew bread, the
ark of the covenant, and carried it away as spoil, so that in the
last conquest of Jerusalem under Zedekiah, except some gold
and silver basins and dishes (comp. xxv. 15), only the larger
brazen or copper vessels of the court were left (xxv. 13 — 17 ; Jer.
xxvii. 18 ff.) — The words, " as Jehovah had ordered," refer par
ticularly to xx. 7 and Is. xxxix. 6, but at the same time also to
the sentence of other prophets, as Jer. xv. 13 and xvii. 3. —
V. 14 — 16. Besides these treasures he carried away the best part
of the nation, not only the strongest in body and mind, but as
may be perceived from Jer. xxiv., the best of the people even in
a moral point of view, to Babylon. Those carried away are first
in v. 14 stated as a total sum of 10,000, and then specified in
vv. 15 and 16, the king, with his mother and his wives, his
ministers (vd^ID)* and ^e Leads of the people, without stating
the number; farther, the warriors 7000 men, finally, the forgers
and locksmiths lOOOmen, so that 10,000 are obtained, if we reckon
the number ofthe courtiers and heads ofthe people at 2000. So is
this verse rightly understood by most interpreters ; for the words
D'Hton-^ and hyin ,n;i2aJ» (v- u) correspond to y-j^p, i^
(v. 15) and ^n "'tttjN-1?! (v- 16) and the words "OpEm I tthnn
(v. 14) recur in v. 16. ^yifVl 'nYM an<i b*T]Tl ^3N are not
rich and wealthy, but warriors, soldiers. The Qiyfo princes,
heads of tribes and families, are called as the representatives and
heads ofthe people 'pNn ^N "the potentates of the land."
Among these are perhaps also included the priests and prophets
not specially named here, but according to Jer. xxix. 1 carried

2 KINGS XXIV. 8 — 17. 171
away at the same time, Ezekiel for instance (Ezek. i. 1 f.), as the
spiritual overseers of the people. For the unusual form «i^^
the Masoretes have substituted the more usual vyift (comp. Ex.
xv. 15 ; Ezek. xvii. 13.) E)btt)!n',~'?3 that 1S> *he whole body
• — t : x
of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, is first more exactly defined
by enumerating the various classes of inhabitants, and then
limited by the addition, " nothing was left save V"Mn_Dy rhl
the weak and insignificant populace," from which Nebuchad
nezzar apprehended no new rebellion. j-p3n712 ^tyy D^iSS 72H
forms the contrast to w-^^n D# nVl> as v- 16, all that were
carried away to Babylon, not merely the heads of the people
with the king, his family and courtiers, and the warriors, but
even the forgers and locksmiths are included in it. pD3nS?3 ^\i5y
t t : ¦ ••
therefore denotes here not engaged in war, but as de Wette has
rightly rendered, fit for service, ttj-^n denotes the labourers and
T T
artizans in stone, metal and wood (comp. Ges. thes. s.v.), and
therefore includes carpenters, smiths, and masons ; and it is very
possible, that Nebuchadnezzar removed all those operatives, who
could lend effectual aid to a new rebellion. But especially would
he look after the smiths, who could forge arms. For this rea
son, and on account of the combination of ^jin with ^2b?3 I
t x •¦ : —
have preferred the rendering forgers. So also de Wette renders
here, but in Jer. xxiv. 1, and xxix. 2, carpenters. ")JJ3J3 de
notes neither janitores (fc^lJHn Chald.), nor mercatores (Cler.),
still less viros doctos, qui aliis obturant os et ea proponunt, quae ab
aliis solvi nequeunt (Kimchi), but the locksmith, claustrarium,
qui clausira et pessulos facit (Gesen.) — V. 17. Over the feeble
people left behind, Nebuchadnezzar appointed Mattaniah the
youngest son of Josiah (comp. Jer. i. 3, xxxvii. 1, and our
remarks on v. 8) and uncle of the captive, Jehoiachin, king
under the name of Zedekiah. With regard to the change of
name comp. on xxiii. 34. ^^ftTiJ ^e righteousness of Jehovah
denotes him under whose reign the Lord will impart righteous
ness to his people. Mattaniah selected for himself this with dis
tinct reference to the Jehovah tsidkenu announced by Jeremiah
xxiii. ; comp. Hengstenb. Christol. iii. p. 560.

172 2 KINGS XXIV.
CHAPTER XXIV. 18—20 & XXV.
REIGN OF ZEDEKIAH, AND FALL OF THE KINGDOM OF JUDAH,
CH. XXIV. 18, XXV. 26. SUBSEQUENT FATE QF JEHOIACHIN,
vv. 27—30.
To this section ch. Iii. of Jeremiah affords a parallel agreeing
for the most part to a word. In Jer. Iii. is wanting only the
account of the murder of Gedaliah, and the flight of the people
left in the land to Egypt (2 Ki. xxv. 22 — 26), instead of which
a survey of the Jews, carried by Nebuchadnezzar to Babylon, is
given (w. 28 — 30.) Concerning the mutual relation of the
two narratives, three different opinions prevail. Some assume
that Jer. Iii. is a historical appendix to the predictions of this
prophet taken by the compiler of tbem, as far as the passage,
vv. 28 — 30, from our 2d Book of Kings (Grot., Rosenm.,
Maur. on Jer., Bertholdt Einl. iv. p. 1475 f., Herbst Einl. ii. 2,
p. 55, and Welte in the same place). This hypothesis proves
itself inadmissible and erroneous, first, because it does not know
what to do with vv. 28 — 30, next, because, irrespective of all
minor deviations, the text of Jeremiah, especially in vv. 19 — 23,
is much fuller than vv. 15 — 17 in our book, and in the descrip
tion of the brazen pillars of the temple contains several par
ticulars, which are nowhere found in our Books of Kings, neither
2 Ki. xxv. 13 — 17, nor in the description of Solomon's temple,
1 Ki. vii. 15—22. Comp. also Jer. Iii. 10 and 11 with 2 Ki.
xxv. 7. — Others assume, that the section was originally appended
by Jeremiah himself to his predictions, and admitted by him also
into our Books of Kings, which were composed by him (Carpzov
introd. iii. p. 152, ed. 2, and Havern. Einl. ii. 1, p. 172 f.). To
this assumption, which is advocated particularly by Havern., it
is chiefly objected that too great an age must be assigned to
Jeremiah, if he wrote the last verses of this section, which record
events of the time of Evilmerodach (561 — 559 B.C.), and Havern.
at present (see Einl. ii. 2, p. 248) finds this objection so weighty,
that he is inclined to regard the verses 31 — 34, as an addition of
the transcriber of this chapter. But this expedient is a mere
evasion, and the assertion that vv. 28 — 30 (Jer.J decidedly form

2 KINGS XXIV. 173
the original proper close of the chapter, is neither proved by
Hav. nor capable of proof. And, irrespective of these verses, the
52nd chapter of Jeremiah, in the state in which it has come
down to us, cannot be a work of the prophet. For Jeremiah, if
he wrote the history of the fall of the kingdom of Judah, could
not possibly omit the removal ofthe principal part ofthe nation,
the 10,000 men with Jehoiachin (2 Ki. xxiv. 14 ff), and instead
of this, mention three small partial removals, in which the sum
of all that were removed amounted to 4600 souls.1 Farther, we
can see no reason why Jeremiah, after he had described the
conquest of Jerusalem at large in chapter xxxix., should have
here again described the same event much more briefly. Finally,
if the prophet had composed the shorter description originally for
our Books of Kings, he would not have prepared it again for the
collection of his predictions, in order to give, instead of the history
of Gedaliah, a quite incomplete survey of the various removals of
the people to Babylon. As little could a collector of the pre
dictions of Jeremiah borrow the 52nd chapter from our 2nd
Book of Kings for the reasons already assigned. Thus there re
mains only the assumption that the two narratives are abstracts
made by different persons from a common larger source, either
from the annals of the kingdom, as Jahn (Einl. ii. 2, p. 565)
tbinks, or from another great work of a prophet, perhaps even
from a more extended description of the last days of the kingdom
of Judah, composed by Jeremiah or Baruch, analogous to the
1 As of the three deportations mentioned Jer. Iii. 28 — 30, the first is
placed in the seventh, the second in the eighteenth year of Nebuchad
nezzar, neither can the one be identified with the removal of the most
important part of the nation with Jehoiachin, which, according to 2
Ki. xxiv. 12, happened in the eighth year, nor the other, with the de
portation after the destruction of Jerusalem, which occurred, according
to 2 Ki. xxv. 8, in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar. For the
assumption of a different computation of the years of Nebuchadnezzar's
reign in Jer. Iii. is a very poor resource, by which on the one hand the
difficulties of the verses in question are not at all removed, and on the
other a contradiction is introduced into the chapter itself, as in v. 12,
the usual computation of the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign already
mentioned in the explanation of v. 12 of our chapter, occurs. Moreover,
it scarcely needs to be remarked, that even on the supposition of this
wholly inadmissible assumption the chapter in question cannot have
been written by Jeremiah.

174 2 kings xxiv. 18—20.
two abstracts of the history of Hezekiah in 2 Ki. xviii., xx., and
Is. xxxvi., xxxix. Comp. here also the general introduction.
Vv. 18 — 20. Comp. 2 Chr. xxxvi. 11—13, and Jer. Hi. 1—3.
Reign of Zedekiah ; his revolt from the king of Babylon. If
Zedekiah, the son of Josiah by Hamital (comp. v. 18 with xxiii.
31), and thus full brother of Jehoahaz and half-brother of Jehoia
kim, ascended the throne at the age of twenty-one, 11£ years
after Jehoahaz, he was 13^ years younger than the latter, who
became king in his twenty-third year, and the youngest of the
four sons of Josiah, whereas 1 Chron. iii. 15, Zedekiah is repre
sented as the third, and Shallum, that is, Jehoahaz, as the fourth
son of Josiah. — V. 19. Zedekiah's conduct asking is characterized
as in every respect like that of Jehoiakim. This however does not
imply, that he was guilty of all the particular sins of Jehoiakim ;
for, according to Jer, xxxviii. 5, 24 ff., he appears to have been
of a weak character and entirely led by the nobles of his king
dom, without the courage to resist them, but the state of his heart
towards God was the same as that of Jehoiakim ; like the latter,
he turned not to the word of the Lord, " he humbled not him
self before Jeremiah the prophet, who spoke to him from the
mouth of the Lord, he also rebelled against king Nebuchad
nezzar, who had made him swear by God, and was stiffnecked
and hardened his heart, so that he did not turn to the Lord the
God of Israel" (2 Chr. xxxvi. 12 f.). Zedekiah with his servants
and the whole people is similarly delineated in Jer. xxxvii. 2,
and Ezekiel (xvii. 13 ff.) rebukes in sharp terms his covenant-
breaking and thoughtless violation of oath, as a grievous trans
gression against the Lord. — V. 20. " For through the anger of
Jehovah came this on Jerusalem and Judah, until he cast them
out from his presence." The subject to ;-f]-p;-j is undetermined,
and is to be derived from what precedes, namely, the evil-doing
of Zedekiah, as S. Schm. has observed and so correctly deter
mined the sense : Non quod a Deo fuerit, ut Zedekias malus esset,
sed ut Zedekias homo, si Brentio h. I. credimus, simplex, a con-
siliariis dependens, verbum tamen simul Dei contemnens et im-
pwnitens (2 Chr. xxxvi. 12 sq.) fieret rex, futurus causa excidii
Hierosolymitani. With regard to the phrase, to cast from his
sight, comp. on xvii. 23. " And Zedekiah rebelled against the
king of Babylon." From the very first Zedekiah does not seem

2 KINGS XXV. 1—7. 175
to have had very sincere intentions of fidelity to the oath sworn
to Nebuchadnezzar. For not long after his institution into the
office of king he despatched an embassy to Babylon (Jer. xxix.
3), which, if we may judge from the contents of the letter to the
exiles entrusted by Jeremiah to the ambassadors, could scarcely
have any other object than to effect the return of those carried
away by the king of Babylon. Afterwards, in the fourth year
of his reign, he himself set out for Babylon (Jer. li. 59), obviously
with the view of releasing himself if possible from the Chaldean
dependence which was imposed upon him. And after his return
in the fifth month of the same year (comp. Jer. xxvii. 3 with
xxviii. 1) appear ambassadors of the Moabites, Ammonites,
Tyrians, and Sidonians to conclude with him an alliance to
shake off the Babylonian yoke. Farther Zedekiah turned to
Egypt, and, finally, notwithstanding the warning predictions of
Jeremiah and Ezekiel, relying on the aid of the enterprising
Pharaoh Hophra (Apries), Ezek. xvii. 15, revolted from the king
of Babylon perhaps in the eighth or beginning of the ninth year
of his reign.
Chap. xxv. Vv. 1 — 7. Comp. Jer. xxxix. 1, 7, 8, Iii. 4 — 11.
Siege and conquest of Jerusalem ; flight, capture, blinding and
carrying of Zedekiah to Babylon. — V. 1. As soon as Nebuchad
nezzar received the news of Zedekiah's revolt, he certainly was
not long in taking measures of revenge. In the ninth year of
Zedekiah, on the tenth day of the tenth month, he arrived at
Jerusalem with his army, and, by erecting towers round about
the city, commenced the siege, which lasted to the fourth month
of the eleventh year, and, therefore a year and a half. Comp.
Ezek. xxiv. 1, where the day of the commencement of the siege
was revealed to this prophet in the exile, and Jer. xxxix. 1 and
2, where the beginning and end of it are stated in accordance
with our verse and Jer. Iii. 4—6. During the siege the Egyp
tian king Hophra marched to the aid Zedekiah. On the intelli
gence of this Nebuchadnezzar broke up with his army from
Jerusalem to march against him, and drove him back to his
own country, without, it appears, having come to an engage
ment with him (Jer. xxxvii. 5 ff. ; Ezek. xvii. 17.) — At the
same time with Jerusalem Nebuchadnezzar also besieged the
fenced cities Lachish and Azekah, while all the other cites of

176 2 KINGS xxv. 1—7.
Judah were already taken (Jer. xxxiv. 7.) pi'y a late word
occurring only in Jer. and Ezek. from the root pyy speculari,
prospicere, denotes a watchtower, and stands here in a collective
sense. The signification assigned to it by Mich, and defended
by Hitzig on Jer. Iii. 4, line of circumvallation, Tre/nVe^o?
(LXX.) cannot be etymologically justified ; see Ges. thes. i.
330, and Hav. on Ezek. p. 49 f. — That Jerusalem could stand a
siege of eighteen months is to be ascribed less to tbe courage
and strength of the Jewish army than to its own strong fortifi
cations. For even if in the removal of the best of the nation
under and with Jehoiachin many brave men had escaped the
deportation by flight and rallied again under Zedekiah, yet the
Jewish kingdom was so weakened by the captivity that it could
never have resisted the Chaldean army, had it not found its
greatest protection in the strong walls of Jerusalem, which was
fortified even by its situation. Trusting thereto Zedekiah also
gave no heed to the repeated admonitions of the prophet Jeremiah
to save himself with his capital and his people from inevitable
destruction by surrendering to Nebuchadnezzar (comp. Jer. xxi.,
xxxvii., and xxxviii.), but pushed matters to extremity, until the
famine so prevailed that it gave occasion to inhuman scenes of atro
city (comp. Lam. ii. 20 — 22, iv. 9, 10) and the walls were broken
through by the besiegers. The prevalence of the famine is men
tioned not quod propter earn non aptus fuit amplius populus ad re-
sistendum (S. Schm. and others), but in token of the truth of tbe
prophetic announcements, Lev. xxvi. 29 ; Deut. xxviii. 53 — 57 ;
Jer. xv. 2 f., xxvii. 13 ; Ezek. iv. 16 f., etc.— V. 4. In the begin
ning the date ofthe month is wanting; by an error of transcription
the words iyi3""i;-j tinh2 (Jer- hi- 6) have fallen out. U^3^i
"Vl>n> that is, the walls were broken through by the enemy, so
that they entered the city. From the detailed description of
this irruption into the city, Jer. xxxix. 3 — 5, it appears that the
Chaldeans burst through the walls of the lower city, the second
wall built by Hezekiah and Manasseh (2 Chr. xxxii. 5, and
xxxiii. 14) and occupied the lower city Oi^^n xxii. 14) ; for
the Chaldean commanders after this irruption posted themselves
at the middle gate, which at all events was in the wall separating
the upper city, or Zion, from the lower city, and formed the

2 KINGS XXV. I — 7. 177
entrance from the latter to the former (comp. Rosenm. bibl.
Althk. ii. 2, p. 222.) When Zedekiah saw them here he made
his escape with his troops by night on the way through the gate
between the two walls by the king's garden, and fled to the plain,
but was pursued by the Chaldeans and overtaken in the plains
of Jericho, while his whole army was scattered from him (vv. 4,
5), exactly as Ezekiel (xii. 12 ff.) had foreseen in the spirit.
Probably the region about the gate through which Zedekiah fled,
was less carefully watched by the Chaldeans, so that he got off,
and was only overtaken and captured by the pursuing Chaldeans
some miles from Jerusalem. The distance from Jerusalem to
Araba is reckoned at five hours (Rob. ii. p. 536.) In our text
the verb is wanting in the sentence '-^ pjJ3n^t3ri ^1MN~ 721>
x t : ¦ — •• : — x :
and the various attempts of the old expositors to explain it by
grammatical ellipses prove to be so forced that we must here
also suppose something dropped out of the text. In Jer. Iii. 7
and xxxix. 4 stand the words "i^n?3 IfcWI ^n-Q'' °^ which
the one verb at least must have originally stood here. >n»n
yyifl the way which led through the gate. The situation of
"the gate between the two walls" is more exactly defined by
"nVftn 12— ^5^ ~WeA, The king's garden lay, according to Neh.
iii. 15, at the pool of Siloam, that is, at the mouth of the Tyro-
pceon ; comp. Rob. ii. p. 142 ff. Consequently a double wall
must here have barred the entrance into the glen between the
southeast corner of Zion and the southern point of Ophel,1
1 A trace of the outermost of these two walls appears to be still ex
tant in the " rude pathway which crosses the mouth of the Tyropoeon,
on a mound hard by the old mulberry tree which marks the traditional
spot of Isaiah's martyrdom " (Rob. ii. p. 147, and i. p. 384), but the
inner wall perhaps went over from Zion to Ophel, directly below the
pool of Siloam. Between these two walls there was in Hezekiah's
time a reservoir, j-flpft (Is. xxii. 11), for the water of the old pool,
x': ¦
that is, the so-called pool of Siloam, the position of which in all pro
bability is still to be found in the basin above the afore-mentioned
mound, which is now cultivated as a garden, and where formerly, ac
cording to the accounts of the old travellers, was a large collection of
water (Rob. ii. p. 147.) This 0. Thenius has shown with a high
degree of evidence in his learned treatise on the tombs of the kings of
Judah, with a plan of Jerusalem, in Illgen's Zeitschr. f. histor. Theol,
VOL. II. M

178 2 KINGS xxv. 1—7.
through the gate of which Zedekiah escaped. To ^V) the sub
ject Ti^an 1S wanting, which appears from the connection.
pQiyri *prj the way toward the plain. n3"lj?n denotes in the
Old' Testament the great plain or valley which extended from
the Sea of Tiberias to the Dead Sea, and thence to the head of
the Elanitic Gulf, and in the region of the Dead Sea near
Jericho expanded to the great breadth of eleven or twelve miles
(Rob. ii. p. 451, comp. p. 536), so that here the part of it situated
west of the Jordan bore the name of Arboth of Jericho (Jos. iv.
13, v. 10 etc.), the eastern part that of Arboth of Moab (Num.
xxii. 1 ; Deut. xxxiv. 1, 8.) At present the old name XjjJ!
remains only in the southern half of this depression from the
Dead Sea to the Elanitic Gulf; the northern part, through
which the Jordan flows, from the Sea of Galilee to the Dead Sea
is called Jtft el Ghor; comp. Ges. thes. ii. 1066, Hengstenb. d.
Gesh. Bil. p. 227 ff., and Rob. Pal. iii. p. 153 ff. ii. p. 498 ff, 535
ff., etc. — V. 6. Zedekiah, seized by the Chaldeans, is brought to
the king of Babylon at Riblah and there judged. According to
v. 1 Nebuchadnezzar had personally opened the siege of Jeru
salem ; subsequently, however, perhaps after having repelled the
Egyptians marching to the relief of the besieged city, he com
mitted to his generals the prosecution ofthe long protracted siege,
and retired himself to Riblah in the land of Hamath (comp. on
xxiii. 33), from which he directed the whole operations of the
war. '^Q-nN tflEttJft "^31 1S properly to engage in a lawsuit
with any one, then, to hear and judge any one. The prophet
Jeremiah always uses the plural Q^Qtyft in this phrase, comp. i.
16, iv. 12, xxxix. 5, and Iii. 9  Instead of the plural VQT1
stands in Jer. xxxix. 5, and Hi. 9, the sing. -Q*rn " he (the
king of Babylon) gave judgment upon him ;" so also in the
following verse the sing, Ent^l for }tflntl\ — V. 7. The judg
ment passed and immediately executed upon Zedekiah was the
righteous recompense for his breach of oath and disregard of the
1844, part i. p. 19 ff., which unfortunately only came under my eye
when the greater part of this work was printed, so that I could not
sooner refer to it.

2 kings xxv. 8— 21. 179
decree of the Lord announced to him by Jeremiah during the
siege, that he, by a voluntary surrender to the Chaldeans, would
save not only his life but also Jerusalem from destruction, but
by the contrary course would prepare the most ignominious ruin
for himself, his own, the city, and the whole people ; comp. Jer.
xxxviii. 17 ff, xxxii. 5, xxxiv. 3 ff. — His sons, who, although not
mentioned in the foregoing narrative, had yet fled with him and
been seized, likewise, according to Jer. xxxix. 6, and Iii. 10, all
the nobles and princes of Judah were slain before his eyes ;
thereupon he himself was blinded, bound with two chains of
brass, and carried to Babylon, where, according to Jer. Hi. 11,
he remained in prison till the day of his death, so that he came
to Babylon, as Ezekiel xii. 13 had predicted, but did not see
the land, and there died. Blinding seems to have been a
usual punishment with the Babylonians as with the Persians
(comp. Herod, vii. 18, and Brisson. de regio Pers. prine. p. 589),
where it is still inflicted on the princes who are declared to have
forfeited the right to the throne, comp. Chardin in Rosenm.
A. u. N. Morgenl. iii. p. 250 ff. — Samson also was blinded by
the Philistines, Judg. xxi. 16.
Vv. 8—21. Comp. Jer. xxxix. 8—10, and Hi. 12—27. Burn
ing of the temple and the city, and razing of its walls, vv. 8 —
10; removal of the people except the lowest populace, vv. 11
and 12 ; destruction of the great brazen vessels of the temple,
and removal of the broken metal, together with the remaining
gold and silver vessels, vv. 13 — 17 ; execution of more captives
at Riblah, vv. 18 — 21. — V. 8. Instead of " on the seventh day"
stands in Jer. Iu. 12 "on the tenth day of the month." This
difference may at all events be explained with the old interpreters
by the burning of the city lasting several days, so that the
seventh or the tenth day might be named, according as the
beginning or end was stated. All other attempts at reconcilia
tion are unnatural. But as some other differences of this kind,
as v. 17 three cubits for five cubits (Jer. Hi. 22), and five men
(v. 19) for seven men (Jer. Hi. 25), occur, we can scarcely
explain them otherwise than as having originated from the
exchange of the letters of the old alphabet used as numerals,
whereby, however, in the first and second case it must remain
undecided, which text contains the error — The nineteenth year
M 2

180 2 kings xxv. 8—21.
of Nebuchadnezzar is the eleventh of Zedekiah, comp. on xxiv.
8. — Nebuzaradan nfc^'FO according to the explanation of
Gesenius, Mercurii dux dominus, i.e., cui Mercurius favet (thes. ii.
839.) t3,,n3t0~3^ properly praefectus carnificum, the captain of
the body-guard among the Babylonians and Egyptians (Gen.
xxxvii. 36, 39, etc.), on whom, as on the Cherethites and Pele-
thites under the Israelitish kings, the execution of the sentence
on criminals devolved, see above p. 30. — Nebuzaradan had not
taken part in the conquest of Jerusalem (comp. Jer. xxxix. 3),
but was ordered to Jerusalem after the punishment of Zedekiah
to effect the destruction of the city, the removal of the remaining
people, and the appointment of a governor over those who re
mained in the land. Instead of 'rfyft stands in Jer. v. 12 yfty
"tjyft 1337 without -fty^, which is not easily omitted in prose.
The 3 before D^gj^i in Jer. is here omitted as easily misunder-
stood. Hitzig connects it with ^, which is scarcely correct. —
V. 9. The last words, " and every great house (properly every
great man's house) burned he with fire," serve to define more
strictly ^3-^3 j-\N> not all houses to the very last, but only great
houses were burned down. In v. 10 ^3 is wanting before j-jft'in
as not necessary for the sense, and j-^ before "yy 3^ (Jer. Hi. 14),
which can only be omitted by an error ofthe pen, as "3^-3,-1 "WN
without ry&, with, affords no sense. — V 11. 'yy\ Q"i~>3'3n> "the
deserters who went over to the king of Babylon." Under the
Jtonn "in1 n&$ ^e (stiH) remaining multitude are included
the two before-mentioned classes of the people that were left.
In Jer. Hi. 15 stand 'rtftNn instead of ^ftnrb which Hitzig ex
plains foreman of works according to Prov. viii. 30, and under
stands thereby the two classes ^nn anc^ "l2D12n (xxiv. 14 — 16).
x t v •• : x -
Very improbable. For even if the besieged city needed these
operatives, and certainly had them, yet still they are not here
specially mentioned, as we perceive from Jer. xxxiv. 9. }i)3N
is perhaps only another form for 'tyiy\, comp. Ges. thes. i. 116.
The import of this verse is moreover limited by v. 12, according
to which Nebuzaradan did not carry away the people to the last
man, but left of the lowest of the people to be vine dressers and

2 kings xxv. 8— 21. 181
husbandmen, y-jNn n^H = V^1? D^ -"h"* coniP' xxiv- 14,
The form ]fyj^, Jer. Hi. 16 is a plural with an abstract signifi
cation. For 013} from 3«|j secuit, spec, aravit, the Keri has
• x ~"
^331 for 3^1 according to Jer. Hi. 16 with the same meaning. —
* : — x
Vv. 13 — 17. Concerning the brazen pillars in the temple broken
up by the Chaldeans, the brazen bases for the lavers and the
brazen sea, compare on 1 Ki. vii. 15 ff. above p. 101 ff. The
description is briefer in our text than in Jer. Hi. 17 — 23.
In v. 14 are omitted the greater and smaller brazen dishes j-fi.TTjft
and ]-^33 requisite for the service at the altar of burnt-offering,
comp. Jer. Hi. 18. In v. 15 of the gold and silver vessels,
only frifinj3 firepans and fyip-TP2 watering pots or dishes are
mentioned, in Jer. Hi. 19, besides these, five other names of simi
lar vessels. In v. 1 6 supplementary reference is made to the
unweighed abundance of the brass of those great vessels, and in
v. 17 to the elaborate workmanship of the pillars. In Jer. the
brazen oxen under tbe brazen sea are also mentioned in v. 20 — 23,
and in the description of the brazen pillars several points are
brought out, which in our narrative are wanting not merely here
but also above in 1 Ki. vii. 15 — 22. See the particulars vol. i. p.
123— 125.— On vv. 18—21 comp. Jer. Hi. 24—27. The per
sons here mentioned, who were seized at the burning of the
temple and the city, brought before Nebuchadnezzar at Riblah
and there executed, are different from the princes and nobles of
Judah, who were taken captive with Zedekiah in his flight, and
slain before his eyes at Riblah (Jer. Hi. 10 and xxxix. 6.) They
are identified by Hitzig without the slightest ground. Seraiah,
the high priest, was the grandfather" or great-grandfather, not, as
most ofthe ancients supposed, the father of Ezra the scribe (Ezr.
vii. 1 ; 1 Chr. v. 40 ;) his son Jehozadak was carried away to
Babylon (1 Chr. v. 41.) Zephaniah, a priest ofthe second order
(n2ttJJ3 IHS' comP* on xxiii. 4), is probably the same as the son
ofMaaseiah, who, according to Jer. xxi. 2, xxix. 25 and 29,
xxxvii. 3, held an important place among the priests. But
whether the three keepers of the threshold, that is, doorkeeping
Levites, seized along with these priests, " stood next to them in
rank," as Hitzig conjectures, must be left undecided. — V. 19.

182 2 kings xxv. 22—26.
For yipQ ^pj -itl?N> " w^° was overseer," stands in Jer. Hi. 25
TpB PPil ""lttJN.» " ^ho had keen overseer." In favour of this
reading Hitzig rejects the ^V7 °f our text, but wrongly ; for this
officer (d^d) was not yet deprived of his office ; he held it still,
when he was seized by the Chaldeans. — " Five men of those who
saw the face of the king" belonged to his immediate retinue, de
intimis consiliariis regis. This designation is explained by the
custom of eastern rulers to withdraw themselves as much as pos
sible from the view of their subjects, comp. Paulsen, d. Reg. d.
Morgenl. i. p. 482 ff. According to Jer. Hi. 25 there were seven ;
comp. on v. 8. ytydn appears here to be equivalent to N25in "ito-
— T T — —
Against this, indeed, Hitzig has objected, " the general is no
scribe," and therefore giving the preference to the reading of
Jer. y%Q without the article renders : "and the scribe ofthe
commander ;" but the correctness of this observation and ren
dering is liable to considerable doubt. For as the restrictive
phrase V*y&n !32?~nN N2!fl3n can be referred only to y%b, not
t° N25in "\to> which needs no such restriction, so yQ'Q here at all
x x - — •>
events denotes a military officer (comp. above p. 43 note), in
which case it is not easy to perceive, why this yQQ who sum
mons the people to war and drills them to arms, might not be a
commander and be so designated. fc$22n procedere jussit in
bellum denotes probably not merely the levying of troops, but at
the same time the drilling of those levied in the use of arms.
The sixty men of the V-^n Qy belonged either to the instiga
tors of the rebellion or had by some other means incurred the
resentment of the Chaldeans, so that they were executed and not
carried into exile Hke the rest of the people. — V. 21. With the
words "•^f) *yyiy, " so Judah was carried away out of the land,"
the narrative of the destruction of the kingdom of Judah is
closed, comp. xvii. 23. The immediately following verses 22 —
26, give an account of the people who were left in the land.
Vv. 22 — 26. Over the people left in the land Nebuchadnezzar
appointed Gedaliah as governor, who fixed his residence at
Mizpah. After the Chaldeans had departed, the fugitives as
sembled around him, and among them the officers of war, who
had escaped by flight from the hands of the Chaldeans, and re-

2 kings xxv. 22—26. 183
oeived from him the assurance on oath of protection and security
from the Chaldeans, if they would only conduct themselves peace
ably and cultivate the land. But Gedaliah was soon slain at the
instigation of the princes of the Ammonites (Jer. xl. 14), by
Ishmael, one of the officers, a scion of the royal blood, in conse
quence of which deed the others with the people fled into Egypt
from fear of the vengeance of the Chaldeans. Concerning these
events, related here only in a scanty abstract, we receive much
more particular accounts from Jer. xi. — xliv., where the pro
cedure of this prophet among the people still left in the land is
described. — V. 22. Gedaliah was the son of Ahikam, who had
formerly saved the life of Jeremiah (Jer. xxvi. 24), and the
grandson of Shaphan, a man not otherwise known, comp. on
xxii. 12. Lyra and some Rabbins take Gedaliah to be a deserter,
qui in suprema urbis obsidione dediderat se Chaldaeis, monita Jere-
miae suadentis hortantisque regem et populum, ut dedentes se mala
extrema evitarent, secutus, (comp. Calmet on our verse). A not
improbable conjecture, but still we cannot receive it as a his
torical fact. Gedaliah had received from Nebuchadnezzar the
superintendence of all that were left in the land, men, women,
children, poor, also some daughters of the king, and courtiers,
whom it had not been thought necessary or worth while to re
move, comp. Jer. xl. 7, xii. 10 and 16. Nebuzaradan had also
assigned to him the prophet Jeremiah, who was undetermined to
make use of the freedom given him to go to Babylon or remain
in the land, Jer. xl. 2 — 6, comp. with xxxix. 14. — V. 23. Con
cerning Mizpah in the land of Benjamin, see above p. 235. — Of
the fugitives scattered in and beyond the land, (comp. Jer. xl. 7
and 11), who came to Gedaliah, the military officers are particu
larly mentioned. ?"'ty^M are *"he men belonging to the v^
• x -: x .«x
Q^^n;-j > ^is appears even from our verse, inasmuch as pjlSn
D^tMNm 1S repeated at the close of the verse by DrptMNI 7V271'
and still more clearly from Jer. xl. 7 and 8, where the v^jy
D^nn ^ the Edition nito2 Iffifcfc w^° Hved in the field, that
is, in the open air, are designated as those who dwelt in the
country. Ishmael, the son of Nethaniah, is farther designated,
v. 25, as the grandson of Elishama, probably the officer men
tioned Jer. xxxvi. 12 and 20, and was of the seed royal. Of

184 a kings xxv. 22—26.
the remaining persons nothing else is known ; only of Johanan
it is mentioned Jer. xl. — xlii., that he warned Gedaliah of the
traitor Ishmael, and, when the former, disregarding his warning,
was slain, put himself at the head of the people, and, notwith
standing the dissuasions of Jeremiah, fled with them to Egypt.
In Jer. xl. 8, along with Johanan, his brother Jonathan is men
tioned, which name has probably fallen out here by a slip of the
pen. Before iri0l03n stands in Jer. xl. 8, i£"\y i^y\. according
to which not Seraiah, but iQ^y came from Netophah, whose
sons were among the officers of war. Netophah, according to
Ezr. ii. 22, Neh. vii. 26, was in the neighourhood of Bethle
hem, and is therefore scarcely the same as the present village
Beit Netif, south-west of Jerusalem, comp. Rob. ii. p. 600.
The name *iJ-p2Ti^ 1S written Jer. xl. 8, iirpjV) an^ xlii- 1? HW'
Jaazaniah was a Syrian naturalized in the kingdom of Judah
from the Syrian district and former kingdom of Maachah (pQjjft),
on the northern boundary of Palestine, on the western slope of
Hermon, Deut. iii. 10, Jos. xii. 4 f., and von Raum. Pal. p. 224.
hn35?73n~l3 means the Maachathite. V. 24. Because they had
borne arms against the Chaldeans, these fugitives feared their
vengeance, as we may conclude from this, that Gedaliah pro
mised them security on oath, and admonished them to remain in
the land and be subject to the king of Babylon, and it would be
well with them. According to Jer. xl. 9, he promises to inter
cede for them with the Chaldeans, and invites them to return to
their cities and gather wine, fruits, and oil. The QVttoSn *iyyy
are the officers, whom Nebuchadnezzar had left in the land and
placed over it. The governor Gedaliah also had Chaldeans with
him (v. 25.)— V. 25. Ishmael was sent by Baalis, the king of
the Ammonites, and Gedaliah was apprized and warned by Jo
hanan of the intended crime, but had given no credit to the
information of Johanan (Jer. xl. 13—16). Ishmael perpetrated
the murder, when he, with his ten men invited by Gedaliah to
an entertainment, did eat in his house (Jer. xii. 3). The Jews
and the Chaldeans with Gedaliah were military men (Jer. xii.
3), whom he as governor had with him for order and protection.
Their number cannot have been great, as Ishmael with ten men
was able to put them to death. After Ishmael had committed

2 kings xxv. 27—30. 185
this crime, and also slain a number of men from Shechem,
Shiloh and Samaria, who came with an offering, he carried
away captive the people that were in Mizpah, and departed to go
over to the Ammonites, but, as soon as his deed was known, was
pursued by Johanan and the other captains of the forces, and
overtaken at Gibeon, whereupon the people that were carried
away by him left him and passed over to Johanan, so that he
only with eight men could escape and make his way to the Am
monites (Jer. xii. 4 — 13). But Johanan, with the other cap
tains and the remaining people, went into the region of Beth
lehem, with the view of fleeing into Egypt from fear of the
Chaldeans. Here they applied, indeed, to the prophet Jeremiah,
in order to learn from him the will of the Lord, but notwith
standing the word of the Lord communicated to them by him,
that if they remained in the land they need not be afraid of the
king of Babylon, but if they went to Egypt they should all
perish by the sword, famine, and pestilence, and notwithstanding
the prediction, that the Lord would also give Pharaoh Hophra
into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. xlii.), they proceeded to
Egypt, taking the prophet with them, and settled in the various
cities of Egypt, where they gave themselves up to idolatry, and
could not be weaned from it even by the severest judgments de
nounced against them for it by Jeremiah in the name of the
Lord (Jer. xlifi. and xliv.)
Vv. 27 — 30. Comp. Jer. Hi. 31 — 34. Jehoiachin is released
from prison by Evilmerodach, brought to his court, and treated
with honour. The thirty-seventh year of the captivity of Jehoi
achin corresponds to the year 562-61 B.C., in which Nebuchad
nezzar died, after a reign of forty-three years reckoned from 604.
The twelfth month of this year coincides nearly with March
561. In this year his son Evilmerodach became king (j-£\y3
isVft)? anc^ probably as soon as he ascended the throne showed
; x
favour to king Jehoiachin, after he had languished in prison for
more than thirty-six years. Instead of the 27th day the 25th is
given in Jer. Hi. 31 ; a difference, again, which has arisen by
the exchange of similar letters ; comp. on v. 8. Evilmerodach
(w-~£ ^1fc$> EveiXpapdBovxos in Berosus) reigned according to
Berosus, in Josephus c. Ap. i. 20 and the canon of Ptol., two

186 2 kings xxv. 27—30.
years, according to the testimony of Josephus dvopm Kal daeX-
ym, and was murdered by his brother-in-law Neriglissar. Ac
cording to Josephus (Ant. x. 11, 2) he reigned eighteen, and
according to Alex. Polyh. (in Eusebii Chron. arm. p. 21), twelve
years. But both statements are obviously false, and the two
years' reign, for which also Niebuhr (kl. histor. Schrift. i. p.
199) has declared himself, is demanded by the chronology ofthe
subsequent Babylonian sovereigns. Comp. Ges. thes. i. 41, and
Win. R.W. i. p. 4 19, where also the other very diverse modes of
writing the name are collected, "^r, l^tfl Nto to lift up the
xx
head of any one from prison, that is, to bring him out of it, comp.
Gen. lx. 13. — V. 28. ni2b 'inN *I2T1> "^e sPake with him
kindly," comp. Jer. xii. 6. " And set his seat above the seat of
the kings that were with him in Babylon." This phrase is not
with Hitzig to be taken literally, as if he gave him a higher seat,
but figuratively, loco honestiore eum habuit (Rosenm.) ; he gave
him precedence of the other kings. These kings were also pro
bably those, who having, like Jehoiachin, been deprived of their
lands by Nebuchadnezzar, Hved at the Babylonian court for the
augmentation of its splendour (Hitzig). Thus, for example, Cyrus
kept the conquered Croesus with him (Herod, i. 88.) — V. 29.
" And he (Jehoiachin) changed his prison garments," that is,
laid them aside and put on others. Joseph did the same, when
he was brought from prison to appear before Pharoah (Gen. xii.
42). The subject to ^jiy ls obviously Jehoiachin as in the fol-
lowing sentence, no longer Evilmerodach, as Dereser, Hitzig,
and others suppose. — " He ate continually before him," that is,
he lived at the royal table, comp. p. 25. — V. 30. Moreover,
Jehoiachin received, as probably also the other kings, a daily al
lowance of food or provisions for the sustenance ofthe servants,
who composed his small court. pypnN (from pp^ definivit) cibi
commeatusque portio alicui definita (Gesen.). The words ifti-'js
1«i*ipj many interpreters, for instance, Calmet, understand of the
x —
Hfe of Evilmerodach ; but Seb. Schm., with the older Rabbins,
rightly declare in favour of its reference to the days of Jehoiachin
ex scopo hujus loci, qui est ut doceatur, quid deinceps Jojachino
contigerit : quae narratio imperfecta esset, nisi tota ejus vita com-
prehenderetur. Moreover, it cannot be inferred with certainty

2 kings xxv. 27—30. 187
from this statement, that Jehoiachin died before Evilmerodach
(Havern. Einl. ii. 1. p. 170) ; for the favour shown to Jehoiachin
by Evilmerodach might also be continued by his successors.
Concerning the cause of this special kindness of Evilmerodach to
Jehoiachin, Hitzig on Jer. has proposed various conjectures, all
of which, however, have only slight probability. The higher
ground of this favourable change in the captivity of Jehoiachin
lies in the Divine purpose of grace, that the seed of David should
be severely corrected indeed for their apostasy from the Lord, but
not utterly cast off (2 Sam. vii. 14 and 15). It was at the same
time for the whole captive people a prognostic of the future turn
ing of thefr captivity, when they, recognising their exile as a
merited punishment for their sins, should turn to the Lord their
God with all their heart.

THE

BOOKS OF THE CHBONICLES:

ERNST BERTHEAU,

FHOFESSOB IN QOETTIN8EN.

TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN

JAMES MARTIN, B.A

K1J1XBURGH.

( 191 )

PREFACE

It was originally the intention of the publishers to issue Keil's
work on the Chronicles in connection with his Commentary on
the Books of Kings. But on further consideration they have
thought it un advisable to do so. The character of that work, as
stated in the title (apolog etischer Ver such), is purely apologetical.
It was written as an answer to objections made by De Wette and
Dahler to the credibility ofthe two Books ofthe Chronicles, objec
tions which scarcely any one would think of repeating now. It is
undoubtedly a book of great worth, not only meeting the attacks
referred to in a thorough and successful manner, but containing
a large amount of important matter which needs only to be
thrown into a different shape to form the groundwork of a valu
able exposition of these historical books. At the same time the
prominence given to the (now exploded) objections offered by the
writers named, and the space occupied by the answers to those
objections, so greatly detract from the present worth of the book,
especially to English readers, that the publishers have thought
it right to give up the original design.
In the place of the work of Keil they have selected for publi
cation the latest commentary that has appeared in Germany on
the Books of Chronicles. As their object, however, has been
rather to give completeness to the Commentary on Kings than
to issue an independent exposition of the Chronicles, they have
decided to omit certain portions of Bertheau's work, especially
his notes on such passages as are found in precisely the same
form in the Books of Kings. In other words this supplement con
tains an exposition of all the matter contained in the Chronicles,
which has not already been expounded by Keil in this and the
preceding volume, with the exception of the lengthy genealogical

192 PREFACE.
tables, which occupy the first nine chapters of the first Book.
The reader will also find between brackets occasional extracts
from KeiVs work on the Chronicles, which it has been thought
desirable to introduce on account of their containing a fuller or
more satisfactory elucidation of the text, than is to be found in
the original work.

THE

BOOKS OF THE CHRONICLES.

PART I.
GENEALOGICAL TABLES.
I. Chaps, i. — iii. The Pedigree of David. (1.) Chap. i. 1 — 23.
The ten members from Adam to Noah ; Noah's three sons, and
the seventy nations that were descended from them. (2.) Vv.
24 — 42. The ten members from Shem to Abraham ; his sons,
and the seventy tribes that sprang either directly from Abraham
or from the rest of the members named. Vv. 43 — 54. List ofthe
kings and princes in Edom. (3.) Chap. ii. The twelve tribes
of Israel, and the seventy descendants of Judah (vv. 1 — 41) ;
an appendix to this list (vv. 42 — 55.) (4.) Chap. iii. The de
scendants of David.
II. Chap. iv. — vii. — The twelve tribes of Israel. (1.) Chap.
iv. 1—23. The tribe of Judah. (2.) Vv. 24—43. The tribe of
Simeon. (3.) Chap. v. 1—10. The tribe of Reuben. (4.) Vv.
11—22. The tribe of Gad. (5.) Vv. 23—26. The half of
Manasseh. (6.) V. 27— vi. 66. The tribe of Levi. (7.) Chap.
vii. 1—5. The tribe of Issachar. (8.) Vv. 6—11. The tribe of
Benjamin. (9.) V. 12. The tribe of Dan. (10.) V. 13. The
tribe of NaphtaH. (11.) Vv. 14—19. The half tribe of Ma
nasseh. (12.) Vv. 20—29. The tribe of Ephraim, (13.) Vv.
30—40. The tribe of Asher.
IIL Chap. viii. — ix. 34. The inhabitants of Jerusalem. (1.)
Chap. viii. The tribe of Benjamin. (2.) Chap. ix. 1—34. The
heads of the people dwelling in Jerusalem.
VOL. II. n

( 194 )
PART IT

1 Chr. ix. 35 to 2 Chr. xxxvi.
history of the kings in jerusalem from david to zede
kiah the last in the series of kings belonging to
the house of david.
I. Chap. ix. 35 — Chap. xxix.
HISTORY OF DAVID.
A few brief notices of the family of Saul, and the fate of his
house, serve as an introduction to the history of David's reign in
Jerusalem (chap. ix. 35 — x. 14). The anointing of David in
Hebron by the elders of the people is then dismissed in a very
few words (chap. xi. 1 — 3). And without touching upon the
relation in which he stood to Abner and to Saul's son Ishbosheth,
or saying anything with reference to the period during which he
reigned in Hebron, the historian hastens to describe the conquest
of Jerusalem, which forms the starting-point for an elaborate
account ofthe history ofthe kingdom in that city (chap. xi. 4 — 9).
Having given a list of David's heroes (chap. xi. 10 — 47), he
appends another list of those who attached themselves to him
during the life time of Saul (chap. xii. 1 — 22), and then returns
to chap. xi. 1 — 3, for the purpose of giving a more detailed des
cription of the popular assembly which was held in Hebron,
when David was chosen king (chap. xii. 23 — 40.) His principal
object is to speak of the sacred institutions of which David was
the founder, and to commemorate his care for the sanctuary of
Israel ; he therefore begins at once by relating how David brought
up the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem (chap. xiii.). For a
short time, however, he interrupts his narrative, and introduces
a series of brief notices of the building of David's house, his

CHAPTER IX. 35—44. 195
family, and a war with the Philistines (chap. xiv.). The thread
is then resumed in chap. xv. and xvi. In the same manner
does he break off his account of the intended erection of a templo
(chap, xvii.), and after describing certain of David's wars and
other events, resumes the subject at chap. xxi. 28, and brings it
to a conclusion in chap. xxii. The historian is now able to pro
ceed more quietly, and dwells at greater length upon the arrange
ments which were made by David for the worship of God (chap.
xxiii. — xxvi.). A description of his army and a list of his officers
are now introduced (chap, xxvii.), and these are followed by his
final instructions and an account of his death (chap, xxviii. and
xxix.).

1. Chap. ix. 35 — Chap. x.
family of saul and fate of his house.
Chap. ix. w. 35 — 44. SauVs family. This list has already been
given in the account ofthe different families of the Benjaminites
at chap. viii. 29 — 39, the only difference being that in the pre
sent instance it terminates with the sons of Azel, and therefore
contains two verses less than the former list. Herzfeld quotes a
statement of the Mar Sutra to the effect that 400 camel-loads,
or, according to another passage, 1300 camel-loads of explana
tions had been written on this repetition and the ninth chapter
in general. The reason for the repetition is simply this, that
here the Hst forms an introduction to the account of Saul's death,
whereas it is given in chap. viii. in order that the celebrated
family of Saul may not be omitted from the Hst of the Benja
minites. Hence the Hst given in the verses before us serves to
connect the history of the kingdom with the genealogical lists,
which precede it. This might no doubt have been done by a
simple reference to the Hst already given, or by repeating the
first part alone. The historian apparently felt this, and there
fore stopped at the first favourable opportunity, viz., when he
reached the words, " these are the sons of Azel." He could not
well stop before, as the list of the descendants of Ner is continued
to this point in uninterrupted succession. The fondness ofthe his-
n2

196 CHAPTER X. 1—14.
torian for genealogical lists may undoubtedly also be seen in this
repetition ; for, were it not for this predilection, he would pro
bably have adopted some other means of connecting the narrative
with the preceding genealogies.
Chap. x. 1 — 14. Death of Saul. David obtains possession of
the government. The first twelve verses occur, with very slight
variations, in precisely the same form in 1 Sam. xxxi. 1 — 13. The
concluding remark in w. 13, 14, is added by our historian, and
shows that the account of Saul's death is intended as an intro
duction to the history of David. Vv. 1 — 12. These verses merely
contain the concluding part of an account of the last battle be
tween the Philistines and the Israelites under Saul, which is to
be found at much greater length in the books of Samuel. Ac
cording to 1 Sam. xxviii. 4 the Philistines, accompanied by David
and his men, were encamped at Shunem, Saul and the Israelites
on the mountains of Gilboa. They left their positions, however,
and fought a pitched battle in the plain of Jezreel (chap. xxix.
1.) David took no part in the battle. The Israelites were de
feated, and fled back to their former quarters, but were pursued
by the Philistines. This accounts for the fact that (V. 1)
wounded Israelites fell in the mountains of Gilboa. — V. 2. The
Philistines followed hard after Saul. The verb literally denotes
continuous and hot pursuit. — V. 3. Instead of the shooters with
bows, we read in 1 Sam. xxxi. the shooters, men with bows.
The word men probably appeared superfluous on account of the
shooters being described as archers (shooters with bows), and
was therefore omitted. Hence the reading in Samuel is to be
regarded as the original text. — Then the archers of the PhiHstines
hit Saul, then he trembled before the archers. When the archers,
who evidently fought as light troops in the front ranks, came
near to Saul, he trembled, as he had already done when he saw
the camp ofthe Philistines (1 Sam. xxviii. 5), from a presentimen
of his approaching defeat. The thought of imprisonment and of
the insults to which he would be exposed overcame the hero.
There is nothing in the words, which he addressed to his armour-
bearer (v. 4), to lead us to conclude that in his last moments he
was free from the agitation which his trembHng had indicated.
Hence the state of mind, in which we find Saul a short time be
fore his death, does not furnish the least ground, as some have

chapter x. 1 — 14. 197
supposed that it does, for questioning the correctness of the Ma-
soretic explanation of the word ^n^V This reading is confirmed
by the preposition ift and the adverb "exceedingly," which is added
in 1 Sam. xxxi. It is true the word only occurs here and in the
corresponding passage in Samuel, but in Ps. xcvii. 4 we find
7nm> an(i the other persons of the Imperfect ^lpp are by n0
means rarely met with. The translators of the Septuagint
appear to have hesitated to adopt the rendering " he trembled."
In the passage before us they have substituted Kal hrbveaav
(Alex, eirovea-ev) dirb twv to^wv ; but in 1 Sam. xxxi. they
render the words in a very different manner, viz., hrpavpaTicOn
eh rh. xmo^ovBpta. From this Thenius conjectures that the read
ing in the original text must have been Qvy^pi ~>fc$ 7n!,1> ^ie was
wounded near the gall. But the present reading in the Chronicles
favours such a conjecture even less than the text of the Book of
Samuel. — V. 4. After " these uncircumcised " we find the words
"thrust me through," in the Book of Samuel. It is very pos
sible that they may have fallen out of our text in consequence of
the same words occurring immediately before ; at the same time
it is equally possible that their introduction into the text of
Samuel may be explained in the same way. As the request to
the armour-bearer, " draw thy sword and thrust me through," can
only have proceeded from a desire that the Philistines might not
abuse the living Saul, and as they would have quite as much power
to abuse his corpse, after he had been slain by his armour-bearer,
the reason assigned for the request, " thrust me through," can
hardly have been "in order that they may not thrust me through."
Saul was not afraid of being slain by the Philistines, as Abime
lech had formerly feared to meet death at the hands of a woman
(Judg. ix. 54), but wbat he feared was that he might fall into
the hands ofthe PhiHstines alive. Hence we conclude that the
words did not originally form part of the text. The supposition,
that in the Book of Samuel they have crept in through an over
sight, is confirmed by the fact, that the word is written the second
time in precisely the same form as the first, although in the first
instance it occurs as an Imperative. — V. 5. The armour-
bearer kills himself, because he wishes not to outlive his king
and captain, or to fall into the hands of the PhiHstines alive.
We need not search for any other motive. — V. 6. And all his

198 CHAPTER X. 1—14.
house died together; in 1 Sam. xxxi. we read and his armour
bearer and all his men died that same day together. And instead
of the following passage (v. 7), when the men of Israel saw that
they fled, we find in Samuel, " when the men of Israel . . .
saw that the men of Israel fled." From this we conclude that
the author of the Chronicles intentionally avoided speaking of
the men of Saul or of Israel, who had taken part in the fight,
because it was not his purpose to give a full description of the
course of the battle. His design was merely to relate the death
of Saul and his sons, that he might show how David obtained
possession of the throne. As he wished to show the conse
quences of the battle with reference to the house of Saul in as
few words as possible, he could very properly make use of tbe ex
pression and all his house died together, although it was not strictly
correct ; for there was no necessity to mention Ishbosheth the sou
of Saul, who still remained alive, as the plan of his work did not
require him to refer to the connection which existed between
David and Ishbosheth, nor had he any occasion to say more
about the perpetuation of the family of Saul in the descendants
named in chap. ix. 35 — 44. All that his plan required was, that
he should show how the government passed from Saul to David.
The immediate cause of this was the death of Saul and of such
of his sons as the nation might possibly have thought of, when
they met to choose a new king. — V. 7. The bodies of Saul and
his sons fell into the hands of the Philistines, for the Israelites,
who dwelt in the neighbourhood of Gilboa, had deserted their
cities on the flight of Saul and his sons, and were, therefore,
not in a position to rescue their bodies from the enemy. The
Israelites in the neighbourhood of Gilboa are here described as the
men of Israel that were in the plain, i.e., the plain of Jezreel. In
Samuel they are called with greater precision " the men of Israel
who were by the side of the plain and by the side ofthe Jordan,"
i.e., those who dwelt to the west and east of Gilboa. The diffe
rence is very trifling, and there is no necessity for supposing that
our historian had a faulty text before him (TJienius on Samuel),
since there are other passages in which similar slight alterations
occur. — V. 8. The following day the Philistines, on examining
the dead, found the bodies of Saul and his sons. The rest of
the day, on which the battle was fought, had probably been

CHAPTER X. 1 — 14. 199
occupied in the capture of the deserted cities. When the exer
tions of the conflict were over the next thing wanted was rest,
and there was no necessity to search the bodies till the second
day. — V. 9. They stripped him and took his head and his armour.
(1 Sam. they cut off his head, and stripped off his armour). And
ihey sent away, sc, the head and the armour of Saul. Ac
cording to a very common custom, the objects just named are
not repeated. In the Septuagint translation of 1 Sam. we find
Kal aTroa-reXXovcnv avrd, but it does not follow that the text
must have had the third person plural suffix attached to the verb.
In the passage before us they have merely Kal direaTeiXav. The
head and armour of Saul were sent throughout the land of the
Philistines, as a welcome confirmation of the good news of victory
(cf. Judges xix. 29 seq.), to announce the glad tidings to the
idols and to the people. In 1 Sam we read in the house of their
idols, but the word house has been omitted by the Septuagint.
The reading in the Chronicles is the more correct of the two. —
V. 10. The armour of Saul was subsequently deposited in a temple
of the Philistines ; cf. 1 Sam. xxi. 9, according to which David had
given the sword of Goliath to the high priest to be preserved in the
tabernacle. The temple is described in Samuel as the temple of
Astarte, and this harmonises very well with the words which follow
in the passage before us : they fixed his skull in the temple of Dagon.
These words are not found in Samuel, and it might be thought
that the clause, " they fastened his body to the wall of Beth-
shan," had been substituted for them. But notwithstanding the
similarity between the two clauses, we do not agree with Thenius
that the one is a faulty copy ofthe other. It is more reasonable
to suppose that they stood side by side in the original text, since
the text of the book of Samuel furnishes no information as to
what the Philistines did with the head ; and though the account
in the Chronicles appears complete without the clause respecting
the fastening of the body of Saul to the wall of Bethshan, yet
it would serve to throw light upon the rest of the narrative if it
had been there. The occurrence of the word yypf\ in both
clauses, and the fact that in each case it ends with <t, may account
for the omission of one of the two. But such an oversight
would only account for the absence of the words " they fastened

200 CHAPTER X. 1 — 14.
his head in the temple of Dagon" from the book of Samuel. It
would be trifling and arbitrary to suppose that the other clause
was omitted from our passage through a similar oversight ; in fact
such a supposition would be altogether inadmissible, for in 1 Sam.
xxxi. 12 further reference is made to the statement in v. 10, that
they fastened his body to the wall of Beihshan, but there is no such
reference in the Chronicles. From this we conclude that the
historian abridged the narrative, and intentionally omitted to
state that the corpse was fixed to the wall of Bethshan and
fetched away by the men of Jabesh-Gilead ; just as in other re
spects he has made a freer use of his original sources in vv. 10 —
12. — V. 12. Most of the deviations from 1 Sam. xxxi. are to be
traced to the fact that our historian saw no special reason for
relating that the inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead took the body of
Saul from the wall at Bethshan. He omits the fact that they
went all night, because he was not concerned with the distance
they had to travel. .PD'D' ^or TW% in ^ Sam. xxxi., appears to
be a word belonging to a later period of the language ; at least
it is by no means rare in Aramaean, whilst this is the only place
in the Old Testament in which it occurs. There is something
striking in the omission of the clause, they burnt them there. As
the burning of a corpse was not a customary thing, and is
expressly mentioned in Lev. xx. 14, xxi. 9 as an ignominious
punishment for great crimes, it certainly presents some difficulty,
especially as it is not easy to bring the burning of the bodies into
harmony with the statement that they were buried under a tree
at Jabesh, and that David afterwards fetched away the bones of
Saul and Jonathan from that spot, and buried them in the family
sepulchre of Kish (2 Sam. xxi. 12 sqq.) There can be little
doubt that our historian intentionaUy omitted the words relating
to the burning. In fact his design in describing the whole
transaction did not require him to mention it, and there was
therefore no inducement to enter upon an explanation of this
particular circumstance for the purpose of guarding against the
offence, which they might otherwise have caused. If it could be
shown that the burning referred to in 1 Sam. xxxi. 12 is to be
understood in the same sense as that described in 2 Chr. xvi. 14,
" they made a very great burning for him;" xxi. 19, "his people
made no burning for him, like the burning of his fathers ;" and

CHAPTER XI. 1 — 9. 201
Jer. xxxiv. 5, " with the burnings of thy fathers . . so shall
they burn for thee," there would be nothing to astonish us in
the absence of any notice of the occurrence here. For in that
case the passage merely contains a more precise description of
the honour shown to Saul at his burial. It must, however, be
borne in mind that in the three passages just referred to, the verb
is construed with the dative of the person, whereas in 1 Sam. it
is followed by an accusative. The inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead,
a city on the left bank of the Jordan opposite to Bethshan,
showed, in their anxiety that Saul and his sons should have an
honourable burial, their attachment to the house of Saul, to
whom they were indebted for deliverance from great dangers
(1 Sam. xi.)
Vv. 13, 14. The transgression which he committed against the
Lord was according to these verses a double one : (1) he trans
gressed against the word of Jehovah which he did not regard (this
refers especially to the command of Jehovah to lay Amalek
under the ban (1 Sam. xv. 11 compared with chap, xxviii. 18;
compare also I Sam. xiii. 13 with chap. x. 8) ; (2) he trans
gressed in asking counsel inasmuch as he made use of necromancy,
that he might obtain an oracular response, cf. 1 Sam. xxviii. The
Septuagint has most unnecessarily interpolated the clause Kal
direKplvaTO amS> SapovgX 6 Trpo<prJT7]<;, vid. Wisdom xlvi. 20. —
V. 14. The meaning is : because he did not consult Jehovah,
He left him to die. Saul did consult Jehovah, but received no
answer (1 Sam. xiv. 37 compared with xxvifi. 6), because Jeho
vah had departed from him (1 Sam. xxviii. 15) ; and instead of
seeking with all earnestness to obtain the favour of Jehovah and
then consulting him again, he applied to the necromancer in
Endor. And turned the kingdom ; vid. chap. xfi. 23.

2. Chap, xl 1—9.
david is anointed king in hebron, and conquers
jerusalem.
yv. 1 — 3. (Compare 2 Sam v. 1 — 3.) After the death of
Saul the country on the east of the Jordan, and in a short time

202 CHAPTER XI. 1 — 4.
that on the west also, with the exception of the province of
Judah, over which David ruled in Hebron, was brought by the
skilful generalship of Abner to acknowledge Ishbosheth as king,
2 Sam. ii. 8 seq. It was not till Abner and Ishbosheth were dead,
and when there was no one left belonging to the house of Saul
but the lame Meribosheth, who was then but twelve years old,
that all the Israelites resolved to make David king. These
verses contain an account of the assembly in which this resolu
tion was carried into effect. — V. 1. Then all the Israelites assem
bled together, or as it reads in 2 Sam. v., then all the tribes of
Israel came to David unto Hebron, in order that in a regular
assembly of the fighting men of the community, of which we
have a full description in chap. xii. 23 — 40, such a resolution
might be adopted as would be binding upon the whole people.
Behold we are thy bone and thy flesh (Gen. xxix. 14), thou art
our countryman, thou belongest like us to the community of
Israel, and thou art known to the whole community as their
successful general in the wars they have waged with foreign
foes, for (v. 2) a long time ago, even when Saul was king, thou
didst lead Israel to war and conduct them back again (cf. 1 Sam.
xviii. 13, 16) ; and then Jehovah thy God said to thee, by Samuel
the prophet, &c. (vv. 3, 10 ; 2 Sam. iii. 9, 18 ; cf. 1 Sam. xvi.
1 — 3.) The points of difference between the verse before us
and 2 Sam. v. 2 are very trifling. — V. 3. The elders of Israel
were the representatives of the whole community, who made a
covenant with David in a solemn manner (before Jehovah) ; i.e.,
they made provision for the maintenance of the rights and obli
gations of the king on the one hand, and those of the people on
the other (cf. 1 Sam. x. 25.) Whether the words, " according to
the word of Jehovah by Samuel," which do not occur in 2 Sam.
v. 3, are to be regarded as an explanatory clause appended by
the author of the Chronicles, or whether they have fallen out of
the text of Samuel through an oversight caused by the similarity
in the terminations of the two words Israel and Samuel, as
Thenius supposes, may not be easy to determine. But on com
paring v. 10 in the chapter before us (according to the word of
Jehovah) with 2 Sam. xxiii. 8, we are led to think the former
opinion the more probable of the two. The two verses relating
to the length of time, which was spent by David in Hebron and

CHAPTER XI. 4—9. 203
Jerusalem, are omitted here. The historian hastens to describe
the conquest of Jerusalem, and therefore passes quickly over the
sojourn in Hebron. And as he introduces the chronological
data in a fitting place (chap. xxix. 27), we should be led to con
clude that he purposely omitted them here, were it not that it is
more probable that the two verses in question were added by the
author of the book of Samuel, than that they formed part of the
original sources, which he employed.
Vv. 4—9. (cf. 2 Sam. v. 6— 10.)— V. 4. Instead of " David
and all Israel," we find in Samuel, " the king and his men ;" and
instead of " to Jerusalem, which is Jebus and there are the
Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land" we have merely, " to
Jerusalem unto the Jebusites the inhabitants of ihe land" the
latter reading being probably an abbreviation of the former. —
V- 5. The plural " and the inhabitants of Jebus said" follows
naturally from the words of the previous verse ; but in Samuel
we find the singular " and he said." Although the Jebusites
called out to him in a contemptuous tone, " thou shall not come
in, he took the castle of Zion," which then received the name of
city of David (v. 7, and chap. xiii. 13.) We have only the con
clusion of the contemptuous speech of the Jebusites given here,
whereas in Samuel it is reported more fully, not because the
historian omitted the commencement by accident, as Thenius
thinks, but more probably because he had another account before
bim, in which there was no reference to the lame and the blind,
cf. v. 6 — V. 6. And David said; in Samuel we have also the
words, "in that day" before Jebus was taken, "-David said"
but the rest of the passage is very different. Thenius supposes
that the difference arose from the fact that the author of the
Chronicles filled up an illegible passage by the words of the text.
But there is no necessity for such a conjecture. The very pecu
liar account in Samuel, which evidently rests upon a strictly
historical basis, is clearly the earlier and more precise of the two.
It may, however, be easily conceived that in other documents the
name of Joab occurred in connection with the conquest of Jebus,
Hke that of Othniel in connection with the conquest of Kirjath-
Sepher (Judg. i. 12 sqq.), and that a celebrated saying of David
on the occasion of its capture was there associated with Joab, on
account of the deeds recorded in v. 8. Thus the same saying

204 CHAPTER XI. 4 — 9.
was reported in two different ways ; the more simple of the two,
and that which presents the least difficulties, being given in the
Chronicles. Joab was not appointed chief and captain in conse
quence of his bravery on the occasion of the siege of Jerusalem,
he had previously been at the head of David's warriors (2 Sam.
ii. 13.)— (On the difficulty presented by these parallel passages,
Keil says, " the former clause, relating to the lame and the
blind, may have been omitted by the author of the Chronicles as
not bearing upon his immediate purpose, and the additional
words, which occur in the second passage in the Chronicles, may
originally have formed part of the account contained in the Book
of Samuel, for it is universally acknowledged that there is a gap
in the history at this place, Keil, Chr. p. 211.) — V. 7. Because
David dwelt in the castle it was called the city of David ;
according to Samuel, David himself gave it this name. — V. 8.
Round about ; from Millo, even to ihe circuit (that is to say, within
the circumference of a circle, which was drawn from Millo and
returned to it again. In Samuel this is more briefly expressed
by "David built round about from Millo" to which are added the
words, and inwards, i.e., from this circumference towards the
centre. (Thenius explains the passage somewhat differently. He
supposes that the word inwards refers to the northern wall of Zion,
and the expression, " round about from Millo," to the fortification
of the western, eastern, and southern sides of Zion ; but round
about can only denote the circumference of a circle which enclosed
the northern side.) Then he built the city, by which of course
we are to understand the city of David just named. He built
must therefore mean he fortified and filled it with houses. Millo,
a fortress probably on the north-western side of Zion, the point
at which it would be most exposed to an attack, on account of its
very slight elevation above the surrounding country. And Joab
restored (Angl. margin revived) the rest of the city. The word
pppp is used in a similar connection in Nehem. Hi. 34 (iv. 3) to
describe the restoration of buildings that had been destroyed,
the rebuilding being regarded as a restoration to life, or even as a
healing (1 Kings xviii. 30.) Hence the proper rendering would
be Joab restored the rest of the city. The fact that Joab built
certain portions of the city of David is not recorded anywhere
else, but there is nothing at all surprising in the fact itself.

CHAPTER XI. 10 — 47. 205
Thenius would alter the word_s from 1 Sam. 5 according to a
modified conjecture of Kennikott, so as to read Joab was governor
of the rity, but apart from the fact that in this case we should
expect to find the expression yiyfi ^yy 3^11 (2 Sam. viii. 16),
such a statement would be far less in character in a verse, which
treats of the rebuilding of the city, than the clause in the text,
which there is not the least occasion to alter. — V. 9. The words,
then David went, Sec, indicate the point of time, from which his
becoming great, first dates : then (from the conquest of Jerusalem),
David became continually greater and greater. "tl~)pi before
another infinitive frequently occurs in Genesis with the meaning
to advance, e.g. Gen. viii. 3 — 5. And Jehovah of Zebaoth was
with him, cf. chap. ix. 20 ; in 2 Sam. v. we find the fuller title
Jehovah God of Zebaoth.

3. Chap. xi. 10—47.
list of david's heroes, and brief account of their
DEEDS.
Compare 2 Sam. xxiii. 8 — 39. — V. 10. For "these are the lead
ing heroes " we find in Samuel " these are the names," probably the
earher reading, as the author of the Chronicles was especially
concerned to introduce them as the heads of the Gibborim. In
the book of Samuel the brief superscription, these are ihe names
ofthe heroes who had followed David, is immediately succeeded
by the Hst itself; but in the passage before us the heroes are still
further described as those, who had shown themselves strong in
their association with him (cf. Dan. x. 21) during his rule, toge
ther with all Israel, in that they made him king, &c. In these
words the historian assigns a reason for introducing the list in
question immediately after his account of the election of David
as king, and the conquest of Jerusalem ; namely, that they
assisted in making David king. In the original form of the list
and the connection in which it occurs in Samuel (2 Sam. xxiii. ),
there is no reference to the choice of a king, and even in the
Chronicles it is only in the clause introduced into the super
scription that such a reference occurs — V. 11. The brief super-

206 CHAPTER XI. 11 — 14.
scription in v. 10 is repeated here in a different form, viz., and
this is (lit. these are) ihe number of the heroes. The occurrence of
the word mispar is striking here, partly because the plural pro
noun would lead us to expect a different word, and partly be
cause the number of the heroes, which is given in 2 Sam. xxiii.
39, is not mentioned here at all. We might be inclined to sug
gest an alteration in the text from Ex. xv. 4, and the substitu
tion of ^|-[3«3. The passage would then read, " these are the
most distinguished of the heroes."
Vv. 11 — 14. Tlie three renowned heroes, Jashob'am, EVazar, and
Shamma. — Jashob'am the son of Chacmoni. There is nothing
strange in the fact that the same Jashob'am is called in chap.
xxvii. 2 a son of Zabdiel, for if Zabdiel belonged to the family of
Chacmoni, his son might also be called a son of Chacmoni (cf.
chap, xxvii. 32.) Instead of the chief of the captains, the reading
of the Kethib (the chief of the thirty) is to be preferred (cf. vv. 15,
25 ; chap. xii. 4, 18, and xxvii. 6). He lifted up his spear ; this is
evidently the original reading, and is supported by 2 Sam. xxifi.
18. The words as they stand in the parallel passage of Samuel
(v. 8) are quite unintelligible. He brandished his spear, continu
ing to raise it again and again, till the three hundred were slain
at one time, that is in one day, and one after another. Instead
of three hundred, the number given in Samuel is eight hundred,
and according to all the versions that is the correct reading of
the text. Thenius pronounces this the more probable account
of the two, because the number three hundred occurs again fur
ther on in connection with Abishai (v. 20) ; and Jashob'am, who
occupies the first place in the list, must certainly have dis
tinguished himself by a feat superior to that of Abishai. Ewald
on the other hand (Gesch. ii. p. 603) decides that three hundred
is the original number, as it not likely that Jashob'am did more
than his superior Abishai ; cf. v. 21. — V. 11. El'azar the Ahothite ;
this is the correct reading, cf. chap, xxvii. 4, not the son qf the
Ahothite as in 2 Sam. xxiii. 9. He was D^"^3^pi n'tyiVt^3
among the three heroes ; the numeral, as frequently happens, is
not in the construct state ; but placed before the noun in the
form of an adverb. We find the same construction in v. 24 and
2 Sam. xxxiii. 9 (Keri) 22. The three heroes referred to here
are Jashob'am and El'azar, who are mentioned in vv. 11 — 12,

CHAPTER XI. 11—14. 207
and Shamma, whose name, through some oversight, has been
omitted from the list, see below at v. 13. It. is worthy of note
that these three are spoken of as pre-eminently ihe three heroes.
Thenius is of opinion that if the author intended to say the three
heroes, he would have written qvqjj-j JTti^t^ '^e ^ Sam.
xxiii. 16 — 17, and v. 19 of the chapter before us. But, however
strange it may appear that the numeral JftyVty' occurs in two
different connections in the same list, they are both gramma
tically admissible. Nor do we find any difficulty in the fact
that the author has hitherto said nothing about a triad of
heroes, for if three heroes are named one after another, and
one of them is spoken of as associated with two others, no
reader could possibly think of any but the three whose names
are given. We see no occasion, therefore, for altering the text,
as Thenius suggests, so as to read he was among the Shalishim
(the knights) of the heroes, an alteration to which we could not
assent for this reason, if for no other, that we read nothing about
Shalishim anywhere else in the list in the Chronicles. — V. 13.
The account of the exploit, to which he owed his renown, is
introduced by the words, " it was he who was with David, Sfc."
As the omission of these words makes the passage obscure, they
have probably been left out of the parallel verse in Samuel
through an oversight of the copyist. According to the Septua
gint (Aid. Compl.) they did originally form part of the text. —
Pas-dammim : the same place as we meet with in 1 Sam. xvii.
1 under the name of Ephes-dammim. It is there described as
situated between Shocoh and Azeka, that is, in the western
districts of the province of Judah. The name is left out of the
list in 2 Sam. xxiii., but there are several places, especially
v. 9, in which the text of that chapter must be amended from
the Chronicles. — After the words, " and the Philistines were
gathered together to battle," several verses have fallen out of our
text, which for the sake of the connection we give from 2 Sam.
xxiii. 9 — 11 : then the Israelites went up (leaving the battle-field to
retreat into the mountains) whereas he stood firm. And he smote
the Philistines till his hand was numbed, and his hand clung to the
sword. And Jehovah effected a great deliverance that day, and
the people returned (from their flight) to him for the sake of the
spoil (the victory having been decided by him alone.) And

208 CHAPTER XI. 15 - 19.
after him followed Shamma ben Age the Harariie, and ihe Philis
tines had assembled near Lechi, viz., at the spot where Samson
once smote the Philistines (Judg. xv. 9 sqq.). The continuation is
given in our text : and there was a piece of land there full of barley.
The omission of so long a passage, which has faUen out of the
text through an oversight, was probably occasioned by the re
currence of precisely the same words, " and the Philistines had
assembled together to battle? in such close connection (2 Sam^
xxiii. 9 and 11). For barley we find in Samuel lentils. The
difference probably arose from a transposition in the letters of
the original word. It was of great importance to preserve the
field of barley, which the Philistines wanted to destroy, but the
Israelites took to flight. — V. 14. " Then Shamma maintained his
ground in the midst of the field, and saved it, and smote the Philis
tines." We have rendered the three verbs in the singular instead
of the plural ; we find them in the singular in Samuel, and the
context absolutely requires it. — And Jehovah saved them. The
word saved is not inappropriate here, but as the parallel passage
in Samuel reads Jehovah wrought a great victory, and the ren
dering of the Septuagint in the passage before us is Kal eiroLrjo-e,
the latter must be regarded as the original reading. (The
discrepancy between the two passages is explained by Keil in
precisely the same way as by Bertheau. He says : " in both
passages there are evidently copyists' errors and corruptions, e.g.
in v. 13 of the Chronicles nearly two whole verses have been
left out between the words ' to battle,' and ' where was a piece
of ground.' The missing verses are found in 2 Sam. xxiii. 9 —
1 1. Thus, through the omission ofthe name of Shamma, a heroic
exploit is ascribed to Eleazar, which was really performed by
Shamma." Keil Chronik. p. 211, 212).
Vv. 15 — 19. Account of the three heroes, who fetched water for
David. — V. 15. rmJ'iVuJ (three) occurs in 2 Sam. (Keri) also
x :
without the article. We might easily be induced to conjecture,
that the article was originally prefixed to the numeral, as the
names of three heroes have just been given, and it is a very
natural supposition that we have here an account of a brave
exploit, which was performed in concert by the same three,
especially when we consider that, according to the superscription
in Samuel, it was the intention of the author to give the name*

CHAPTER XI. 15— 19. 209
of the heroes mentioned by him, and here we have no names at
all. Still we have some hesitation about inserting the article, for
the more probable supposition is, that three different heroes are
referred to here. In the verse before us they are more particu
larly described as three of the thirty captains, and such a descrip
tion would have been unnecessary in the case ofthe three already
known, Jashobam, El'azar, and Shamma. As the word Qi\y'7\y'
is followed by ^^-^ in the singular, it is evident that the former
must be the numeral 30. It is important to observe this if we
are desirous of holding fast the original signification of the word.
— Ayid three ofthe thirty went down to David on the rock at the cave
of Adullam ; the rock was that upon which the fortress stood
(v. 16), and the cave of Adullam must either have been in the
rock itself or somewhere in the neighbourhood. The valley of
Rephaim, was to the west of Jerusalem, how far it ran in a
southern direction we cannot exactly determine. — V. 16. The
Philistines, who were encamped in the neighbourhood of Jeru
salem, had pushed forward an outpost as far as to Bethlehem,
and according to v. 18 it was stationed in front of that town. —
V. 17. There is very beautiful water not far from Bethlehem,
but Robinson looked in vain for a well in the gate of the town
(ii. p. 378). At length he found one inside the town, that was
connected with the aqueduct to the south of Bethlehem. About
a quarter of an hour's walk to the north-east of the town there is
a large deep cistern or cave, which is now dry, with three or four
small openings cut in the rock. According to tradition this was
the weU, whose water David desired to drink. The description
given here, according to which there was a well in the gate, does
not agree with either the situation of the wells or the position of
the gate in modern Bethlehem. — V. 18. They broke through the
camp, not the camp referred to in v. 15, for if this were meant,
the valley, of Rephaim must have lain between the fortress and
the town of Bethlehem. TJienius infers from this passage tbat it
did extend thus far to the south, but such a supposition is not
favoured by other accounts of the situation of the valley, and in
that case there would have been no necessity for the historian to
say anything of the outpost in Bethlehem, which is expressly
mentioned in v. 16 as distinct from the camp referred to in v. 15.
The camp, through which they broke, was the encampment of
VOL. II. o

210 CHAPTER XI. 15 — 19.
this outpost, which kept possession of the space in front of the
gate of the town. — Then they brought it (the water) to David;
and he poured it on ihe ground to Jehovah, thereby confessing
that the water, which had been procured by the three heroes at
the risk of their life, was far too valuable to be employed for any
ordinary purpose. — V. 19. Shall I drink the blood of these men
in their souls. (The verb "shall I drink" is omitted from 2
Sam. xxiii., but undoubtedly formed part of the original text.)
The expression blood in their souls reminds us of Gen. ix. 4 ;
Lev. iii. 17, vii. 26, xvii. 10 sqq., xix. 26 seq. ; Deut. xii. 6,
and of the command not to eat flesh in its blood, or in its soul and
blood. Of these passages, Lev. xvii. 11 and 14 seem the most
likely to throw Hght upon the verse before us, for the phrase
blood in the soul and in its soul apparently corresponds to the
expression employed here. But we are unable to bring the
words " blood in its soul" into harmony with the more definite
expressions which we find used on other occasions. According
to these the soul is in the blood or the soul is the blood, and the
difficult passages in Leviticus (xvii. 11 and 14) must be simi
larly explained. The blood is the seat of the Nephesh, but we do
not see how this can be also the seat of the blood. The phrase
blood in their souls, therefore, is still enigmatical; blood with
their souls, as the earlier expositors rendered it, is not in the
text, for y does not mean with. As the words " in their souls"
only occur once in 2 Sam. xxiii. 17, we are of opinion that in
the original text of the Chronicles also it was only written once,
and that it has been repeated by mistake. The question, " shall
I drink the blood of these men ?" is fully explained by the words
which follow : when for their souls they have brought the water
(i.e., having given their souls as it were as the price of the
water). The water, which had been obtained at the risk of their
lives, or by offering up their souls, is valued at the price of their
souls ; but the soul is equivalent to the blood, and therefore to
drink the water would be the same as drinking the blood of the
men. But if blood could not be shed upon the altar, it was to be
poured out upon the ground Hke water, Deut. xii. 16 ; and thus
did David take the water, which he regarded as equivalent to the
blood of his heroes, and pour it upon the ground. In the parallel
passage in Samuel the words read thus : (shall I drink) the blood

CHAPTER XI. 20—25. 211
bf the men who went at the risk of their lives; but in the text of
the Chronicles the clause, who went at the risk of their lives, is so
altered as to assign the reason, for they have brought the water for
ihdr souls, and thus an explanation is furnished of the bold ex
pression the blood of the heroes. It must not be supposed that
David acted as he did with any reference to the prohibition to
eat blood ; still it was necessary to mention this prohibition,
since the representation, which it gives of the importance and
nature of the blood, serves to strengthen our explanation.
Vv. 20 — 25. Abishai and Benaiah. — V. 20. Abishai was one
of the three sons of Zeruiah. Like Jashobam, he lifted up his
spear against 300 men and slew them. He was the head of the
Sheloshah, or, as it is stated in v. 21, he was their prince. If we
take Sheloshah here to be a numeral, we must distinguish be
tween these three, of whom he was the head, and the other three
to whom he did not attain (v. 21). It is true that we read of
twice three heroes in the previous verses, and it might therefore
be supposed that Abishai was the head of the three mentioned in
vv. 15 — 19, whilst he was inferior to the three referred to in vv.
11 — 14, viz., Jashobam, El'azar, and Shamma. But, however
natural it may appear to reconcile the statements contained in
the verses before us, by supposing that there were two distinct
triads of heroes, it could easily be shown that this would not
answer the purpose intended. The difficulties, in our opinion,
can only be removed on the supposition that Sheloshah has two
different meanings in these verses, viz., that of a numeral three,
and that of an abstract noun the whole of the thirty. Our reason
for giving the latter meaning to the word is founded upon a
comparison of v. 21 with v. 25, and of 2 Sam. xxiii. 19 with v.
23, for it is evident from these verses that Sheloshah and Shelo-
shim are employed to denote a larger company, in which both
Abishai and Benaiah occupied a prominent position. Hence we
should render the passage in question thus : he was the head of
the Sheloshah-company, and to him (^y is another mode of writ
ing ifo} according to the Keri, to v. 24, and to 2 Sam. xxiii. 18,
23) there was a name in the Sheloshah-company, i.e., he was one
of its most distinguished members. — V. 21. Of the three among
two he was regarded ; very obscure words, which are sometimes
interpreted as meaning : he was renowned among the three of the
o2

212 CHAPTER XI. 20—25.
second rank (Vulgate, et inter tres secundos inclytus), or of ihe
three he was renowned above two (LXX. airb twv Tpiwv inrep
tov? Biio evBotjo';), in other words he was more renowned than
the other two who were associated with him in the same triad.
But the expression among two does not occur in 2 Samuel xxiii.
14 ; and it may very possibly have been interpolated here from
a wish to elucidate tbe narrative by distinguishing one triad from
the other. Moreover, there is no such expression in v. 25 of
this chapter, where exactly the same sentence occurs again.
Hence we must adopt the reading of 2 Sam. xxiii., " of the
Shelosha-company he was truly renowned (we take iyn in the
sense in which it occurs in Genesis xxvii. 36, xxix. 15, cf. 2
Sam. ix. 1), and he became their leader, but to the three (men
tioned in vv. 11 — 14), he did not attain" (compare v. 25.) —
V. 22. Benaiah (chap, xviii. 17, xxvii. 6) the son of a valiant
man. This can hardly have been the description given of
Benaiah, who is called the son of Jehoiada immediately before.
The word Ben (son) is out of place here. It is Benaiah him
self who is called a valiant man, great in deeds. — Kabzeel : a town
in the south of Judah, Josh. xv. 21 ; Nehem. xi. 25. — The word
Ben, which we dropt before " a valiant man," should evidently
have stood as a plural before ^N'HN : which would then read
thus : he slew the two sons of Ariel of Moab. Ariel, lion of God,
appears from this to have been a title of honour given to the king
of Moab. This feat of Benaiah was probably performed in the
war between David and the Moabites, recorded in 2 Sam. viii.
2. He also went down (into the well) and slew the lion in the
midst ofthe well, when snow had fallen ; that is to say, in winter
time, when a heavy fall of snow had brought the lion into the
neighbourhood of the dwelling houses, where it had taken refuge
in a well. — He also slew the Egyptian man, a man of stature;
the Septuagint renders this, after 2 Sam. xxiii. 21, dvBpa bparbv,'
a man of renown : either a distinguished man or a man to look at
(a great man). The latter is the more probable meaning from
the next clause, " five cubits high," which does not occur in
Samuel. And in his hand was a spear, according to the passage
before us like a weaver's beam, but according to the Septuagint
rendering of 2 Sam. xxiii. 21, &>? 1-vXov BiaftdOpas. In the
latter passage there must originally have been some expression

CHAPTER XI. 20— 25. 213
of this kind, for the mere fact that a spear was in bis hand would
not be worthy of any special notice ; and there is something so
peculiar in the comparison between a heavy spear and a beam
from a bridge, that it was most probably the original reading. —
And he went down to the place of combat (1 Sam. xxvi. 10, xxix.
4) with the stick, sc. which he happened to have in his hand at
the time. — V. 24. The word Shelosha in the text is written plene ;
according to v. 20, however, and 2 Sam. xxiii. 18, it should be
written defective : he was renowned in the Shelosha-company. The
words of the text mean, he was renowned among the three heroes,
cf. v. 12. — V. 25. Among the Sheloshim, or in the Shelosha-
company, behold he was renowned, but he did not attain to the three
(cf. v. 21), and David set him over his body-guard. The same
expression occurs in 2 Sam. xxiii. 23 (cf. 1 Sam. xxii. 14), and
it is evident from 2 Sam. viii. 18 and xx. 23, that the Kreti and
Pleti were the guard intended. This body-guard was a small,
distinct corps, which received its orders direct from the king, and
remained in attendance upon his person, in constant readiness to
execute his commands. Hence his obedience (the literal meaning
of the word), those who were immediately subject to him, were
not placed upon the same footing as the rest of the troops, but
held a position peculiar to themselves. It is only in this passage
and the parallel verse in Samuel that the word occurs as a
technical term with this precise meaning, though it is also found
in 1 Sam. xxii. 14 and Is. xi. 14, and for that very reason we
should be careful how we think of altering it.
On reviewing the whole section, vv. 11 — 25, the question
arises, whether the Shalishim, &c, referred to here, are the same
as the Shalishim or chariot- soldiers, who are occasionally men
tioned (e.g., in 2 Kings x. 25) by the side of the Razim or run
ners, and one of whom was frequently employed as a kind of
adjutant in immediate attendance upon the king (2 Kings vii. 2,
17, 19, ix. 25, xv. 25 cf. ; 2 Chr. viii. 9; Ezek. xxiii. 15, 23).
In our opinion the question must be answered in the negative ;
for whilst the words Shelosha, Shelosha haggeborim, and Shelo
shim occur very frequently, Shalishim is only used once, viz., in
V. 11 in the Keri, and even there the reading of the Kethib,
Sheloshim, which is so strongly supported by the following verses,
ought not to be relinquished. Now if we consider how easy it

214 CHAPTER XI. 20—25.
is to account for the opinion that the celebrated warriors, the
Shalishim, were referred to here, and bear in mind the frequency
with which vav and yod are interchanged, we shall feel that there
is very little weight in the passages in which Shalishim and
Shalishi occur, especially as the reading is not well established in
any one of these passages, Sheloshim or Shelosha being invariably
found in the Kethib or else in the parallel passages. Hence we
cannot subscribe to the opinion of Thenius, who starts with the
supposition that the persons described in this section belonged to
the warriors who were known by the name of the Shalishim.
" The frequent occurrence of this word," he says, " in the section
before us has escaped the notice of commentators solely because
it has been changed into Sheloshim or Shelosha, which has been
erroneously regarded as the true reading." We are forced to
adopt exactly the opposite conclusion, and to pronounce Shelo
shim and Shelosha correct. The connection, already pointed out,
between the two readings would be quite sufficient to justify us
in coming to such a conclusion, but to this it must also be added
that, if we remember rightly, the Shalishim are not mentioned
anywhere else in the history of David, whereas the Sheloshim are
spoken of in 1 Chr. xi. 42, xii. 4, xxvii. 6, and 2 Sam. xxiii. 24.
Now there can be no doubt as to the meaning of the word Shelo
shim. In 2 Sam. xxiii. 13 and 1 Chr. xi. 15 it means thirty, and
denotes a company of distinguished warriors, whilst particular
heroes are not infrequently described as belonging to it. They
stood at the head of other warriors as chiefs, and are called the
thirty captains or heads in 1 Chr. xi. 15 ; Jashobam was the
head of the thirty, v. 11, and Abishai also was their head and
prince, v. 20. The plural form Sheloshim is used interchange
ably with the feminine singular Sheloshah (compare v. 25 and
v. 21), and however strange this interchange may appear, it is
possible to explain it, since the plural Sheloshim, when used to
denote a particular company of thirty individuals, was regarded
in fact as a substantive, which might be formed directly from
Shelosh through the feminine termination. So much at any rate
is indisputable, that Sheloshah does not mean three in every
place in which it occurs in the verses before us, but also means
a company of thirty, and it would be an arbitrary thing on our
part to assume that the reading is false, and to substitute Shelo-

CHAPTER XT. 26— 47. 215
shim, wherever it is used in the latter signification. If, however,
we give to Sheloshah the same meaning as to Sheloshim, the
verses in our opinion may be easily understood without any
alteration, the only ambiguity arising from the fact that Sheloshah
is also used with the meaning three. In the Hst in question, then,
after amending the text from 2 Sam. xxiii., we find, in the first
place, the names of three heroes : Jashob'am, the head ofthe thirty,
El'azar, who also belonged to these three heroes, and Shamma.
Secondly, in vv. 16 — 19 a short account is given of three, whose
names are not given, and who did not belong to the thirty heroes.
In v. 19 they are described as three heroes. Thirdly, in vv.
20 — 25 two heroes are named. The first is Abishai the head of
the Shelosha (the company of thirty), who was renowned and
distinguished in the Shelosha (or, according to v. 25 among
the thirty). He was also their leader, but did not attain to the
three heroes named before. The second is Benaiah (cf. chap.
xxvii. 6), who was renowned and distinguished among the thirty,
but did not attain to the three heroes already named. It is some
what striking that, according to this, Jashob'am the head of the
thirty and Abishai the head of the Shelosha held precisely the
same rank. But the latter is also called the prince ofthe thirty,
and hence, if there be an objection to the supposition that they
held the same office at different times, the one succeeding to it
on the death of the other, the title of " head" may have been given
to the one because he was the most distinguished for his bravery,
and to the other because he was the actual leader. We have
no account in the historical books of the exact rank of these
thirty in David's army. It might be conjectured that they were
the leaders ofthe six hundred men who are spoken of in 1 Sam.
xxiii. 13, xxv. 13, xxx. 10, and 2 Sam. xv. 18 ; in which case
there would have been an officer for every twenty men. These
six hundred men formed the body guard of David, as we find
from 2 Sam. xvi. 6, and were caUed in a peculiar sense qv^jj-j
(the mighty men), 2 Sam. x. 7, xvi. 6, xx. 7, cf. 1 Kings i. 8,
10 ; see Thenius in 2 Sam. xv. 18, Ewald, Gesh. des. V. Israel
p. 600 sqq.
Vv. 26 — 47. List of forty-eight of the leaden in David's army.
(As we have here merely a list of names, and nearly all of them
are entirely unknown, we omit the author's notes on this passage

216 CHAPTER XII. 1 — 7.
with the exception of the following remarks with which he con
cludes. — Tr.) If we add the name of Elika, which has evidently
fallen out of v. 27, as we may see from 2 Sam. xxiii. 25, the
number of the names from v. 26 to Uriah the Hittite in v. 41
is thirty-two, and from v. 41 to 47 sixteen, making together
forty-eight, a number which is in itself a proof of the complete
ness of the list. The names of the three heroes (vv. 11 — 14)
and nine of the names which occur in vv. 26 — 30, twelve in all,
are given again in chap, xxvii. as the names of the leaders of the
twelve divisions of the army. — Of the heroes mentioned in vv.
26 — 41 the greater part belonged to the provinces of Judah and
Benjamin, as the list itself clearly shows ; on the other hand the
sixteen names which occur in vv. 41 — 47 are all associated with
places that are altogether unknown, or with cities and districts
on the east of the Jordan. The tribes inhabiting the north of
Palestine do not appear to have furnished any leaders, and even
Ephraim is but feebly represented.

4. Chap. xii. 1—22.
list of those who attached themselves to david
during the lifetime of saul.
Three separate lists, which are only found here, vv. 1 — 7, vv.
8 — 17, and vv. 19—22. The men are classified according to the
time of their going over to David.
Vv. 1 — 7. Benjaminites and men of Judah, who came to David
when he was in Ziklag (cf. 1 Sam. xxvii.) — V. 1. He was still
restrained from the face ; a brief mode of expression for : at the
time when he was still prohibited from appearing in the presence
of Saul. War auxiliaries ; according to vv. 17, 18, 21, 22, an
honourable title given to those who had been ready to assist
David in his previous wars.— V. 2. (cf. Judg. iii. 15, and xix.
seq.) tWp ^pllfi (2 Chr. xvii. 17) men who shot with the
bow, practised archers Hke jy^p 13-,-,, chap viii. 40. With the
right and left hand, they were skilled in (throwing) stones and
(shooting) arroios upon the bow. — Brethren of Saul; are they
called Saul's brethren because they were Benjaminites, i.e., mem-

CHAPTER XII. 8—18. 217
bers of the same tribe, or were they more closely related to him ?
As the words "of Benjamin" follow immediately after, a com
parison of v. 29 with the verse before us, will show that we must
decide in favour of the former. — V. 4. Ishmaya of Gibeon (2
Sam. xxi. 1 sqq.) a hero among the thirty and leader of the thirty
(chap. xi. 42). In the MSS. and ancient editions, even that of
R. Norzi, the 4th verse terminates here. It is evident from chap.
viii. 29 and ix. 35 that not only the Canaanites, who were made
servants of the congregation (Josh, ix.) but members of the
tribe of Benjamin also dwelt at Gibeon. Of Gadera; are we to
understand by this the town, which, according to Josh. xv. 36,
was situated in the lowlands of Judah ? As Gedor is mentioned
immediately afterwards in v. 7, we must conclude that the Hst
contains men of Judah as well as Benjamin. — V. 6. The Kora-
hites ; according to chap. ix. 19, 31, those who descended from
Korah. As the name Korah occurs in chap. ii. 43, in the list of
the tribe of Judah, but is not found anywhere else among the
Benjaminites, and as we cannot suppose them to have been the
Korahites of the tribes of Levi, we conclude that those mentioned
here were a family of Judah. It is somewhat strange that we
should find a plural form and the name of a family by the side
of adjectives formed from the names of towns. — V. 7. Gedor, a
town in Judah, to the southwest of Bethlehem (cf. chap. iv. 4).
Vv. 8 — 18. List of men of the tribe of Gad, and an account of
certain men of Judah and Benjamin, who attached themselves to
David when he was staying in the fortress. — Vv. 8 — 15. The
Gadites. V. 8. They separated themselves (from the rest of the
Gadites who were on the side of Saul). — To the fortress towards
the desert ; cf. v. 16, chap. xi. 16 ; 1 Sam. xxii. 4 and xxiii. 14.
Men of might ; vid. chap. xi. 26. — Strong and bold, looking like
lions (2 Sam. i. 23), and like roes hurrying over the hills (2 Sam.
ii. 18). The plural Q^fr$3!J' a later ^orm ^or D^3!5* — V. 14.
• x "
Leaders of the army ; cf. v. 21, princes in the army. One for a
hundred the small one, and the greater for a thousand ; i.e., ofthe
eleven heroes named, the weakest could stand against a hundred
men, and the strongest against a thousand (cf. Lev. xxvi. 8).
This is the explanation given by early Jewish expositors and also
in the Septuagint. On the other hand, the Vulgate renders the
passage novissimus centum militibus praeerat et maximus mille, but

218 CHAPTER XII. 8—18.
the contrast between small and great does not favour this expla
nation, moreover if this were the meaning of the words, we should
expect to find the preposition Uy rather than ^. Moreover, the
former rendering is decidedly favoured by the position of the
word one at the commencement of the sentence immediately be
fore nND^» hj which the contrast is heightened between one
and a hundred. The expressions employed in v. 8 to describe
their strength and swiftness remind us directly of similar expres
sions which are applied in the historical books to heroes of the
time of David, and were undoubtedly taken from the original
sources employed by our historian. Hence the question has
been asked whether the words of the verse before us were also
found there or were appended by the historian himself. It is
impossible to give a positive answer to this question. But we
are of opinion that the historian found them in the original re
cord ; for they have a very peculiar, we might almost say poetical
character ; no such expression occurs anywhere else in the Books
of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, as a description of personal
bravery ; and such passages as Lev. xxvi. 8 furnish a proof that
in very early times extraordinary bravery and success in war
were so described. — It was they who went over the Jordan ; pro
bably at the time when they separated from the rest ofthe Gadites
and had to fight their way through the supporters of Saul to get
to David. — When it filled over all its banks : as the verb filled is
without an object, we must interpret the Piel as meaning it made
an bverfiowing. In Josh. iii. 15, we find the participle Kal. In
the first month, i.e., in spring, when an immense body of water
generally rushes in torrents down the Jordan to the Dead Sea.
And they put to flight all the valleys both on the east and on the
west ; for though the river was swollen it did not prevent them
from attacking their enemies on the western bank after they had
defeated those on the east.— Vv. 16—18. The men of Benjamin
and Judah, who joined David in the fortress, were no doubt
mentioned by name in the original sources, as well as the men
of Gad, but the historian does not give their names, probably
because many of the men, whom David is said in v. 18 to have
made captains in his army, bad been named in the list already
given in chap. xi. We have merely an account of the conver
sation which took place previous to their admission into David's
3

CHAPTER XII. 8 — 18. 219
army. — V. 17. He went out to meet them, vid. chap. xiv. 8.
"TTpb o^y occurs in this passage : there shall be to me towards you
a heart for fellowship, I will have with you one heart (compare
v. 38, " one heart," and v. 33, " without a heart and a heart")
and remain true to you. And if ye have come to deal treacherously
with me on behalf of my adversaries (to deliver me to my adver
saries) although there is nothing wrong in my hands (somewhat
differently in Job xvi. 17, and Is. liii. 9), may the God of our
fathers behold and punish (2 Chr. xxiv. 22) ; the God of our
fathers is the God who has always manifested himself in Israel
as the protector of the innocent, and who therefore will not let
the men go unpunished if they have any evil design against
David. — V. 18. The Spirit came into Amasai. In other places
the usual expression is the Spirit of God (2 Chr. xxiv. 20), here
we have " the Spirit" alone, as the intention of the author was
chiefly to give prominence to the fact that Amasai spoke under
the influence of inspiration, and not after reflection and with hesi
tation. The whole context is sufficient to show that the inspiration
did not proceed from an evil source. Among the earlier exposi
tors some regarded the spirit as a spirit of bravery (Syriac),
others as a spirit of willingness and vehement desire (Kimchi),
others again as a spirit of impatience ; Lavater as the Spirit of
God which impelled him to give the answer he did. The name
Amasai reminds us of Amasah, the son of Abigail the sister of
David (chap. ii. 17), and also of Abishai, the son of Zeruiah the
sister of David (chap. ii. 16, xi. 20), though not so directly of
the latter. Earlier expositors have expressed the opinion that
he was one of these two, and as it is probable that Amasai, who
played so important part on this occasion, appears elsewhere in
the history of David, there is certainly some ground for the con
jecture that he was the same person as the Amasa of the books
of Samuel. — To thee, 0 David: we have no difficulty in com
pleting the sentence by " we belong ;" thine we are, and with
thee, 0 son of Jesse, we will fight in concert. Peace be to thee,
and peace to every one who helps thee, for thy God, who has stood
by thy side in thy former successful wars (1 Sam. xviii. 12, 14),
helpeth thee, and will not forsake thee. The last words of the
verse, then David received them, and placed them at ihe head of

220 CHAPTER XII. 19—22.
the army, are to be regarded as the words of the historian, since
D*?3prl 1S a word belonging to a later age.
Vv. 19 — 22. List of seven men ofthe tribe of Manasseh, who
joined David, when he was dismissed by the Philistines from
their army, on the occasion of their last battle with Saul, and
returned to Ziklag; cf. 1 Sam. xxix.— V. 19. They fell to David ;
v. xx. ; 2 Kings xxv. 11. And David and his men did not help
the Philistines (1 Sam. xxix. 2). Upon advisement (Prov. xx.
18), that is to say with forethought and after deliberation, the
princes of the Philistines had sent him away. '\^12jriVl'Z (accord
ing to 1 Sam. xxix. 4) for our heads, inasmuch as he will not
hesitate to give up our heads as the price of a friendly reception
on the part of Saul, he will fall away to his master, Saul. — V. 20.
When he returned to Ziklag ; they probably went over to him be
fore the battle, and accompanied him to Ziklag. Ewald (Gesch.
ii. p. 569) imagines that they did not go over till after Saul's
defeat. I think, however, that a comparison of the words " as he
went to Ziklag" with 1 Sam. xxix. 1 1 compels us to decide in
favour of the former, though the statements are not made with
such precision and clearness as to prevent any uncertainty in
this respect. The seven men were heads of the thousands belong
ing to Manasseh, that is to say, they were heads of the larger
military divisions of the tribe of Manasseh ; compare the princes
of thousands, who are mentioned in chap. xv. 25 by the side ofthe
elders of Israel, and the passages in which the princes over thou
sands are named along with those over hundreds, chap. xHi. 1,
xxvi. 26, xxvii. 1, &c. It is evident from the Pentateuch (e.g.
Num. xxxi. 14) that in the very earliest times the tribes were
divided into hundreds and thousands, and that the heads of
these divisions had a settled official position in the general organ
isation ofthe tribes. — V. 21. They assisted in concert with David
against the army of the Amalekites ; thus taking part in the first
miHtary expedition, which was undertaken by David, after his
return to Ziklag. This explanation ofthe brief and uninteUigible
words of the text is founded upon 1 Sam. xxx. 8, 15, where
the same word Tn;in is used to describe the army of the Ama
lekites. The Vulgate renders the passage hi praebuerunt auxi-
lium David adversus latrunculos, the Septuagint, Kal aiirol crvve-

CHAPTER XII. 23—40. 221
fid-xyaav to! AavlB iirl tov TeBBovp, we have here a different
reading of the last word, which was regarded as a proper name.
The question still remains, whether j-jqj-j in the verse before us
refers to the seven Manassites, or to all the heroes spoken of in
vv. 1 — 20. As it was not the Manassites alone who took part in
the attack upon Amalek, but David obtained the victory with all
his army (the 600 men of 1 Sam. xxx. 9), which undoubtedly
included those who are named in vv. 1 — 18, — a marked distinc
tion being made between those who attached themselves to David,
and assisted him during the earlier period (the helpers of David
mentioned in w. 1, 17, 22) and those who came to him at He
bron, v. 23, — moreover, as the general statement made in v. 22
is connected by 13 with v. 21, we conclude that w. 21 and 22
are appended as a supplementary remark to the whole of the
preceding list : and they, viz., all those named after v. 1, assisted
. for they were all heroic warriors, and they were princes
in the army, and thus it came to pass that David was at the head
of a powerful army even when he was in Ziklag, — v. 22, for daily
there came to David to help him (so many, that the number in
creased) to a great camp like a camp of God. The simile evi
dently refers to its size : cf. " the mountains and cedars of God,"
Ps. xxxvi. 7, Ixxx. 11 ; Jonah iii. 3, is not so evidently a case
in point.

5. Chap. xii. 23—40.
number of the warriors who elected david king in
HEBRON.
We have here a more detailed description ofthe same assembly,
of which a brief notice is found in chap. xi. 1 — 3. From what
source the present account was derived it is impossible to say.
It is probable, however, that we have here an extract from a
complete list of the warriors, who assembled in Hebron, for the
superscription in v. 23 announces a statement of the number of
ihe men equipped for the army, who assembled at Hebron; whereas
the verses which follow contain not the number of the heads, but
the number of warriors belonging to the different tribes, and it is

222 chapter xii. 23—40.
quite as an exception that we find the leaders of the tribe of Levi
mentioned in w. 26 — 28. The supposition that the heading can
be brought into harmony with the list itself, by rendering y^qde
"'IWl the number of heads or individuals, is incorrect, for i^fr^
before V")^nn> according to the settled usage of the language,
always means the heads or leaders of the army, and the word
nSilbj 1S employed to denote the number of heads in the sense
of individuals, e.g., 1 Chr. xxifi. 3, 24. Our only resource
then is to assume that the heading originally belonged to a list,
which was arranged throughout like vv. 26 — 28, i.e. which con
tained the names and number of the chiefs and also the number
of the warriors. To turn the kingdom ; cf. chap. x. 14  Ac
cording to the mouth of Jehovah : cf. according to the word of
Jehovah, chap. xi. 3, 10. — V. 24. The account commences with
the two tribes inhabiting the southern portion of the land, Judah
and Simeon ; they are followed by Levi, whose leading forces
and principal representatives were undoubtedly concentrated in
the province of Judah and had attached themselves to David.
Proceeding in a northerly direction the list embraces the rest of
the tribes in the country to the west of the Jordan, and con
cludes with the two tribes and a half on the east of the river. —
V. 27. Jehoiada is called the prince for Aaron. This, cannot
mean that he was the high priest, as the office of high priest was "
filled by Abiathar (1 Sam. xxiii. 9). T^n must, therefore,
mean the leader of the warriors of the house of Aaron. It has
been thought that this Jehoiada was the father of Benaiah, chap.
xi. 22. — Zadok, who was still but a youth, may very well have
been the descendant of the El'azar mentioned in chap. v. 34,
who was appointed to the office of high priest during the reign
of Solomon, 1 Kings ii. 26. — And his father's house two and
twenty princes, all of whom belonged to the family of El'azar,
which was, therefore, very large and powerful at that time. — V.
29. Benjamin sent only 3000 men, a comparatively small num
ber, for hitherto (chap. ix. 18) the mass, i.e., the greater number
of the Benjaminites had been careful guardians of the house of
Saul. It is worthy of notice that, according to this statement,
even after the death of Ishbosheth, a large part of the tribe of
Benjamin hesitated to acknowledge David as king. — V. 30. On
comparing chap. v. 24 we might be led to conjecture, that the

chapter xii. 23—40. 223
words "heads of" originally stood before the "house of their
fathers," were it not that the number had just been stated at
20,800. And not only are they all described as brave heroes,
but as celebrated men, which is somewhat remarkable ; a similar
description occurs in v. 31. Qni3N Tftfo can hardly mean
celebrated men of their fathers'-houses, or in their fathers' houses,
but arranged according to their fathers'-houses (chap. v. 13.) —
V. 31. The half-tribe of Manasseh on the west of the Jordan
furnished 18,000 men, who were levied by name (chap. xvi.
41 ; Num. i. 17) to go and make David king. The meaning of
these words probably is, that there were lists drawn up containing
the names of the whole 18,000. — V. 32. To the statement that
from Issachar there came to Hebron men ivho were wise (2 Chr.
ii. 12) with regard tothe times so as to see what Israel ought to do, we
find nothing analogous in the whole of the Old Testament. Some
of the earlier expositors infer from it, that the tribe of Issachar
was distinguished above the rest of the tribes for an acquaint
ance witb astronomical and physical science, by which it was
enabled to predict the course of events. The learning of this
tribe is no doubt particularly referred to here, because it was a
matter of greatimportance that not only the military tribes, but the
tribe which was celebrated for its scientific attainments and also
for its sound judgment in political questions, declared for David.
We have no means, however, of explaining how it was that
Issachar attained its pre-eminence in this respect, and how the
" strong ass" of Gen. xlix. 14 became the wise one in discerning
times. — Two hundred heads and all their brethren acting according
to their mouth ; i.e., cheerfully following their commands, Gen.
xH. 40; Num. iv. 27 ; Deut. xxi. 5. — V. 33. -ny^yi only occurs
here and in v. 38 ; in the same connection in both passages. It
has been supposed by some to mean : to fall into rank, by others
to congregate together. The expression without heart and heart
(a double heart) suits these explanations very well, as v. 38
clearly shows : falling into rank, or congregating together not
with a double heart, i.e., with a firm and faithful mind. Nine
MSS. read "sfrxfa t° help with a faithful heart ; LXX. ^orj6rjo-ai
tw AavlB oi yepoKevw;, Vulg. venerunt in auxilium non in corde
duplici. It does not follow from these renderings that the Septua-

224 chapter xii. 23—40.
gint and the Vulgate adopted the latter reading, they may have
taken the reading of our text and translated it to help according
to the Aramaean form. Vv. 17, 21, and 22 appear to favour
this rendering ; but (1) the meaning to help is totally unsuit
able to v. 38 ; (2) there is no ground for attaching such a
meaning to the verb yyy in this passage, seeing that the root
y^y to help occurs several times in the chapter before us ; (3) it
would be necessary to alter the reading in this verse and v. 38
and we may well hesitate before assuming that the text is thus
faulty in two places ; and hence we are forced to the conclusion
that the received reading must be retained as the correct one. —
V. 38. Concluding remarks with reference to the whole section
from v. 23. — And all the rest of Israel were agreed in heart (2
Chr. xxx. 12), i.e., had one common wish, to make David king.
— V. 39. Their brethren brought them provisions ; Gen. xliii. 16 ;
2 Chr. xxxv. 14 seq. — V. 40. And those also who were living
near them (Deut. xiii. 8), in fact not merely those who dwelt in
the immediate neighbourhood of Hebron, but those who lived as
far off as the borders of the provinces of Issachar, Zebulon, and
Naphtali, supplied the Israelites, who were assembled in Hebron,
with food, without any regard to distinctions of tribe and other
associations, bringing a great abundance of provisions upon
beasts of burden, for there was joy in Israel, and therefore every
one did his best to make the assembly in Hebron a festival of
rejoicing (cf. 2 Chr. xxx. 23 sqq.). According to the account
given in the verses before us more than 300,000 armed men took
part in the assembly at Hebron. We are not surprised at the
large number of Israelites who took part in this assembly, but
we are struck with the disproportion in the numbers of the repre
sentatives of the different tribes. Judah, the tribe of David,
which had been from the earliest times the most numerous and
powerful tribe, sent 6,800 men ; from Zebulon, on the other
hand, there were 50,000. Naphtali contributed 1,000 princes
at the head of 37,000 warriors, and the two tribes and a half
from the east of the Jordan sent 120,000 men. How did it
happen that Zebulon and Naphtali, two tribes which never
played an important part in the history of Israel, were so
numerously represented, whilst Judah sent so comparatively
small a band of warriors ? The question immediately arises

chapter xiii. 1 — 5. 225
whether the numbers are precise and accurate as we have them
here. But we are unable to answer this question, as the account
contained in these verses furnishes no test, by which the accu
racy of the various details may be determined, and the number of
those who were present at the assembly in Hebron is not men
tioned anywhere else in the Old Testament.

6. Chap. xiii. — xvi.
the ark of the covenant is taken to the house of
obed-edom and remains there three months, chap.
xiii. (account of david's preparations for building
a house, of his family and of his wars with the
philistines, chap. xiv.), the ark is then carried by
the levites to jerusalem in a solemn procession,
chaps. xv. and xvi.
1. Chap. xiii. compare 2 Sam. vi. 1 — 11, where verses 2 — 11
correspond almost word for word to vv. 6 — 14 of this chapter ;
but instead of vv. 1 — 5 with its elaborate account of the meeting
in which it was resolved to fetch back the ark of the covenant,
we find in Samuel merely a brief notice in v. 1 of an assembly
of the armed forces of David.
Vv. 1 — 5. V. 1. And David consulted (cf. 2 Chr. x. 6 ; xxx.
2) with the leaders of the thousands (chap. xv. 25) and the hun
dreds, with all the princes. The preposition lamed is used before
words which briefly describe the entire body of the persons
referred to (cf. Gen. xxiii. 10). V. 2. The whole congregation of
Israel, therefore, is the assembly of leaders and princes, i.e., of
the representatives of the congregation. In consequence of their
resolution David afterwards convened the whole of the Israelites.
V. 5. If it seem good unto you ; a phrase frequently met with in
the later historical books, Neh. ii. 5, 7; Esther i. 19; iii. 9.
And (if it be) from Jehovah our God (Gen. xxiv. 50), if it has
taken place at his instigation and with his consent. n^"lD2
before frn^tW is only met with here ; the primary meaning of
the former, to break through, is modified into that of rapid execu
tion, we will send quickly and without further consideration. To
VOL. 11. P

226 CHAPTER XIII. 1 — 5.
pur brethren ; the preposition ^yy is chosen, because the sending
involves the notion of commanding. After " with them" we
must supply the words " we will send." V. 4. To do is thus, in
other words, thus must we do; the infinitive with lamed is used
in this sense iu chap. v. 1, and ix. 25 ; it is differently construed
in Ex. viii. 22. V. 5. From Shihor of Egypt ; according to other
passages the southern boundary of Palestine was formed by
Nachal Mizraim, the river of Egypt (vid. Josh. xv. 4, 47 ; Num.
xxxiv. 5 ; 1 Kings viii. 65 ; 2 Kings xxiv. 7 ; 2 Chr. vii. 8 ; Is.
xxvii. 12), or Nahar Mizraim (Gen. xv. 18), probably the brook
which falls into the Mediterranean near the modern el-Arish, the
ancient 'PivoKopovpa; cf. LXX. Is. xxvii. 12. As the expres
sion in Joshua xiii. 3, " Shihor which is before Egypt," is merely
another name for this brook, and does not refer to the Nile, and as
there was also a small river on the borders of Asher, which bore
the name of Shihor Libnath (Josh. xix. 26), we have no hesi
tation in deciding that Shihor Mizraim in the passage before us
was also another name for the brook which formed the southern
boundary of Palestine, and which is elsewhere designated the
Nachal Mizraim. In Isaiah xxiii. 3, Jer. ii. 18, the Nile itself
is called the Shihor, but in the historical books, and, with the
exception of these two passages, in the prophetical books also it
is called by the ordinary name "^¦'pf, — On the preservation of
the ark in Kirjath-jearim, see v. 6. — In what relation does vv.l — 5
stand to 2 Sam. vi. 1, " then David gathered together again all the
men of Israel who were capable of bearing arms, thirty thousand,"
which is rendered by the Septuagint Kal o-vvijyayev eri Aavlh
wavra veaviav il; 'laparjX co? efiBoprjKOVTa ¦)(fXidBa'i ? Before
answering this question we must justify our rendering of the
words. Thenius supposes them to mean : and David increased
again all the picked men to about 30,000, in which case they would
have nothing to do with the account of the ark of the covenant,
but would merely contain a notice of the addition which David
made to his army, and might be regarded as the conclusion of
the history ofthe wars in 2 Sam. v. We see nothing, however,
in these words at all resembling a conclusion ; on the contrary,
they form the commencement ofa fresh section, which is linked
•to the foregoing portion of the narrative by the word again.
Now. ftp' V) may have the same meaning as hbfcW (°£ 1 Sam.

CHAPTER XIII. 1 — 5. 227
xv. 6 ; Ps. civ. 29), and this meaning is actually given to it here
in the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the Syriac versions. Moreover
Thenius is obliged to alter the text in order to arrive at the ex
planation which he adopts (he inserts a lamed before Sheloshim).
Lastly, the second verse presupposes some account of an as
sembly in the first. Hence the usual interpretation, which is con
firmed by the Chronicles, must be retained, viz. again, David
assembled together all the chosen men, &c. David assembled them
again, i.e., a second time. The first time, Israel gathered toge
ther around David in Hebron, 2 Sam. v. 1, 3; 1 Chr. xii. 23 — ¦
40 ; and although the first assembly is not said to have been
called together by David, a second assembly could be very pro
perly described as collected together again by him, the chief
point being the fact of their re-assembling, and the manner in
which they were convened being a matter of but Httle moment.
There is certainly something striking in the statement that he
gathered together 30,000 men, for according to 1 Chr. xii. 23 —
40 and other passages, the men of Israel who were capable of
bearing arms at the time of David were much more numerous
than this. For 30,000 the Septuagint reads 700,000, and no
number at all is given in the Chronicles. It might be conjec
tured that the occurrence of this number led the author of the
Chronicles to explain the brief statement in 2 Sam. vi. 1 accord
ing to the narrative which follows, and to bring the notice of the
holding of an assembly of thirty thousand men into harmony
with the fact that all Israel took part in the removal of the ark
ofthe covenant (2 Sam. vi. 5 ; 1 Chr. xiii. 6, 8). In this case
we must suppose that he referred the first statement to an
assembly of distinguished warriors and princes, and regarded the
second as denoting that the assembly of the whole people was
called by them, and that this led him to distinguish the two as
semblies, viz. the smaller or preparatory one, and the second or
larger assembly ofthe whole people. Such an explanation as this
might be given of the connection between the verses before us
and 2 Sam. vi. 1, if there were any necessity for it. But the
question suggests itself whether thirty thousand be the correct
reading in the latter passage. When we keep clearly before our
minds the account given by our historian, and remember tbat
he also speaks of princes of the thousands, and that the number

228 CHAPTER XIII. 6 — 14.
30,000 does not occur anywhere else in the history of David, we
are led to the conclusion that in all probability the original
reading of the text of 2 Sam. vi. 1 was, " and David assembled
together again all the chosen men of Israel, the Sheloshim and
the princes of the thousands." The mention of the Sheloshim, i.e.,
of the most distinguished warriors and of the princes of the thou
sands, would necessarily imply that it was a preliminary assem
bly, and the connection between such an assembly and the
general assembly of all the people could hardly be explained in
any other way, than it is in the verses before us. In our commen
tary upon the verses themselves, we shall point out the peculiar
phraseology contained in the latest historical books and parti
cularly in the Books of Chronicles, which leads us to conclude
that we have here an expansion of the brief accounts contained
in 2 Sam. vi. 1.
Vv. 6 — 14. — V. 6. And David went up and all Israel to
Baalah (another name for the town of Kirjath Jearim, Josh. xv.
9, which is also called Kirjath Baal, Josh, xviii. 14) away to
Kirjath Jearim, which belongs to Judah (Judg. xviii. 12). From
Josh. xx. 9 we should be led to expect ^yipi rather than ^^
between Baalah and Kirjath Jearim ; still ^ 1S intelligible, as
the clause away to Kirjath Jearim may be regarded as defining
more precisely the expression, to Baalah. It would be still more
easily accounted for, if we could take Baalah as the name of the
district of Kirjath Jearim or of the hill upon which the town was
situated (cf. Josh. xv. 11) : to (the district of) Baalah, (or more
exactly) to Kirjath Jearim. The ark of the covenant had re
mained in this place, at the house of Abinadab (1 Sam. vii. 1),
since the time when it was delivered up by the Philistines, with
the exception of a short period during which it was at Bethshe-
mesh. Q£j N"1p3 TC?M wh° ^s called name (cf. Lev. xxiv. 16,
a passage which was evidently present to the minds of the
Masoretes when they adopted this punctuation), but such a re
mark as this, that Jehovah is also called Shem (name), is evi
dently superfluous, at least in this connection, and as q^j ryfi is
the reading of 2 Sam. vi . 2, qqj is clearly the proper reading
here ; who is worshipped there (viz., at the ark of the covenant).

CHAPTER XIV. 1—7. 229

2. CHAP. XIV. BUILDING OF DAVID'S HOUSE, &C.
Vv. 1, 2. cf. 2 Sam. v. 11, 12. — The readiness with which
the king of the powerful and prosperous city of Tyre complied
with the wishes of David, by sending messengers to open up
communications, and placing skilful artizans at his service, was
one of the most important of the fortunate circumstances con
nected with David's reign. It is not surprising, therefore, that
immediately after the account of his alliance with Hiram, we
should find the remark, then David perceived, how Jehovah had
appointed him king over Israel (xxii. 10). — His kingdom was
lifted up on high. piNfe> according to the context, must be
the third person feminine Niphal, an entirely exceptional form
(in 2 Sam. xix. 43 the word occurs with the same pointing as an
infinitive absolute Niphal), which, on account of the addition of
the Tav of the feminine, has received the same pointing as is
usually given to feminine participles, p\^^3 becoming first p|fr$to2
and then p|N&> Tlhyfth very frequently occurs in the Chro
nicles in connection with a verb which it renders more emphatic
(e.g., chap. xxii. 5, xxiii. 17, xxix. 3, 25 ; 2 Chr. i. 1, xvii. 12) ;
hence we conclude that in this passage it is added by our his
torian himself. lp\13^J3 for "if^^ftft, the farmer is the form
usually adopted by the later historians ; in the present connec
tion, and in chap. xvii. 11, 14, it has been substituted for the
other or earher form, which we find in 2 Sam. v. 12.
Vv. 3—7. cf. chap. iii. 5—8 and 2 Sam. v. 13— 16.— In 2
Sam. iii. 5 concubines are mentioned before the wives. There is
no reason to suppose that the former were intentionally omitted
by the author of the Chronicles, for he refers to the concubines
of David in chap. iii. 9  In Jerusalem ; this is the correct read
ing, which must originally have stood in Samuel also, for it is
absolutely required there by the clause, after he had come from
Hebron, which is wanting in the Chronicles, and the statement
that the wives sprang from Jerusalem does not seem in any way
suitable. — V. 4. The list of David's children had already been
given at chap. iii. 5 — 8, but was inserted here again, because it
stood in this connection in the original documents employed by
our historian.

230 CHAPTER XIV. 8—12.
V. 8—12. cf. 2 Sam. v. 17— 21.— To seek David ; viz., for the
purpose of destroying him, cf. 1 Sam. xxiii. 15, 25, xxiv. 3,
xxvi. 2. — He went out to meet them ; in the parallel passage in
Samuel we have " he went down into the fortress" of Zion, chap.
xi. 5. The expression went down might he explained on the sup
position tbat David had hitherto continued in the mountains to
the south of Zion, from which you look down upon Zion itself,
and that the attack of the PhiHstines was first directed against
this position, whereupon David withdrew to Zion ; but it is more
probable that the expression " to go down" is used in antithesis
to the " going up" spoken of in v. 10, and merely denotes the
act of retiring into a fortress. Thenius is of opinion that the use
of this expression proves, that the attack referred to was some
previous attack of the Philistines, which took place before the
conquest of Jerusalem, and that the Mezudah (the fortress) was
the cave of Adullam, but in this he completely sets aside the
express statement of the verse before us, that David was king
over all Israel, when the PhiHstines made this invasion. For
the difficult words, he went doion to the fortress, the historian has
substituted the more general and very intelligible clause, " he
went up to meet them." — In the valley of Rephaim, vid. chap. xi.
15. — V. 10. And wilt thou deliver them; both here and at the
end of the verse, where the same word occurs again, we have the
perfect with Vav conseq., whereas in 2 Sam. v. the imperfect is
used in both instances. It is impossible to determine which was
the earliest reading ; the perfect is very frequently met with in
such a connection ; e.g. in the similar sentence, 2 Kings xxi. 14.
— V. 11. The battle was fought at Baal Perazim, and hence the
words of our text, " then the Philistines went up on the Baal-
Perazim," refer to the same fact as those of Samuel, " then David
went to Baal-Perazim." The place mentioned, Baal-Perazim, is
not otherwise known ; at the same time it does not appear to
have been a different place from the mountain of Perazim, Is.
xxviii. 21. — Peraz Maim, the breaking forth of water; hence
Perazim denotes the fissures made by the force of the water, and
Baal-Perazim may have been the name of a mountain that had
been seamed by torrents. According to the passage before
us it owed its name to a historical event, namely, to a fierce con
flict in which God broke through the enemy by the hand of

CHAPTER XIV. 13 — 17. 231
David like the breaking through of waters. — V. 12. The Philis
tines fled so quickly, that they left their idols upon the battle
field, and the latter were burnt at the command of David. In 2
Sam . v. it is merely stated that David and his men carried them
away, but the purpose for which they did so is not mentioned.
The law commanded that idols should be burnt (Deut. vii.
5, 25). Movers regards the statement respecting the burning
as a more precise account from a different source. By this vic
tory David wiped away the reproach which had rested upon the
nation from the days of Eli. As the Israelites were then deprived
of their ark (1 Sam. iv. 11), so on the other hand did the gods
of the PhiHstines now fall into their hands.
Vv. 13—17. cf. 2 Sam. v. 22— 25.— V. 13. In the valley;
according to 2 Sam. v. it was the valley of Rephaim (which is
also the reading adopted here by the Septuagint and Syriac).
There can be no doubt that this was the valley intended by our
historian; vid. v. 16. Movers (p. 243) supposes that another
valley is here referred to, namely, a valley near Gibeon, but
Thenius has successfully replied to this in his note on 2 Sam. v.
22. — V. 14. "Go not up after them;" in 2 Sam. v. we find
merely " Go not up." This is a sufficient reply to the question,
" Shall I attack them f which we may supply here from v. 10;
and if anything further were added we should expect it to be not
after tbem, but against them, as an attack is expressly pro
hibited. The former reading has probably crept in from 2
Sam. v. 23, " fetch a compass behind them," and should there
fore be either omitted, or altered into the other. The latter is
the better plan of the two. Turn away from them ; in 2 Sam. v.
" turn round so as lo come upon their rear." As the latter reading
is in harmony with the context, and in all respects suits the
passage before us, we cannot but assume that it was the original
reading of the text of the Chronicles also. From the Baca-
trees ; they must therefore have stood behind the PhiHstines.
On the Baca-trees see Winer Realwortertuch i. p. 128 (and
Kitto's Cyclopaedia i. p. 276). In the Septuagint, Aquila, and
the Vulgate, the word is rendered awio<;, pyrus. — V. 15. J-ny^n
(written in 2 Sam. v. without the article) ; according to the
ordinary interpretation, the sound ofthe going of God. The femi
nine is only met with in this verse, and the parallel passage

232 CHAPTER XIV. 13—17.
in Samuel. There is no reason to question the correctness
of the reading as it is found in both books. But it is not
so evident that we are justified in supplying the genitive: "of
God." For it must be borne in mind that the sound of the
going in the tops of the Baca-trees was merely to be the
sign from which David could perceive that God would surely
go before him. And this sign, according to the context in
both accounts, may have been simply the rustling of the leaves
of the Baca-trees, which is described in the Septuaguit as rrjv
<pwvr)v tov crvcrcreicrpov aiiTwv. The rustling of the leaves,
so far as I can see, is called the sound of going on account
of its resemblance to the sound produced by walking through
fallen leaves (cf. Gen. iii. 8, the sound of God walking in the
garden) ; and if we give this interpretation to the words : a
a sound Hke that produced by walking, there will be no necessity
to supply the genitive: "of God." Ewald (Gesch. des Volks
Isr. ii. p. 610) refers to the Arabic, and explains the word as
meaning a dull sound as of one breathing with difficulty (cf.
p|j3J3*7 which occurs in 1 Kings xix. 12 and Job iv. 16, as a
sign of the self-revealing Deity.) But why then is it so expressly
stated that this sound was to be heard in the tops of the Baca-
trees ? — V. 16. And David (and his people) smite; in 2 Sam. v.
we find the singular. The engagement was so decisive that the
PhiHstines were compelled to retreat from the whole line of
which they had taken possession. This line stretched from
Gibeon to Gezer. Gibeon, undoubtedly the present el-Jib, was
about six miles from Jerusalem in a north-westerly direction, cf.
chap. viii. 29. The situation of Gezer may now be determined
with tolerable precision (cf. Judg. i. 29); it must have stood
very near to the spot on which it is placed upon the map by
v. Raumer and Stulpnagel, about five miles from Gibeon in a
north-westerly direction. But it is a priori improbable, that the
PhiHstines, who were attacking David and his army, the base of
whose operations was Jerusalem, occupied this Hne from Gibeon
to Gezer. Moreover, it would be difficult to reconcile with such
a position the statement contained in 2 Sam. v. 22 that they had
spread themselves out in the valley of Rephaim. Now, in
2 Sam. v. 25, instead of Gibeon, we find the very similar name
Geba ; and if we suppose this Geba to have been the same as

CHAPTER XIV. 13 — 17. 233
Gibea in the province of Judah (Josh. xv. 57), which we can
have no difficulty in recognising in the modern village of Yefa
on a conical hill about nine or ten miles to the south-west of
Jerusalem (Robinson ii. p. 580, 593), we should then have a line
given here, which passed near the western slope of the mountains
of Judah, and terminated towards the south in Geba or Gibea, a
prominent city which could be seen from a great distance, and
towards the north in Gezer, a place that was certainly situated
upon a very rocky projection of the long hill towards the west,
which contains distinct traces of fortifications (Robinson iii. p.
211, 272). Now this line suits the context in every respect.
From it the PhiHstines could very easily overspread the valley of
Rephaim, and it would form a good point of support for the
attacks upon Judah, being intersected by the roads which led
from Judah to the cities of the Philistines. To recover posses
sion of this line was equivalent to setting free the whole of the
mountains of Judah as far as their most westerly slope, and it is
very apparent that our author intended to show that such a
deliverance was really effected by the decisive battle here de
scribed. We cannot possibly see what obstacle there is to our
fixing upon this Gibea in the province of Judah as the place
referred to (Ewald Gesch. des Volks Isr. ii. p. 610), for Gibea
or Geba, in the tribe of Benjamin, would not answer to the de
scription contained in the verses before us much better than
Gibeon. — V. 17. This verse, which indicates the result of the
events just described, is not found in Samuel. We agree with
Movers (p. 196) that it was appended by the historian himself,
as an appropriate conclusion to the parenthetical notices with
which he had interrupted his account of the ark of the covenant,
for the passage reminds us in several respects of other similar
passages in the Books of Chronicles.
3. Chap. xv. and xvi. The thread of the story, which was
broken off at chap. xiii. 14, is here resumed. It appears as if
the events narrated in chap. xiv. filled up the three months,
during which the ark of the covenant remained in the house of
Obed Edom ; at all events this interval afforded an opportunity
for introducing supplementary notices of certain matters con
nected with the history of David. The commencement of the
account of the ark of the covenant in chap. xiii. corresponds in

234 CHAPTER XV. 1—24.
almost every respect to 2 Sam. vi. 1 — 11 ; but the continuation
in the chapters before us contains much more elaborate details
than the corresponding section in 2 Sam. vi. 11 — 19, which we
find almost word for word in chap. xvi. 25 to xvii. 3. But both
before and after this section, viz. in chap. xvi. 1 — 24, and xvii.
4 — 43, the Book of Chronicles contains a variety of particulars,
to which we find no reference in the Books of Samuel.
V. 1. Among the buildings completed by David was a tent
for the ark of God, the construction of which is narrated in the
verse before us. This tent is only casually referred to in 2 Sam.
vi. 17. He built himself houses (besides the house which he had
erected with the assistance of Hiram, chap. xiv. 1) in the city of
David, chap. xi. 5 ; he also set up a new tent for the ark of the
covenant. The old tent (tabernacle) was left in Gibeon (chap.
xvi. 39, xxi. 29 ; 1 Kings iii. 4 seq., ix. 2), but our historical
books furnish no explanation of the reason why the ancient holy
tabernacle was not removed from Gibeon to Jerusalem.
Vv. 2 — 24. The assembled Israelites proceeded from Jerusalem
to the place where the ark of the covenant then was. The pre
parations for the solemn procession, which was to accompany the
ark to Jerusalem, are fully described. V. 2. The word then refers
to the time already mentioned in chap. xiii. 14, viz. at the end
of the three months. The fact that the ark was carried is briefly
recorded in 2 Sam. vi. 13, but in the passage before us it is em
phatically stated that it was the vocation of the Levites to carry
it (Num. i. 50, iv. 15, vii. 9, x. 17), and this declaration contains an
express acknowledgment that it was illegal to place it on a cart
(chap. xiii. 7). — V. 3. The attendance of all Israel to take part
in tbe procession is noticed in Samuel also, but it is only here
that we read that David had " gathered all Israel together to
Jerusalem" for that purpose (cf. chap. xiii. 5, and xxviii. 1.) —
V. 4. The heads of the tribe of the Levites (v. 12) together
with their brethren were set apart from the rest of the assembled
Israelites as a sacred band. The sons of Aaron were the priests
named in v. 11; the Levites were the six princes with their
brethren, vv. 5 — 10. — V. 5. Of the sons of Kohath, Uriel (chap.
vi. 9) the prince with 120 of his family ; he is mentioned first
because the Kohathites were specially entrusted with the charge
of the sanctuary (Num. vii. 9). — V. 8. Elizaphan was a descend-
2

chapter xv. 2 — 24. 235
ant of Kohath; see Ex. vi. 22, where his name is spelt Elzaphan.
The prince of the fathers' house (v. 12) of Elizaphan was She-
maiah, whose name occurs again in chap. xxiv. 6. — V. 9. Hebron
a son of Kohath, Ex. vi. 18 ; 1 Ch. v. 28— V. 10. Uzziel (ac
cording to chap. v. 28 ; Ex. vi. 18, likewise a son of Kohath)
was the father of Elzaphan and other sons (Ex. vi. 22). The
latter must therefore have formed a father's house of their
own, by the side of that of Elzaphan, and given it the name of
Uzziel, cf. 1 Ch. xxiii. 20, xxiv. 24. Hence of the six fathers'
houses, referred to here, four descended from Kohath, and one
each from Merari and Gershom.— V. 11. Zadok (who came to
Hebron to join David, chap. xii. 28) of the family of Eleazar, and
Abiathar of that of Ithamar, were the princes of the two priestly
lines, and were colleagues in office (chap. xxiv. 3 — 6 ; cf. 2 Sam.
xv. 24 sqq. xx. 25). They were summoned by David together
with the six princes already named, and — v. 12, these, the heads
of the fathers' houses (chap. viii. 6, 10) were instructed to pre
pare themselves and their brethren for the sacred duties, which
they would have to perforin in connexion with the removal of
the ark of the covenant. To sanctify themselves, i.e., to put
away everything unclean, and to avoid coming into contact with
anything unclean (Gen. xxxv. 2), for example, putting on unclean
clothes (Ex. xix. 10, 15 ; cf. 2 Ch. xxx. 3.) Unto that which I
have prepared for it; that is, unto the spot where, according to v.
3, I have prepared a place for it. The omission of the pronoun
""llZ^N gives to the relative clause the character of a substantive
notion, and this renders it capable of government by a preposi
tion. We find the same construction in 2 Chr. i. 4, and similar
ones in 1 Chr. xxix. 3, 2 Chr. xvi. 9, xxx. 18 seq., and Nehem.
viii. 10, cf. Ewald Lehrbuch 323 b. — V. 13. n2"lt£?N"l373V a
compound word ; the interrogative mah is here connected with a
long word, in the same manner as we frequently find it com
bined with a shorter one, e.g. pj.^ Ex. iv. 2, £33^73 Is. iii. 15, cf.
"1fc^n72 f°r ni$^n-iT?2 Mai. i. 13. The preposition lamed
before mah, as in pjs'? wherefore, can only appear in the abbre-
x Ix
viated form ^ when prefixed to so long a word. The question
is this : why were ye not there at the beginning (i.e. when the ark
was taken away from the house of Abinadab, chap, xiii.) 1 By

236 CHAPTER XV. 2—24.
13 this interrogative clause is made into a conditional protasis ;
"for why were ye not there" &c. means because ye were not
there in the beginning, did not God break in upon us with vio
lence ? For we have not sought him, we have not approached in
the proper way i.e. according to the law, which required that the
sanctuary upon which he was enthroned should be carried by the
Levites (Num. vii. 9) and that nothing unclean or unholy should
come near to it. t^m to approach is used here in its primary
sense, from which that of asking was a derivative (1 Chr. x. 14).
— Vv. 14, 15. The Levites came at the summons of David, pu
rified themselves, and, as the historian here relates, in anticipa
tion ofthe course of events, carried the ark of the covenant. On
their shoulders, Num. vii. 9. — Vv. 16 — 24. The princes of the
Levites receive instructions to train the musicians and singers,
who were subordinate to them, for the solemn procession. They
comply with these instructions. — V. 16. The -^i^jj 1^3 (Nehem.
xii. 36) are the various instruments mentioned here, especiaUy
the nebalim and chinneroth, as we may clearly see from v. 19,
and 2 Ch. v. 13. As the Hiphil yi^^pj has the meaning to sound
or cause to clang, the participle here used may be referred to the
musical instruments, sounding so as to raise a noise, i.e. so that
the singing and music were very loud. In other passages we
find the expression to lift up the voice ; in 2 Chr. v. 13 it refers
to the loud blast of trumpets, in Ezra iii. 12 to a loud and joyful
shout ; and the passage before us (with the voice) has a similar
meaning to 2 Chr. v. 13. The verb Qi-^pj occurs in other pas
sages with the accusative and with beth, cf. Ex. xiv. 16, and
vii. 20. For joy, as a sign of joy, and a means of increasing it,
v. 25 ; 2 Chr. xxiii. 18, xxix. 30.— V. 18. And with them their
brethren of the second nank ; p(DttJi3n ln the singular occurs also
in 2 Kings xxiii. 4 ; we more frequently find !)p)212ft3 use(l to
denote the second in a series (1 Sam. vii. 2, xvii. 13 ; 2 Sam.
iii. 3) or in office (1 Chr. xvi. 5. cf. Esther x. 3). The word
Ben, after Zechariah, has found its way into the text through a
copyist's error, as the Vav before the following name, and vv.
20 and 25 clearly show. Jaaziel is called Aziel in v. 20,
and Jeiel in chap. xvi. 5. There are thirteen names in all.
The last two Obed-edom and Jeiel (or Jehiah as he is called

CHAPTER XV. 2 — 24. 237
in v. 24) are described as doorkeepers ; but according to v. 20
they were employed as musicians. — V. 19 — 21. The singers
mentioned in v. 17 seq. were divided into three companies,
according to the different instruments on which they played.
(1) v. 19. Heman, Asaph, and Ethan played with cymbals (the
word used here only occurs in the Books of Chronicles, Ezra, and
Nehemiah,but in these we find it very frequently) of brass, cf. Jose
phus, Arch. vii. 12, 3, KvpftdXd re ?jv -rrXaTea Kal peydXa ^aX/eea."
n©TO may ^e connected with the previous word as an accusative
defining it more precisely, since it describes the material of which
the instruments were made. — (2) v. 20. Zechariah and seven
others play jyyyyy yiy 0^7333 j we are not in a position to explain
these words, as our acquaintance with the music of the ancient
Israelites does not furnish the least clue to the meaning of the
musical terms, which we meet with both in the superscriptions to
the Psalms, and also in the body of them in Habakkuk iii., and here
and there in the Books of Chronicles. Modern investigations
into the music of the ancient Greeks appear to confirm the opinion
that the words AlamothandHassheminith, which occur in the super
scriptions, and Al-taschith (Ps. lvii., lviii., lix., lxxv.), al Aijeleth
hasshachar (Ps. xxii.) and others which belong to the same cate
gory, are names for different tunes. In most ofthe expressions
we can recognise the opening words of songs ; the words Sheminith
(Ps. vi. xii.), and Gittiih (Ps. viii., lxxxi., lxxxiv.) alone appear
to be borrowed from instruments. The word Alamoih both
here and Ps. xlvi. is pointed by the Masoretes as the plural of
Almah a virgin. But as we fancy that the same word occurs in
the combination Al muih labben in the heading of Ps. ix. (the
preposition lyy being probably omitted to avoid the repetition of
the same sound al) another explanation of the word suggests
itself to our mind. At any rate the word fipfty^y the abstract
in jy\ from chy in combination with Yy^y would give the mean
ing : Youth is to the son, which might very appropriately form
the commencement of a song. We shall not offer any further
arguments in support of our interpretation of this word, since
this could only be done in a treatise embracing all the musical
terms that occur in the Old Testament. — (3) v. 21. The six here
named played upon lyres after the Sheminith to lead, probably to

238 chapter xv. 22—24.
lead the singing by way of accompaniment. What the She
minith originally signified we cannot tell, for the word, which
means ihe eighth, may relate to very different things, lt might
denote, for example, the eighth in the series of tunes, or an instru
ment with eight strings, from which the tune received its name,
and in this case there would be nothing to hinder the conclusion
that the tune was played upon viols which, according to Josephus
(Antiquities vii. 12, 3), were ten-stringed instruments played
with the bow. The Piel pjsjj means to lead according to the
evident usage of the language, and this meaning is confirmed by
the Aramaean. Of the six names given here only five occur in
v. 18. The last name in the series is here mentioned first, whether
it was omitted from v. 18 by mistake, or was inserted in the
text in this verse through an oversight, we cannot tell. The three
classes of singers had thus three different instruments to play,
cymbals, nablia, and lyres (citharae.) The first served to pro
duce a loud clang, the last led. No tune is mentioned in the
case of the first, probably because their clear tones were only
introduced at intervals, the other two were played to certain
tunes. Vv. 22 — 24. The historian avails himself of the opportunity to
give the names of other Levites and priests who took part in the
solemn procession. V 22. Chenaniah (v. 27, chap. xxvi. 29)
the prince of the Levites was not one of the six princes (vv.
5 — 10). They were princes of the Levitical families, but ac
cording to this verse Chenaniah was properly a prince on account
of his office, which required peculiar learning ; he was therefore
necessarily appointed without regard to his family and birth.
He was ^{$733 and, as is afterwards added by way of explana
tion, Ntl?)33 "ID1 5 the inf. abs. Kal yr^i, which only occurs here,
X _^
means to admonish, according to the use of the Kal in Prov. ix.
7 ; Ps. xciv. 10 ; Hos. x. 10, but as it is a skilful man who is
here entrusted with this duty, most commentators have felt no
hesitation in taking the word admonish in the sense of teach,
instruct (e.g. J. H. Michaelis, Gesenius thes. p. 918). In that
case the infinitive absolute in the explanatory clause takes the
place of a finite tense : he gives instruction in anything. Others
regard the word as an imperfect of the root yyQ = ¦V)^, he was

chapter xv. 22—24. 239
a prince. Nto?33 (this 1S the proper punctuation) in most
x — —
editions is written the first time with, the second time without
the article; R. Norzi, however, expressly states that the proper
punctuation in both -instances is with the article. The Septua-'
gint renders it dpxwv r&v wSwv ; Luther translates it der Sang-
meister (the singing-master), and the majority of commentators
adopt this rendering, but others follow the Vulgate (prophetim
proserat ad prwcinendam melodiam), and, taking the word to be
a term associated with prophecy, make Chenaniah a leader or
prince of prophecy. Others again suppose him to have been a
president and leader of the Levites appointed to carry the sacred
things, and appeal to the use of the word in 2 Chr. xxxv. 3 ;
Num. iv. 19, 27, 31, 32, 47 (e.g., Junius, Tremellius). The
following then are the interpretations given of this verse : the
prince of the Levites over the singing (the prophecy, or the carry
ing), he gave instruction in singing (prophesying, or carrying),
or he was superintendent of the singing (prophesying, or carrying).
It is hard to say which of these is to be preferred, for the Old
Testament furnishes but few data for the explanation of this
brief passage. But from the few we possess, we conclude, for
the following reasons, that the word means to carry, — (1) As
the whole section treats of the transport of the ark, those pas
sages are peculiarly in point in which the word is used to
denote the carrying of the ark, or of the sacred things in
general. Now, according to 2 Chr. xxxv. 3, after the build
ing of the temple there was no Massah (burden) upon the
shoulders of the Levites, i.e., when once the Israelites possessed
a temple in the place of the moveable sanctuary, they no longer
required to make provision for the carrying of the sacred things.
The same word is also applied in Num. iv. 19 sqq. to the car
riage of the holy things. (2.) It would be very strange if
Chenaniah were described as the leader of the sacred singing
(as he is in the Septuagint version), seeing that Pieman, Asaph,
and Ethan are spoken of as the leaders of the singing and the
music, not only in the chapter before us but in many passages
besides, and Chenaniah is never mentioned in connection with
them. It is evident that the only reason why the LXX. referred
the word in this instance to the lifting up of the voice in singing
was, that music had formed the subject of the previous verses,

240 chapter xv. 22 — 24.
and that the singers are afterwards mentioned (in v. 27) along
with Hammassa. (3.) Chenaniah is described in chap. xxvi. 29
as the superintendent of the Levites, who had to attend to out
ward affairs, and were employed as overseers and judges. Now
the Levites, who were scribes and overseers (2 Chr. xxxiv. 13 ;
1 Chr. xxiv. 5), were distinct from the singers, and hence, sup
posing the Chenaniah there spoken of to be the same man, we
cannot possibly imagine him to have been a leader of the singers.
But it is a very conceivable thing that when the sanctuary had
been placed in a permanent building, the overseers and judges
might be selected from among the Levites, who had previously
been appointed to carry the holy things (cf. 2 Chr. xxxv. 3 sqq.).
We should then take yrji as the imperfect of yp — y$}. But
we are hardly justified in giving to the Kal the meaning to
teach, or instruct ; and should not expect to find the infinitive
absolute in this passage. Hence, even without any further
reference to the connection, we feel perfectly warranted in giv
ing the preference to this explanation, which is clearly admissible,
especially when we consider the frequent interchange of samech
and sin. Moreover, not a few MSS. and one edition of the
Bible have the reading *ftp or yytrji- — For he was clever, and
T X
well-fitted on account of his knowledge for the discharge of
the duties of his office. Vi3ft generally denotes a knowledge of
music (chap. xxv. 7 ; 2 Chr. xxxiv. 12), but it is also used in a
different sense when applied to Levites in 2 Chr. xxxv. 3, and to
other men of skill in 1 Chr. xxvi. 5. The rendering which we
propose is this : and Chenaniah, the prince of the Levites over the
burden (the preposition beth may be easily explained from the
notion of ruling or leading contained in the substantive Sar) he
led the burden, for he was skilled, sc. in the customs which it was
necessary to observe in the carriage of the holy things. — V. 23.
Bereehiah and Elkanah were doorkeepers of the ark, as well as
Obed-edom and Jeiel (vv. 18, 24) ; they probably went imme
diately before the ark with their attendants, whilst the latter
with their attendants brought up the rear. — V. 24. Nethaneel
apparently tlie father of Shemaiah ; chap. xxiv. 6. — Benaiah vid.
chap. xvi. 6. — The order of the procession was as follows : (1),
the singers in three companies, vv. 19 — 21 ; (2), Chenaniah the

chapter xv. 25, 26. 241
prince of the Levites, v. 22 ; (3), two doorkeepers (with their
attendants), v. 23 ; (4), the priests with trumpets immediately
before the ark ; lastly (5), two doorkeepers (with their atten
dants), v. 24.
V. 25 to chap. xvi. 3 (cf. 2 Sam. vi. 12— 19).— V. 25. The
corresponding words in 2 Sam. vi. 12 are these : then David went
and brought up the ark of God from the house of Obed-edom into
the city of David with gladness. Instead of David alone, the
elders of Israel and the princes of the thousands are mentioned
here in accordance with v. 3 and chap. xiii. 1 ; and instead of
the ark of God it is called the ark of the covenant of Jehovah as
in vv. 26, 28, 29. The narrative, which proceeds without inter
ruption in Samuel, is here continued after the long parenthesis,
and the connection is loosely established by the word i;t^ ; thus
also for the clause " and he went . . . with joy," there
was necessarily substituted the longer clause, " it was David and
the elders of Israel . . . who went . . . with gladness."
— V. 26. The account given in this verse differs from that con
tained in 2 Sam. vi. According to the verse before us, the
sacrifices were offered because God helped the Levites, who
carried the ark of the covenant, i.e., because God had permitted
them to continue near his sanctuary, and even to carry it upon
their shoulders, without their suffering the same fate as Uzza
(chap. xiii. 10) ; and the meaning evidently is, that immediately
after the ark had been lifted up "they offered seven oxen and
seven rams." But, according to 2 Sam. vi., after the ark had
moved six paces forward, David offered an ox and a fatling, for
there is no reason to interpret the words as meaning that an ox
and a fattened calf were sacrificed every six paces (the Septua
gint clearly reads seven), although this is the explanation which
most commentators give to the passage. The difference between
the two accounts is therefore not very great, and both of them
may be founded upon the same original record, as they both
treat of sacrifices, which were offered immediately after the lift
ing of the ark or after it had moved seven paces forwards, and
the number seven occurs in the Book of Chronicles as the num?
ber of animals sacrificed.
(Keil does not adopt the same method of reconciling the two
accounts. He says : " the two passages relate to different sacri-
VOL. II. Q

242 CHAPTER XV. 27.
fices, as Grotius, Clericus, and others have already observed.
According to 2 Sam. vi. 13 an ox and a fatted sheep were
offered during the procession, when the bearers of tbe ark had
moved six paces forward ; on the other hand, according to 1
Chr. xv. 26, the Levites offered seven bullocks and seven rams
after the ark had been safely brought to the place intended for
it, that is, after the procession was over, as it is expressly stated
that ' God had helped the Levites who bore the ark.' Hence
the two accounts do not exclude each other, but are supplemen
tary the one to the other. We need not be amazed at the great
number of animals slain, for, according to 2 Sam. vi. 19, a feast
was given from these sacrifices to the whole ofthe people, who had
assembled in great crowds. Nor can any objection to 2 Sam.
vi. 13 be founded upon the fact that the procession would have
been interrupted too much by the offering of sacrifices every six
paces, for it is not said that the bearers always stood still while
the sacrifices were offered. And it is most probable that priests
were stationed at regular intervals throughout the entire distance
who offered sacrifices when the ark passed by, without interfer
ing with the advance of the procession itself.")
V. 27. 71^73 the upper garment worn by the higher classes
over the Cuttoneth (2 Sam. xiii. 18) — D^"1"11t£?73n NttTOH 1&7~i
has been supposed to mean the prince (and supplying a second
y\rj) namely the prince of the Massa and the singers, so that vav
would have to be supplied before the last word, or y>Q} supplied
a second time with the meaning : namely the prince of the singers.
But it is evident that such additions to the text are inadmissible.
We conjecture rather that there is an error in the text, although
the translators of the earliest versions had the text before them
in its present form, for the Septuagint reads, 6 dp-ywv twv oJSwv
twv aBovTwv, the Vulgate, princeps prophetiae inter cantores, and
the Syriac alone contains no trace of these words. In 2 Sam. vi.
instead of the clause from " and David " to " the Massa (with) the
singers " we find the words and David danced with all his might
before Jehovah, and a copyist remembering the reference already
made in the verse to David's dress might easily write ~>3"i3J3 for
13^373, and from the illegibility of the original set down ^7^733
V13 f°r ti> ^33 as a conjectural reading. The fact that the
bearers of the ark, the singers and Chenaniah are mentioned

chapter xv. 27—29. 243
along with David may easily be explained from the previous
verses. But hammassa has most probably crept into the text
from v. 22, and " the singers" through an unintentional repeti
tion. At any rate the text is not of such a nature that the
juxtaposition of hammassa and " the singers" can warrant us in
inferring that the obscure word hammassa was used to denote
" the singers." The concluding words " and David wore a linen
shoulder-garment" (the dress of the priests, 1 Sam. xxii. 18)
occur in almost exactly the same form in 2 Sam. vi. Earlier
expositors have assumed, as the simplest explanation of the verse
before us, that David wore a linen shoulder-garment (a cape or
shawl) over the dress of byssus. Movers is of opinion that the
historian had two accounts before him, the one of which repre
sented David as accompanying the procession clothed in a dress
of byssus, while the other merely mentioned the shoulder-garment
of linen, and that he adopted both accounts. We cannot subscribe
to such opinions, since the Hebrew of the words " clothed with a
robe of byssus" so closely resembles that of the expression
"danced with all his might" (2 Sam. vi.), as to indicate not dif
ferent accounts, but the same original text. V. 28. Given with
greater brevity in 2 Sam. vi. 15. The fuller details in the verse
before us refer back to vv. 19 — 21. With cymbals sounding loudly ;
the words are separated by the accents, but according to v. 19
and chap. xvi. 5, they are evidently connected together. V. 29.
Instead of dancing and playing, the reading in Samuel is leaping
and dancing. It is worthy of notice that the historian in men
tioning Michal, evidently refers to the account contained in 2
Sam. vi. 20 — 23, though he omits the incident there narrated
(see chap. xvi. 43). — Chap. xvi. 1 (cf. xv. 1). The points in
which this verse and the following differ from 2 Sam. vi. 17 —
18 are very unimportant — lEt^N does not occur anywhere else
except in 2 Sam. vi. It is not easy to determine with certainty
the meaning of the word (cf. Thenius) ; the Vulgate renders the
passage et partem assae carnis bubalae, and the Rabbins also
understand the word as meaning a portion of meat.
' After the word prty^N there follows a further description of
the festivities and of the order of worship to be performed at the
temple in Jerusalem. This description extends from v. 4 to 43.
It is only found in the Book of Chronicles, and looks like a long
Q 2

244 CHAPTER XVI. 4 — 36.
parenthesis when compared with the text of the Book of Samuel,
for it separates the word Ashisha (rendered flagon in the EngHsh
version, a cake by Gesenius— Tr.) from the clause which imme
diately follows it in 2 Sam. vi. 19 : "so all the people departed
every one to his house, and David returned to bless his household,"
and we find this clause with but little variation in verse 43 at
the close of the narrative.
Chap. xvi. 4 — 36. Vv. 4 — 6. When the ark of the covenant
had been placed in its tent, the Levites entered upon their duties
before the ark, according to David's instructions. — V. 4. ^3fpiV ;
compare the superscription to the two psalms xxxviii. and lxx.,
where the same word occurs. V. 5. Jeiel is called Jaaziel in chap.
xv. 18, and Aziel in chap. xv. 20. The form in which it is written
here may probably be explained, by supposing that the eye ofthe
copyist wandered to the name Jehiel, which occurs immediately
afterwards. In chap. xv. 19 — 21 we have a list ofthe men who
accompanied the ark to Jerusalem, but in the verses before us we
have merely the names of those who were appointed to serve
before the ark. There is nothing surprising, therefore, in the
fact that only a portion of those previously named are mentioned
here. — V. 6. Benaiah was one of the priests spoken of in chap.
xv. 24, but Jahaziel is not noticed there. — Vv. 7 — 36. By David's
directions Asaph and his brethren joined in singing a psalm of
praise, which is given here. — V. 7. On that day David committed
first to A saph and his brethren to thank Jehovah. The words
~P3 in3 are separated from each other by several interven
ing words, but they must be taken together and explained in the
usual way, viz., to commit to any one, since the express intention
of v. 4 is to lay stress upon the fact, that Asaph entered for the
first time upon the duties assigned him on the very day, on which
the ark was brought to Jerusalem. — First; because the order of
worship appointed by David was then observed for the first time.
—The psalm contained in vv. 8 — 36 consists of Ps. cv. 1 — 15,
xevi., cvii. 1, and cvi. 47, 48. On the relation of the psalm
before us to the corresponding passages in the Book of Psalms,
we shall be better able to speak after noticing the points in which
they differ. — Verses 8 — 11 are found in Ps. cv. 1 — 4 in precisely
the same form as here.— V. 12. ipprj for yiQ Ps. cv. 5  V. 13.
The seed of Israel ; Ps. cv. 6, the seed of Abraham. The read-

CHAPTER XVI. 4 — 36. 245
ing in the Chronicles is the better of the two on account of the
parallelism. — V. 15. Be ye mindful; Ps. cv. 8, he hath remem
bered, the latter is preferable because of the perfect which fol
lows " he hath commanded." — ppjJJ'1^ 5 the softer form occurs in
Ps. cv. 9 prwS> whicH we also meet with in Jerem. xxxiii. 26
and Amos vii. 9. — V. 18. »-^ ; Ps. cv. 11, v-^_nN- — V. 19.
when ye were ; Ps. cv. 12, when they were. The third person
suffix may easily have been altered into the second on account of
the occurrence of the second in v. 18. — V. 20. And from one
kingdom; the vav is omitted in Ps. cv. — V. 21. For <$ym we
find 0*ifc$ in Ps. cv. — V. 22. Do my prophets no harm ; in Ps.
cv. we have lamed instead of beth. — V. 23. The two clauses of
this verse are found in Ps. xevi. 1, 2, with two others which are
not given here. From day to day ; the psalm has lamed instead
of el. — V. 24. Y"n33~nN 5 without pij^ in Ps. xevi. 3. — V. 25.
He also is to be feared; the vav is omitted in the psalm. — V. 27.
Strength and gladness are in his place ; Ps. xevi. 6, " strength and
beauty are in his sanctuary." The word pnin (gladness) which
is very common in Aramaean, only occurs twice in the Old Tes
tament, here and Nehem. viii. 10  V. 29. " come before him ;"
Ps. xevi. 8, " come into his courts." The three clauses in this
verse are very remarkable, as we find but two any where else.
In Ps. xevi. 9, the two clauses 29 (c) and 30 (a) form one verse.
The symmetry of the verses has been destroyed by the omission
ofthe first clause of Ps. xevi. 10, after verse 31 (a). In conse
quence of this omission there were only five clauses left, and
these have been arranged in two verses. The missing clause is
afterwards given in v. 31 (b). — V. 30. In Ps. xevi. 10, the words
"that it be not moved" are followed by the clause "he shall judge
the people righteously ;" a clause taken from Ps. ix. 9 and xcviii.
9. — V. 31 (b) we find in Ps. xevi. 10 (a). The introduction of
this clause occasions another change in the division ofthe verses,
and a separation of the coordinate members. — V. 32. pjTli^n >
Ps. xevi. 12, lyftj the old form of the word which gained cur-
— x
rency again in a later age. — V. 33. The trees of the wood, Ps.
xevi. all the trees of the wood. Before the Lord ; the mem is
omitted in the psalm. The second clause corresponds to the
first of Ps. xevi. 13 ; the conclusion of the psalm (xevi. 13 b)

246 CHAPTER XVI. 4— 36.
is omitted here. — V. 34 occurs in Ps. cvi. 1 and cvii. 1. — V. 35 — 36
we find with very few variations in Ps. cvi. 47, 48, where v.
36 forms the doxology at the close of the fourth book of the
Psalms ; but it is worthy of notice that instead of " let all the
people say Amen ; praise ye Jehovah," which we find in Ps. cvi.
48, the words as they stand here are, " and all the people said
Amen, and praised Jehovah." In this case they form part ofthe
narrative and describe the manner in which the liturgical cere
mony terminated : then (at the conclusion of the singing) all the
people said Amen and praised Jehovah. The infinitive *yyn is
to be regarded as a continuation of the previous imperative with
vav conseq.
We have thus collected together the points in which our text
differs from the Psalms, for the purpose of obtaining the means
of replying to the question, what is the connection between the
psalm before us and the corresponding passages in the Book of
Psalms, and between the text of the former and that of the
latter ?
The first thing which attracts our attention is the manner
in which the different sections of the psalm given here are found
scattered about in the Book of Psalms. — Vv. 8 — 22 form the
commencement of Ps. cv. ; and this psalm is so constructed that
verses 10 — 15, relating to the history of Abraham, naturally
require, as a continuation, the history of Jacob and ofthe Israelites
in Egypt to the time of Moses, which is given in v. 16 sqq. The
construction of the psalm is as foUows : Israel is called upon to
praise God and remember the wonderful works of God (vv. 1 —
7), who has always been mindful ofthe covenant which he made
with Abraham (vv. 8, 9). The historical proof, that he has been
mindful of this covenant, is given in v. 10 and the following verses
in a continuous and harmonious description of the incidents con
nected with the early history ofthe nation. Thus v. 16 is closely
connected with v. 15, and it is at once apparent that v. 15 is not
the conclusion of the psalm. Hence the psalm, as we have it
here, merely gives us in vv. 16 — 22 the commencement of the
historical proof, and then suddenly passes to the words in praise
of Jehovah, which we find in Ps. xevi. This psalm is quoted
entire in vv. 23 — 33, with the exception of the variations noticed
above. The powerful and spirited commencement of Ps. xevi.

CHAPTER XVI. 4—36. 247
1, 2, is softened down by the omission of two clauses, as it no
longer forms the commencement here ; and the last clause of tha
13th verse, which forms so fitting a conclusion to Ps. xevi., is
also omitted here, as the psalm does not end at v. 33. Finally,
there are appended a few more verses, containing a fresh exhor
tation to thank God and seek his aid. Of these, vv. 35, 36
occur at the end of a psalm (cvi.), and this psalm commences
with v. 34. The historical notice, which is placed in the Chro
nicles at the conclusion of the psalm, we find in Ps. cvi. 48 ; but,
as we have already observed, instead of " and the people said,"
the reading there is " let the people say." — Hitzig (Psalmen 2, p.
159 sqq.) endeavours to prove that the psalm before us is to be
regarded as the original not only of Ps. cv., but also of Ps. xevi.,
and that Ps. cxvi. 1, 47, 48, were taken from this psalm. But
although the relation of v. 36 to Ps. cvi. 48 appears to favour
this view, we cannot regard it as the correct one. For it appears
to us indisputable that the commencement ofthe historical proof
of the proposition, that God was mindful of his covenant, which
we have in vv. 16 — 22, was originally intended to be carried out
in the manner, in which we actually find it continued in Ps. cv.
16 — 45. And if verses 8 — 22 are evidently merely a portion of
a longer psalm, detached from the rest, we are forced to the con
clusion that the whole psalm is a collection of such portions of
existing psalms, which were here combined together for a parti
cular purpose. Hence, at the very outset, the supposition that
we have here a psalm, composed of extracts from psalms which
were well known to the Israelites, appears to us more pro
bable than the opinion, that " the author of the Chronicles,
with great care, and having recourse to foreign aid, produced a
psalm, adapted for an age that was long gone by " (Hitzig p.
160). And with regard to the relation between v. 36 and Ps.
cvi. 48, we must bear in mind that the fourth book of psalms
ends with Ps. cvi., and that v. 48, which no doubt originally
formed part of the psalm itself, is also the doxology with which
the fourth book concludes ; and if in Ps. lxxii. the author of the
doxology utters the Amen himself, whereas in Ps. cvi. 48 the
people are exhorted to say Amen, this may arise from the fact
that the latter psalm originally concluded with the injunction to
say Amen. But, in our account ofthe festival, it was necessary

248 chapter xvi. 37—43.
to relate that the people obeyed this injuuction on the occasion
referred to, and therefore the words "let them praise" were
altered into " and they praised."
If now we examine into the relation, in which the text of the
Chronicles stands to that of the corresponding passages in the
psalms, we must state at the outset that the points, in which the
one text differs from the other, are nowhere of any great impor
tance, and that they are not such as to justify us in affirming, that
we have the original in one case and a mere imitation in the
other. We do not dispute that in the passages cited by Hitzig
(p. 159) the text of the Chronicles contains almost always the
earlier and original reading. But there are other passages, in
which the reading of the Psalms is undoubtedly to be preferred ;
e.g., in Ps. cv. 8 yy\ is the correct reading, for God was to be
praised for having remembered the promises, which were given
when the covenant was concluded, and the word, which he esta
blished for future generations, i.e., his own promise. Moreover,
pjYin (1 Chr. xvi. 27) is a more rare, but certainly not an older
word than FnNQn in the psalm. Again, as the text of the
Psalms was in particular use for liturgical purposes, it was more
exposed to alterations on account of changes in the language than
the text of a historical book, and for that reason the occurrence
of more antiquated phrases and expressions in the Chronicles
would not of itself constitute a proof, that the Chronicles con
tained the original reading and the Psalms were an imitation.
Vv. 37 — 43. The narrative now goes back to v. 4 sqq., and
continues the list of the Levites appointed to serve before the
ark, of which we had only the commencement there. — V. 37.
Asaph and his brethren; we have here the prep, lamed before the
accusative of the object. According to the day's duties each on
its own day ; i.e., to perform every day the service that was pre
scribed for it, cf. 2 Chr. viii. 14, xxxi. 16; Ex. v. 13, 19, xvi.
4. — V. 38. And their brethren ; the plural suffix shows that some
name has been omitted after Obed-edom. From the concluding
part of the verse it is evident that Chosah should be inserted :
"and Obed-edom and Chosah (chap. xxvi. 10) and their bre
thren are sixty-eight; and (David appointed) Obed-edom, Ben-
Jeduthun and Chosah as doorkeepers ; a larger number of door
keepers are named in the more complete list given in chap. xxvi.

chapter xvi. 37—43. 249
— Vv. 39, 40. Whilst the ark was kept in the tent that David
had prepared for it in Jerusalem, and singers and doorkeepers
were appointed to serve there, Zadok the high priest and the
priests under him continued to discharge the duties of their office
before the holy tabernacle, the ancient dwelling place of Jehovah
which stood upon the high place at Gibeon, that they might
offer upon the altar of burnt-offering the sacrifices commanded.
And Zadok ; the accusative is governed by the verb " he left,"
which must be supplied from v. 37. Continually morning and
evening ; according to the requirements of the law, Ex. xxix. 38.
Num. xxviii. 3, 6. And (to offer the other burnt-offerings)
according to all that is loritten in the law of Moses. Besides the
continual offering, the daily sacrifice, the law required other
burnt-offerings on the Sabbath, the feast days, &c, (see the law
for the offerings at the feasts in Num. xxviii. seq.). Thus in
the time of David the worship was performed at two places,
where the sacred things, that had been handed down from the
age of Moses, were preserved. The ark of the covenant was
deposited in Jerusalem, and there Asaph and his brethren served
before it as singers, Obed-edom and Chozah acted as door
keepers, and the priests named in v. 6 were simply employed in
blowing the trumpets. The holy tabernacle and the altar of
burnt-offering stood in Gibeon, and there Heman and Jeduthun
served as singers, the sons of Jeduthun as door-keepers, and
Zadok and his brethren as priests, to offer the sacrifices there
according to the law. This serves to explain the reason that
Solomon offered the thousand burnt-offerings in Gibeon (1 Kings
iii. 4). David, however, did not visit the sanctuary in Gibeon,
as we learn from 1 Chr. xxi. 28, xxii. 1, but offered burnt-offer
ings upon the altar, which he had built in Jerusalem (xxi. 26,
30). The circumstances that led to the continuance of the wor
ship at Gibeon, which consisted chiefly of the offering of sacrifices
upon the altar of burnt-offering, we have no means of determin
ing. Solomon appears to have been the first, who fully recog
nised the rights of Zadok and of the altar under his care, for he
made Zadok high-priest (1 Kings ii. 27, 35) ; he also succeeded
in bringing the altar of burnt-offering and the other holy things
to Jerusalem (1 Kings viii. 4), and it was only because the old
altar was too small, that the new one in the forecourt of the

250 chapter xvi. 37—43.
temple was put in its place 2 Chr. iv. 1. — V. 41. And with
them (viz., with Zadok and his sons) were Heman and Jeduthun,
and the rest of the chosen ones, who were appointed by name,
(chap. xii. 31) to give thanks to Jehovah that His mercy is ever
lasting ; Heman and Jeduthun, and the singers under them,
whose names are not given here though they are mentioned
elsewhere and probably were given in the original record in
this connection also, performed at the high place in Gibeon the
same duties, as were entrusted to Asaph at the ark in Jerusa
lem (see vv. 5, 37). The names of those who were associated
with Asaph are given in v. 5. Our historian probably attached
greater importance to them, than to those who were stationed in
Gibeon. — V. 42. If the text is correct here, the verse must be
explained according to v. 5 somewhat as follows : and with them
(viz. with the singers whose names are not given here) were
Heman and Jeduthun (appointed) as those toho sounded the
trumpets and cymbals, and the instruments of the song of God.
There is nothing to surprise us in the fact that Heman and Jedu
thun are named twice (here and in v. 41), for Asaph is also men
tioned twice in v. 5 in precisely the same way ; but v. 5 leads us
to conjecture that the reading ofthe original text was a follows:
-iwp orrajr) oypsto &nhppy\ n/nj&rei pnrn ji^ni
D^n'vNPT *Y,tt5 "Opl D^l^npn (and_ Heman and Jeduthun, with
viols and nablia, and with them the rest of the chosen ones with
the instruments of the song of God) for in v. 5 those who sounded
the viols and nablia, which are probably the instruments here
described as the instruments of the song of God, are contrasted
with Asaph, who sounded the cymbals. This contrast is not
expressed in any way in our present text, and there is sufficient
to excite doubts as to its correctness in the fact, that its opening
words are merely a repetition of the commencement of the pre
vious verse, that the lamed stands before the participle Q^W)3t2JID
(see on the other hand vv. 15, 16, 28, and chap. xvi. 6), and
that the preposition beth is omitted before the trumpets, cymbals
and instruments, whereas it is not omitted in any other instance
(e.g. xv. 16, 19, 24, 28, xvi. 5). The rendering of this passage
in the Septuagint is Kal per' avrwv adXirtyye'; Kal KvpfiaXa tov
dva<pwveiv (yifttyTlh) *a' opyava tow q}Bwv tov deov, but it is not

CHAPTER XVII. 1. 251
easy to decide whether the translators had a different text before
them, or whether they gave a free translation of the text, as
we have it now, for the purpose of putting some kind of meaning
into it. The Vulgate appears to contain a rendering of our
text, but the translators have not succeeded in keeping closely
to the original. — For the door ; i.e. the sons of Jeduthun were
door-keepers. Obed-edom, who was a doorkeeper to the ark
of the covenant, was also a son of Jeduthun according to v.
38. We must therefore conclude that members of the same
family were appointed as doorkeepers both at the ark and at
the holy tabernacle in Gibeon. — V. 43 cf. 2 Sam. vi. 19 seq.
To bless his house on this solemn feast day, as he had already
pronounced a blessing on his people in the name of Jehovah.
According to 2 Sam. vi. the account of Michal, the daughter of
Saul, who received David with contemptuous words, when he
returned to his house, ought to follow here ; but although the his
torian evidently hints at the circumstance, he does not relate it.
His work was not of such a nature as to leave him room to intro
duce purely personal matters and trifling incidents of this kind,
for he was anxious to return as quickly as possible to his account
of the sacred institutions.

7. Chap. xvii. — Chap. xxii.
david wishes to build a temple in jerusalem. he makes
the necessary preparations, but the erection of the
building itself is left for solomon. chaps. xviii. 
xxi. form a parenthesis containing accounts of david's
wars, his officers, &c.
1. Chap. xvii. cf. 2 Sam. vii. — V. 1. In his house ; we have
an account of the erection of this house in chap. xiv. 1 (cf. xv. 1).
In 2 Sam. vii. 1 the words " his house" are followed by the clause,
"and when Jehovah had given him rest from all his enemies
round about" and the events here narrated are assigned to
the latter part of David's reign. The fact, that the many
wars, in which David was engaged, are not mentioned earlier
either in the book of Samuel, or that of Chronicles, may be ac-

252 CHAPTER XVII. 1—6.
counted for on the ground, that a strictly chronological arrange
ment was not intended. The accounts of the preparation of the
tent for the ark of the covenant in Jerusalem and of the intended
erection of the temple, which are closely connected so far as their
contents are concerned, follow immediately the one upon the
other. — In a house of cedars ; the magnificent house, which had
been built with the help of Hiram (chap. xiv. 1). Under cur
tains ; an explanatory alteration ofthe expression in Samuel, in
the midst of curtains (Thenius). V. 2. Do all this in thine
heart ; in 2 Sam. we have go, do, fyc. ; and we also find there,
as in many other instances, Elohim in the place of Jehovah.
Thus Nathan at first expresses approval of the king's intention,
bona intentione, et sincero animo, non tamen ex divina revelatione.
(J. D. Michaelis). It was not till afterwards that he learned that
the period had not yet arrived for the fulfilment of this design. —
V. 4. The question in 2 Sam. vii. " shalt thou build," 8cc, implies
that he will not. In the passage before us it is altered into the
negative clause " thou shalt not build me a house," SfC, (cf. chap.
xxii. 8). A house to dwell in ; for pQ^*? we find in Sam. vfi. pp3
iftytih 5 this is no doubt the original reading, as "formy dwelling"
forms a direct contrast to the words which follow, " / have not
dwelt ;" and the baith in the following verse is also without the
article. — V. 5. And I was from one tent to another, and from
one dwelling ; to render these words intelligible it is necessary to
supply : to another (dwelling). The correct reading has been pre
served in Samuel, " and I was walking in a tent and in a dwelling;"
the text of the passage before us has originated in the alteration
of "f?nn» (walking) into L,pjN13 (from a tent). The evident
intention, as we may see from v. 6, was to lay stress upon the
fact that God was a mithhallek (a travelling God) and went from
one place to another with his tent and his entire dwelling (the
dwelling included not merely the tent but the forecourts with
the altar of burnt-offerings, &c.)— V. 6. In addition to minor
points, there is this difference between 2 Sam. and our text, that
instead of " the judges of Israel" we find in the former the
tribes of Israel ; " spake I a word with any of the tribes of Israel,
whom I commanded to feed my people, to the effect," fyc. " As
the whole section possesses a poetical character, and the expres-

CHAPTER XVII. 6 — 10. 253
sion ' to feed,' which follows, does not harmonise with ' the
tribes,' it is possible that this word may be used in a figurative
sense, viz., shepherd-staffs = shepherds = rulers, and thus de
note the judges." (Thenius). There can be no doubt that if
we are anxious to retain the reading as it stands in Samuel,
we must explain the word in some such way as this ; for we
read nothing about tribes who were commissioned to feed the
congregation of Israel before the time of David, and the leaders,
who had been called by God in earlier times, form a much more
appropriate antithesis to David, than the tribes. But for that
very reason, as it is easy to account for the alteration of i^g1^
into ^133^ by a copyist's oversight, seeing that all Israel had
been mentioned just before, the reading of the Chronicles must
be retained ; and in my opinion this reading is confirmed by v.
10 and 2 Sam. vii. 11. House of cedars ; a brief and expres
sive term for a house constructed of costly materials. — Vv. 7 — 14.
Words of the prophet Nathan. V. 7. The reference in this verse
is to the circumstances narrated in 1 Sam. xvi. 11. — V. 8. And
I cut off ; in 2 Sam. vii. the word in the original is written with
the sign of motion (a), expressive of determination : I resolved
to cut off. It follows from the context that this resolution was
carried into effect. — I have made thee a name; 2 Sam. vii., "a
great name." Like the name of the great men that are on the
earth ; for David had become the king of a great kingdom, and
his fame could, therefore, be placed on a level with that of the
powerful heathen kings, to whom the term the great was espe
cially applied. — V. 9. And I will give my people Israel a settled
place, and will plant them, and they shall dwell in their place ;
the perfects with vav conjunctive are not a continuation of the
imperfects with vav conjunctive in v. 8 ; but after the enume
ration of the blessings already bestowed upon David (v. 8), the
promise is given, that Israel shall henceforth enjoy the blessings
of David's age as a permanent inheritance, and shall dwell in
safety in its own land. And evil men shall not continue to waste
them (2 Sam. vii. afflict them) as in the early times, viz., when the
Egyptians oppressed the people. — V. 10. And up to the days (the
singular in 2 Sam. vii. points out the time with greater preci
sion : from the present moment back to the day) when I appointed
judges. These words denote the whole of the interval between

254 CHAPTER XVII. 10 — 13.
Joshua and Saul, in which the Israelites were frequently
oppressed by heathen nations. And I will subdue all thy
enemies ; a continuation of the promise, which was commenced
in v. 9. As God had already destroyed all the enemies of
David, according to v. 8, and the promise refers to the ene
mies of Israel and not to those of David, the only way in
which we can explain the use of the second person sing, suffix
is by assuming, that the enemies of the people are at the same
time regarded as the enemies of David himself. But the diffi
culty can be more easily removed by changing the suffix into
the third person. The reading in 2 Sam. vii. 11 is, "I have
given thee rest from all thine enemies ;" and on comparing vv.
1 and 9 we shall see very clearly that the suffix ought to be
changed from the second person to the third in the passage
before us. — And I have announced (the imperfect with Vav as in
v. 8) to thee : " and a house will Jehovah build thee ;" our his
torical books do not inform us where and on what occasion this
announcement was made by God to David (the first person
refers to God, not to Nathan, as the reading in 2 Sam. vii.,
" Jehovah telleth thee," clearly proves). The intention of the
words is to give prominence to the fact that, according to the
will and counsel of God, David was to receive a house, but not
to build the temple (cf. v. 12) ; hence the reading in this verse,
" and I have announced," is to be regarded as the correct one.
The house is not the palace, which David had built for himself,
v. 25. The text of 2 Sam. vii., " and Jehovah will announce to
thee, that Jehovah will build thee a house," would have to be
explained in this way : and Jehovah now announces to thee,
through me, Nathan, that he will provide for thee a permanent
and blessed house, that is, will bestow upon thy house blessing
and prosperity, and give thee a perpetual posterity. — V. 11. To
go (and lie) with thy fathers (Deut. xxxi. 16). — V. 12. He shall
build me a house ; in Samuel the reading is, " he shall build a
house for my name," and instead of " his throne," we find in
Samuel " the throne of his kingdom." — V. 13. " He shall be my
son ;" these words are followed in Samuel by a clause, which the
historian has intentionally omitted here, viz., "if he commit
iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men and with the
stripes of the children of men," i.e., in precisely the same manner

CHAPTER XVII. 13—15. 255
as I punish other men — I will not take away my mercy (Sam.
my mercy shall not depart) ; Thenius regards the text of the
Chronicles as the original reading, because, according to the
Septuagint, the Vulgate, the Syriac, the Arabic, and some MSS.,
*VDN (I will take away) is the correct reading of the passage in
Samuel also, and this reading is confirmed by the word ipflTiDn
which follows. But this word may have caused the alteration
from Kal into Hiphil. — From him that was before thee, i.e.,
Saul ; the name of Saul is given in Samuel, but was no doubt
interpolated by a copyist, as an explanation of the words, which
were clear enough already, and from which the name was inten
tionally omitted by the prophet. In consequence of this inter
polation the words "I took away" ("put away," Eng. V.) have
been repeated, and ^1133^73 is used in the sense of ^33^, as we
have it in the Chronicles. The text of the Chronicles is in all
respects sufficient, and bears the stamp of originality when com
pared with that of Samuel. Thenius, however, endeavours to
prove that it is the result of conjecture.. — -V. 14. And I will
place him in my house and in my kingdom for ever (cf. 2 Chr. ix.
8). It is evident that " in my house" means in my people Israel,
in my congregation, since "in my kingdom" follows immediately
afterwards. But it is worthy of note that the word kingdom is
applied here to the kingdom of God, whereas in every other pas
sage, in which it occurs in this section, it denotes the kingdom
of David or of Solomon. We naturally expect the prophet to
revert to David before concluding, after having spoken in vv.
11 — 13 of the building of Solomon's temple. The promise that
his house should be blessed was intended as a compensation for
the disappointment of his wish to build the temple, and hence
this assurance is appropriately repeated at the conclusion of the
prophet's address. The text of 2 Sam. vii. gives the termination
of the address precisely in the form in which we should expect
to find it : " and thy house and thy kingdom will continue for ever
before thee, and thy throne (according to this our 1^03 should
be altered into ^[^©3) shall be established for ever." — V. 15.
This vision ; it is apparent from v. 3, that the vision of the pro
phet was a vision in a dream.
Vv. 16 — 27. Cf. 2 Sam. vii. 18 — 29. David's thanksgiving for

256 CHAPTER XVII. 16 — 27.
the promise made to him through Nathan. — V. 16. Then king
David went in ; viz., into the sanctuary which he had erected. —
Jehovah Elohim; 2 Sam. vii. Adonai Jehovah; a difference in
the text which did not affect the Masoretic punctuation. In both
cases the Masorites read Adonai Elohim. — V. 17. pimftS an
accusative governed by "\3*jp\, what thou sayest relates to a
distant period; the reference here is to v. 14. — -flp\3 iJHWl
j-|L,^^l^ DINn (Eng. version " thou hast regarded me accord
ing to the estate of a man of high degree," Tr.) ; if instead of
^n^MII we rea^ ^nWim *he meaning of these words will be :
and thou hast caused me as it were to see the succession of men
from this time upwards; in other words, the line of men, which
stretched onward from David in an unbroken series into the
remote future, appears as an ascending line rising upward to an
immeasureable distance. Such a line was now presented to the
view of David in the assurance that his throne should be firmly
established to eternity, an assurance which involved the promise
that the descendants of David should retain the government in
an unbroken succession. The attempts made to explain the Kal
i3p|iN"Vl have all been unsuccessful. If the reading of our text
is retained, we are forced to the assumption that ">flp| is used
here in the sense of ppin> hut no evidence can be adduced
in support of this assumption except the parallel passage in
Samuel, where we find ^"jj^pj n"Yin nNW And this would by
no means clear away the difficulties, for even granting that the
passage might mean, " thou regardest me after the manner of men"
i.e., thou hast looked upon me as one with whom, although he is
infinitely below thee, thou couldst converse after tbe manner of
men, and hast not refused to speak to me as one man to another,
the word pj^En would still need to be explained. Some
have taken this word in connection with the clause which follows,
and rendered it somewhat in this way : thou regardest me after
the manner of men, of whom God on high is the Lord (Luther and
De Wette). But this is altogether inadmissible, and hence in 2
Sam. vii., where -flpi is changed into ppflpi, the word pjVyOH
has been omitted as superfluous. Other explanations, such for
example as " et respexisti me juxta rationem hominis illius celsis-
simi" (Schmidius), are seen at once to be thoroughly arbitrary,
the agreement with the Hebrew text being retained in appear-

CHAPTER XVII. 18 — 21. 257
ance only. The same may be said of the early versions (the
Septuagint : Kal en-etSe? pe to? opaarvi dvdpwrrov, Kal tn/ra)<ra? pe,
Kvpte 6 0eo? ; Vulgate : et fecisti me spectabilem super omnes
homines, Domine Deus), which merely serve to prove that at a
very early period the text of this passage was unintelligible. We
are therefore compelled to have recourse to an alteration of the
text, and feel no hesitation in changing the Kal into Hiphil
(reading " thou hast caused me to see" for " thou hast regarded
me"), seeing that with this slight alteration the words would
harmonize with the context, and the passage admit of an inter
pretation in all respects appropriate. The MSS. also furnish
evidence that attempts have been made to render the passage
intelligible by altering the text : thus some read ".ripQ (instead
of "vipo) thou regardest me on high in the midst of men, thou
givest me a preference above other men. The reading in the
Chronicles is not an explanation of that in Samuel ; on the con
trary the original reading has been more closely retained in the
former than in the latter, in which in fact it has been almost
entirely obliterated by the alteration referred to and the omission
of i3piN"in an(l TlhltiftTl- — V* 18. In the expression "for the
honour of thy servant," the words " of thy servant" are omitted in
the Septuagint and in 2 Sam. vii., and should certainly be erased
from the text. The remainder of the passage, " and what shall
David still further add to thine honour," corresponds with but Httle
variation to 2 Sam vii. : " and what shall David say more unto
thee." The original text is undoubtedly found in the Book ot
Samuel, since the meaning of David evidently is, that God
knows him, his servant, and therefore there is no necessity for
him to give further expression to his feelings and his gratitude.
— V. 19. For thy servants sake; 2 Sam. vii.. for thy word's sake.
The latter is clearly the original reading : for thy words sake and
according to thy heart thou hast done all these great things, i.e., I attri
bute them to thy mercy alone. The concluding words ofthe verse
must also be altered according to 2 Sam. vii., for the reading
Pl^^-j-^-pi^ (all the great things) has evidently arisen from
the words pfoy% \2 ^3J (therefore thou art great), which we find
x : — x I" —
in 2 Sam. vii. 22, but which are omitted from the Chronicles. —
V. 21. Whom God went to redeem ; Thenius (following the Sep-
VOL. II. R

258 chapter xvii. 21—27:
tuagint, whr'^-^a-ev avrov) would substitute the Hiphil for the Kal
here, and read : whom God would have led, to redeem them to him
self as a people (cf. Deut. vii. 8, xiii. 5; from which passages, how
ever, we should expect to find ^i^pj, see the Septuagint at Josh..
xxiv. 3, Ps. cvi. 9) ; but if we take -^y^ as an Accusative : to
whom God came, to redeem a people to himself, there will be no
ground at all for changing the Kal into Hiphil. The next clause
is also unintelligible in the form in which it lies before us. Ac
cording to 2 Sam. vii., where however the text is even more
faulty than it is in this passage, " and to do" should be inserted
after the words " make thee a name," thus : " that thou mightest
make thee a name, and do great and terrible things, to drive out ihe
heathen nations before thy people, whom thou hast redeemed out of
Egypt" Whether the text in Samuel should be altered accord
ingly is another question. — V. 24. Let it even be established : this
is wanting in Samuel. It is repeated from v. 23 to show more
clearly the connection with the words which follow, " that thy name
may be exalted." Saying ; i.e., in order that men may every where
acknowledge it and say. The points of difference between this pas
sage and that of Samuel are not of much importance, pj^pj^ must,
be erased from the latter, for men are to say " the house of David
thy servant is established before thee" not it will be established. —
V. 25. For " 0 my God" we find in Samuel the fuller expression
" 0 Lord of hosts, God of Israel." After "he hath found" fa^-pifrfc
if not introduced into the text as in 2 Sam. vii., must be under
stood : therefore thy servant hath taken heart (gained courage) to
pray before thee, i.e., to offer this prayer to God. The house,
which God would build for David, is to be understood (according
to v. 10) as referring to the family, the dynasty of David. —
V. 26. After " thou art God" we have in Samuel "and thy
words are truth." — V. 97. ^3^ n^Nlil ¦ 2 Sam. v"- hiV\7l
"•pity the original reading, since it is not a reference to former
blessings, but a prayer for the fulfilment of the promise, that is
for the bestowal of fresh blessings, which most properly occurs at
the end of the prayer. The conclusion, "for thou blessest" fyc,
is given in a much fuller form in 2 Sam. vii. : " for thou, O Lord
God, hast spoken it, and with thy blessing let the house of thy
servant be blessed for ever."

chapter xviii. 1. 259
2. Chap, xviii.— Chap. xxi.
account of david's wars, &c.
Chap, xviii. V. 1 ; cf. 2 Sam. viii. 1, where the latter part of
the verse reads thus : and David took the arm-bridle out of ihe
hand of the Philistines, i.e., he deprived them of the power which
they had hitherto exercised over Israel, as it is also stated in
Ecclus. xlvii. 7 : "jEo>? pgpepov avverpv^-ev aiiTwv Ke'pas. In
the passage before us we read of a victory over the Philistines,
by which Gath and her daughters, that is, no doubt, the Philistine
city of Gath and the whole of the district belonging to it, came
into David's possession. There is something singular in this
account, for, in the time of Solomon, Gath was an independent
state, governed by a king of its own. * For this reason some have
thought, that the reference here is not to Gath of the PhiHstines,
but to Gath Rimmon in the tribe of Dan, which the Philistines
held till the time of David (the latter fact they consider them
selves justified in deducing from the passage before us). But
the words of the historian apparently refer to a more important
event, than the recovery of a small Israelitish town. We are
unable to tell on what ground the historian interpreted the pas
sage in Samuel, as denoting the capture of Gath and the province
connected with it.
[Keil (p. 41) sees no difficulty here. He says : " If Metheg-
Ammah means (as Winer supposes) the bridle of the capital (fre-
num metropoleos), the paraphrase of the Chronicles is quite cor
rect, for then the expression ' he took Metheg-Ammah out of the
hand of the Philistines ' would mean, he took away from the capi
tal its supremacy over the PhiHstines. But if it means arm-
bridle (as Gesenius explains it in his history of the Hebrew
language, though he rejects this explanation in the Thesaurus
and silently follows Winer) the meaning of the passage is,
l. David brought the Philistines , under his sway.' Ih either
case it is evident that the author of the Chronicles has correctly
interpreted the words of the Book of Samuel, though he has.
merely paraphrased them."! R 2

260 CHAPTER XVIII. 2, 3.
Ver. 2. Cf. 2 Sam. viii. 2, where a somewhat different account
is given of the treatment, to which the Moabite prisoners were
subjected (" he measured them with a line casting them down to
the ground, even with two lines measured he to put to death,)
and with one full line to keep alive, and so the Moabites became
David's servants.") It was probably in this war with Moab
that Benaiah slew the two sons of tbe Moabite king (cf. chap.
xi. 22.)
Vv. 3—8. cf. 2 Sam. viii. 3 seq. V. 3. To establish ; in 2 Sam.
we find " to recover," but the reading of the Chronicles must be
substituted in Samuel also. Thenius follows the earlier exposi
tors, and assumes that David must be understood as the subject of
the clause "when he went to strengthen his hand by the Euphrates."
The meaning of the verse would then be that, "when he was
seeking to accomplish the important task of securing at least one
point, in which his kingdom might touch the Euphrates, this
being the nearest river which flowed through extensive pro
vinces," he defeated Hadarezer the King of Aram who opposed
his expedition. But the position of the clause itself and the
introduction of the name of David as the subject of ver. 4
(David took from him, &c.) render it more probable that the
words in question refer to Hadarezer (J. H. Michaelis, Ewald),
so that they merely serve to fix the time when David gained the
victory over Hadarezer. The situation of Zobah is more parti
cularly described in the words " toioards Hamath " (cf. 2 Chr.
viii. 3), which are omitted from Samuel ; but they do not enable
us to determine its position with accuracy. Zobah is neither the
town of Nisibis in Mesopotamia, as the earlier expositors and
even J. H. Michaelis suppose (all that we learn from 2 Sam. x.
16 is that the influence of the king of Zobah extended even to
the countries to the east of the Euphrates), nor the town of
Haleb or Aleppo in Syria, to which the Jews of the middle
ages gave the name of Zoba. On the contrary Zobah was most
probably situated on the east (or a little to the north east,
Thenius) of Damascus (cf. Ewald who identifies Zobah with the
Zoba of Ptolemy.) Hamath was the well-known city of the
Orontes, which was afterwards called Epiphaneia, and is now one
of the most important cities in the Cis- Asiatic countries. Hadar
ezer ; the name always occurs in this form in the Chronicles and

CHAPTER XVIII. 3—8. 261
in 2 Sam. x. 16—19, but in 2 Sam. viii. 3 he is called Hadad-
ezer. The latter is evidently the original form, since Hadad, the
name of a Syrian deity, is frequently met with in Syrian proper
names. V. 4. And David took from him a thousand chariots ;
the word chariots does not occur in the parallel passage in
Samuel, but must be supplied from our text. Instead of 7000
horsemen, the number given in Samuel is 700 ; but " 7000
horsemen would be in better proportion to 20,000 foot soldiers
in the plains of Mesopotamia" (Thenius J ; cf. chap. xix. 18.
— Tlien David lamed all the chariots, i.e., he lamed the horses
and so made all the chariots useless (cf. Josh. xi. 6, 9) ; he
merely reserved 100 chariots, including of course the horses
belonging to them, either as a memorial of the victory (Thenius),
or to take them with him to Jerusalem in a triumphal procession,
aud afterwards destroy them (Ewald). V. 5. Darmesek (another
name for Damascus) only occurs here and in the following verse.
V. 6. After the decisive engagement, in which 22,000 Syrians were
slain, David appointed governors or officials in the kingdom of
Damascus. The word 0^3*1^3 is omitted from our text, but must
be supplied from 2 Sam. viii. ; see below at v. 13, where the
concluding words of the verse occur again. V. 7. The golden
armour ; not the golden shields (cf. Tlienius.) Upon the ser
vants ; this is the correct reading, and the ^^ in 2 Sam. viii.
must be altered into *yy. Brought them to Jerusalem ; after
these words the Septuagint contains the following clause in
Sam. vfii : and Shishak, the king of Egypt, took them, when he
attacked Jerusalem in the days of Rehoboam the son of Solomon.
According to Thenius this clause originally formed part of the
Hebrew text, see the Septuagint at 1 Kings xiv. 26. V. 8. From
Tibchath (2 Sam. viii. from Betach) ; both of these readings may
have sprung from Tebach, and this we regard as the original
name, since we meet with it as the name of an Aramaean district
•or town belonging to the descendants of Nahor, Gen. xxii. 24.
Whether Tebach may be set down as identical with the modern
town of Taibeh, which is placed on the most recent maps to the
north of Tadmor, under 35 deg. north lat., apparently on a
caravan road from Aleppo to the Euphrates, is very question
able, for there is but little resemblance between the two names
Taibeh and Tebach. From Chun (2 Sam. from Beroihai)

262 CHAPTER XVIII. 9, 10.
the names are only to be met with in these two passages, for
the conjecture that Berothai was the same place as the Berothah
mentioned in Ezek. xlvii. 16 (cf. Hitzig) is hardly admissible,
the towns of Hadadezer being situated farther to the east than
the town of Berothah referred to in Ezekiel, which from the
context either stood directly upon the Mediterranean Sea, or at
least very near to the coast. What connection there is between
the names Chun and Berothai we cannot determine. The sup
position, which has frequently been expressed, that Chun was a
later name for Berothai, has no further evidence to support it.
As the agreement between the text of the two books in other
cases would suggest the probability, that originally the same
name occurred in both, and since it is possible tbat in conse
quence of obliterations Chun may have grown out of Berothai, we
agree with Tlienius in thinking the latter name the original
reading. Ewald, in his Geschichte des Volks Israel, connects
Berothai with Barathena (Ptolem. geogr. v. 19), which was situ
ated in the same latitude as Damascus, but nearer to the Euph
rates. y#ft TTD.^ (^ Sam. viii. y'ftft pQin) > the reading in
Samuel is more in accordance with the earliest usage, but is
sometimes met with in the Chronicles (I. xx. 2). The con
cluding words " therewith Solomon made the brazen sea, and the
pillars and the vessels of brass," are omitted from the Hebrew
text of 2 Sam. viii. but not from the Septuagint, where we
find them in a somewhat more expanded form ; they are also
given in the Vulgate. It is therefore natural to suppose that
they originally formed part of the Hebrew text of the Books
of Samuel.
Vv. 9—11. cf. 2 Sam. viii. 9— 12.— V. 9 Tori; in 2 Sam. Toi.
It is evident from verse 3 that the land of Hadadezer was con
tiguous to the territory of king Tou of Hamath ; and although
we meet with Hamath-wbah in 2 Chr. viii. 3, the combination
merely furnishes a more precise description of the situation of-
Hamath, but fails to convey any information to us, since we have
no definite account of the extent of the kingdom of Zobah. Tou
made presents to David, because the victory which David had
gained over Hadadezer had delivered him from a powerful
enemy, who had already made attempts to subdue his neigh
bour, as v. 10 evidently shows. — V. 10. Hadoram ; the name

CHAPTER XVIII. 10, 11. 263
Joram has been written by mistake in 2 Sain. viii. ; the latter is a
purely Israelitish name, and therefore we should not expect to find
it as the name of an Aramaean. The name Hadoram occurs in
chap. i. 21 in the midst of Arabic names. We also find it in 2
Chr. x. 18 as a somewhat altered form of Adoram, 1 Kings xii.
18. DlStt^ *h ^NXlta not as the Septuagint renders it, tov
ipwrfjcrai avrbv rd et? elp-gvnv, and the Vulgate, ut postularet ab eo
pacem, but to greet him (cf. Genesis xliii. 27). — nV3nb)2 tlVN'
according to chap, xxviii. 3 and Is. xlii. 13, is one who wages
wars ; but in this passage it is more precisely defined by the
name Tou, which is governed by the construct state. Hadadezer
is here described as a man of the wars of Tou, that is, one who
had made war upon Tou (cf. Is. xii. 12, the men of thy war).
The closing words of the verse, and all kinds of vessels of gold
and silver and brass, are in the accusative, and governed by the
verb he sent ; in 2 Sam. viii. they form a distinct sentence, " in
the land of Hadoram were all kinds of vessels," Sfc. — V. 11. The
silver and gold which he had taken (2 Sam. which he had dedi
cated) ; according to the reading of our text David consecrated
to Jehovah all the silver and gold which he had taken from the
subjugated tribes ; hut this does not harmonise with the account
contained in the Septuagint at 2 Sam. viii. 7, from which we
learn that the golden armour of the warriors of Hadadezer was
not placed in the sanctuary of Jehovah. Hence the reading in
Samuel must be preferred, and the meaning of the passage evi
dently is that David dedicated the presents of Tou to the sanc
tuary, for which he had already determined to set apart a portion
of the booty taken from the conquered kings. The last words of
the verse, "from all nations, from Edom and from Moab, and
from the sons of Ammon, and from the Philistines and from
Amalek," are given more fully in 2 Sam. viii., as follows : from.
all nations whom he had conquered, from Aram (for which, accord
ing to the passage before us, and according to the Septuagint
and the Syriac versions of Samuel itself, Edom must be substi
tuted, since the plunder obtained from Aram is mentioned again
immediately after as that taken from Hadadezer, and Edom is
more appropriately placed next to Moab, which bordered on
Edom, than Aram would be) and from Moab and from the

264 CHAPTER XVIII. 12.
sons of Ammon, and from the Philistines, and from Amalek, and
from the spoil of Hadadezer the son of Rehob, king of Zoba.
Vv. 12, 13; cf. 2 Sam. viii. 13, 14.— V. 12. We must not shrink
from attempting to ascertain the connection between these two
accounts, which differ so widely the one from the other. As the
concluding words, " in the valley of salt eighteen thousand" (for
which, through a copyist's error, we find twelve thousand in Ps.
lx. 2), also occur in 2 Sam. viii. 13, we must necessarily assume
that, notwithstanding the different readings at the commencement
of the verse, the two passages refer to the same event. The
text of 2 Sam. viii. 13 is quite unintelligible in the form in which
we have it now. If we examine the superscription of Ps. lx.
(which is taken from the Book of Samuel, like the superscriptions
in the neighbouring Psalms, and is therefore of importance for
the interpretation, or rather we may say for the restoration, of
the text), and 1 Kings xi. 15, we cannot doubt that the suffix in
1311^3 (on his return) relates to Joab ben Zeruiah. We conjec
ture, then, that the two passages, viz., that in the Chronicles and
the parallel passage in Samuel, contain each a portion of the
original reading, which may therefore be restored by combining
the two so as to read, " and Joab the son of Zeruiah smote Edom,
when he returned from the conquest of Aram in the valley of salt,
18,000 men." We take no notice here of the words of 2 Sam.
viii. 13, "and David gat him a name," since they do not affect the
explanation of the text of the Chronicles, and proceed at once to
the words which follow, viz., "when he returned from ihe conquest
of Aram." By the omission of the name Joab ben Zeruiah
(which may have been left out by a careless copyist, who thought
it unnecessary here, as it occurs again at v. 16) and of the words
" he smote Edom " (an omission which may readily be explained,
as the eye might easily pass from this expression to the similar one
further on "from smiling Aram"), the text which has come down
to us in the book of Samuel may have grown out of that which we
have given above. The reading in the Chronicles can also be
traced to the restored texts as given above, since the words " on
his return from smiting Aram" might easily be overlooked on
account of their resemblance to the preceding words " he smote
Edom," and some reader who doubted the correctness of the text
may have been induced to substitute the name of Abishai ben

CHAPTER XVIII. 12. 265
Zeruiah, which he missed from the list of names in v. 15 sqq.,
for that of Joab ben Zeruiah which occurs immediately after.
The present readings in 2 Sam. viii. and in the Chronicles are
thus shown to point to the text, as restored by their aid, and
the contents of this restored text are in harmony with the account
contained in 1 Kings xi. 15 and Ps. lx. 2. It may indeed be
said, that we are not justified in seeking such a harmony, since it
is possible, either that different events are referred to in the pas
sages quoted, or that different accounts existed of the same event.
Thus for example Movers says (p. 170) : " according to 2 Sam.
viii. 13, David slew the Edomites in the valley of salt ; the super
scription of Ps. lx. refers this slaughter to Joab, the command
ing officer, whilst the author of the Chronicles, copying almost
verbatim from the Book of Samuel, substitutes Abishai the son of
Zeruiah, an alteration which he could only have been induced to
make by the account contained in some other historical work."
EarHer expositors on the other hand (e.g. Buxtorf Vind. p. 401
sqq. Pfeiffer dub. Vex. p. 461 seq. J. H. Michaelis va. loco)
reconcile the different statements somewhat in the following
manner. Abishai ben Zeruiah slew the Edomites (according to
the passage before us), and after them their allies (?) the Syrians
(according to 2 Sam. vifi). He slew 18,000 in the first engage
ment (?), and then a second attack was made by Joab ben
Zeruiah (according to 1 Kings xi. 15), in which 12,000 men
were slain (Ps. lx. 2) ; Keil p. 239 gives a similar explanation.
(The explanation given by Keil is not quite the same ; he says
" the account of the Chronicles is taken from a historical source,
for the author of the Chronicles introduces the special informa
tion that it was Abishai the son of Zeruiah who slew the Ara
maeans (? the Edomites). It cannot have been taken from the
superscription to the Psalm, for it differs in two respects : (1)
it gives 18,000 as the number of the slain (the same number is
given in Samuel) and only 12,000 are mentioned in the Psalm.
J. H. Michaelis in Ps. lx. 2 has shown that there is no actual
discrepancy between the two statements, and cites a striking case
in point from the seven years' war. (2) It attributes the victory
to Abishai, and the superscription to the Psalm ascribes it to
Joab. This difference was solved by Calvin, and after him by
J. D. Michaelis as follows : Joab may have commanded the

266 . CHAPTER XVIII. 13 — 16.
firmy, but a detachment, led by Abishai, may have attacked the
Edomites and slain them. In this case the victory would just as
properly be attributed to the commander in chief as to the subor
dinate officer." (Chronik p. 239, 240 Tr.). — It is at once apparent
that the solution offered by Buxtorf and the others is not admis-f
sible. The variations in individual notices, occurring in pas
sages that agree almost word for word, point to a common
original text, which has been mutilated by subsequent altera-i
tions ; and hence our task is to restore the text to its primitive
form. Ewald and Tlienius admit this, and though they have
attempted to solve the difficulty in a somewhat different way, in
the essential points we are agreed. — V. 13. Then the Edomites
became subject to David ; in 2 Sam. viii. it is said still more em
phatically, he appointed officers in all Edom, and all the Edomites
became subject to David. We can hardly suppose that the clause,
"he appointed officers in all Edom," has been intentionally omitted,
since it may easily have been dropped- from the text by mistake
on account of its resemblance to the preceding clause. On the
last clause of the verse cf. v. 6 ; the account of the wars with
Edom is here brought to a close.
V. 14—17 ; cf. 2 Sam. viii. 15— 18.— V. 14. The summary
contained in this verse forms a conclusion not only to the brief
account ofthe wars of David given in'this chapter, but to the
whole of the history of David's reign. Its position here in the
centre of that history can only be explained on the supposition
that in the original source from which this account of the wars
was drawn, it did stand at the end ofthe history of David along
with the list of officers which follows. The history of Saul is brought
to a close in 1 Sam. xiv. 47 — 52 with the same details, and in
very similar words. — V. 16. Abimelek; the correct reading is Ahi-
melek, which we find in 2 Sam. viii. and the other passages in which
the name occurs (e.g. 1 Chr. xxiv. 3, 6). It is singular that this Ahi-
melek should be called a son of Abiathar, for according to I Sam.
xxii. 20 Abiathar was a son of Ahimelek, and in other passages
Zadok, ofthe line of Eleazar, and Abiathar, ofthe line of Ithamar,
are mentioned together as the two high priests in the time of David
(e.g. 2 Sam. xv. 24, 35, xx. 25). Thenius and Ewald (Gesch,
des Volks Isr. ii. p. 596) are therefore of opinion that the names
must be here transposed so as to read Abiathar the son ofAhime-

CHAPTER XVIII. 16, 17. 267
lek. We should not hesitate to bring this passage into harmony
with the account in 1 Sam. xxii. 20 by means of such a transposi
tion were it not that a high priest Ahimelek is spoken of in 1 Chr.
xxiv. 3—31 along with Zadok, and in v. 6 he is called the son of
Abiathar. The high priests of the Hne of Ithamar, whom we
must keep in view when pronouncing upon the reading in ques
tion, were the following : Ahiah or Ahimelek, his son Abiathar,
his son Ahimelek. We frequently find the grandfather and
grandson called by the same name (see, for example, the list
of high priests of the line of Eleazar, 1 Chr. v. 30 — 41).
Hence the author of the Chronicles was acquainted with
an Ahimelek, son of Abiathar, who discharged the duties of
high priest in David's reign, and during the lifetime of his
father (for Abiathar was living in the time of Solomon, 1 Kings
ii. 27). This Ahimelek is mentioned here, as well as in 1 Chr.
xxiv. 36 and 31, in connexion with Zadok. The historical
books do not furnish us with any information as to the circum
stances which led to Ahimelek's appointment as high-priest dur
ing his father's lifetime, or as to the reason why Ahimelek is not
mentioned in connexion with the deposition of Abiathar by Solo
mon (1 Kings ii. 27, 35). But so much is certain that we have
no right to alter the reading of the text and, by a transposition
of the names, read Abiathar the son of Ahimelek for Ahimelek the
sno of Abiathar, for in that case we should have to alter Ahimelek
into Abiathar in 1 Chr. xxiv. 3, and Ahimelek the son of Abia
thar into Abiathar the son of Ahimelek in chap. xxiv. 6, and again
Ahimelek into Abiatlmria v. 31. — Savsha (2 Sam. xiv. Seraiah) ;
the text contains the original reading ; for in 1 Kings iv. 3 the
same man, as we may safely assume, is spoken of under the name
of Shisha, and in 2 Sam xx. 25 under that of Sheva or Sheja ;
which of these three names is correct we are not in a position to
decide. — V. 17. And Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was over the
Kreti and Pleti ; the same words occur in 2 Sam. xx. 23, and the-
reading of 2 Sam. viii. 18, which is founded upon 1 Kings i. 38,
44, must be corrected accordingly. On the Kreti and Pleti who
formed the special body-guard of David (2 Sam. viii. 18, xv. 18,
xx. 7, 23 ; 1 Kings i. 38, 44), see my Beitrage zur Geschichte
der Israeliten p. 186— 200.— On Benaiah see 1 Chr. xi. 22—25.
— And the sons of David were the first by the side ofthe king ;

268 CHAPTER XIX. 1.
we have here an explanation of the obsolete word Cohanim,
which is applied to the sons of David in 2 Sam, vfii. 18. This
view of the connexion between the word Cohanim and the read
ing in the passage before us is confirmed by 1 Kings iv. 5, where
the words pjN*l 1pf3 occur together in the sense of minister.
(On this Keil has the following fuller note : " Gesenius and
Winer have both denied that Cohanim in the Book of Samuel
denotes superior officers, and maintain that David had actually
priests (house or palace-priests) among his own sons. But apart
from the impossibility of proving the existence of such palace-
priests, this supposition falls at once to the ground from the fact,
that Cohen first received the meaning of priest from common
usage and not from the etymology, and that the context prohibits
the application of this usage in the case before us. The radical
signification of Cohen, in the Arabic, is res alicujus gerere, to act
as the plenipotentiary of another, in the Syriac cehan means dives,
gloriosus fuit, and the adjective cahinoh, locuples, dives. In the
latter sense the word Cohanim is used in Job xii. 19, where the
parallel word ' the mighty' shews that it can only refer to secular
magnates (cf. Rosenmuller Schol. ad h. 1.) It is in this earlier
sense, ' men of high rank,' ' plenipotentiaries of the king,' tbat
the word is used here and in the Book of Samuel. For it is evi
dent that the reference cannot be to actual priests, since Zadok
and Ahimelek are mentioned in v. 17 as priests of the tribe of
Levi. And the author felt it to be unnecessary to observe that
the sons of David were Cohanim in a different sense, for he could
assume that every theocrat would know this very well. . . .
The sons of David had this title given them, because they were
the mediators and representatives of the king, just as the priests
were mediators between the people and the invisible king of the
theocracy." Chronik p. 347.)
Chap. xix. — xx. 3. On chap. xix. cf. 2 Sam. x. Between the
history of the wars of David, contained in 1 Chr. xviii., and that
of his wars with the sons of Ammon and Aram in 1 Chr. xix., we
find in 2 Sam. ix. an account of David's conduct towards Saul's
son Mephibosheth (Meribosheth), which was necessarily omitted
from the Chronicles as not coming within the scope of the work.
— V. 1. After that; a loose formula of connexion, intended un
doubtedly to give some chronological arrangement to the diffe-

CHAPTER XIX. 2—5. 269
rent accounts, though it is evident that they do not follow one
another in a strictly chronological, order. The use of this for
mula, therefore, in the passage before us is not at variance with
the opinion that the chapter contains a more detailed account of
the wars with Aram and Hadadezer, to which a brief reference
had already been made in chap, xviii. 3 — 5. Nachash (a name
which has been omitted by a simple oversight, from 2 Sam. x. 1)
was the king of Ammon, with whom Saul is said in 1 Sam. xi.
1 to have carried on war. The friendly connexion which existed
between Nachash and David, according to the account in the
Chronicles, may perhaps have been occasioned by the hostile
relation in which both of them stood to Saul. After his son, the
name Hanun should be inserted ; it is found in 2 Sam. x. 1, and
is very appropriately given at the commencement of an account
of Hanun himself. — V. 2. The text of 2 Sam. x. differs in cer
tain words from the passage before us, but the only instance in
which it is allowable to alter one text from the other is in the
case of V3N ^fc$ for which ^y may be substituted, cf. Is. xxii.
4 ; Ezek. xiv. 22. — V. 3. The first question, " doth David honour
thy father V is introduced with ^, the second with fc^pf, because
a negative reply is expected to the former, an affirmative to the
latter. After the words "to search" we must supply "the rity"
(2 Sam. x.), i.e., the capital of Ammon (Rabba) ; the infinitives,
which follow, with their object the land must be transposed, and
connected together as in 2 Sam. x., after erasing the word Erez
(land) with the suffix, for spying must precede overthrowing,
and the latter word, according to its signification, is applicable
to a city rather than a land. — V. 4. And shaved them ; in
2 Sam. x. we have the more particular account he shaved off
the half of their beard, i.e., he shaved off the beard from one
half of their face. OrPYTO 0T^J occurs here and at 2 Sam.
x. (cf. the cognate word yft, Lev. vi. 3) it is used for clothes
which reach to the feet; they were cut off by the Ammonites in
the middle, that is, the skirt was cut off as high up as " their*
hinder parts." V. 5. " And they went ;" these words are not
required on account of the preceding expression, he sent them
away, and are omitted from 2 Sam. x. And information was
brought to David respecting these men ; the same words occur in
the Septuagint version of Samuel, but the words " respecting these

270 CHAPTER XIX. 6, 7.
men" are wanting in the Hebrew text. The ambassadors had
probably come as far as Jericho on their way back from the land
of the Ammonites, they were to tarry there till the mark of the
insult they had received had disappeared, and then return to
Jerusalem. V. 6. ltt*K3nn (the Niphal is used in 2 Sam. x.)
the Hithpael of this verb only occurs here. In the later period
of the language the Hithpael was frequently employed for the
Niphal. The Niphal with p^ (2 Sam. xvi. 21) answers to the
construction with p^ here. The words, a thousand talents of
silver to hire them chariots and horsemen from Aram-Naharaim,
and from Aram Maachah, and from Zobah, are omitted from 2
Sam. x., where nothing is said of the price at which the troops
were hired ; but the tribes who were ready to furnish them, are
mentioned at once in words which differ but little from the first
part of verse 7. Instead of Aram-Naharaim we find in Samuel
Aram-beth-Rehob, it is probable that Beth-rehob was supposed to
be the same city as Rehoboth -hannahar, which is mentioned in
Gen. xxxvi. 37, and hence the uncommon name Aram-beth-
Rehob was exchanged for the well-known name Aram of the
two rivers. But this explanation could hardly be correct, for it
is expressly said that it was not till a later period of the war that
the inhabitants of Aram beyond the Euphrates, i.e. in Mesopota
mia, took part in the war (cf. v. 16), and, therefore, we must look
for Aram-beth-Rehob in the neighbourhood of the country of the
Ammonites. We conjecture that it was that part of Syria, in
whicb, according to Judg. xviii. 28, the city of Beth-Rehob stood ;
the position of this city we cannot more exactly determine, but it
must have been somewhere near the southern slope of Antilebanon.
Aram-maachah (called simply Maachah in 2 Sam. x.), the
country by which the possessions of the Israelites on the east of
the Jordan were bounded towards the north (Deut. iii. 14; Josh.
xii. 5, xiii. 11); the statement of Jerome agrees with this, viz.,
that the city of Maachah was situated at the sources of the Jor
dan on the western slope of the southern portion of Antilebanon
(cf. v. Raumer, Palestine Ed. 2, p. 206). We have no account
in the Old Testament of the extent of this small kingdom of
Maachah. Zobah (called in Samuel Aram-Zobah) ; on the
situation of Zobah see chap, xviii. 3. V. 7. And they hired
thirty and two thousand chariots, and the king of Maachah and his

CHAPTER XIX. 7. 271
people ; according to 2 Sam. x. 6 Aram Beth-Rehob, 'and Aram.
contributed 20,000 foot soldiers, the king of Maachah 1000 men,
and the kingdom of Tob 12,000 men. Thus the numbers agree,
for the 20,000 and 12,000 are the 32,000 of the Chronicles, to
which must be added the people of the king of Maachah, who,
according to the more precise account of the Book of Samuel,
furnished 1000 men. The difference in the two accounts consists
in this, (1) tbat the land of Tob, which must have been somewhere
near the other countries mentioned here, is altogether omitted
from the Chronicles, for what reason we cannot tell (Ewald,
Gesch. ii. p. 617 identifies Tob with the Qavfta of Ptolemy, a
place in the desert of Arabia, but the passages of the Old Testa
ment, in which the land of Tob is referred to, indicate a more
northerly position), and (2) that the mercenary troops are de
scribed in the Chronicles as 331, and according to the previous
verse Receb and Perashim, whereas in Samuel they are said to
have been all foot soldiers, — a remarkable statement, when we
consider that in other passages (e.g^ 1 Chr. xviii. 4) the King of
Zobah is said to have had a great number of war chariots and
horsemen at his disposal. The account contained in the verse
before us of the encampment of the mercenary troops before
Medeba,a, city ofthe tribe of Reuben (Josh. xiii. 16), and the state
ment that whilst they were besieging this city, the Ammonites
gathered together from their cities fyc, are omitted from the text
of Samuel. They certainly rest upon a historical basis, and were
taken by the author of the Chronicles from the sources employed
by him ; they may perhaps have originally formed part of the text
of Samuel, and from some oversight may have been omitted.
(On the difficulty connected with the numbers given in this
passage Keil says : " It is evident that both passages are corrupt.
It is true that the accounts agree as to the number of men whom
the Ammonites hired, viz., 32,000 men, and 1000 men from the
king of Maachah, but according to the Chronicles the 32,000
were not infantry but Receb (chariot-soldiers, or war-chariots
with horses), and yet 40,000 foot soldiers were slain ; according
to the Book of Samuel the Ammonites hired none but infantry,
and yet in the battle there were 700 Receb and 40,000 Perashim
(horsemen) slain. It is not easy to determine how the two ac
counts are to be reconciled. For the plan, suggested by Calmet,

272 CHAPTER XIX. 8—10.
J. H. Michaelis and others, of combining them seems somewhat
forced. There are probably copyists' errors in both passages.
But, as Clericus, Michaelis, and others have already said, there
is more internal probability in the statement contained in the
Chronicles that 7000 Recheb were slain and 40,000 foot soldiers,
than in that of Samuel that 40,000 horsemen were slain, and
only 700 Recheb, and no foot soldiers at all." Chronik. p. 324).
V. 8. The whole army ; the article in this passage in Samuel
shows more clearly that the expression " the mighty men," is
in apposition to " the army ;" — viz., the whole army, the Gib-
borim. Thenius is of opinion that the copula has been dropt,
and that the text should be restored so as to read, the whole
army and the Gibborim. It is true that in 2 Sam. xv.
17 the whole people, and in 2 Sam. xx. 7, the men of Joab
and the Kreti and Pleti, are mentioned in connection with
Gibborim ; but so far as I can remember, the rest of the war
riors are never called the whole army in distinction from the
Gibborim. It is evident from vv. 10, 11, that the rest of the
warriors, as well as the Gibborim, took part in this war ; but it
does not therefore follow that they must be mentioned in this
verse by the side of the Gibborim. — V. 9. Outside the city ; i.e.,
the city into which they withdrew after their defeat (v. 15). It
must therefore have been the capital ofthe Ammonites, Rabbah,
which was certainly the only one of the Ammonitish cities that
was sufficiently fortified or large enough to afford a safe retreat to
the conquered army. And the kings that were come (in 2 Sam.
x., the four powers, which had sent auxiliary troops, are men
tioned again by name) arranged the order of battle for themselves
alone upon the field, after they had left the camp before Medeba
and come near to the Ammonitish army. Instead of outside the
rity, we find in 2 Sam. x. outside ihe gate (of the city of Rabbah).
Our reading is preferable as being the more intelligible, for the
context evidently shows that the city of Rabbah is meant; and
the very indefinite expression outside the gate does not harmonize
with the peculiar clearness of the rest of the account ; moreover,
the words in v. 15 and 2 Sam. x. 14 "they entered into the city"
require the reading " outside the city" rather than " the gate,"
in the passage before us. — V. 10. The face of the battle Src. ; i.e.,
the battle-array of the two armies was directed against him : the

CHAPTER XIX. 11 — 17. 273
Ammonites were drawn up mi front, and the auxiliary troops
which had advanced from Medeba were behind. Joab himself,
at the head of a select body of soldiers, attacked the latter, which
formed the stronger power, and is designated by the common
name of Aram. — V. 11. His brother Abishai, with the rest of the
army, was directed to attack the Ammonites. V. 12. "TipilWim
(2 Sam. x. -Jy i^tttinV TDSm) 5 in the mouth of Joab, who
was resolved to fight bravely, but knew well that the results
were in the hands of God, the expression was very seemly, "/
will go to bring thee help," I will try to help thee. — V. 13. Let us
behave ourselves ; the particle of motion (He) is appended to
make the hortative character of the word more apparent, but
the word may have the same meaning when used without the par
ticle, as in 2 Sam. x. — For our people and for the cities of our God,
that these may not fall into the hands of the enemy and so be
given up to their gods. — V. 14. Before Aram to battle (2 Sam.
x. to battle against Aram). When the Ammonites had retreated
within the waUs of their fortified city Rabbah, which the
Israelites did not succeed in taking till the following year (chap.
xx. 1), the war against Ammon was not carried any farther for
the present. — V. 16. After their defeat the warriors ofthe coun
tries designated by the common name of Aram assembled once
more, and sent messengers to the Syrians beyond the Euphrates
to induce them to join them in the war. According to the more
precise account given in 2 Sam. x. 16, Hadadezer caused them
to take part in the war ; and from this statement as well as
from the notice that his general Shophach was placed at their
head, it seems to follow that the power of Hadadezer extended
beyond the Euphrates, and that there were certain provinces
to the east of the river, governed it may be by petty princes,
which were dependent upon him and obliged to render assistance
when required. — V. 17. And came to them; in 2 Sam. x. 17' we
find "and came to Helam," the place in which, according to the
previous verse, the Syrians had been gathered together ; for
Q^ipj in 2 Sam. x. 16 is undoubtedly only a somewhat altered
mode of writing ns^n or 0^n> and in both passages the Septua-
x .. x "
gint and Syriac, and in the latter the Vulgate, treat the word as
a proper name and write AiXdp V)\ i k> Helam. Some MSS. of
VOL. II. s

274 CHAPTER XIX. 18, 19.
the Septuagint read XaXapaK, in which we may easily detect
the Hebrew Halamah. It is true that no place of that name is
mentioned anywhere else in the Old Testament, and this may
account for the fact that, in the first instance, it is omitted from
the Chronicles, and in the second is changed into Qppfc$ (to
them), by which the superfluous remark, " he came to them and
drew up the army against them," which was already implied in
the next clalise, was introduced into the text. Thenius thinks that
the text of the Chronicles contains the original reading ; but I
am unable to perceive in what way the reading of Samuel could
easily be derived from that of the Chronicles by the transposition
of letters, and mere conjecture. It must also be borne in mind
that in Josephus (Antiq. vii. 6. 3) the word occurs as a proper
name. He considers Chelam to have been the name of a power
ful king of the Syrians on the East of the Euphrates, who sent
his general Sabekos with an army of 80,000 foot and 10,000
cavalry to the assistance of the Ammonites. Ewald supposes
Chelam to have been the name of a place corresponding to the
city of Alamatha mentioned by Ptolemy geogr. xv. 5, the situation
of which would answer very well to the description given here
(compare chap, xviii. 3, " when he went to strengthen his hand on
the Euphrates)." — V. 18. By Aram we must understand all the
allied Syrians. Instead of 7000 chariots and 40,000 foot-soldiers
wc rind in 2 Sam. x. 700 chariots and 40,000 horsemen. Ac
cording to vv. 6 and 7 of this chapter and other passages chariots
and horsemen constituted the principal force of the Syrians ;
and for this very reason it is all the more striking that in the
present instance the Book of Chronicles should speak of foot-
soldiers instead of horsemen. The statements are evidently inac
curate, for in Samuel the foot-soldiers are altogether omitted and
in Chronicles the horsemen. We may perhaps possess a more
detailed description of this victory of David in 1 Chr. xviii. 3
seq., and 2 Sam. viii. 3 seq., for it is not improbable that the
brief notice contained in those passages refers to the decisive
victory over Hadadezer, of which we have again an account in
this same chapter in a more extended history of the wars with
the Syrians. — V. 19. The servants of Hadadezer are, according to
2 Sam. x., the kings of the petty Syrian kingdoms which were
dependent upon Hadadezer. The points in which the text of

CHAPTER XX. 1. 275
this verse differs from that of Samuel are to be regarded as
unintentional alterations, such as always occur where an exact
copy is not specially aimed at. — Chap. xx. 1 — 3 ; cf. 2 Sam. xi.
1, xii. 26, 30, 31, where the conquest of Rabbah is connected
with the history of Uriah. The Ammonites, having lost the
support of the Syrians, are defeated and punished with the
greatest severity for their ignominious treatment of the ambas
sadors of David (chap. xix. 4). — V. 1. At the time ofthe turn of
the year, the time when kings march out ; i.e., at the beginning of
the year, in the spring, when kings are accustomed to enter upon
their warlike expeditions after the winter's rest. As we have no
similar notice of the time in the 19th chapter, we may safely
assume that all the wars referred to there occurred in the course
of the previous year. — And Joab led forth the power of the army ;
more precisely in 2 Sam. xi., " David sent Joab and his servants
with him and all Israel;" the expression N32n h^H. which we
only meet with here, like the similar words in 2 Chr. xxvi. 13,
must denote the whole army, all the men who were capable of
bearing arms. — And he devastated the land of the sons of Ammon ;
in 2 Sam. xi. 1 the word "land" is wanting, but it should be
inserted in the text, since the land of the sons of Ammon is dis
tinguished from the capital of the land, Rabbah, the siege of
which is mentioned immediately afterwards. David remained in
Jerusalem; he afterwards followed the army to Rabbah and
returned with it to Jerusalem (v. 3). We are not informed here
how it happened that David was personally engaged in the battle
after all, and the account contained in this chapter would be
unintelligible were it not that we can complete it from 2 Sam.
xii. 26 sqq. We learn there that Joab had taken the royal city,
i.e., the capital. This city was composed of two distinct parts,
the water-city, or the part which was built in the valley on the
banks of the small river, which is now called the Nahr Amman,
and the portion which was fortified. In order that David might
have the honour of conquering the latter, as soon as Joab had
taken the water-city he sent for David to come and besiege the
city (i.e., the fortress), and take it; and David went as was
requested. The author of the Chronicles passes- over all this,
and contents himself with the brief notice, " Joab smote Rabbah
and destroyed it." It is not easy to reconcile the statement in
s 2

276 CHAPTER XX. 2 — 4.
2 Sam. xii. 26 to the effect that Joab took the city with that in
vv. 27, 28, where David himself is said to have taken it. Nor
do I think the two passages can be successfully harmonised,
except by assuming that the royal city mentioned in v. 26 was
that part of the city which is called the water-city in v. 27.
When this portion of the city had been taken and destroyed, the
fortress, which Joab sent for David to reduce, could not possibly
hold out long. So much, however, is certain, that the author of
the Chronicles must have been fully acquainted with the whole
narrative as contained in 2 Sam. xii. 26 sqq., for otherwise the
two statements, " David remained in Jerusalem" (v. 1) and
"David and all the people returned to Jerusalem" (v. 3), would
be quite unintelligible. — V. 2. And in it were precious stones;
this reading should also be substituted in Samuel for " with the
precious stones." — V. 3. y$yf\ from the root yy$}, which only
occurs here ; the meaning to cut or saw in pieces is established by
the word yy\Hft a saw from the root y$}y — mi3?331 must be
altered into pn""fi3J33T (a kind °f scythe) according to 2 Sam.,
H"l3?3 having been mentioned just before. Another fearful kind
of punishment is spoken of in 2 Sam. : he threw them into brick
kilns. Compare with this the severe punishment inflicted upon
Moab, 2 Sam. viii. 2 ; and Amos i. 3 ; Prov. xx. 26.
Chap. xx. 4—8. cf. 2 Sam. xxi. 18—22. In 2 Sam. xxi. 15
— 22 we have very brief notices of victories gained by Israelitish
heroes over giants in the land of the Philistines. It is probable
that these notices were placed at the end of works containing the
history of the wars of David. This would account for the fact,
that in the second book of Samuel they form a loosely connected
appendix at the close of the history of David, and in the Chro
nicles are inserted here at the end of the account of David's wars.
In Samuel four heroes are named, who gained renown through
their conflicts with Philistian giants ; in the passage before us
only three are mentioned. We cannot tell for what reason the
historian has omitted the short account of the attack made upon
David by the giant Ishbi-benob, who was slain by Abishai the
son of Zeruiah (1 Sam. xxi. 15—17). — V. 4. After this; the
same formula occurs in 2 Sam. xxi. 18, and there it connects the
verse with the brief account of the conflict of David and Abishai
with the giant Ishbi-benob. In the present instance the con-

CHAPTER XX. 4 — 8. 277
junctive formula is still retained, although the event, to which it
refers, is not mentioned at all, a clear proof of the loose manner
in which it is used, and that it is of little worth in a chronological
point of view, cf. chap xix. 1. — "fl3ypn probably arose from the
corresponding words y^y ipfpn in 2 Sam. ; the expression there
stood a war for "a war arose" occurs, so far as I am aware, in
this passage alone. — At Gezer ; cf. chap. vii. 28 seq. The name
Gob in 2 Sam. should probably be altered into Gezer (cf. The
nius). Sibbekai the Chushathite was one of the Gibborim, as we
learn from chap. xi. 29 compared with xxvii. 11. — The children
of Rapha or the Rephaim in the land of the Philistines were a
remnant of the aborigines. In the land of tbe PhiHstines the
aborigines were called Avvim ; they had been conquered by the
PhiHstines who migrated from Caphtor (Deut. ii. 23). Certain
families continued to live there under Philistine rule (cf. Josh. xi.
22), and from them the giants, mentioned in these verses, were
descended. And they (the PhiHstines) were humbled (Judg. xi.
33 ; I Sam. vii. 13) ; these words are wanting in Samuel. —
V. 5. The place where the conflict occurred is not named here,
but in Samuel it is said to have happened 3^33 (in Gob) pro
bably the place called 33 in the previous verse. In this verse also
Gezer is most likely the true reading, in fact the resemblance to
Gezer is greater in the latter instance than in the former. —
Elchanan; not the Elchanan mentioned in chap. xi. 26. — The
Keri Ben- Jair Hes at the foundation of the present reading of the
text of Samuel (Jaare-oregim). It is now generally admitted
that "ryy/i is yiyi with the letters transposed, and that the oregim
has been taken by mistake from the following clause. — The con
cluding words of this verse differ very widely from 2 Sam., but
it is at once apparent that however different the readings are now,
the«text was originally the same, for the letters of the words
TIN inn^-m in this passage and p^ iftthn PP3 are very
nearly alike. According to the reading of our text, which
Thenius and many of the earlier scholars regard as the original,
Elchanan the son of Jair slew Lachmi the brother of Goliath of
Gath ; according to the Book of Samuel Elchanan the son of
Jair of Bethlehem slew Goliath of Gath. We are of opinion
that the latter is the original account, for we can understand the
growth of our reading out of that in Samuel, but cannot see how

278 CHAPTER XXI. 1 —27.
the former could give rise to the latter. To a reader acquainted
with the account of David's conflict with Goliath (1 Sam. xvii.)
it could not but appear strange to meet with the statement
here that Elchanan slew a giant Goliath, and we may certainly
assume that no reader in ancient times would put such an ex
planation upon an illegibly written text. (" Nearly all the com
mentators, e.g., Clericus, J. H. and J. D. Michaelis, Dereser and
others, consider the text of Samuel to be corrupt, and correct it
from that ofthe Chronicles." Keil p. 297.) — V. 6. pn?3 fiJN ls
generally regarded as a substitute for the Kethib of 2 Sam. ^^
"pyft, middin being taken as the plural of mad with the termina
tion in ; but mad does not mean mensura (cf. Hitzig on Jer. xiii.
25). In the place of the Keri, madon (length), the common word
middah is used in this passage. And his fingers and toes were six
each, together four and twenty ; in 2 Sam. the account is more
elaborate, but our brief description is sufficiently clear. V. 8. ^y^,
an abbreviation of pi*?^ ; it only occurs nine times in the Old
Testament, viz., in this passage without the article and eight
times in the Pentateuch with the article. Its occurrence is there
fore very striking here, for it is found nowhere else in the books
ofthe Chronicles. The original reading we find in Samuel pjS^j
yyyi (the numeral four attached to these words was necessarily
omitted here, as the previous accounts mention only three chil
dren of Rapha and not four as in 2 Sam. xxi.) ; from this, the He
having become illegible, in^3 ~>^ was formed, with a reference
to chap. iii. 5 ; the o of the Niphal is here shortened into u and
after the U vowel the Lamed is double (see the similar treatment
of the Hophal in Ezek. xvi. 4, 5, and Gen. xl. 20) : And they
fell by the hands of David and his servants ; this conclusion is also
found in 2 Sam. xxi. 22. In the latter passage it more evidently
suits the context, for there is at least one account, of a conflict
between David and a son of Rapha, viz., that with Ishbi Benob
(v. 15 — 17), but the three sons of Rapha, who are mentioned
here, were slain by Sibbekai, Elchanan and Jonathan.
Chap. xxi. 1 — 27. cf. 2 Sam. xxiv. The numbering of the people
and the pestilence. — V. 1. The commencement of this section in
2 Sam. (" and again the anger of Jehovah was kindled against
Israel") refers to the history ofthe famine, the first national plague

CHAPTER XXI. 1. 279
in David's reign (chap. xxi. 1 — 14), which is not recorded in the
Chronicles. For this reason the section before us necessarily
has a somewhat different commencement. That which is repre
sented in 2 Sam. as the immediate effect of the wrath of God is
here produced by the intervention of Satan, who remains subject
to him and does not act by his own power. This Satan stood up
against Israel to accuse the people before God and to bring cala
mity and punishment from him upon the nation. The result of
his rising up against Israel was an attempt to establish his charge
against the king, for the sin of the king would be sufficient to
induce God to inflict suffering upon the people, in which the
chastising hand of God would at the same time reach the king.
Hence it is said " and he provoked David (precisely the same
word is used in 2 Sam. where the subject is Jehovah, only
QpI3 is added there, so that the meaning is : Jehovah provoked
v x
David against them, viz., against the Israelites, i.e., he impelled
him to perform an action which should prove injurious to the
Israelites (cf. Jer. xliii. 3 ; 1 Sam. xxvi. 19 ; Job. ii. 3) to num
ber Israel," and David numbered the people and thus gave occa
sion to God to visit the people with a great plague, of which a
description is given in the foUowing verses. But in what way
could the numbering of the people be regarded as a crime on the
part of David ? In the time of Moses the people had been num
bered and God was not angry then. But on the occasion of that
numbering the Israelites had each contributed half a shekel to
wards the building of the tabernacle, "tbat there might be no
plague among them when (Moses) numbered them" (Ex. xxx.
11 — 16). Hence the numbering of the people in itself was re
garded as an undertaking, by which the anger of God could be
easily aroused, but when the arrangements were made by Moses
for the taking of the census, God was not angry, because the
people were numbered for the express purpose of the tax for the
sanctuary, and the money which was thus collected (" the atone
ment money," Ex. xxx. 16) appeased him ; compare the expiatory
sacrifices of the Romans on the occasion of the census. Every
thing depends therefore upon the design of the census. As
nothing is said respecting the design of the census instituted by
David, we must endeavour to determine it by more general con
siderations. Thenius observes that in the author's view the sin

280 CHAPTER XXI. 2, 3.
lay in the fact that David was prompted by pride, and a desire to
set before his own eyes the greatness of his glory and power. This
view is chiefly sustained by the words of Joab (v. 3) ; but the whole
connection requires a more precise explanation of this presump
tuous act. Others are of opinion that David had the people num
bered that he might know the number of his warriors and arrange
the order of military service ; but, although this may certainly have
been taken into account, since the number of those who were fit
for war is given in v. 5 seq. and it was important to know the
number before the army could be organised, — the census itself
and the muster-rolls founded upon it were principally intended
to facilitate the levy of the taxes which had been rendered
necessary by the monarchical government, just as the census
described in Ex. xxx. was taken for the sake of taxation. The
free congregation had hitherto known nothing of fixed taxes for
the state ; but a monarchy could not exist without them. The
people might cry out, as Samuel had foretold, when the king
demanded taxes of them like the kings of other nations, and
might see in this new scheme of David an encroachment upon
the liberty of the people, an arbitrary alteration of ancient cus
toms, an injustice, an oppression, a tyranny, which were unbe
coming in a king of Israel. And it was quite in harmony with
the customs of those times, that the guardians of the distinctive
institutions of Israel, the prophets, should loudly condemn this
new device, as Nathan had expressed disapprobation of David's
plan of erecting a temple in the place of the moveable sanctuary
(1 Chr. xvii.), and threatened David with punishment from
God. David himself acknowledged tbat he had done wrong,
and desisted from his undertaking (1 Chr. xxvii. 24). But the
people were visited by a pestilence, in which was seen the chas
tising hand of God. V. 2. And David said to Joab and to the
prince of the people (2 Sam. : to Joab the captain of the host which
was with him) ; the original reading was probably to Joab and
to princes of the army who were with him (cf. 2 Sam. xxiv. 4).
The rare word fty$) to traverse (in the Chronicles this root is only
met with in the emphatic form in 2. xvi. 9) and ypQ to take a
census, which are used in 2 Sam., are exchanged by our his
torian for the more common "plOD -^3^, — V. 3. In 2 Sam. we
find this verse in its original extremely peculiar form as follows :

CHAPTER XXI. 3—5. 281
and may Jehovah thy God add to the people as many as there are
of them (qpj3 just as they, the Israelites, are) ; the word is used
here with reference to their number, and therefore with the
meaning, as many as there are of them. Grammatically con
sidered Epj3 is the accusative of the object governed by hDW
see the similar passages in Deut. i. 11 ; Ex. xi. 6 ; 2 Sam. xii.
8 ; and also the note on 2 Chr. ix. 11), and as many as there
are of them a hundred times, the eyes of the king seeing (this
increase of the people), and my lord the king wherefore is he
pleased with this thing ? Joab wishes the king to reign over twice
as many subjects, or rather over a hundred times as many, and
adds expressly his wish, that this increase should take place
during the life time of David (thine eyes seeing) that he might
rejoice in his numerous subjects. Hence, when he adds, " where
fore is my lord pleased with this thing" and thus expresses his dis
approbation of the measures adopted for the numbering of the
people, he is not actuated by the desire to conceal from the king
the large number of his subjects. The reading in our text is
very different from that of Samuel; the important climax con
tained in the repetition of the words Qpj3l OPJ3 is not expressed •
the extremely peculiar and thoroughly suitable words >y\y\
pflfr^ *y?12il ^"IN (an(l the eyes of my lord the king seeing) are
altered, and in my opinion not intentionally but as the result of
conjecture from an illegible text, for the letters of the words of
our text 0^3^^ lyy&h 13 ^D "]b^7l ma vhtl do not differ
very considerably from those of the corresponding words in
Samuel -j^n TTN1 filfcO -\bl271 TIN T5T1.— v- 4- The
manner in which the census was taken is fully described in 2
Sam xxiv. 4 — 8, where it is also stated that Joab took nine
months and twenty days to complete it. Our historian merely
relates in a few words that the numbering was performed, and
condenses into one verse the contents of five. — V. 5. The num
bers given in the two texts differ; according to 2 Sam. xxiv. 9
there were 800,000 men in Israel and 500,000 in Judah capable
of bearing arms, but in the Chronicles there are said to have been
1,100,000 in Israel and 470,000 in Judah. As the numbers are
reckoned by thousands they are only approximative. The reli
ance to be placed upon them is still farther diminished by the dis-

282 CHAPTER XXI. 5, 6.
crepancies. Moreover they do not appear to harmonise well
with the statement contained in chap, xxvii. 1 — 15 of this book
(that David appointed 24,000 men for service in each month
under twelve different commanders), as this statement presup
poses the existence of about 300,000 capable of bearing arms.
But every attempt to reconcile the different accounts must
necessarily rest upon arbitrary assumptions. All that can be
inferred from the greatness of the numbers is, that the inhabi
tants of Palestine were extraordinarily numerous as early as
David's time ; we have most clear and credible testimony to the
fact that in later times the population of this small country was
incredibly large (see my Beitrage zur Gesch. der Israeliten p.
431 seq. v. Raumer Pal. ed. 2 p. 81). — V. 6. The account
given in this verse, that Joab did not take any census in the
case of the tribes of Levi and Benjamin, because the command
of the king was an abomination to him, is not found in 2 Sam.
Gramberg pretends that the historian invented it, for the purpose
of showing that these tribes were not affected by the pestilence
because they had not been numbered (according to verse 12
and 2 Sam. xxiv. 15 the pestilence raged throughout all the
land, and Jerusalem alone was spared ; nothing is said about
Levi and Benjamin escaping), but such an assertion does not
merit the elaborate answer which Movers has given to it (p. 305).
There is nothing surprising in the statement contained in this
verse. If the object of the census was to facilitate taxation, the
sacerdotal tribe may have been exempted on account of their
privileged position, just as we find them omitted in Num. i. 47,
48 — 54 ; and apart altogether from this, all that can be inferred
from the fact that two tribes had not been numbered is, that
the census was not complete, and this is expressly stated at chap.
xxvii. 33 seq. From the account of the manner in which the
census was taken (2 Sam. xxiv. 4 — 8) we may conclude that Judah
and Benjamin were to have been numbered after the rest of the
tribes ; that after the census of Judah had been taken Joab had to
go to Jerusalem ; there he had most probably received orders from
David, who had now changed his mind, to proceed no farther with
the census, and thus it happened that Benjamin was not num
bered along with the rest ; cf. Josephus, Antiquities vii. 13. 1 %wpt?
r-qf BeviapiTiBo<; cpvXf/'i, e^api8prjaac ydp avTgv ovk ecftdaaev.

CHAPTER XXI. 7—12. 283
We are not justified in regarding the account given in this verse
as " an invention of the historian," nor does the omission of it
from 2 Samuel disprove its credibility, for there are other notices
in this narrative which are not found in Samuel, e.g. vv. 20, 23.
V . 7. And it was evil in the eyes of Jehovah concerning this thing ;
the construction with Uy occurs in Gen. xxi. 12 ; in other cases
the cause of the displeasure is placed after the verb without the
preposition, e.g. 2 Sam. xi. 27 ; Gen. xxxviii. 10. The conclud
ing words, therefore he smote Israel, anticipate what is narrated
afterwards (v. 9 sqq.), and thus interrupt the course of the his
tory. In 2 Sam. xxiv. 10 we find, instead of this clause, the
very peculiar words " and David's heart smote him " (cf. 1 Sam.
xxiv. 6). We can easily understand, how the words of the one
clause could be altered into those of the ojlier by any one who
started witb the assumption, that the passage contained a reference
to the punishments inflicted by God. The first clause would
probably be added to introduce and account for the second, as
well as to connect it with the rest of the narrative. V. 8. This
thing ; an explanatory addition which there is no necessity to
insert in the text of Samuel, as the sentence is complete without
it. V. 9. And the Lord spake to Gad ; as this is the first time
that Gad is spoken of, the reading of Samuel, which indicates
the change in the discourse (and the word of Jehovah came to
Gad), is preferable. Davids seer ; Heman is also called a pro
phet of the king (chap. xxv. 5), and therefore it must not be
inferred from the title that Gad stood in such peculiar proximity
to David, that the duty of reproving the king fell to him on
account of his position more than to Nathan or any other of the
prophets. V. 11. p)jn3 (for the rarer word 1^3 in 2 Sam.) /
spread out above thee. V. 11. Thus saith Jehovah, choose thee ;
an explanatory clause of which our historian is the author, as
the use of the word ^yyp clearly shows. V. 12. The demand
" choose thee" is followed by a somewhat different form ofthe ques
tion contained in Samuel. In the first query, three years of
famine ? three is the correct reading and not seven, which we find
in the passage in Sara, (although the Septuagint reads three in
that passage also.) To the three evils there correspond three
years, three months, three days, and this beautiful agreement in
the numbers is completely destroyed by the reading seven. In

284 CHAPTER XXI. 12 — 15.
the second question ^53 (2 Sam.) is the original reading ;
nOD2 probably crept into the text of the Chronicles through an
oversight, from the illegibility of the text, for the particle Niphal
does not suit the connection, since it can hardly mean destruction,
and 13QJ3 (2 Sam. 133^) does not harmonise with this parti
ciple. The sword of thine enemies overtaketh ; the word pi3\yj3 is
a very rare word (it only occurs once in the Old Testament, viz.
Lev. xiv. 21), but it is a word which answers very well to ^mTi
(2 Sam.), and jn3lZft3~> t\ll means to pursue until one overtakes.
We conclude, therefore, that the original reading was N"im
n3t2fl37 *7Emj hut the first words have been altered in our
text, from what cause we cannot tell. The third question
appears to have been written originally in the form in which we
find it in the text of 'the Chronicles, " or the sword of Jehovah
and pestilence for three days in thy land ?" The last words, " the
angel of Jehovah working destruction in the whole of the territory
of Israel," might be regarded as an interpolation taken from v. 15,
as there is no trace of this clause in Samuel ; but they prepare
the way for the sending of the angel, who is introduced in 2
Sam. xxiv. 16 quite suddenly and unexpectedly, and hence they
are so necessary to elucidate the rest of the narrative, that they
cannot well be dispensed with. In our opinion, therefore, they
originally formed part of the text of Samuel also. Now see
(more forcibly expressed in Samuel, now mark and see yy pjnjH
pj^-fl) ; after nnj>1 the yy may easily have been dropt on
account of the resemblance between the words. What answer I
shall bring to my sender, to God who said to me : " go and tell
David, Sfc." (v. 10). V. 13. Let me fall (instead ofthe reading
in Samuel, " let us fall now ") ; corresponding to the expression
which follows, " let me not fall." V. 14. For the sake of brevity
the account of the duration ofthe pestilence and the extent of its
ravages, which we find in Samuel, is omitted here. V. 15. pj^©^
ythfc WrhvOl (2 Sam- ^vhft VP rfoirr\). Movers (p. 91)
argues in favour of the originality of the text of the Chronicles,
but Thenius justly remarks that ^-p is the most appropriate read
ing, since the counter-order " draw back thine hand," points back
to the commencement of the verse " he stretched out his hand."
The meaning is evidently this : as soon as the angel of God, who

CHAPTER XXI. 15, 16. 285
had been commissioned to destroy the whole land by pestilence,
approached the city of Jerusalem and stretched out his hand
toward it, to smite the city with the sword which was drawn in
his hand, the Lord repented of the evil and called to him " draw
back thy hand." According to our text the Lord sent the
angel with the express commission to destroy Jerusalem, and at
the same moment gave him a counter-order, in which there cer
tainly appears to be less propriety. Our reading Elohim has
arisen from the fact that the letters of pj ^-p were mistaken for
pfippj f°r which Elohim was then substituted as it frequently is
in the Chronicles. And at the time of the destroying, at the
moment in which the angel commenced the work of destruction,
Jehovah saw ; these words, which are intended to soften the
harshness of the transition from the command to the counter
mand, are omitted from Samuel, where tbey would be super
fluous. ^ has been regarded as an exclamation, suficit, hold,
enough I That this meaning suits the word cannot be proved
by an appeal to Deut. vi. 1 ; in this connection it can only be
an adjective or noun, and must be taken along with the verb
to destroy, as the accusative of the object : he said to the
angel who'~jwas about to destroy a multitude ; the full reading
is preserved in Sam. 3-^ Q^3, who was about to bring des
truction upon a great multitude of people, cf. 2 Sam. xxiv.
17. Oman, in the Kethib of 2 Sam. xxiv. 16 pi3"Yifc$; in every
x ;
other passage, with the exception of v. 19, the Keri is found PI211M
(vv. 20, 21 sqq.). The latter form has not a Hebrew stamp,
but Orna and Oman are both Hebrew forms. For this very
reason, however, the name Aravnah appears to point to an early
tradition. In 2 Sam. xxiv. 23 this Aravnah is called King, and
if we could attach much importance to the reading (the word is
probably an interpolation) we should necessarily infer that he
was the former king of Jebus, who retained his property, and
continued to live there even after the conquest of the city by
David. He is not called king anywhere else. On the hill to
the north-east of Zion, subsequently the temple-hill, he had a
threshing-floor, and according to v. 20 he was busy, threshing
wheat there at this time (a somewhat different account is given
in 2 Sam.). — V. 16. This verse does not form part ofthe narra-

286 CHAPTER XXI. 16, 17.
tive in Samuel. As here David and the elders ofthe people are
overpowered by the vision of the angel, and fall to the earth, so
in v. 20 are Oman and his four sons said to have concealed
themselves, because they could not bear the sight. But we shall
see that the words in question in v. 20 did not originally form
part of the text ; and this confirms the supposition to which we
are led on comparing the verse with the account in Samuel, viz.
that it was added by our historian to the original record. We
have no further confirmation of this in the language employed ;
the expression DipfcQ Q1D3J3 is only met with here (in every
other case the Hithpael is employed, cf. 2 Kings xix. 1, 2, and
the parallel passages in Isaiah, Jonah iii. 8) ; the rest of the
words are nearly all of them so common that they might be
found in every book of the Old Testament. — And his sword drawn
in his hand, this expression occurs in Num. xxii. 23 in precisely
the same form, and was probably taken from that passage. — In
any case this account of the appearance of the angel is only an
expansion of the corresponding account in Samuel, for there it is
stated clearly enough that the threshing floor of Aravnah was
set apart as a holy place, because the angel was standing near it,
and was seen. According to 2 Sam. xxiv. 17, David saw the
angel, and the context shows that the reference there is to a
visible appearance of the angel. — V. 17. Was it not I that com
manded to number the people (2 Sam. xxiv. 17, when he saw the
angel that smote the people) ; from a comparison of the words
and letters of the Hebrew text of these two passages it is evident
that the reading of the one has originated in tbat of the other ;
and it is pretty clear that from oversight and from an endeavour
to restore a text, which had become illegible, the words of the
verse before us have grown out of that in Samuel. Among the
other variations the following is an important one : in 2 Sam.
we find ipyiiypj for ip^-,p }nn- The original reading was
probably ip|Yiypj njJhn ^Nl; and I the shepherd have acted
perversely, for the reading of our text could easily be formed from
these words, and the reference to the shepherd would be quite
appropriate as an antithesis to the sheep mentioned directly
after. — And on thy people not for a plague ; the order of these
words is striking, we should expect them rather to run thus, " on

CHAPTER XXI. 18—20. 287
me, and on my house, but not on the people for a plague" for this
order seems requisite to give due prominence to the contrast
intended. It is possible that in these words, of which no trace
appears in Samuel, we may have two marginal notes, which
have crept from the margin into the text : "for a plague^ was
possibly written in the margin to explain, " let thy hand be," and
" not on thy people " may have been added as an explanation of
the words " on me and on my fathers house" — V. 18. The angel
of Jehovah told Gad to say (this is the only admissible explana
tion of -y3fc$~) here) to David. That the prophet received instruc
tions from the angel is quite in keeping with the whole of the
narrative. But it is only in books of a late period that we read
of angels speaking to prophets in such a way as to form the me
dium of communication between God and the prophets addressed.
In 2 Sam. Gad is described as going direct to David, and giving
him the command to build an altar ; but as the command came
from the mouth of a prophet, David could not doubt that it was
given in the name of God. The command itself is also given
there in the words ofa direct address. — V. 19. At the saying ; or
according to the saying, as we find it in Samuel. Which he spake
in the name of the Lord (2 Sam. " as the Lord commanded ") ;
the reading of the text is adopted here because the command is
not described as coming direct from Jehovah. — V. 20. And
Oman returned back ; it is difficult to discover to what these
words refer. They do not suit the thread of the narrative, which
is very distinctly preserved in Samuel, where we read tbat "when
the king, who came with his retinue in a solemn procession from
Mount Zion, ascended to the threshing floor of Oman, and Oman
saw him approaching, he looked up from his work, and fixed his
eyes upon the king," &c. In the passage before us yrjyy has
grown out of F|pl£m, "r^OT ^rom V?!3n (the latter reading has
been retained even by Josephus, vii. 13, 4, who in every other
respect follows the text as we have it now) and our ^3^ p\y3~^
y?yy from ytyy ?''"QJ? T73y- Probably King (2 Sam. xxiv. 20)
was first changed into angel ; this change rendered a further alte
ration of the text necessary, and the occurrence of the word
angel in connexion with the name of Oman may have suggested
the thought that the passage contained a reference to the impres-

288 chapter xxi. 20—23.
sion made upon him by the vision which he saw. In the Sep
tuagint this passage is rendered : Kal ivearpe^ev 'Opvd, Kal elSe
tov fiaaiXea Kal Teo-aapa<s viovs avTov per avrov pe6 a^a/Stw
according to another reading Kal Tco-crape? viol Kpvftopevoi; in the
Vulgate : porro Oman cum suspexisset (np^il 2 Sam.) et vidisset
angelum quatuorque filii ejus cum eo, absconderunt se ; in both
versions some remains of the original reading are to be found.
The Syriac renders the passage thus : " And David saw that the
angel, who was about to bring destruction upon the people, drew
back his hand." The concluding words " now Oman was thresh
ing wheat," contain a most satisfactory explanation of the reason
why Oman was in his threshing floor ; they do not occur in
Samuel, but in the Septuagint we find instead a remark at v. 15
to the effect that " the pestilence happened at the time of the
wheat-harvest !" If we assume that Joab commenced the census
in the quiet season of autumn, i.e. at the beginning of the
civil year (Ex. xxiii. 16, xxxiv. 22), the nine months and
twenty days mentioned in 2 Sam. xxiv. 8, would extend to
the time of the wheat harvest (Ewald Gesch. ii. 628) ; and
hence the announcement that Oman was engaged in thresh
ing wheat is shown to have been already provided for by the
previous account, and was probably taken by our historian
from the original document which lay before him. — V. 21.
On account of the present text of the previous verse it is
stated here that, when David approached, Oman looked and
saw him ; only the concluding words of the verse correspond to
the last clause of 2 Sam. xxiv. 20. — V. 22. A comparison of this
verse with 2 Sam. xxiv. 21 suggests the probability that the pre
sent reading of our text has been effected by Gen. xxiii. 9, where
N7J3 flD3^ an^ the verb ijy^ occur twice, just as in this verse,
and in precisely the same order. — V. 23. Let my lord the king
do ; the original reading is let him offer (Thenius). After the
threshing instruments there are added in Samuel the instruments
ofthe oxen, meaning the wooden yokes ofthe oxen. Oman offers
to David the oxen, which were threshing the corn at the time,
and also the threshing instruments and yokes, the latter because,
being composed of small pieces of wood, they would facilitate
the kindling of the fire. In order that everything which was
requisite for the burnt-offering might be at hand, he offers him

chapter xxi. 24, 25. 289
also the wheat as a gift, of which no mention is made in Samuel.
The words " I give it all" answer to the first clause of 2 Sam.
xxiv. 23, "all this did Araunah give ;" of the rest of that verse
there is no trace in our text. — V. 24. For I will not take what
belongs to thee for Jehovah, and offer a burnt-offering obtained for
nothing ! The infinitive pfl^yn in this passage is very remark
able ; the only possible way of explaining it would be to regard
the clause as an incomplete exclamation, viz. : " and to offer a
burnt-offering that cost nothing (sc. how could I do it !)" But
if we compare this word with p) '^yy and the rest of the clause in
2 Sam., it appears very probable that the original reading was :
I will not take what belongs to thee (viz., the floor and land which
are thy property) and will not offer, &c. — V. 25. After the
words of David in the previous verse we expect to find that he
purchased not only the ground but also the cattle, and this he
is said to have done in Samuel, where he is described as giving
fifty shekels of silver for the floor and the oxen. According to
our text he paid shekels of gold in weight six hundred. To
reconcile the two accounts ancient scholars (e.g. Noldius ad con
cord. Part. Not. 719) have expressed the opinion that the shekels
of gold mentioned here are to be reckoned as silver ones, that
they are called shekels of gold because they were paid in gold
coin, whilst the amount actually paid was 600 shekels of silver,
that gold was worth twelve times as much as silver, and therefore
David paid fifty gold coins, which are the fifty pieces mentioned
in Samuel. R. Salomon supposes that the twelve tribes contri
buted fifty shekels each, and thus the whole amount collected
was 600 shekels. Other opinions equally marvellous have been
expressed on this subject. The two accounts cannot be recon
ciled. (Keil arrives at a very different conclusion : he says (p.
326) " in 1 Chr. xxi. 25 it is stated that David gave to Oman
for the place (probably the hill, Mount Moriah) 600 shekels of
gold. On the other hand in 2 Sam. xxiv. 24 we read that David
bought the threshing-floor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver.
The very words of the two passages show that the authors were
writing of different things, and therefore there is no reason to sup
pose that there is any error." Tr ) — And he hearkened to him
with fire from heaven upon the burnt- offering, i.e., he shewed that
he had determined to deliver the land from the pestilence, and also
VOL. II. t

290 CHAPTER XXI. 28—30.
that the sacrifice, which had been offered upon the newly erected
altar and the new place of sacrifice, was acceptable to him, by
sending fire from heaven, and thus kindling the wood upon the
altar of burnt-offering, cf. 2 Kings i. 12 ; 1 Kings xviii. 24, 38 ;
2 Chr. vii. 1 ; and particularly Lev. ix. 24.— V. 27. A descrip
tion in perfect keeping with the whole tenor of the narrative (cf.
v. 16), corresponding to the words of 2 Sam. xxi. 25, "the plague
was stayed from Israel."
Chap. xxi. 28 — xxii. 19. David was not permitted to build
the temple himself (cf. chap, xvii.) ; but the spot upon which it
should afterwards be built, within the city which he had con
quered and selected as the central-point of the Israelitish com
munity, was set apart during his lifetime and consecrated by
signs from God himself. He also made preparations for the
building of the temple by collecting materials, so that Solomon
was able at once to set about the erection of the new sanctuary,
and to complete it during the first years of his reign.
Chap. xxi. 28 — xxii. 1. The account of the numbering of the
people, the pestilence and the appearance of the angel, is brought
to a close in these verses. This conclusion is not to be found in
the Book of Samuel, although it is evident, from the connection
between the narrative and the whole of the history of David and
Solomon in the Books of Samuel and Kings, that tbe only reason
for its introduction is to show that the place upon which Solomon
built the temple was holy ground even in David's time, and to
answer the question why this spot in particular was selected for
the sanctuary.— V. 28. At that time, after the cessation of the
pestilence, when David saw lhat Jehovah had heard him upon the
threshing floor ofthe Jebusites, he sacrificed there. According to
the previous account, David offered the sacrifice during the pesti
lence, and the cessation ofthe pestilence is represented as the con
sequence of the sacrifice, which was accepted as well-pleasing to
God (vv. 26, 27). It is to this that the expression "he had heard"
in the verse before us refers ; and therefore the words " and he
sacrificed," relate to the continuance of the practice of offering
sacrifices at this place, which had been first used as a place of
sacrifice during the pestilence. We might give this rendering
to the clause : " then David was in the habit of sacrificing there."
— Vv. 29, 30. We have here a parenthesis, intended as a reply

CHAPTER XXII. 1 — 4. 291
to the question, how it was that David came to offer sacrifices
at this new place of sacrifice, and on the new altar of burnt-
offering, which he had erected there, notwithstanding the fact
that the old Mosaic sanctuary, the central point of the worship
of the Israelitish community ever since the time of Moses, was
still standing upon the high places of Gibeon (cf. chap. xvi. 39
seq.). David could not go before it (the expression " before it "
refers to the tabernacle and the altar of burnt-offering which
are mentioned just before ; cf. chap. xvi. 4, 37 : " before the
ark," and xvi. 39 : "before the tabernacle") to seek God, i.e., to
obtain the favour of God especially by the offering of sacrifices
(cf. 2 Chr. i. 5 seq.), for he had been afraid ofthe sword ofthe angel
of Jehovah (vv. 16, 27), not " ex terrore visionis angelicae infirmi-
tatem corporis contraxerat" (J. H. Michaelis), but he had been
affected, and, as it were, overcome by the distinct intimation
from God that the place, where the angel had appeared, was a
holy place, which God himself had consecrated for the offering of
sacrifices, and therefore he did not dare to offer them elsewhere.
— Chap. xxii. 1. Continuation of the narrative which was inter
rupted at v. 28 by the introduction of the parenthesis. The
place, where the sanctuary was to be built, is described by David
as the house of God (cf. Gen. xxviii. 17).

3. Chap. xxii. 2—19.
david's preparations for the building of the temple.
Chap. xxii. 2 — 5. Collection of building-materials. — The stran
gers : that is, those who were not Israelites by birth but lived in
Israel as members of the community ; their number in Solo
mon's time is given at 2 Chr. ii. 16, 17. According to 2 Chr.
vui. 7 — 10 these foreigners consisted of descendants of the
Canaanites, whom the Israelites had failed to exterminate when
they conquered the land. (cf. 1 Kings v. 27—31, ix. 15—23.)
 V. 3. nV1in!3' the Piel participle, binding things ; according
to 2 Chr. xxxiv. 11 they were pieces of wood used to connect
the beams, but in this passage they are iron brackets. — V. 4.
The Zidonians and Tyrians are classed together in the same way
t2

292 CHAPTER XXII. 5—7.
in Ezra iii. 7. The meaning appears to be, that they brought
to David an abundance of cedar wood as an article of commerce.
In Solomon's time the Tyrians bound themselves by a formal
contract to supply the cedar wood required (1 Kings v. 15 — 25.)
— V. 5. Young and tender ; the same expression occurs in chap.
xxix. 1. We cannot draw any conclusion from these words as
to the age of Solomon at this time, for Joshua is described in
Ex. xxxiii. 11 as still a boy in relation to Moses, although it is
evident from the chronological data given in the Pentateuch that
he was more than forty years old. They show, however, the
father's anxiety lest the powers of his youthful son should be
inadequate to the great task which he left for him to perform ;
and hence in contrast with the son, who is young and tender, he
says, " the house, which is to be built for Jehovah, is very great to
make (on the Infinitive in this connexion see chap. v. 1, ix. 25,
xiii. 4, xv. 2, on Tyyyftb see chap. xiv. 2) for a name, namely for
renown and for glory with reference to all lands" (chap. xiv. 17),
(and in order that the disparity between the two may be softened
down he resolves) " I will make preparations for him."
Vv. 6 — 16. In a solemn manner David gives to Solomon the
commission to build the temple. — V. 6. As the following address
sounds like the last charge of a dying father, and as it strongly
recals to mind, at least in some of the expressions, the address
contained in 1 Kings ii. 2 — 9, which is said in v. 1 to have been de
livered by David a short time before his death, and as reference is
made to his death in the previous verse, the meaning of the verse
before us evidently is, that David called Solomon to him a short
time before his decease, that he might give him instructions with
reference to the building of the temple. — V. 7. According to the
accents the reading of the Keri should be adopted, and in this
case the address would begin with the vocative my son ! But
tbe commencement of the address is distinctly marked by the
first person pronoun, and therefore the Kethib (his son) must be
retained and the accents changed so as to read : he said- to Solo
mon his son. 1, il was in my heart, in other words I intended ;
we find almost exactly the same expression in chap, xxviii. 2,
2 Chr. vi. 7, 8, and many other passages in the second Book of
Chronicles i. 11, ix. 1, xxiv. 4, xxix. 10, but it very rarely
occurs in the other books of the Old Testament, e.g., 1 Kings

CHAPTER XXII. 8—11. 293
viii. 17 seq. — The verse points back to chap. xvii. 1 seq. — V. 8.
According to the will of God the building of the temple was not
to be entrusted to the warlike king David, but to his son, who
was to be permitted to live at peace. This historical fact is
again referred to in chap. Xxviii. 3, and 1 Kings v. 17, though not
in the same terms as in this verse. It is recorded here in the
form of a command, which was given by God to David (" And
the word of the Lord came to me"). We must bear in mind
that in Nathan's address (chap. xvii. 4 — 14) the prosperous wars
of David are mentioned, but it is not stated that these wars un
fitted him to build the temple. Before me thou hast shed much
blood upon the earth, that is, so that I looked upon it. — V. 9.
A son will be born to thee; the participle is also used in this
sense after the exclamation behold! in 1 Kings xiii. 2. Com
pare v. 19 of this chapter. — A man of rest, like Jer. li. 59 and
Ps. xxiii. 2: "waters of rest," must denote the man who procures
rest for others; from the antithesis a man of war (1 Chr. xxviii.
3) and the context of this passage, the word menochah evidently
means rest, and Solomon is called a man of rest, because he was
to enjoy the blessings of peace. — And I will give him rest, cf. 1
Kings v. 18. — noSty' (Solomon) ; according to this passage the
name bas the same meaning as Friederich, but from the relation
in which it stands to the peace enjoyed by the land during
his reign, we are not to infer that the name was first given to
Solomon in consequence of the peace which had been established
in his days. The writer regards it as a most significant omen.
The other name Jedidiah was given to Solomon by Nathan,
and is described in 2 Sam. xii. 24 seq. as a second and
superior name, which he received in addition to the name of
Solomon on account of Jehovah, i.e., to express the relation in
which he was to stand to Jehovah. Jedidiah was a new name
expressly formed for this purpose and is not met with elsewhere,
whilst Shelomo does not appear to have been an unusual name.
We find names in other passages which closely resembled it,
e.g., Shelomi, Num. xxxiv. 27, Shelomith, Lev. xxiv. 11 ; 1 Chr.
iii. 19, xxvi. 25 ; 2 Chr. xi. 20 (compare the account of the
peace in Solomon's days at 1 Kings v. 4 seq.). — V. 10. A free
rehearsal of the promises contained in Nathan's address (chap.
xvii. 12, 13).— V. 11. Jehovah be with thee; vv. 16, 18 — V. 12.

294 CHAPTER XXII. 12 — 14.
Wisdom and understanding (2 Chr. ii. 11) ; David's wish reminds
us of the account of Solomon's dream in 1 Kings iii. 5 — 15.
"Wtt^'k (the infinitive with lamed, a construction peculiar to the
author of the Chronicles,) to keep ! that is, thou must keep, cf.
v. 5. — V. 13. Both the expression " take heed to do" and the juxta
position of the words, " the statutes and judgments," remind us of
Deut. xi. 32, iv. 1, v. 1, vii. 4, &c. Be strong and of good cour
age, fear not, cf. Deut. xxxi. 6, and Josh. i. 7. " Be not dismayed "
in connection with "fear not" occurs also in Deut. i. 21, xxxi. 8. —
V. 14. V2V3 n°t *'n my poverty, but by my strenuous labour, ac
cording to Gen. xxxi. 42 ; see the precisely similar expression in
chap. xxix. 2, I have prepared with all my might. The enormous
amounts given here, 100,000 talents of gold and a milHon talents
of silver, are not found anywhere else even in the Book of
Chronicles, for in chap. xxix. 4, David is said to have contributed
of his own property 3000 talents of gold and 7000 talents of sil
ver, whilst the freewill offerings ofthe Israelitish princes amounted
to 5000 talents of gold, 10,000 dariks and 10,000 talents of sil
ver, immense sums no doubt, but sums which must be caUed
small in comparison with those named in the verse before us.
As a proof of the extraordinary wealth of Solomon, it is stated
in 1 Kings x. 14 that his income had reached 666 talents of gold
a year, i.e., about twenty million thalers (three million pounds
sterling, Thenius) ; the queen of Sheba presented Solomon with
120 talents of gold (1 Kings x. 10 ; 2 Chr. ix. 9 ) ; King Hiram
gave him the same sum (1 Kings ix. 14), and according to the
context ofthe account in the Books of Kings we are to regard this
as an extraordinarily large amount. And yet in the verse before
us we read of 100,000 talents of gold and a million talents of
silver, a sum almost sufficient to pay the debts of all the states of
Europe.1 It is out of the question to take these numbers in
their strict literality. It may originally have been intended as
nothing more than a very loose expression with the meaning
very much, an extraordinary amount : a kind of circumlocution,
which may still be sometimes heard in the mouths of persons,
who have not reflected much upon the worth and import of
1 This is an exaggeration, for according to the author's own compu
tation just before, it would fall very far short of paying the national
debt of Great Britain alone. — Tr.

CHAPTER XXII. 14. 295
numbers and, for that very reason, talk without hesitation of
thousands and hundreds of thousands. This opinion is confirmed
by v. 16, where it is expressly stated that the gold and silver could
not be numbered. Earlier expositors have either regarded the
numbers, as we find them here, as in literal accordance with fact
(undecumque autem, says Colovius, David tantam compararit
summam — 3300 loachimicorum millionum — a litera textus ob nos-
tram ignorantiam adeo discedendum non est, ut potius mirari ac
venerari oporteat benedictionem divinam hujus opilionis, quae tam
immensos thesauros ipsi, ad regium thronum evecto conciliarit, etc.
J. H. Michaelis), or they have tried by arbitrary assumptions to
reduce the amount ; the latter is the method adopted even by
Keil, p. 334 sqq. — (It may be well to supply the explanation sug
gested by Keil to which the author refers. He says : " accord
ing to 1 Chr. xxii. 14 David gives 100,000 talents of gold and
a million talents of silver for the building of the temple, and ac
cording to chap. xxix. 4 he contributes beside this 3000 talents of
gold and 7000 talents of silver, to which the nobles of the king
dom add 5000 talents of gold, 10,000 dariks, 10,000 talents of
silver, and a large quantity of brass and iron. The last two
statements can hardly be called in question, when we consider
the opportunities enjoyed by David for amassing incalculable
treasures. He conquered the Edomites, the Moabites, the Am
monites, the Amalekites, the Syrians, and the powerful king of
Nesibis, whose officers had golden shields (2 Sam. viii. 7). No
one will deny that by these numerous wars David and the elders
of his kingdom must have been able to accumulate immense
wealth. Beside this the Israelitish officers under Moses took
from the Midianites 16,750 shekels of gold in chains, bracelets,
rings, and other ornaments, in addition to the booty that was
carried off by the common soldiers (Num. xxxi. 50 — 53), and
the weight of the rings alone, which Gideon received as a share
of the plunder taken from the Ishmaelites, was 1700 shekels
(Judg. vui. 26). It is true that, according to 2 Sam. viii. 11 sqq.,
David placed all the gold and silver, that had been taken from
the tribes just named, in the treasury of the temple ; but, not
withstanding this, great wealth must have flowed into his own
private treasures from the kings, who either sent him valuable
presents as a friend, or paid tribute as vassals. If Solomon re-

296 CHAPTER XXII. 14.
ceived 660 talents of gold annually from the allied kings and
governors ofthe provinces (1 Kings x. 14 seq. ; 2 Chr. ix. 13 seq.),
besides the income derived from commerce, David, who had
the same revenue in the latter part of his reign, with the excep
tion of that derived from the trade with Ophir, which brought
Solomon his extraordinary wealth, might very well possess 3000
talents of gold in his private treasury. And the treasury ofthe
temple must have been considerably enriched by the extraordi
nary amount of booty. But tbe statement seems almost to reach
the incredible. Yet not only earlier theologians, but modern
expositors also (e.g. Dereser) have supported the historical cha
racter of the first numbers (viz., the amount in the temple-trea
sury) ; and, in fact, if the numbers in every other instance were
free from error, we could and must admit their correctness in
this instance also, because every calculation, that can be based upon
our money, is uncertain. The only clue which we possess is the
assertion of Josephus (Ant. iii. 8 — 2), that a shekel was equal to
four Attic drachms. But there was an interval of a thousand
years between Josephus and David, and, with the frequent changes
in the government, there must have been great alterations in the
weights and measures of the Jews. Moreover, there are many
proofs that the talent was much smaller in ancient times (cf.
Michaelis de siclo ante exil. Babyl. and his suppl. ad lexx. hebr.
p. 364 sqq.) To this must be added the uncertainty as to the
shekels by which the talents were calculated, whether they were
shekels of the sanctuary or royal shekels. If, for example, the
amount was computed according to the latter (and this is a pos
sible thing), J. D. Michaelis reckons that it would be worth
540 million thalers (81 million pounds sterling). But even this
sum could be considerably reduced, for the gold was not so fine
as our sterling gold ; moreover, we are not acquainted with the
relative value of gold and silver in ancient times. Again
this gold had not all been collected by David, but the amount
named included all that had been brought into the treasury of
the sanctuary by Samuel, Saul, Abner, and Joab ; for, accord
ing to 1 Chr. xxvi. 28, the whole of this went into the temple-
fund. We may even add still earlier contributions to the sanc
tuary, for there is nothing to lead to the conclusion that the
treasury of the tabernacle had ever been plundered by enemies.

CHAPTER XXII. 15 — 19. 297
Whoever ponders all these reasons, will at least withhold his de
cision." Keil Chronik. p. 334—336). — The explanatory clause 13
pppt yy*y could only mean, in the mouth of David : for (when
an attempt was made to weigh it) it was lying in a mass, so that
it was necessary to give up all thought of ascertaining the
weight ; compare the more simple expression in v. 3. And thou
mayest add thereto ; see 2 Chr. ii. " how Solomon collected stores
and wood for the building of the temple." V. 15. This verse
contains a reference to v. 2, where the stonemasons are spoken
of, and to v. 4, which treats of the Zidonians and Tyrians who
brought the cedar wood (cf. 2 Chr. ii. 7). All manner of cunning
men ; these skilful mechanics, whom David had secured for the
building of Solomon's temple, are referred to in 2 Chr. ii. 6.
V. 16. Arise and be doing ; a precisely similar expression is also
found in Ezra x. 4.
Vv. 17 — 19. David commands the princes of Israel to assist in
the building of the temple. V. 17. All the princes of Israel ;
chap, xxiii. 2, xxviii. 1. V. 18. The omission of any intimation
that the words in v. 18 seq. were spoken by David himself is of
little consequence, for on the very first glance they may be re
cognised as David's words. Still there is something peculiar in
this abrupt introduction of the words of another. We find a
similar example in chap, xxiii. 4 seq. For he hath given the
inhabitants into my hand; cf. Josh. ii. 24. And the land is sub
dued ; see Josh, xviii. 1, Num. xxxii. 22, 29, where the ex
pressions before Jehovah, and before you, or before them, viz.
his people, also occur. V. 19. To seek Jehovah; the regular
construction with the accusative without lamed is also met with
in the Chronicles, e.g. Bk. 1. xxi. 30 ; Bk. 2. xvi. 12. The ark
of the covenant of Jehovah ; the ark was kept in a tent on
Mount Zion during the reign of David (chap. xv. 1, 1 Chr. v.
2). To bring the ark . . . into the house ; the ^ before
ryiy is here again a sign of the accusative as in chap. xxv. 26 ;
Neh. x. 35 seq. i~?232n> int° the house that is to be built ;
cf. v. 9.

298 CHAPTER XXIII. 2 — 5.

8. Chap, xxiii. — xxvi.
DAVID MAKES SOLOMON KING. DIVISION OF THE PRIESTS
AND LEVITES INTO CLASSES, AND APPOINTMENT OF THEIR
DUTIES. 1. Chap, xxiii. 1. Qfti yyty; in other cases we find the
adjective ryifti 5?3to> or JQ& alone in the same sense, the for
mer in Gen. xxxv. 29, and Job xlii. 17, the latter in Gen. xxv.
8. In this instance we have the third person perfect of Kal fol
lowed by a noun in the accusative. From this it foUows that
pf must also be the third person perfect of the verb. He made
Solomon his son king over Israel ; this is not a passing remark to
be taken up again at a future time (e.g. at chap. xxix. 22), but
an independent statement, which is complete in itself, and forms
the commencement of the account of the arrangements made
by David during the last days of his Hfe. In these few
words we have the substance of the narrative contained in
1 Kings i., which could not properly be inserted at length in the
Book of Chronicles, as it is closely connected with the account
of the family affairs of David related in the Books of Samuel and
Kings, and the plan of our historian led him to avoid such topics
altogether. 2. Chap, xxiii. 2 — xxvi. a. The number of the Levites and
their occupations, chap, xxiii. 2 — 5. b. The fathers'-houses of
the Levites, chap, xxiii. 6 — 23, with supplementary remarks, vv.
24 — 33. c. The twenty-four priestly classes, chap. xxiv. 1 — 19.
d. The leaders ofthe classes ofthe Levites, chap. xxiv. 20 — 31.
e. The twenty-four classes of singers, chap. xxv. /. The classes
of the doorkeepers, chap. xxvi. 1 — 19. g. The managers ofthe
treasures of the sanctuary, chap. xxvi. 20 — 28. h. Officers ap
pointed for external affairs, chap. xxvi. 29 — 32.
(a.) Chap, xxiii. 2 — 5. — V. 2. Then David assembled (sc. in
the last days of his life cf. chap. xxvi. 31), all the princes of
Israel; cf. chap. xxii. 17. In chap. xxv. 1 we read that the

CHAPTER XXIII. 2 — 5. 299
princes of the host assisted David in arranging the singers. The
meaning is that David made the arrangements, which are after
wards described, in a solemn assembly of the princes (i.e. the
representatives of the lay-tribes) and of the priests and Levites.
According to other passages the princes of thousands stood imme
diately by the side of David (chap. xiii. 1), and the elders of
Israel are mentioned in connection with them (chap. xv. 25). —
V 3. From thirty years and upwards ; justas, according to Num.
iv. 3, 23, 30, 39 sqq., the census was taken of all Levites between
the ages of thirty and fifty for the service of the sanctuary (ac
cording to Num. vifi. 23 — 26 every Levite of twenty-five years
old and upward was to take his turn in the service of the taber
nacle), so here the census, taken by David towards the close of
his Hfe, embraced all the Levites who were thirty years old and
upward. The relation, in which this notice stands to the account
contained in v. 24 of this chapter, we shall reserve for discussion
when we come to that verse. " By their polls, man by man :"
the second expression defines the first so as to prove that women
and children were not included. — V. 4 seq. As soon as the num
ber had been determined (38,000), David spoke (that these
verses contain an address by David is evident from the word
"TV^y, in v. 5 ; the abrupt introduction of David's words is not
more remarkable in this passage than in chap. xxii. 18 seq.), for
the purpose of decreeing what number of Levites should be
appointed to the different offices. — Twenty-four thousand of them
were set apart to conduct the work ofthe house of Jehovah (for a
more precise explanation of this expression see v. 28 — 32, and
chap. ix. 13) : among the different departments of this work
were (1) the service of the holy of holies, which was committed to
the priests (chap. vi. 49), who were divided into twenty-four
classes, as described immediately afterwards at chap, xxiv.;
(2) the " work of the service," which is said in chap. ix. 19 to
have been committed to the four thousand doorkeepers ; (3) the
" outward business " mentioned in chap. xxvi. 29, which was
allotted to the six thousand scribes and judges ; (4) the work of
the singers (chap. xxv. 1), ofthe four thousand singers, who praise
Jehovah with the instruments, which I have made for praising ;
cf. Nehem. xii. 36, the instruments of David the man of God, by
which the stringed instruments especially are meant, 2 Ch. xxix.

300 CHAPTER XXIII. 6.
26 ; there is also a passage in Amos (vi. 5) in which David is
spoken of as the inventor of musical instruments.
(b.) Chap, xxiii. 6 — 23. The twenty-four fathers'-houses of
the Levites. Dp^JTH' this pointing is also found in chap. xxiv.
3 (where, however, more accurate editions, for example that of
R. Norzi, have Dp^ppn) 5 besides these there are MSS. and
editions in which we find the ordinarj' Piel opprPl and a rare
but intelligible form of the imperfect Kal Qp^pT'H (V- J- &•
Michaelis not. erit.). The last form is accredited by R. D.
Kimchi, in chap. xxiv. 3, and he expressly states that the regular
form answers to it ; cf. R. Norzi on this passage. We are led by
such passages as chap. xxiv. 4, 5 ; 2 Chr. xxiii. 18 (xxviii. 21)
Nehem. ix. 22 to expect a Kal. The Niphal, which very sel
dom occurs, would have to be rendered distribuit sibi, a render
ing which would cause some difficulty ; still we might bring
forward the form 'ipfito^pfr Ezek. xliii. 18, in explanation ofthe
use of the Niphal in the word Qp~>pi!,V We must necessarily
pronounce it a Piel (in the Chronicles it occurs nowhere but in
chap. xvi. 3) if the pointing Qp^ppi (= DpVn!,l) were supported
by good MSS., but this is not the case. This pointing appears
to us to have originated in a very simple conjecture, and in the
wish to substitute a similar expression for the traditional reading
DpVn!,l* F°r this reason we are unable to subscribe to the
opinion of Gesenius (thes. p. 483) and Ewald (Lehrb. 64 c),
that the Piel was the form originally intended. Op^n^s which is
the pointing that must be adopted both here and in chap. xxiv. 3,
admits of explanation as a Kal ; in consequence of the suffix the
two consonants Koph and Lamed lose their vowel, and the Cheth
before these two vowelless consonants, which as a Guttural was
previously written with Patach, now takes a Kametz. In other
cases indeed the vowel, which has been dropt, reappears in an
earlier part of the word, as for example D-Qyp\ from -J3yp\ Ex.
xx. 5, but as the general laws of inflexion are not opposed to the
insertion of the Kametz, and there are cases in which it is so
inserted, e.g. in o^ni!^ from ^nttj"' 2 Kings x. 14, we need not
hesitate to assume that a Kametz has been introduced here, and
3

CHAPTER XXIII. 6 — 23. 301
that the Patach under the Yod has been consequently changed
into Seghol, according to a well known rule. There can be no
doubt that D. Kimchi had this explanation of the pointing in his
mind, when starting from the regular form Qp^ppl (or Op^no)
he attributed the change of the Patach under the Yod into
Seghol to the influence of the following Kametz. — nip^THD is
the second Accusative: into sections according to the sons of Levi,
Gershon, Kohath and Merari, i.e. according to the three great
families into which the tribe of Levi had been from time imme
morial divided, cf. chap. v. 27, vi. 1. — After the announcement
in v. 5, and the foregoing verses, we expect an account of the
different sections into which the Levites were divided ; but
according to the statement in v. 24, which forms an introduction
to the supplementary remarks in vv. 24 — 32, the sons of Levi
are here mentioned first according to their fathers'-houses, and
in fact only such of the fathers'-houses are named as performed
the work connected with the service of the house of Jehovah,
that is to say the 24,000 mentioned in v. 4 ; the singers, door
keepers, scribes and judges are noticed afterwards. The twenty-
four thousand alone are described here, as we may see from the
fact that many of the names which occur in this passage are men
tioned again in chap. xxiv. 20 — 31, where we have a Hst of the
heads of the houses of these Levites, and in chap. xxvi. 20 — 28,
where the management of the treasures of the house of God,
which was committed to certain individuals among them, is
treated of, whereas we find totally different names in the account
ofthe twenty-four classes of singers (chap. xxv. 1 — 31), of the
doorkeepers (chap. xxvi. 1 — 19), and of the scribes and judges
(chap. xxvi. 29 — 32). As the fathers'-houses of the priests
coincide with the twenty-four classes into which they were divided
(chap. xxiv. 1 — 19), so may we conclude that the fathers'-
houses of those Levites, who cast lots in the same manner as
their brethren the priests, coincided with the classes. We are
not informed in the Book of Chronicles into how many classes
these Levites were divided ; but as they cast the lots precisely in
the same manner as the priests, we may safely assume that they
were also divided into twenty-four classes, especially as we learn
from v. 25 that the singers also formed twenty-four classes. When

302 CHAPTER XXIII. 7 — 14.
Josephus expressly says (Ant. 7, 14, 7) that David divided these
Levites into twenty-four classes, he certainly catches the mean
ing of the announcement in chap. xxiv. 31. It will therefore
be necessary to examine the verses before us for the purpose of
seeing whether there are twenty-four fathers'-houses mentioned
in them. In replying to this question we shall compare chap.
xxiv. 20 — 31, and xxvi. 20 — 28, as very many of the names
which occur in the passage before us are repeated there.
Vv. 7 — 11. Gershon. The two leading branches of Gershon
were Laadan and Shimei. V. 8. The principal branch Laadan
was first divided into three fathers'-houses, the head Jehiel,
Zetham, and Joel. — V. 9. In the fathers'-house of Laadan there
were also included three sons of Shimei, not the Shimei men
tioned in v. 7, whose sons are given in v. 10, but those of another
Shimei belonging to the family of Laadan. The three fathers'-
houses of Shimei were Shelomith (Keri) or Shelomoth (Kethib),
Chaziel and Haran. The note, "these are the heads ofthe fathers'-
houses of Laadan," states most distinctly, that there were 3x3
fathers'-houses belonging to Laadan. — V. 10. Now first do we
come to the fathers'-houses of the Shimei, who is mentioned in
v. 7 by the side of Laadan. There were three fathers'-houses be
longing to him ; these houses were founded by four sons, Jochath,
Zina, or Ziza (v. 11), Jeush and Beriah, the last two forming
one father' s-house and one official class (chap. xxiv. 3, 2 Chr.
xvii. 14) on account of the paucity of their numbers. — Thus
Gershon had nine fathers'-houses, six of them the fathers'-houses
of Laadan and three the fathers'-houses of Shimei.
Vv. 12—20. Kohath.— V. 12. The four leading branches of
Kohath are given in precisely the same way in chap. v. 28, vi. 3 ;
Ex. vi. 18, &c. — V. 13. Of the sons of Amram, Aaron is not
reckoned here, for he was set apart, to consecrate him as most holy
(lit. holy of holies, a term which is nowhere else applied to Aaron),
he and his sons for ever (that they might discharge the priestly
duties) to serve him and to bless his name ; this duty, however,
was not confined to them, but belonged to the other Levites also,
Deut. x. 8. Aaron's sons form the subject of chap. xxv. 1 — 19.
— V. 14. Hence only such of the descendants of Amram are
noticed here, as belonged to the line of his son Moses, for Moses
the man of God (Deut. xxxiii. 1 and elsewhere) his sons are

CHAPTER XXIII. 21—32. 303
named according to the tribe of Levi, they were reckoned among
the Levites generally and did not belong to that portion of Levi
to which the priestly duties were assigned. — V. 15. The birth of
Gershom is mentioned in Ex. ii. 22 : Gershom and Eliezer are
spoken of Ex. xviii. 3 seq. — V. 16. Sons (although only one name
follows), Shebuel the head; from the remark made in v. 17 we may
conclude that Gershom had other sons, but they were reckoned
as part of the fathers'-house of Gershom, and therefore are not
named. — V. 1 7 . Eliezer had only one son, Rechabiah, whose fathers'-
house included very many. Thus the descendants of Amram,
who were not priests, consisted of two fathers'-houses : Shebuel
and Rechabiah. — V. 18. The sons of Izhar formed one fathers'-
house Shelomith (Shelomoth, chap. xxiv. 22). V. 19. Chebron
consisted of four fathers'-houses, the names of which occur again
in the same order at chap. xxiv. 23. — V. 20. Uzziel contained
two fathers'-houses, which are mentioned again in the same way
at chap. xxiv. 24 seq. Thus Kohath was also the founder of
nine Levitical fathers'-houses, besides the priests, and these nine
(a point worthy of attention) are mentioned again by the same
names at chap. xxiv. 20 — 25.
Vv. 21 — 23. Merari. The two sons Machli and Mushi are
described in chap. vi. 4, Ex. vi. 19, and Num. iii. 33, as the
two leading branches of Merari. But in chap. xxiv. 26 seq. we
find the names ofthe sons of Jaaziah the son of Merari, a third
leading branch who were the founders of three fathers'-houses,
Shoham, Zakkur, and Ibri. According to all that precedes we
are justified in assuming that there is a perfect harmony between
the list of Merari's descendants given here and that contained in
chap. xxiv. 26 — 31, and can therefore entertain no doubt that
Jaaziah and his three sons were originally mentioned in the Hst
before us. As two sons only, Machli and Mushi, are noticed in
other passages, we can easily explain how the third name came
to be omitted here, whilst there is no way in which we could ex
plain a subsequent and arbitrary interpolation of the name. —
V. 22. Eleazar had no sons ; his daughters were married to the
sons of Kish, their brethren, i.e., their blood relations, according
to the law (Num. xxxvi. 6—9). Kish then had sons ; they are
not named here, but are noticed in chap. xxiv. 29 : " ihe sons of
Kish Jerahmeel."— -V. 23. The sons of Mushi are also named in

304 CHAPTER XXIII. 24.
chap. xxiv. 30. In itself it is not strange, that there should be
another Machli among them, for the same names occur in other
instances among relations ; but it is strange that the two
names Mushi and Machli follow closely tbe one upon the other,
and it may reasonably be conjectured that Machli was placed in
the text by mistake, and that this error led to the addition ofthe
number three, which we do not find in chap. xxiv. 30. If then
we assume that Machli was not originally in the text, the lead
ing branch of Merari consisted of six fathers'-houses : Shoham,
Zakkur, Ibri, Kish-Jerahmeel, Eder, Jeremoih. Thus Gershom
was the founder of sixty-nine fathers'-houses, Kohath of nine,
Merari of six, in all twenty-four.
Vv. 24 — 32. Supplementary remarks. — V. 24. These (the per
sons just named) are the sons of Levi according to their fathers'-
houses, the heads of the fathers'-houses according as they were num
bered (Num. i. 21 sqq. ; Ex. xxx. 14), in a list of their names
(Num. i. 18, chap. iii. 43) according to their heads, performing ihe
work (pi3^jan ntojh as in ^ Chr. xxiv. 12, xxxiv. 10, 13,
x x : — •*
Ezra iii. 9, Nehem. ii. 16 (cf. 2 Chr. xi. 1), is hardly a Singular,
but another mode of writing the ordinary plural lyr/y, which
occurs by the side of pjfcjw in 2 Chr. xxiv. 13 (cf. 12), xxxiv.
17 (cf. 10), Nehem. xi. 12, xiii. 10, and evidently has tbe same
signification) for the service of the house of Jehovah from (those
who were) twenty years old and upioards. According to this the
Levites who were twenty years old were to take their share of
the duties, whereas it was stated at v. 3, that the Levites were
numbered off for service from their thirtieth year. To reconcile
these statements, Kimchi and some of the earlier Christian expo
sitors (e.g., J. H. Michaelis) assumed that David first took the
census according to the law (Num. iv. 3, 23, 30) including only
such as were thirty years of age, but that when he perceived that
even those who were only twenty years old were able to perform
the duties of the sanctuary, which were considerably lightened
now that it was no longer moveable, be included in the second
census, which was taken, according to v. 27, towards the close of
his life, all those who were twenty years of age. We cannot
subscribe to this opinion. For (1) the census of the Levites of
thirty years of age gave 38,000 (v. 3) ; these 38,000 were

chapter xxiii. 24 — 29. 305
appointed and no more ; it is nowhere stated that this number
did not suffice, or that the arrangements founded upon it (vv. 4,
5) were not permanently maintained ; (2) the historian shows
clearly enough, that he is about to make a statement here which
differs from the account he had previously given, for in v. 25
seq. he mentions the reason why David was induced to depart
from the ancient legal prescription with reference to the number
ing of those who were above thirty years of age, and in v. 27 he
expressly points out the source from which he derived this last
account. Hence the attempts to bring the two into harmony
cannot be sustained, for the evident intention of the author was
to communicate two different accounts, according to the one of
which the Levites in David's time were numbered from their
thirtieth year, whilst according to the other David had already
introduced the plan, which was subsequently followed (2 Chr.
xxxi. 17 ; Ezra ii. 8), of appointing the Levites to their duties at
their twentieth year. — V. 25 seq. Jehovah has given rest to his
people, so that they no longer need to wander from one place to
another with the dwelling place of Jehovah (chap. xvii. 5), and
the consequence of this is, that he dwells in Jerusalem for ever,
and ihe Levites also have no longer to carry the dwelling and all
its vessels for the service thereof (Num. iii. 7, 8 ; and iv. 4 —
33) ; we may easily supply the conclusion at which these words
of David point, viz. since the hard labour is at an end, those
who are twenty years old may take part in the service. No lon
ger to carry ; cf. 2 Chr. v. 11, xxxv. 15. — V. 27. Not according
to the last commands of David (J. H. Michaelis), but in the last
memorials of David, in which there is a reference to a portion of
some historical work, as chap. xxix. 29 clearly shows. n?3i"T
10D73' are ^he number (i.e., the persons numbered) of the sons of
Levi from their twentieth year. — V. 28. For their post was (no
longer to carry the dwelling place and its sacred vessels, but) by
the side of Aaron. — prn^pin bv over ^le forecourts- Mflp *?3^>
the lamed of indirect connection after the construct state, (see on
the other hand 2 Chr. xxx. 19).— V. 29. Instead of the preposi
tion al we find lamed in the subsequent portion of the narrative^
And over all the measures and sizes, which were kept by the
Levites ; the meal and oil and wine had all to be offered in cer
tain definite quantities in connection with the burnt offerings
VOL. II. u

306 chapter xxiii. 30— xxiv. 4.
(cf. Ex. xxix. 40). — V. 30. To thank and to praise; there is no
thing to show that these words refer to the 4000 Levites, who
were set apart to praise Jehovah with instruments, nor can it be
proved by a reference to chap. xxv. 3, where the words are used
in a different connexion. The 24,000 Levites will assuredly not
have discharged their duties like dumb servants in the sanctuary.
— V. 31. ^3*7 before the Infinitive, which is closely connected
with the following substantive: and for the whole ofthe sacrifi
cing of burnt offerings. — In the number (2 Sam. ii. 15) ; i.e.,
according to the number appointed in the law concerning the
festivals (Num. xxviii.). Continually ; this does not refer to the
word mishpat which immediately precedes it, but to the burnt-
offerings for Jehovah, which were continual, because they had to
be always offered again when the appointed days came round,
compare Num. xxviii. 6, &c, " a continual burnt offering.'" —
V. 32. With the word *n?3tZ^ the construction is altered and a
new commencement made, for after ~fl3j;7 in v. 30 the regular
order would require yftfjyb or VOB"lV -^s a conclusion, the whole
of the service of the Levites is briefly described in the well-
known words from Num. xviii. 3 sqq. : and so shall they keep the
charge ofthe tabernacle (Num. xvifi. 4; it followed as a matter
of course that this law also referred to the temple about to be
built, which was to take the place of the tabernacle) and the
charge of the holy place (Num. xviii. 5), and the charge ofthe sons
of Aa.ron (cf. Num. xviii. 3, " they shall keep thy charge").
(c) Chap. xxiv. 1 — 19. The twenty-four priestly classes. — V.
1. The brief expression, " and according to the sons of Aaron their
classes," is perfectly intelligible if we compare it with chap, xxiii.
6. The four sons of Aaron; see chap. v. 29 ; Ex. vi. 23. — V.
2. Compare Lev. x. 1 seq. and Num. iii. 4, in which we find
almost exactly the same words as in the verse before us. — V. 3.
And distributed them, cf. chap, xxiii. 6. On " Ahimelek ben Abia
thar (v. 6) ofthe Hne of Ithamar by the tribe of Zadok of the
Hne of Eleazar" compare chap, xviii. 16. According to their
official classes (chap, xxiii. 11) in their service. — V. 4. More
numerous with regard to the heads of the men, i.e., not with re
gard to the number of men's heads (see chap, xxiii. 3) but with
regard to the leaders of the men when divided into fathers'-

chapter xxiv. 5, 6. 307
houses (see chap. xxvi. 12 seq.). Still the fact that there was a
large number of fathers'-houses and of their heads or presidents
was no doubt caused by the excess in the number of priests belong
ing to the family of Eleazar. And (David, Zadok, and Ahimelek)
divided them: for the sons of Eleazar' s heads of fathers'-houses six
teen, and for the sons of Ithamar' s (heads) of fathers'-houses eight.
V. 5. These with those ; probably in such a manner that Eleazar's
sixteen fathers'-houses kept by themselves and Ithamar's fathers'-
houses by themselves, and that then they drew the lots alter
nately according to the rule described in v. 6. The lots were
drawn by the fathers'-houses of the two, because from time
immemorial there had been in both families holy princes (Is. xliii.
28, equivalent to " the princes of the priests," 2 Chr. xxxvi. 14
cf. Jer. Hi. 24) and princes of God (Sept. dp-)(0VTe$ Kvplov, an ex
pression only met with here.) V 6. And before the heads of the
fathers'-houses of the priests and ofthe rest ofthe Levites, f pj^ "fllN'
this expression and the words fpjj^ fnNV which follow immediately
after, are found in nearly all the MSS., for very few have "jpifcO
fpjfr$, though some expositors (e.g. Cappellus, Grotius, and even
Gesenius, thes. p. 68) pronounce this the original reading. For
an explanation of the word fpj^ we may refer to Num. xxxi. 30,
47 ; it denotes that which is taken out of a larger number, and
according to the context in this case taken out by lot. We may,
therefore, render the word a lot, i.e. that which is determined by
lottery, and translate the passage accordingly : a single father' s-
house was a lot for Eleazar, and (a single father's house) a lot,
a lot for Ithamar. The order of the sixteen fathers'-houses of
Eleazar, and of the eight of Ithamar, was to be decided by lot,
and the plan to be adopted was not for all the fathers'-houses of
Eleazar to draw first, and then those of Ithamar, but the order
of these and those was to be fixed at the same time, v. 5. Now
the names of the twenty-four fathers'-houses might have been
put into one urn, but in order to secure the desired alternation
of the houses of the two families, it was also possible to place the
names of the sixteen houses of Eleazar in one urn, and those of
the eight houses of Ithamar in the other. To accommodate the
casting of the lots to the inequality of the numbers sixteen and
eight, it was arranged that every house of Ithamar should reckon
as two lots, or, what is the same thing, that every two houses of
u 2

308 chapter xxiv. 20—31.
Eleazar should be followed by one of Ithamar. If then we sup
pose a commencement to have been made with Eleazar, the
order would be as follows : 1 and 2 Eleazar ; 3, Ithamar ; 4 and
5, Eleazar ; 6, Ithamar ; 7 and 8, Eleazar ; 9, Ithamar ; and so
forth. The order in which the particular houses were to serve
was then decided by lot in conformity with this arrangement.
The relation between the numbers 8 and 16, and the words fpj^
and fp^ fpj^ in this verse lead us to this, or some similar con
clusion with reference to the manner, in which the order of
service was determined by lot. In tbe different versions the
statements contained in this passage have been either obliterated
or altered ; the former is the case in the Septuagint (eh eh tg3
'EXed&p Kal eh eh ra 'Iddpap, the Syriac has the same render
ing, but this does not suit the numbers 8 and 16) in the Vulgate
the words are altered (unarn domum, quae ceteris praeerat,
Eleazar ; et alteram domum, quae sub se habebat ceteros, ItamarJ.
The exposition given by the Rabbins (e.g. Kimchi) is to my mind
unintelligible ; cf. J. II. Michaelis in loco. V. 19. These are
their classes of office for their service (v. 3) to come into the house
of Jehovah according to the order, which was appointed for them
through Aaron their father (chap. vi. 17) as Jehovah had com
manded him. The concluding words must refer to the expres
sion, which frequently occurs in the Pentateuch : " Jehovah
spake to Moses and Aaron," e.g. Num. iv. 1, 17.
(d.) Chap. xxiv. 20 -31. The leaders of the classes of the
Levites. On comparing the names in these verses with those in
the section, chap, xxiii. 6—23, we find that the list before us is
imperfect. For only the sons of Kohath and Merari are men
tioned here ; of the sons of Gershon, who must originally have
had a place in this list by the side of the others, we find no trace
in our present text. But even in that portion of the list which
has been preserved, we miss a considerable number of names,
which ought to be found in it according to the description given
at the head. It is said to contain the names of the heads ofthe
Levitical classes mentioned in chap, xxiii. 6 — 23 (seevv. 20 — 22,
v. 24 seq.) ; but we find only the heads of five classes of the
Kohathites named, the names of the leaders of the other four
classes are omitted here (v. 23) as in chap, xxiii. 19. The same
remark applies to the sons of Merari ; the classes are noticed

Chapter xxv. 1—5. 309
again in this passage, but without the names of the leaders. V.
31. vtt*^n m3N*> ni3N is usec^ here as in many other pas
sages for Beth Aboth : the father' s-house, the head as well as his
younger brother. Tlie head is in apposition to the father' s-house,
just as in chap, xxiii. 17 — 18 it is in apposition to the names of
the fathers'-houses. The passage is paraphrased quite correctly
by the Vulgate : tam majores quam minores, omnes sors aequali-
ter dividebat. The order of the classes ofthe Levites as deter
mined by the lot is not given.
(e.) Chap. xxv. The twenty-four classes of singers. V. 1. The
princes of the army ; not the princes of the army of the Levites
(Num. iv. 23), but the leaders ofthe army of the Israelites, for the
princes, referred to here, must be the same as the " princes of
Israel " mentioned in chap, xxiii. 2, and the " princes," chap.
xxiv. 6, in connexion with whom the heads of the fathers'-houses
of the priests and Levites are noticed in the latter passage, cf.
chap. xxvi. 26, and xxvii. 5. To separate to the service; cf. 1
Kings viii. 53, and Num. xvi. 9. The sons of Asaph ; the lamed
is the sign of the accusative, Ezra viii. 24. V. 2. i-p lyy, cf.
chap. vi. 16; this expression occurs four times in these verses.
The singular yi ^yy in the verse before us has precisely the same
signification. The primary sense is by the side of the king, of
Asaph, Src, and this meaning is retained if we render the words,
" under the personal direction." But whether the passage really
means that King David conducted the singing and the playing
in the same manner as Asaph, Jeduthun, and Heman, is very
doubtful. The expression may also be rendered " according to the
arrangements;" and,if we adopt this meaning, we should learn from
v. 6 that the musical arrangements were made by David, Asaph,
Jeduthun, and Heman, together, and hence in vv. 2, 3, and the
first clause of v. 6, the reference would simply be to the organisa
tion of the music and singing, though of course this would
not preclude the personal superintendence of Asaph, Jeduthun,
and Heman. V. 5. The seer, or prophet of the king, we are not
informed for what reason this title was given to Heman ; in chap.
xxi. 9 Gad is called the prophet of David, and in 2 Chr. xxix.
15, the same title is given to Jeduthun. To blow the horns loudly
according to the command of God; cf. 2 Chr. xxix. 15, where
-^-jL^j-faj vq13 must be rendered in this way ; other expositors

310 CHAPTER XXV. 6 — 31.
suppose the meaning to be " in divine affairs," i.e. in the wor
ship of God (cf. chap. xxvi. 32). D"Hi"T is immediately con
nected with <ryp as in other passages with lyp ; lifting up the
horn is equivalent to blowing it loud. V. 6. All these are under
the direction of their father (Heman) in the singing at the house
of Jehovah, with cymbals, nablia, and viols, for the service of
the house of God according to the arrangement of ihe king, Sec. ;
the twenty-four here mentioned were therefore set apart to ac
company the singing with instrumental music ; according to v.
7, every one of them was associated with eleven singers, for their
number together with their brethren, who were practised in singing
for Jehovah, the whole of those who were skilled were 288 =
12 x 24. The number here given merely refers to those who were
skilled, for, according to chap, xxiii. 5, the entire body of those,
who were set apart to praise Jehovah, numbered four thousand.
— V. 8. pniStZttS m'TYU (rendered by the Septuagint KXrjpov;
i<pr)p,epiwv) lots, by which the Mishmereth of every one of the
twenty-four sections was fixed. p)J3j;^ stands here in a very
peculiar position, it is in the construct state and yet the word
governed by it is wanting (cf. chap. xxvi. 12). It is true that
in some MSS. the word Mishmereth is repeated after it, so that
the text reads pni2t£tt3 pift$h mi3tP)3 (cf- xsvl- 16> Nehem.
xii. 24), but this reading seems only to have originated in the
desire to make the passage more inteUigible. Jewish expositors
affirm that the second Mishmereth may be supplied, and appeal
to chap. xvii. 5, where the words p\^?3 *?N are supplied in a
similar manner by ancient commentators. But it is worthy of
remark that in Eccl. v. 15 the word jyriyb occurs in quite as
loose a connection before a whole clause, and as the words " as
the small so the great," serve to define it more precisely, the con
struct state is not inadmissible. The meaning is : in the same
manner, as the small so the great ; and the words "as the small
so the great," are used in chap. xxvi. 13 as being sufficient in
themselves to express this meaning. The skilful as well as the
scholar ; the Aramaean word -pft^pi only occurs in this passage
of the Old Testament. From the previous verse it is evident,
that the distinction implied in these words is that between the
twelve skilled men in each of the classes, and the rest of the
members of the same class.— Vv. 9—31. The result of the lot

CHAPTER XXVI. 1 — 19. 311
was that the four sons of Asaph had the first, third, fifth, and
seventh places ; and the six sons of Jeduthun, the second,
fourth, eighth, tenth, twelfth, and fourteenth ; the four sons of
Heman, the sixth, ninth, eleventh, and thirteenth. Just as the
classes, into which the 24,000 Levites referred to in chap, xxiii.
6 — 23 were divided, are traced back to the three great families
of Levi : Gershon, Kohath, and Merari, so are also the Levites,
who had the charge of the music and singing ; for their twenty-
four classes are associated with the three men, Asaph, Jeduthun,
and Heman, of whom Asaph was a descendant of Gershon,
Jeduthun (also called Ethan) of Merari, and Heman of Kohath.
In the account of the removal of the ark in chap, xv., the only
one of the names mentioned here, which we find by the side of
those of Asaph, Heman, and Ethan (or Jeduthun), is Matthiah
(w. 18, 21) ; but we have no reason to expect to find the names
of the twenty-four classes mentioned here.
(f.) Chap. xxvi. 1 — 19. The classes of the doorkeepers. V. 8
The singular b^Tl tl^N (a man with strength) would necessarily
refer to each one of the sons of Obed-edom : every one was an
able man with strength for the service; but there is no possibility
of conceaHng the difficulty connected with such an explanation,
and in order to remove it we may perhaps assume that the word
^3 has fallen out before ^i^, cf. chap. x. 12. — V. 10. Shimri
the ftead, not the firstborn (cf. Zechariah the firstborn, v. 2,
Shemaiah the firstborn, v. 4), for there was no firstborn, probably
because the family entitled to the right of primogeniture had
died out (hence the Syriac : his eldest son had died), or because
there were none of the existing famihes which could claim that
right. — V. 12. These classes of doorkeepers (or to speak more
precisely), the head of the men (chap. xxiv. 4, for these alone had
been mentioned in the preceding verses) had the care of the
watches along with their brethren to render service in the house of
Jehovah (chap. xvi. 37). — V. 15. And to his sons (there was
allotted the care of) the house of collections. The house of A sup-
pirn, or briefly Asuppim (v. 17), was no doubt a store-house,
which was situated in the outer fore-court ; according to this
passage it was near the south door of the temple, for the sons of
Obed-edom had the charge of it, and they were doorkeepers
towards the south. Two at a time were required to watch it (v.

312 CHAPTER XXVI. 1 — 19)
17), from which we may perhaps infer that the house had two
entrances, to each of which two doorkeepers were appointed.
The rendering of the Vulgate (in qua parte domus erat seniorum
concilium) seems merely to rest upon a conjecture that the word
Asuppim means an assembly of men. In the Septuagint the
word is retained Karevavri o'Uov 'Ecretplp. — V. 16. To Shuppim
is perfectly unintelligible. The word can only be taken as a
proper name (chap. vii. 12), but tbe context does not lead us to
expect a proper name here, on the contrary, according to the
order preserved in these verses generally, " to Hosah" should
follow directly. The name Shuppim does not occur in the Sep
tuagint. Hence we may assume that it crept into the text
through an error in consequence of the repetition of the last two
syllables of the word before. To Hosah fell the lot towards the
west. Tlie gate Shalleketh (perhaps the rubbish gate, 2 Kings
xxiii. 11) is only mentioned here. The intimation that it was
on the rising road helps us to determine its position. According
to the context we must look for it on the western side of the
outer fore-court, opposite to the western door of the temple.
This gate was reached by an ascending road leading from the
lower city, for the area of the temple, on the western edge of
which the gate was situated, overhung the lower city. One watch
over against the other ; because it was Hosah's duty to provide
with a watch both the western gate of the temple and also the
gate Shalleketh, which was opposite to it ; see v. 18. — V. 17 seq.
Recapitulation of the posts, which the porters had to occupy,
and an account of the number employed. Six men were
stationed at the east gate, four men were engaged everv day at
the north gate, four at the south gate, and at the stores or store
house (v. 15) near the south door two each, probably posted at
two different places ; lastly, at the Pharbar towards the west
there were six men stationed, four of whom kept guard on the
outside towards the (ascending) road mentioned in v. 16, and two
in the inside towards Pharbar. Hence there were twenty-four
men employed daily in keeping guard. Are we to understand
by this twenty-four men, or twenty-four leaders with their atten
dants ? In the previous verses there can be no doubt that the
leaders of the porters alone are mentioned (cf. v. 12) ; according
to chap, xxiii. 6, the whole number of the porters was 4000, a

CHAPTER XXVI. 20, 21. 313
number from which we may conclude that far more than twenty-
four individuals would be employed every day in keeping guard.
It might be thought that the thousands referred to in chap.
xxiii. 6 are not adopted to furnish us with a criterion by which
to reply to the query just raised, since the numbers given in the
more precise details are always considerably smaller. But the
number mentioned here, twenty-four, seems to indicate that the
individuals referred to were the leaders of twenty-four divisions.
— V. 19. The conclusion again points out the fact that the porters
were taken from the Korahites (Kohathites) and Merarites (cf.
vv. 1 and 10).
(g.) Chap. xxvi. 20 — 28. The managers ofthe treasures ofthe
sanctuary. — V. 20. The heading " and the Levites " could only
indicate that the section which follows treated of Levites, who
were neither singers nor porters. But we are struck by its
brevity. Abijah, whose name occurs immediately after the
word Levites, is not mentioned in the previous lists, whereas
they contain the names of most of the other officers referred to,
and notices of all the families to which they belonged ; more
over in the case of the rest of the officers both their families and
pedigree are given with intentional fulness, whereas Ahijah,
whose name is totally unknown, is introduced abruptly without
further information ; and lastly, if this Ahijah was over the trea
sures of ihe house of God and the treasures of the consecrated
things, he must have united in his own person those very offices,
of which the occupants are named in the verses that follow.
We cannot therefore come to any other conclusion than that the
reading is incorrect. Now the Septuagint contains no notice
of Ahijah, but has instead the very suitable heading : Kal ol
Aevlrai dBeXipol avTwv iirl twv flnaavpwv oIkov Kvpiov Kal iirl twv
dncravpwv twv KadTjjiaapevwv. Hence in the place of Qvppp
pppiN they read oppnN D^Vm (cf- e-9-> chaP- vi. 29 ; 2 Chr-
xxix. 34) ; and this reading has been already defended by J. D.
Michaelis in the notes to his German translation of the Old
Testament. — V. 21. The sons of Laadan (or to point out their
Levitical descent with greater precision) the sons ofthe Gershun-
nite (or of Gershon), who belong to Laadan (chap, xxiii. 7 seq.),
the heads of the fathers' houses of Laadan the Gershunnite : Jechieli
(v. 22) and the sons of Jechieli Zetham and Joel his brother are

314 CHAPTER XXVI. 23—28.
(over the) treasures of the house of Jehovah. — V. 23. For the
four large families of the Levitical gens, Kohath : Amram, Izhar,
Hebron, and Uzziel (the last is always called Uzziel, chap, xxiii.
12, and«. 28, but the adjective \ni, Ozzieli, is found in Num. iii.
27 as well as here). — V 24. Shebuel the son of Gershom the son of
Moses was prince over the treasures. There can hardly be any doubt
that this is the meaning intended to be conveyed by the passage,
but to bring it clearly out the Vav cop. before Shebuel, which does
not appear in the Vulgate, must be erased. Shebuel has been men
tioned already in chap, xxiii. 16 and xxiv. 20 (Shubael). — V. 25.
And his (viz., Shebuel's) brethren (who belong) to Eliezer (are)
Rechabiah his (Eliezer's) son or the sons of Rechabiah (chap. xxiv.
21) ; but these were brethren of Shebuel, because they were de
scended from Moses through Eliezer, of whom the sons of She
buel were descendants through his son Gershom (chap, xxiii.
16 seq.). From the sons of Rechabiah sprang Shelomith or She-
lomoth, a celebrated man, as the careful account of his ancestors
clearly shows. — V. 26. And this Shelomoth and his brethren were
over all ihe treasures of the consecrated gifts, which David the
king and the heads of the fathers'-houses and the princes (instead
of i-^'? the reading iiy)y\ as in chap. xxix. 6 must be adopted,
as it bas been by the Vulgate) over the thousands and over the
hundreds and the princes of the army had dedicated. — V. 27. A
parenthesis : of the wars and of the spoil (in other words, of the
spoil taken in the wars) they had dedicated to make the house of
Jehovah strong, pijpi in other passages means to strengthen old
buildings and walls by repairing them (2 Kings xii. 7 sqq. ;
Neh. iii. 7 sqq.), but this cannot be the meaning here. The word
occurs in chap. xxix. 12 along with ^3, and as making great
and making strong are correlative notions, we feel no hesitation
in rendering it here to make great and strong. The lamed in Vbeth
is a sign ofthe accusative, cf. chap. xxix. 12. — V. 28. The pj in
1Z>v7pnrT takes the place of the relative pronoun, as in chap.
xxix. 17 ; 2 Chr. xxix. 36 ; Ezra viii. 25, x. 14, 17. ^3
lirHpon concludes the account : that which had been dedicated
by all who had dedicated was on the hand of Shelomoth and his
brethren, i.e., it was entrusted to them. — There was thus a three
fold distinction made in the treasures, that were committed to

CHAPTER XXVI. 29— 32. 315
the custody of the different officers : 1. The sons of Jechieli
(Zetham and Joel) had the oversight of the treasures of the
house of God, which, as we may infer from chap. xxix. 8, had
been brought in the shape of freewill-offerings ; (2) Shebuel was
prince over the treasures, perhaps over the money which had
accumulated from the regular tax for the sanctuary (Ex. xxx.
11 — 16), the redemption-fees (e.g. for the first-born, Num. xviii.
16 sqq.), or the discharge of vows (Lev. xxvii.) ; hence he
had the charge of a portion of the money which is described in
2 Kings xii. 5 as Qi^^yppf flD3 ; (3) Shelomith and his brethren
had the care of the dedicated offerings, which are called the holy
things in 2 Kings in xii. 19, in distinction from the sacred money
mentioned in v. 5. Zetham and Joel belonged to the family of
Gershon ; Shebuel and Shelomith to that of Kohath ; and the
third great Levitical family, Merari, had no share in the man
agement of the treasures.
(/(.) Chap. xxvi. 29 — 32. The officers appointed for outward
affairs. — V. 29. Chenaniah (chap. xv. 22, 27) and his sons (who
belonged to the family of) Izhar (and to the gens of Kohath) for
outward business, as scribes and judges. The outward business of
the Levites, in contradistinction to the work connected with the
service of the sanctuary, seems from this to have consisted in the
discharge of the functions of scribes and judges (chap, xxiii. 4.)
From Neh. xi. 16, it appears that the outward business was also
connected with the temple, embracing perhaps the collection of
contributions ; and since the officers mentioned in v. 30 — 32 had
to look after this, it may be assumed that they also, like the
scribes and judges, were reckoned among the officers who had
the charge of the outward business, although it is not expressly
stated in these verses. — V. 30. Hashabiah and his brethren, (who
belonged to the family of Hebron of the gens of Kohath), brave
men, seventeen hundred were over the contributions (nipB must
here mean that which was determined, a fixed tax or contribu
tion, and this meaning is required on account of its connection
with " Israel," which is not met with anywhere else ; see, e.g.,
chap, xxiii. 11 and xxiv. 3) of Israel on the side of the Jordan
towards 'the west (a similar description of the country on this side
of the river is found in Josh. xxii. 7) for all the affairs of Jehovah
and for the service of the king (cf. v. 32).— V. 31. Jerijah the

316 CHAPTER XXVII. 1 — 15.
head and-^(\. 32) his brethren (vfiio also belonged to the family
of Hebron) were valiant men, two thousand seven hundred heads
of fathers'-houses, whom David had appointed as overseers over the
two tribes and a half on the east of the Jordan, for every affair of
God and for every affair of the king. Between " Jerijah the head"
in v. 31, and "and his brethren" in v. 32, we have the parenthe
sis : as for the Hebronites, according to their descents, according to
fathers'-houses, they were examined in the fortieth year of David's
reign, and there ivere found among them brave heroes in Jazer in
Gilead (cf. v. Raumer Pal. p. 229). This parenthesis, which
treats of distinguished Hebronites in the country to the east of
the Jordan, and explains the reason why they were entrusted
with the post of overseers, separates the connected parts of the
same sentence, and thus renders the meaning of these two verses
somewhat obscure.

9. Chapter xxvii.
account of the army and of david's officers.
Vv. 1 — 15. The twelve divisions of the army. V. 1. Full
heading to the lists which follow in vv. 2 — 15 : and the sons of
Israel according to their number (in definite numbers), the heads
of the fathers'-houses and the princes over the thousands and the
hundreds and their scribes who served the king in every affair
of ihe divisions, which came in and went out month by month of
all months of the year, one division twenty-four thousand men. In
the list itself, however, we find only the twelve classes, the list
of those belonging to tbem, and their leaders ; so that the short
heading : the Israelites according to their number and the princes
of the divisions who served the king (cf. chap, xxviii. 1) would
fully suffice. It may be safely assumed that the heading ori
ginally referred to a more elaborate description of the classes and
their different officers, from which we have here only a shorter
extract. — V. 3. Apposition to Jashobeam (v. 2) : of the sons
of Perez, the head of all the princes of the armies for the first
month. Hence it is not said that Jashobeam was the head of all
the princes of the armies, but it is emphatically stated that he,
the man of the family of Perez, from whom David also sprang,

CHAPTER XXVII. 16 — 24. 317
had the command in chief of all the princes of division for the
first month. The commander of the whole army was Joab, v.
34. — V. 4. Before Dodai there must have fallen out " Eliezer the
son of," according to chap. xi. 12. yiyyy\ pyiVpEl inp^rrtiV
thoroughly unintelligible words : at the end of verse 6 a similar
passage occurs, from which we may see that the Vav before the
middle word should be erased : " and his division, Mikloth the
prince" might perhaps mean and his division is that over which
Mikloth was prince. The expression is very brief, merely con
taining a hint, but in a short Hst we cannot be surprised to find
merely hints in the place of full sentences. V. 7. Asahel (chap.
xi. 26) ; he was slain by Abner at the very commencement of
David's reign, (2 Sam. ii. 18 — 23) ; perhaps the company, of
which Asahel was the captain, may have been increased to a divi
sion when the plan ofthe twelve divisions was afterwards adopted,
and may have continued to pass as Asahel's division ; or it is pos
sible that one division may have been called by the name of the
fallen hero in honour of his memory. In the words " and Geba-
diah his son after him," after his death, there is certainly contained
an intimation of Asahel's death at the beginning of David's reign.
Vv. 16 — 24. The princes of the twelve tribes. The tribes men
tioned are Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulon,
Naphtali, Ephraim, Manasseh, Benjamin, and Dan ; Gad and
Asher are omitted. In the Hst of the tribes in chap, iv., vii.,
Zebulon is wanting, and as we know of no reason for the omission
of the name of Zebulon there, so are we unable to determine why
Gad and Asher should not be mentioned here. — V. 18. Elihu,
probably the same as Eliab mentioned in chap. ii. 13 ; the Sep
tuagint rendering is EXidfi rap dBeXcpwv AaviB. He was the
eldest brother of David, the first-born of his father, and as such
had probably a right to be a ruler in the tribe of Judah. — V. 23.
The fact, that David, had not taken their number from those who
were twenty years old and under, is accounted for in the clause
which follows : for Jehovah had promised to make Israel as nu
merous as the stars of heaven (Gen. xxii. 17). The meaning of
this explanation can only be that the foregoing numbers do not
refer to all the Israelites, because it was impossible for David to
number them all, since they were as numerous as the stars of
heaven which cannot be numbered. The numbering of the

318 CHAPTER XXVII. 25 — 31.
Israelites from twenty years and upwards was undertaken, as we
may infer from the reference made to it in this passage, in order
that its results might be made available for dividing the army
into twelve sections, and for the other arrangements described
in this chapter. — V. 24. The numbering was undertaken by
Joab ben Zeruiah, who began lo number, but did not complete it,
and it was the cause of wrath (from God) upon Israel (2 Chr.
xix. 10, xxiv. 18). The numbering referred to is that of which
we have a full account in chap. xxi. ; it was never finished (v.
6), and the consequence of the wrath of God was a pestilence
(v. 14). The word -1QD733 is generally supposed to denote a
book. But this would be the only passage in which it had such
a meaning, and the use of it before QiQin i-QT (the daily his
tories) is the more striking, as we find in every other case the word
sepher in this connexion (e.g. 2 Kings xii. 20, xiii. 8 — 12, xiv. 15,
18, 28, xv. 6). It might be imagined, that through the influence
of the previous word mispar our b'mispar had been substituted
for b'sepher, but as the expression Qiftipj i-qt yrjjy does not
occur in the Chronicles, we must retain the word as written in
the text, and render the passage thus : and the number did not
come into the number of the daily records of King David. In this
case " into the number " would mean into the section which
treats ofthe numbering. It is not expressly stated for what reason
the account of the numbering had no place in the daily records
of David, but it is evident from the context of this verse, that
there were scruples felt as to the preservation of an exact record,
because of the mournful events connected with the census, and
the wrath of God of which it had been the occasion. The account
of the census taken by Joab was given above (chap. xxi. 5), but,
as this passage clearly shows, it must have been copied from
some other source, and not from the daily records of David.
At the same time this remark seems to indicate that the lists
given in the present chapter, and possibly those in the preced
ing chapters, were taken from the daily records of David, for
the intimation that the account ofthe numbering was not to be
found in them certainly implies, that other accounts given here
could be found there.
Vv. 25 — 31. The officers who had the charge of Davids pro
perty and possessions. The list is very exact, and claims our

CHAPTER XXVII. 25 — 31. 319
attention not merely on account of the names, but for the descrip
tion which it contains of the possessions and revenue of the king.
His property consisted of: (1) treasures, or rather, as the con
trast to No. 2 shows, such of the treasures as were kept in Jeru
salem ; — (2) treasures in the field, in the cities, in the villages, and
in the towers and fortresses, by which we are most likely to un
derstand the income which the king derived from his property
outside Jerusalem ; — (3) corn-fields ; — (4) vineyards ;^-(5) plan
tations of olives and sycamores in the Shephelah, i.e. the fertile
plain, between the mountains of Judah and the Mediterranean
Sea ; the king's officers had to see to the cultivation of the fields,
vineyards, and plantations ; and again certain of the officers had
the oversight of the stores of wine in the vineyards (v. 27) and the
stores of oil (v. 28) ; — (6) oxen, both those which were fed in
Sharon, the strip of land along the coast between Cassarea Pa-
lestinae, and Joppa, and those which were scattered in the
different valleys of the land ; (7) camels ; — (8) asses ; — (9) sheep.
All these possessions are included in v. 31 under the one word
U^3"V which is used in other passages to denote the moveable pos
sessions of nomad chiefs (e.g. Gen. xii. 5 ; xiii. 6) ; and the men
who had the management of these are called both here and in
the next chapter "princes ofthe recosh" (substance), " princes of
all the recosh." As the expression recosh calls to mind the cir
cumstances of the Israehtes in former times, when their leaders
were nomad-chiefs, so do many of the possessions point back to
the same circumstances, whilst others (e.g. the towers) contain
a clear indication of the great change, which had taken place in
Israel through the introduction of a monarchical government.
Tlie property of David consisted partly of those things, which
constitute the wealth of a nomad-chief, and partly of the things
which furnish the king of an organized state, whose foundations
rest on the firm basis of agriculture and well regulated com
merce, with the means of giving stability to his throne. It can
not be an accidental thing that just twelve officers should be
named. The management of the royal possessions was also
divided into twelve sections ; so that the number, which occurs
so frequently as a normal number in the political and religious
institutions of the people, was also followed in connexion with
the property referred to here. Of the officers Shimei was of

320 chapter xxvii. 32 — 34.
Ramah in the land of Benjamin ; Zabdi of Shepam (probably on
the south-eastern frontier ofthe land of Judah, Num. xxxiv. 10
seq.) ; Baal-Hanan of Geder or Gedera in the land of Judah ;
Shihai or Shirtai (Keri) of Sharon, the strip of land on the coast;
Obil (whose name reminds us of the Arabic word for a camel-
driver) of the people of Ishmael ; Jechdeiah of Meronoth, a place
unknown to us (the Septuagint has o e'/c MepaOwv, but we never
meet with a place of this name) ; Jazir of the people of Hagar
(cf. chap. v. 10—19). Thus there were foreigners among these
officers ; an Ishmaelite and a Hagarite had charge of the camels
and the sheep, which were probably kept in districts, that had
formerly supplied tbe nomadic Ishmaelites and Hagarites with
pasture for their camels and sheep, but had come into David's
possession in consequence of his conquests in the country to the
east ofthe Jordan. The vineyards, in which the stores of wine
were kept (v. 27), were no doubt in the vine-growing districts to
the south ofthe land, especially in the province of Judah (Num.
xiii. 23 seq. ; Gen. xlix. 11 seq.), and the charge of them was
entrusted to two men, belonging to these districts.
Vv. 32 — 34. A short list of David's ministers, which forms a
counterpart both in its contents and style to the lists contained
in 2 Sam. viii. 15 — 18 ; 1 Chr. xviii. 15 — 17 ; and 2 Sam. xx.
23 — 26. If with few exceptions we find different names here
from those in the other lists, we must bear in mind that some of
the persons mentioned were appointed to other departments of
service (we find no counsellor in the other lists, and no one who-
was " with the king's sons"), whilst in other cases we have here
successors in the same office. — V. 32. There is a Jonathan, son
of Shimea, David's brother, mentioned in chap. xx. 7 and 2 Sam.
xxi. 21, probably the same person as the relative of David referred
to here; -ppf, usually the father's brother (hence Septuagint
irapdBeX<po<;, Vulgate patruus), is also used for a relation generally,
and therefore may include a nephew. This Jonathan was a
counsellor (and as is added), an intelligent and learned man was
he. "iQlD does not denote the office, but when used with ^3)3
means learned, versed in the Scriptures, as in Ezra vii. 6. The
office of Sopher was filled by Shavshah (chap, xviii. 16). Jehiel
ben Chakmoni was with the king's sons, probably as tutor ;
whether the Jehiel mentioned in chap, xxiii. 8 is meant we can-

CHAPTER XXVIII. 321
not tell ; in chap. xi. 11 Jashobeam is called a son of Chakmoni.
— V. 33. Ahithophel (2 Sam. xv. 31, xvi. 23, xvii. 1 sqq.) is also
described in the passages quoted as the confidential counsellor of
the king, who killed himself at the time of Absalom's conspiracy.
— V. 34. After Ahithophel, probably after his death, Jehoiada
ben Benaiah was the king's counsellor. We need not hesitate to
pronounce this a case of transposition, since the person referred
to must certainly be the Benaiah ben Jehoiada, who is already
known to us in connection with David's history (v. 5, chap. xi.
22), and who is described in the other lists (e.g., chap, xviii. 17)
as the captain of David's body-guard, a post which by no means
precluded bim from attending the king as counsellor. If, how
ever, this conjecture is not adopted, we must suppose him to
have been a son of this Benaiah, and to have been called by his
grandfather's name. And Abiathar; are we to supply: was
also counsellor ? The high priest of the family of Ithamar is
referred to here. Joab occurs in all the lists. Hence, if we
except Jehiel, the names given here are already known to us in
connection with the history of David in the Books of Samuel.
But the list itself cannot have been taken from those books, for
the precise account of the offices which they filled is not given
there. We must therefore conclude that this list was taken
from the same sources to which our historian had already gone
for the lists given before.

10. Chap, xxviii. — xxix.
david's last instructions ; and his death.
Chap, xxviii. In an assembly of the people David seriously
charges Solomon to build the temple. — V. 1. All the princes of
Israel, viz., the princes of the tribes (a list of whom is given in
chap, xxvii. 16 — 22), the princes of the divisions that serve the
king (chap, xxvii. 1 — 15), the princes of the thousands and of the
hundreds (chap, xxvii. 1), the princes of all the property and pos
sessions of the king and his sons (they are described in chap.
xxvii. 25 — 31, though nothing is said there about the property
of David's sons ; the Vulgate has filiosque suos, but the lamed
VOL. II. • X

322 chapter xxviii. 1 — 5.
can hardly be tbe sign of the accusative in this instance, for it is
prefixed to '-r^ft'?, the word immediately before, and if the sons
of David were to be expressly singled out as taking part in the
assembly, it is not likely that they would be noticed in so inci
dental a manner), along with the officers of the court, and the
heroes, and all the brave heroes (the lamed here is the sign of the
accusative, for as the governing verb is at so great a distance it
was natural to point out the case by means of the preposition) to
Jerusalem. — O^D^D eunuchs, Sept. cvv rah evvov^oi^, Vulg.
cum eunuchis. They are mentioned in 1 Sam. viii. 15 as officers
of the kings of Israel, and also in 1 Kings xxii. 9 and other pas
sages. The primary meaning of the word need not be always
stringently maintained ; for as the officers of court were usually
eunuchs, the word may easily have come to denote such officers,
even when they were not actually eunuchs. Moreover, we may
assume without any hesitation that the practice of the courts of
heathen kings, e.g., the Babylonian and Persian, in which the
Sarisim are frequently mentioned, had some influence in deter
mining the use of the word here (cf. 2 Kings xx. 18 ; Esther i.
10 — 15). — V. 2. The aged king stood up upon his feet, that he
might, address the assembled people standing. Hitherto he had
probably been sitting upon his throne, not lying upon his bed as
Jewish expositors infer from 1 Kings i. 1. — My brethren; 1
Sam. xxx. 23 ; 2 Sam. xix. 13. I, in my heart to build; I had
it in my mind to build, cf. chap. xxii. 7. For the ark of the
covenant of Jehovah and for the footstool of the feet of our God ;
i.e., for the ark and for the pnQ3 over it, which might be de
scribed as his footstool, because the glory of Jehovah was en
throned above it betwen the cherubim. This is in harmony
with v. 11 where the holy of holies is called pnD3n ^3- ^ have
made ready for building ; by collecting materials (chap. xxii. 2 —
4, 14 sqq.)— V. 4. On the first words see chap. xi. 2. And
Judah he hath chosen as prince, cf. chap. v. 2. — V. 5. After the
parenthesis, for Jehovah hath given me many sons, the address is
not continued with the perfect, and of all my sons he chose Solo
mon, but has a fresh beginning : then he chose. Upon the throne
of the kingdom of Jehovah ; this expression only occurs here.
There is a similar one in chap. xxix. 23, the throne of Jehovah,

chapter xxviii. 6 — 11. 323
compare chap. xvii. 14, "My kingdom." — V. 6, see chap. xxii. 10.
— y .1 . Establishes his kingdom ; chap. xvii. 11. If he be constant ;
a similar condition is imposed upon Solomon by God in 1 Kings
iii. 14, ix. 4 ; and the words of Solomon in 1 Kings viii. 61 also
call to mind these words, in which the expression as at this time
also occurs, cf. 2 Chr. vi. 15. — V. 8. And now before the eyes of
all Israel, the assembled community of Jehovah, and in the ears of
our God, I impress the injunction upon your hearts : observe and
seek, &c. The solemn injunction recals Deut. iv. 26, xxx. 19,
and the conclusion ofthe verse reminds of Deut. iv. 21 ; Jer. iii.
18 ; Lev. xxv. 46. — V. 9. David now turns to Solomon ; the
commencement of his address to him is contained in vv. 9, 10,
and, after a long parenthesis vv. 11 — 19, the continuation in vv.
20, 21. — Give heed to ihe God of thy father ; according to chap.
xxix. 10 we might be led to suppose that reference was here made
to Israel, the common father of all the Israelites, but a comparison
of chap, xxviii. 20 shows that it is more natural to suppose that
the God of David is meant here, the God who had always
assisted David (Ps. xviii. 3). Q^'jy1 3^3 with a perfect and entire
lieart, chap. xxix. 9 — 19; 1 Kings viii. 61. — V. 10. The ex
pression, " be strong and do it," is repeated in v. 20, so that the
address which is broken off here is taken up again by the repe
tition ofthe concluding words ofthe verse before us.
Vv. 11 — 19. David breaks off his address, and gives to Solo
mon the sketches and plans of the sacred buildings and other
objects, vv. 11—18, accompanying the gifts with the solemn
words contained in v. 19. The proceedings in the assembly are
described with dramatic distinctness, and only in proportion as
we enter thoroughly into the lifelike narrative before us, can we
explain the introduction of the account contained in these verses
precisely in this connexion. — V. 11. The pattern ; Ex. xxv. 40.
The hall ; 1 Kings vi. 3 ; 2 Chr. iii. 4. vn3T notJ and °f the
houses of ihe hall ; the masculine suffix refers to the temple, as
we may clearly see from the words that follow, in which the suffix
is repeated. The word temple may easily be supplied. The
"buildings referred to are those for the two divisions of the temple,
for the nave or holy place, and for the room behind or holy of
holies. p3f33 only occurs in this passage; the connexion with 0^33
Esther iii. 9, iv. 7, and the Chaldee WJ33 Ezra vii. 20, is unmis-
X Li

324 chapter xxviii. 11 — 15.
takeable, and the meaning treasure-chambers is thereby sustained.
These rooms were probably in the house of three stories high by
the side of the temple. TifW^J which is also met with in 2 Chr.
iii. 9, is only used in these two passages. The reference is to
the upper chambers of the temple. We are not told where they
were built. Probably they were between the ceiling of the
Debir, or holy of holies, and the roof of the building, which no
doubt kept the same level over all the three principal divisions
of the temple. The roof was thirty cubits high, the Debir was
twenty cubits square, and twenty high ; there was therefore a
space between of twenty cubits square and ten in height which
may have been divided into several rooms, or upper chambers.
The inner chambers must mean the forecourt and the nave or
holy place, since the Beth haccapporeth or holy of holies, where
the ark ofthe covenant, with the Capporeth, was kept (Ex. xxv.
17 sqq ), follows immediately after. — V. 12. And the form of all
that was in the spirit with him ; the spirit with him is to irvevpa
iv avTw, 1 Cor. ii. 11 ; the form of that which floated before his
mind he communicated to Solomon. The word ^3 which is
directly governed by tabnith is continued by the words : the form
of the forecourts ofthe house of Jehovah, and of all the cells round
about (chap, xxiii. 28) for the treasures, Src. which are governed
by lamed. — The dedicated things ; see chap. xxvi. 26. — V. l-S.'yyy
continuation of pfl^lfc^ in the previous verse : for the trea
sures — and for the divisions of the priests — and for ihe whole
work — and for all the vessels, &c. We might regard these words
as a continuation of p|V^p|S> anc^ ni3t^'?rT~'?3V ln the fore
going verse, and explain them thus : " David gave him the
pattern of the divisions, of the entire work," &c, the meaning
of which would be, he gave him instructions with reference to
the divisions, &c. ; but this would be an arbitrary explanation.
— V. 14. Continuation of v. 14 (all instruments) : he gave him
the pattern ofthe golden (the golden articles chap. xxix. 2) accord
ing to the weight for the golden, for all (golden) articles of every kind
of service, and (he gave him the pattern) of all the silver articles
according to the weight for all articles of every kind of service. —
V. 1 5. The weight ; accusative of the objects governed by " he
gave" in v. 11. And for their golden lamps, according to the weight
of every single candlestick, and of its lamps, (and similarly the fol-

CHAPTER XXVIII. 16— 18. 325
lowing words :) he gave him the weight of the silver candlesticks
according to weight for each particular candlestick and its lamps ac
cording to the service (as the service required) of each particular
candlestick. — V. 16. He gave him the gold by weight for the tables of
shewbread. In other passages we read of only one table of shew-
bread (Ex. xxv. 23 sqq. ; 1 Kings vii. 48 ; and even 2 Chr. xxix.
18), but here there are said to have been several. According to 2
Chr.iv.8 Solomon had ten tables made, probably for the ten golden
candlesticks (1 Kings vii. 49), but these could not be described as
n312??3n minVty- I£ however, according to the author's own
account in 2 Chr. xxix. 1 8 there was only one table of shewbread
in Solomon's temple, the words before us must be regarded as con
taining a general expression, intended to include the table of
shewbread and the rest of the tables (see Josephus Antiq. viii.
3, 7). And silver for the silver tables ; these are only mentioned
here, and we have no information in the Old Testament as to
the purpose to which they were applied. The Rabbins are of
opinion that they stood in the forecourt, and that the flesh of the
sacrificial animals was laid upon them. — V. 17. Before the first
three words it is most natural to supply from v. 11 the words : he
gave him the form of tlie forks, SfC. On the first two words cf.
Ex. xxvu. 3. "mQ37V he gave him the pattern of the golden
pitchers according to weight (v. 15) for each particular pitcher ; the
pitchers here referred to were probably pitchers with lids, they
are also noticed in Ezra i. 10, and viii. 27. V. 18. And he gave
ihe pattern ofthe altar of incense of refined gold according to the
weight. At the close of the account the accusative p\>33p\ is
repeated from v. 11, and, on account of the distance at which it
stands from its verb, is marked as an accusative by the preposi
tion lamed : he gave ihe pattern of the chariot of the cherubim of
gold. The word cherubim is in apposition to chariots; the
cherubim are the chariots on which God rides or is enthroned
(Ps. xviii. 11, xcix. 1; Ex. xxv. 22); it is true that Ezekiel
speaks of wheels on which the throne of God rests (Ezek. i. 26),
and which are seen beside the cherubim (v. 15 sqq., cf. Ecclus.
xlix. 8), and in accordance with this the Septuagint renders the
passage before us teal to TrapdBevypa tov app,aTo<; twv xeP0VftlP-
The Vulgate calls to mind still more decidedly the four cherubim
of Ezekiel by the words quadriga cherubim, but in the figures
above the ark of ..the covenant there was no representation of a

326 CHAPTER XXVIII. 19.
chariot drawn by the cherubim, nor is there anything to suggest
this idea in the passage under consideration. 0^*10 without
the article, and with the preposition lamed, is quite unintelligible,
the two participles Q'^'IB and 3^330* as we may clearly see
from 2 Chr. v. 8, Ex. xxv. 20, 1 Kings viii. 7, must stand in
apposition to haccerubim, and hence the passage should read
0'133Dm Q^tyiSn* which spread out their wings and cover over
the ark ofthe covenant of Jehovah ; in both the Septuagint and Vul
gate this rendering is adopted. The words do not admit of any
other explanation ; yet even assuming that the lamed is prefixed in
the loosest possible manner, the reading ofthe text cannot be made
to yield this sense. The supposition, that QVgy^rj^ might mean
ut essent expandentes sc. alas suas (J. H. Michaelis), merely hides
the difficulty, but does not remove it. V. 19 pppj^ yift 3ni3
•^yy, these words are closely connected together (cf. al in chap.
xi. 10; Judg. xix. 20; Neh. ii. 8, 18) : by a writing from the hand
of Jehovah upon me, i.e. by a writing which was given to me as a
rule. The nominative to the verb " taught," can only be Jehovah,
which can easily be supplied from the expression "hand of
Jehovah." The suffix in lyy refers to David, whose words are
introduced here as in chap, xxiii. 4 seq. without any further
notice. Thus David says : all this has Jehovah taught me through
a writing from Jehovah's hand given to me as a rule, all the
works of the pattern, fyc, i.e. all these works that have not yet
been carried out ; and the rv23n or design of which has been
already described in the previous verses. A writing from the
hand of Jehovah is a writing containing a divine revelation ; as
in 2 Chr. xxix. 15 the command by the hand of Jehovah is equiva
lent to the command by the hand of the prophets, so the writing
by the hand of Jehovah may here mean a writing drawn up by
divine direction. But as tbe description of the sacred objects in
Ex. xxv. sqq. evidently forms tbe groundwork of that contained
in these verses, we are led to the conclusion that by " the writ
ing from the hand of Jehovah," we are to understand the law of
Moses. To this law David appeals, as a proof that he had not
invented the models of the sacred buildings and objects which
floated before his spirit (v. 12) in an arbitrary manner, just as
Josiah in making his arrangements appealed to a writing of David
and his son Solomon (2 Chr. xxxv. 4). Hence we find in this a
reference to a sacred writing, or, to use the expression employed by

CHAPTER XXVIII. 19 — 21. 327
the Jews in very early times to the 3p|33lt£)' iTYin» the law in
the Scripture. (Keil [p. 318] regards this as an announcement
of a special revelation, " Just as the Lord had formerly shown to
Moses the pattern of the tabernacle [Ex. xxv. 40, xxvi. 30] so
did he also make known by revelation to David the pattern of
the temple and its furniture.") The whole section from vv. 11
— 19 gives prominence to the fact that David not only made
preparation for the building of the temple by collecting mate
rials, &c., but that he gave to Solomon definite directions for
completing the erection and constructing the sacred vessels, and
that in doing this he did not follow his own ideas or adopt arbi-
, trary plans, but was guided by divine revelation. The temple of
Solomon was concluded after the model of the Mosaic sanctuary ;
for the ancient sanctuary of Moses God himself had given the
measures and the plans (Ex. xxv. sqq.) ; David followed these
divine plans and measures, when he gave directions to Solomon
for the building of the temple. In the Books of Kings no men
tion is made of this. David was not permitted to build the
temple, but he had carried out the preparations to such an extent
that in the fourth year of his reign Solomon was able to com
mence the building, and in the eleventh it was complete (1
Kings vi.).
Vv. 20, 21. The address to Solomon, which was broken off
at v. 10, is here resumed. V. 20. On the exhortation in the for
mer part ofthe verse, cf. chap. xxii. 13. — V. 21. " And behold,"
this exclamation refers to the divisions of the priests and Levites,
who are to be regarded as having taken part in the large
assembly, although not specially named. !~!(33n3 H'HJ oniy
occurs here ; y\y^ generally denotes one who brings freewill
offerings, here one who is ready with wisdom for every service ;
the skilful workmen and artists, mentioned in chap. xxii. 15,
2 Chr. ii. 6, who were ready to assist in the building of the
temple, are here referred to. The combination of the words 31-J3
and pp33p| was probably suggested by Ex. xxxv. 5, 22, and
xxxvi. 1. The lamed before 31*73 ^3 is very remarkable, stand
ing as it does in the middle of the sentence : and with me in every
work are all volunteers with wisdom ; hence we cannot set it down
as a lamed of introduction, meaning, " so far as all the volunteers
are concerned,!' for, however freely it might be used in a con-

328 CHAPTER XXIX. 1  4.
tinued narrative (chap. xxix. 6), it could hardly stand in the
middle of a sentence. Instead of lamed the Septuagint bas the
vav eopul. which is also unsuitable ; we cannot discover upon
what text the Vulgate is based. We must decide to read ^3
instead of ^y^b - the latter could easily be written for the former
through a mere error of the pen, as I'col occurs just before and
twice immediately afterwards.
Chap. xxix. 1 — 5. David asks for voluntary contributions to
wards the building of the temple, just as Moses had formerly asked
the Israelites for freewill offerings for the tabernacle and its fur
niture (Ex. xxv. 1 — 8). — V. 1. The parenthetical clause "when
God hath chosen him alone," is to be regarded as a relative and
explained in this manner : Solomon, whom alone God hath
chosen, is young and tender, but though he is young and tender,
still he must undertake the great work, for God has chosen him
and no other. On the expression, "young and tender," see
chap. xxii. 5. fYY1! a great building, generally used to denote
the palace or the residence of the Persian kings (Esther i. 2, 5,
ii. 3, 8 ; Neh. i. 1) ; this is the only passage in which it is applied
to the magnificent temple (in Neh. ii. 8, the castle by the side of
the temple is meant). The word is only met with in the Chro
nicles and in Nehemiah, Esther, and Daniel ; and in the singular
is always written with the article. — V. 2. cf. chap. xxu. 14. The
gold for the golden; i.e., for the vessels and ornaments of gold, v.
5, chap, xxviii. 14.— 31^1 Qpittf vqn (^13 ^IM according
to Ex. xxv. 7, xxviii. 9, xxxv. 9) ; probably stones of a black and
brilliant colour, like the Stibium and the black colour prepared
from it ; in Is. liv. 4, 11, puk is mentioned as a costly cement.
The pi)3pT 133N were probably stones with veins of different
colours. r\ypi pN> according to 2 Chr. iii. 6, was for decorating
the walls, ^ity, which we only meet with in Esther i. 6, Song
of Solomon v. J 5, and here, is rendered Parian marble in the
Septuagint and Vulgate. — V. 3. And moreover with my love to the
house of Jehovah, I have a treasure of silver and gold, I shall have
given it (the perfect to denote a fixed resolution) to ihe house of God
over and above all that I have prepared for the holy house; ^3 in
the construct state before the verb i/WSJl? which is added with
out the relative pronoun ; cf. chap. xv. 12. — V. 4. Three thousand

CHAPTER XXIX. 5 — 8. 329
talents of gold are about ninety million thalers (£13,500,000);
seven thousand talents of silver, about eighteen million thalers
(£2,700,000) ; an amount nearly equal to the bullion in the
Bank of England (cf. chap. xxii. 14). The houses; cf. chap.
xxviii. 11. — V. 5. of gold, cf. v. 2.
Vv. 6 — 9. The princes cheerfully follow the example set by David
and obey his exhortation. — V. 6. Princes of the fathers, in other
places heads of the fathers (chap. xxiv. 31, xxvii. Ij.— v^>g^
n3^D> the lamed is not rendered in the Septuagint and Vulgate,
still we are not warranted in erasing it from the text, as the in
troductory lamed (and as regards the princes of the king) is pro
bably selected here for the purpose of laying greater emphasis
upon those who are mentioned last in the series. The princes
referred to here are those whose names are given in chap, xxvii.
25—31. — V. 7. Ten thousand darics ; the word t3^33"VTN °nly
occurs here and at Ezra viii. 27 ; in Ezra ii. 69 and Neh. vii. 70
sqq. we have Q^nSTn- Are we to understand it as denoting a
Bpa^pri or a BapeiKO<s ? Darcemonim certainly reminds us of a
Bpaxp-V; the other word, which can hardly be a mere abbreviation
of Darkemon, does not bear the least resemblance to Bpa^p-q.
In the versions it is not rendered by Bpaxprj, but by a word de
noting a current coin, in the Septuagint by ^ucroi)?, in the Vul
gate by solidos ; at Ezra viii. 27, the Syriac has |J.or2-»5>, in
which we can recognise at once the Greek BapeiKo<;. This leads us
to decide in favour of the rendering daric, for we are warranted
in attaching the greatest importance to the fact that in the
Syriac the word is associated with the daric, which was current
in the cis-Asiatic countries long after the fall of the Persian
empire. To this we may add the Jewish traditions, according
to which the Adarcon, or darcon as it is called in the Talmud,
was a Persian gold coin (cf. Buxtorflex. chald.). The historian
employed the word by which the gold coin current in his time
was commonly known, not with the idea that darics existed in
the time of David, but to set before his readers in the most in-
teUigible manner the magnitude of the amount contributed by
the princes. — V. 8. ip^ NJft^pf may he thus resolved according
to Gen. xliv. 9 : ipj^ N2E2 "YCJN ttf'Wl and every one w^h whom
there was found, but this solution does not suit either the plural,
which immediately follows, Q133N, or the plural ^3. The

330 CHAPTER XXIX. 9  17.
suffix in ip|N, being a neuter, must be referred to the metals pre
viously mentioned, so that we might render it " along with it ;"
D'133N is an Accusative governed by the perfect Niphal N5JD2'
and the demonstrative jy before the verb takes the place ofthe
relative prononn (cf. v. 17) : and whatever was found along with
it in stones they gave, &c. The princes of David's time, Hke those
ofthe time of Moses (Ex. xxxv. 27), brought precious stones as
freewill offerings. The gifts were delivered to Jehiel, to the
Levitical family, which had been entrusted with the oversight of
the treasures of the house of Jehovah (cf. chap. xxvi. 21 seq.),
— V. 9. With perfect heart ; see chap, xxviii. 9.
Vv. 10 — 19. David thanks God for the readiness with which the
people brought the gifts, which they had received from God, and
offered them for the building ofthe temple. — V. 10. God of Israel
our father ; cf. v. 18, God of Abraham .... our fathers,
and v. 20, Jehovah the God of their fathers. — V. 11. After 13
we must supply 'y'y : yea to thee belongeth every thing in heaven
and on earth. From the word n^ we must take the pronoun
nnN> which is required by the last words ofthe verse : (thou art
x —
he who raisest thyself as head above every thing ;) fc$tt^ni3> with a
reflective signification as in Num. xvi. 3, and chap. xxui. 24. —
V. 12. *p3D^)3; and the kingdom and the glory (Prov. iii. 16)
coxae from thee. — V. 13. We thank thee ; the participle with the
pronoun is used in the same sense as our present ; in other cases
the perfect occurs with the same meaning (e.g., Ps. lxxv. 2) ; the
expression in this verse is not met with anywhere else. — V. 14.
The words pQ y$y, to retain strength, to have strength, are only
used in Daniel and the Chronicles (2 Chr. ii. 5, xiii. 20, xxii. 9 ;
and in the same sense without the noun in 2 Chr. xiv. 10, xx. 37).
— And from thy hand ; equivalent to " and what has been received
from thee we have given to thee."- — V. 15. For the first half of the
verse compare Ps. xxxix. 13, cxix. 19. As the shadow are our
days on the earth (Job viii. 9), there being no hope (Ezra x. 2),
ofa continuance of life. V. 16. The Kethib ^ipj is to be con
sidered as a neuter : from thy hand it is ; tbe Keri has the mas
culine N»)pi agreeing with I'iftpfpt, V. 17. Who are present here;
the demonstrative for the relative (v. 8, chap. xxvi. 28) ; the plural,
who are found here, points back to the collective noun people.

CHAPTER XXIX. 18—22. 331
Instead of the perfect we find the participle in 2 Chr. v. 11.
V. 18. The accusative p^ is more precisely defined by the
repeated accusative -^^ : Keep this for ever, namely the imagi
nation of the thoughts (chap, xxviii. 9) of the heart of thy people,
i.e. preserve these thoughts and this disposition, which have
shown themselves in the voluntary contributions of such rich
presents for thy bouse. In the continuation the accusative is
pointed out by the lamed before -££\ And established their heart
unto thee ; cf. 1 Sam. vii. 3. V. 19. And that he may do ail; viz.,
all thy commandments, testimonies, and statutes (chap. xxii. 13,
xxvifi. 7). -rt^M an accusative before ipyi3^3py, the building,
which I have prepared ; in other cases (e.g. vv. 2 and 3) we have
jyijy in'W'lJPTj an<^ should accordingly expect to have 1\£^~>
here. Vv. 20 — 25. Conclusion of the assembly. Solomon is made king
of Israel. V. 20. And bowed and worshipped; in Ex. iv. 31, Gen.
xliii. 28, 2 Chr. xxix. 30, Neh. viii. 6, these words are used to de
note the adoration of God and prostration before him, but here they
are also applied to the reverence shown to David the king (cf. 1
Kings i. 31, where the same expression occurs with reference to
David). V. 21. After the solemn conclusion of the assembly,
which David had convened, the people still remained together ;
on the following day they sacrificed as a burnt-offering a thou
sand oxen, a thousand rams, a thousand sheep, with the appropriate
drink-offerings, and in addition to all this, thank-offerings (QipQfc
in antithesis to piyyy, were the sacrificial animals, which were
offered as thank-offerings, and of which only certain portions
were burned upon the altar, the priests receiving tbe breast and
the right thigh, and the rest of the meal being eaten by the
offerers and other persons invited by them) in abundance for
the whole of Israel, i.e. every Israelite being allowed to take
part in the joyous, sacrificial meal. V. 22. Those who shared
in the sacrificial meal ate and drank before Jehovah that day
(viz., on the day on which the burnt-offerings and thank-offerings
were sacrificed) ; then they made Solomon king a second time, and
anointed him before Jehovah as prince (1 Kings i. 35), and Zadok
(>~yyA~ is an accusative, like Solomon just before) as high priest.
Tlie second time ; the account contained in 1 Kings i., where
David commands Zadok the high priest to anoint Solomon king,
2

332 chapter xxix. 23—30.
and Zadok obeys this command, is very briefly referred to by the
historian in chap, xxiii. 1, where he makes use ofthe expression,
" David made Solomon king over Israel;" hence this is to be
regarded as the first time, to which the historian here refers.
And anointed him; 2 Sam. ii. 4, v. 3. The words, "and they
anointed Zadok as high priest," imply that under Solomon Zadok
filled the office of high priest with a cheerful assent on the part
of the people, and this is confirmed by a comparison of 1 Kings
i. 32, ii. 26 sqq. • V. 23. On the throne of Jehovah (cf. chap.
xxviii. 5) ; this verse appears to be merely an expansion of 1
Kings ii. 12. V. 24. j^pjn "V inj (cf- 2 Chr. xxx. 8) to submit.
V. 25. And he laid on him the glory of the kingdom, which had
not been upon any king over Israel before him, a singular expres
sion, as there had been no kings before Solomon except Saul and
David ; compare on the other hand 2 Chr. i. 12, " before thee
and after thee," also 1 Kings iii. 12.
V. 26 — 30. Conclusion ofthe history of David. V. 26. Over
all Israel, vid. chap. xi. 1, xii. 38. V. 27. Almost word for
word the same as 1 Kings ii. 11. Seven years ; according to 2
Sam. v. 5, the exact time was seven years and six months. V.
30. (The acts of David behold they are written . . . . )
together with his kingdom, and his might and the times (or as we
might say for the sake of greater clearness together with the events
of his reign) which passed over him and over Israel and over all
the kingdomt, of the lands ; the kingdoms of the lands are spoken
of again in 2 Chr. xfi. 8, xvii. 10, xx. 29 ; cf. Ezra ix. 7, " the
kings of the lands." By the kingdoms of the lands we are of
course to understand only the kingdoms with which the Israelites
under David came in contact, e.g. the kingdoms of Edom, Moab,
and Aram Zobah.

( 333 )

SECOND BOOK OF THE CHRONICLES.

II. Chap. i. — Chap. ix.
HISTORY OF SOLOMON.
After an account of the sacrifice in Gibeon and the appearance
of God at that place (chap. i. 1 — 13), and after some passing
notices respecting Solomon's chariots, horsemen, and riches (ch.
i. 14 — 17), our historian proceeds at once to describe the building
and consecration ofthe temple (chap. i. 18 — vii.). Then follow
some brief remarks with reference to other buildings erected by
Solomon, the tributary service enforced for that purpose (chap.
viii. 1 — 10), and the house which he built for Pharoah's
daughter (v. 11) ; also concerning the worship of God and
arrangements connected therewith (vv. 12 — 16) ; and lastly the
voyage to Ophir (w. 17, 18). The account of the visit ofthe
queen of Sabaea forms an introduction to the description of Solo
mon's wealth and glory (chap. ix. 1 — 28), which is followed by a
notice of his death and burial (vv. 29 — 31).

1. Chap. i. 1—13.
solomon offers burnt offerings in gibeon ; in the
night after the sacrifice god appears to him.
Vv. 1  6. The solemn procession to Gibeon, where Solomon
offered sacrifice upon the altar of burnt-offering, which had been
handed down from the time of Moses, cf. 1 Kings iii. 4.— V. 1.

334 CHAPTER I. 1 — 4.
pjpjf^ an expression frequently met with in the Chronicles
(cf. Chap. xii. 13, xiii. 21, xxi. 4) ; here it is followed by the
words " over his kingdom," in chap. xvii. 1 by " over Israel ;"
he achieved for himself a firm government over his kingdom. And
Jehovah his God was with him (a similar expression in 1 Chr.
xi. 9) and he made him very great (cf. 1 Chr. xxii. 5, xxix.
25). — V. 2 seq. It is not expressly stated in 1 Kings iii. 4 that
Solomon went to Gibeon accompanied by the princes, &c, but it
is a priori probable that he offered his numerous sacrifices in
Gibeon in the presence of his princes and in a large assembly of
the people. According to the verses before us, he summoned the
princes and representatives of the congregation, in the same
manner as David had called them together on similar occasions
(1 Chr. xiii. 1 seq., xxiii. 2, xxviii. 1). He spake to all Israel
(namely) to the princes of the thousands and the hundreds and to
the judges and all the princes, to all Israel (namely) the heads of
the fathers'-houses. Before pyQ^n "^N"! we must supply lamed
from the previous verse. The historian states emphatically, that
" speaking to all Israel" meant speaking to the princes and
representatives of the congregation. What Solomon said to
them is not communicated ; according to the context and the
analogy of 1 Chr. xiii. 2 seq. we must assume that he summoned
the assembled congregation to accompany him to Gibeon. — To
the high place which is in Gibeon, for here was the tabernacle of
God, which Moses the servant of Jehovah had prepared in tlie
desert (cf. 1 Chr. v. 30 — 41); before this tabernacle on the high
place at Gibeon, Zadok the high-priest and the priests under him
fulfilled the duties of their office in accordance with the law of
Moses (1 Chr. xvi. 39 seq.). — V. 4. But the ark of the covenant
was not in the tabernacle, was it ? Undoubtedly Qjy>& is used
to confirm a statement which is made unexpectedly or likely to
excite questions and doubts, chap. xix. 3, xxxiii. 17 ; 1 Kings i.
43) David had brought up the ark from Kirjath- Jearim (cf. I
Chr. xiii. 6) to the place which David had prepared (instead of
<)b r27l3. the earlier rules of the language would have required
"b pH -|tt?N3> cf- Judg- v- 27 ; Ruth i. 5, or pn -^ Oipfcl
*fo, cf. 1 Kings xxi. 19 ; but we are not justified in taking the
words just mentioned from the Book of Kings, as Thenius

CHAPTER I. 4—6. 335
suggests, and substituting them for the reading in the text, since
the demonstrative frequently takes the place of the relative in
the Chronicles (cf. 1 Chr. xxvi. 28), and we even meet with re
lative clauses connected directly with a preposition without any
intervening pronoun, cf. 1 Chr. xv. 12), for he had pitched a tent
for it in Jerusalem (1 Chr. xv. 1), but (v. 5) the brazen altar .
was there before the dwelling place of Jehovah, and as this
altar, which from time immemorial had been set apart for burnt-
offerings, stood in Gibeon, that was the place in which according
to the law burnt-offerings were to be sacrificed. As the histo
rian here expressly states that Solomon offered the burnt offer
ings at the place of worship appointed in the law, he explains, on
the other hand, that it was only by extraordinary events and
special signs from God that David could be induced to sacrifice
at the altar which he had erected on the threshing-floor of
Oman ; and he also describes the manner in which David was
hindered from offering his burnt sacrifice at Gibeon. The brazen
altar which Bezalel ben Uri ben Hur had made ; see Ex. xxxi. 2
and 9, where the altar of burnt-offering, i.e., the brazen altar, is
expressly mentioned among the things to be made by Bezalel and
Oholiab (cf. chap, xxxvfi. 1 and xxxviii. 1 sqq.) Instead of qqj x
most MSS. and many editions have the pointing q\tj he had
x
placed; the latter reading is adopted in the Targum and Syriac.
But the former pointing is also found in many MSS. and very
many editions, including most of the old ones of the 16th cen
tury ; this reading was also adopted in the Septuagint and Vul
gate. It is at once apparent that the reading q^J thither, there,
x
is more suitable to the context. If the Masoretes preferred the
other, they were probably induced to do so by Ex. xl. 29. —
lpjiy"VT,,l ; the suffix does not refer to the altar, but to the word
Jehovah which immediately precedes the verb (cf. 1 Chr. xxi.
30 ; 2 Chr. xv. 2). — V. 6. On the brazen altar before Jehovah ;
before Jehovah, because it stood before the dwelling place of
Jehovah, Ex. xl. 6. — Which belongs to the tabernacle ; the golden
altar, on the other hand, belonged to the Debir, according to
1 Kings vi. 22, because its place had been assigned it in front of
the Debir. b ""KZ?N denotes here, as elsewhere, which belongs to,
and is perfectly intelligible, although 132^ y®i$ might be used

336 CHAPTER I. 7 — 13.
instead, both here and in 1 Kings vi. 22, because, as a necessary
consequence of belonging to the tabernacle or the debir, the altar
stood before it. bv^ at the commencement of the verse, is sepa
rated from its object by several intervening words, and hence it
is repeated at the end of the verse in immediate connection with
the object. In verses 2—6, which have aU the marks of the
authorship of our historian, we have an expansion and explana
tion of the brief statement in 1 Kings iii. 4.
Vv. 7 — 12. The appearance of God. See the commentary on
1 Kings iii. 5 — 15.
V. 13. Return to Jerusalem (cf. 1 Kings iii. 15). Instead of
PJ5337, which earlier expositors accounted for on the supposition
that we have an elhpsis here (and Solomon came, after his
journey to the height in Gibeon, to Jerusalem), we must foUow
the Septuagint and Vulgate and read pJOSHD- ^he words
x T — ••
which follow ("from before the tabernacle") require this reading.
The clause at the end of this narrative, from which we learn that
"from the height in Gibeon" is equivalent to "from before the
tabernacle," is added for the purpose of calling attention once
more to the sacredness of the place of sacrifice in Gibeon and the
legal validity ofthe sacrifices offered there. In the parallel passage
(1 Kings iii.) it is still further stated that after Solomon's arrival
in Jerusalem he offered burnt-offerings and thank-offerings, and
prepared a feast before the ark of the covenant. Our historian
passes this over in silence, certainly not because he regarded the
offerings presented on the old brazen altar of burnt-offering
before the ancient tabernacle as alone possessing validity, for,
according to his own account (1 Chr. xxi.), God himself had
selected a place of sacrifice in Jerusalem as early as the time of
David, and in these verses he appears to mention the tabernacle
in Gibeon for the purpose of explaining to his readers what it
was that induced Solomon to offer the solemn sacrifice in Gibeon
and not in Jerusalem, as the precedent established by David
would lead us to expect. He passes over the sacrifice in Jeru
salem, and the dispute between the two women, related in 1
Kings iii. 16 — 28, which furnished Solomon with an opportunity
of displaying the wisdom conferred upon him by God, because
he was desirous of confining himself to that which had taken
place at Gibeon. The narrative is brought to its proper close in

CHAPTER II. 1 . 337
the words "he came to Jerusalem" which correspond to the
clause in v. 3, " they went to the high place at Gibeon." The
further remark, " and he reigned over Israel," appears super
fluous ; in the Syriac we find " over all Israel," and the same
words occur in 1 Kings iv. 1. It is probable that this was the
original reading; the word col after al may easily have been
dropped from the text. There is nothing superfluous in the
remark that Solomon ruled over all Israel, even after tbe state
ment contained in v. 1. But it would be more appropriate to
take it as the commencement ofa new paragraph (vv. 14 — 18),
which is the position assigned it in 1 Kings iv. It was probably
connected with the thirteenth verse on the occasion ofthe division
of the verses, in consequence of the word pi^^i^ (v. 14) being
regarded as the opening of a fresh verse and section, as in 1
Kings x. 26.

2. Chap. i. 14—17.

SOLOMON S CHARIOTS, HORSEMEN, AND WEALTH.
We find these verses almost word for word in 1 Kings x. 26
-29 ; see the commentary on that passage.

3. Chap. ii. — vn.
THE BUILDING OF THE TEMPLE AND OTHER THINGS
CONNECTED WITH IT.
Chap. ii. 1 — 17. Preparations for the building of the temple.
Chap. H-, v. 1. "iftfc^, and Solomon commanded, is followed by
the infinitive with lamed: that they should build, cf. 1 Chr. xxi.
17. The temple is called a house for the name of Jehovah,
because his name, i.e., He himself, dwelt in the temple with that
majesty and holiness, which are most coUcisely designated His
Name (Deut. xxviii. 58 ; 2 Chr. xx. 8, 9). The house for his
kingdom, the royal palace, is merely mentioned incidentally in
the Chronicles, here and at chap. ii. II, vii. 11, viii. 1 ; we have
VOL. II. Y

338 CHAPTER II. 2 — 4.
full particulars respecting the erection of it in 1 Kings vii. 1 — 12.
We agree in the main with the result of Thenius' enquiries, that
the greater part of this palace was on the higher plateau of Zion,
on its north-eastern side, and that the eastern side of the palace
was opposite to the western side of the temple.
V. 2. The statements contained in this verse we meet with
again at v. 18, where they are repeated in close connection with
v. 17. The historian evidently did not strictly confine himself
to his original sources. He introduced at this point a remark
which occurred later in the sources themselves, and afterwards
copied them more fully, thus repeating what he had already
written. See. vv. 17 and 18.
Vv. 3 — 16. Negotiations with Hur am king of Tyre. — Vv. 3 —
10. Solomon first applies to Huram (differently narrated in 1
Kings v.) in writing, as we may infer from v. 11. — V. 3. The
name Huram only occurs in the Chronicles ; in 1 Kings v. 15
he is called Hiram, in vii. 40 and other places Hirom. Hirom
appears to resemble most closely the original form, as we find the
same name written Eipwpos in Menander, as quoted by Josephus
(c. Apion i. 18, 21), for which 2ipwp,o<; occurs in Herodotus
7, 98 and Syncellus p. 344 Ed. Bonn. Josephus himself writes
Eipapo<; (Antiq. viii. 2). — The words to build him a house occur
again in 1 Chr. xiv. 1. The expression "as thou didst deal
8(c" requires another clause, which should read thus : deal also
with me, but these words can easily be supplied from the context,
especially from v. 6, though the Vulgate translators have thought
it necessary to interpolate, sic fac mecum. — V. 4. To consecrate it
(the temple) to him, i.e., to make it pt^pi^^ *Qfyp, Lev. xxvii. 14.
The expression is more closely defined by the following infinitive :
for the purpose of burning incense, &c. The sweet smelling
incense (Ex. xxv. 6) was the regular incense, that was burned
every morning and every evening (Ex. xxx. 7 seq.) The
"TOn n3"W3 was ^d on the table of showbread (cf. Ex. xxv.
30), hence the infinitive -ptflpn'? does not refer to the continual
offering of the showbread. The lamed alone must be applied to
the latter part of the sentence, thus : for the continual offering
and for the burnt sacrifice. Burnt sacrifices had to be offered every
morning and evening, and in addition to this continual burnt-
offering special sacrifices were offered according to the law on

CHAPTER II. 5—7. 339
the Sabbaths, the new moons, and the feast days (Num. xxviii.
and xxix.). The concluding words remind us of the well known
formula "for a statute for ever" (e.g. Num. xix. 10); they are
quite loosely connected, and form a sentence by themselves : for
all time this is enjoined upon Israel. Earlier expositors interpreted
the sentence in its present connexion as meaning : it is there
fore important to build a fixed and permanent temple, because
the sacrificial worship therein is to last for ever, and therefore
I require building materials ; but in this explanation they laid
too much stress upon so loosely constructed a clause ; compare
the similar words in 1 Chr. xxiii. 31. V. 5. In 1 Chr. xxix. 1
aU that was said was, the temple must be great, because it is not
for man but for God ; but here the reason is still more strongly
expressed : it must be great, because it is intended for the God,
who is greater than all gods (Ex. xviii. 11). V. 6. Who is able;
cf. 1 Chr. xxix. 14. The words "for the heaven and the heaven
of heavens do not contain him," are a reminiscence of 1 Kings viii.
27, and 2 Chr. vi. 18, where we find the sentence appropriately
completed thus : to say nothing of this house which I have built.
In the question " Wlio am I, that I should build him a house "
(cf. 1 Chr. xxix. 14) there is implied : a house for him to dwell
in I cannot build ; and with this is connected the antithesis : but
only for the purpose of burning incense before him, i.e., only to
maintain a place in which God may be honoured by sacrifice,
can I venture to build him a house. V. 7. The wise man to
work in gold, &c, who is asked for here, is afterwards sent by
King Huram (v. 11). The works of art and instruments prepared
by this artificer are described in chap. iv. 11 — 16 ; but we do not
find any mentioned in this list for which purple cloth, crimson
stuff, or blue purple were required. Purple stuff ; )yyyft, equiva
lent to ft33iN v. 13, Ex. xxv. 4, was the usual form adopted in
later times and in the Aramaean dialect, Dan. v. 7, 16, 29.
Crimson ; V17313 was certainly not originally a Hebrew word ;
it was probably current among the Persians and Armenians, and
came from them to the Hebrews along with the material to
which it was applied; (cf. Gesenius thes. p. 714). Blue purple,
frequently mentioned in Exodus, e.g. Chap. xxvi. 31. In
1 Kings vii. 13 the artificer is merely said to have been a worker
in brass. If at the same time the various kinds of cloth are
y 2

340 CHAPTER II. 8—10.
mentioned, which were used in preparing the curtains in the
temple, this is done simply for the purpose of comprising in one
list all the costly materials which were required for the temple
and its furniture. But we obtain the further information here,
that the artist employed himself in weaving, which is not men
tioned in the other passages. !3^pfinQ nnD*?> io prepare carved
ornaments, see 1 Kings vi. 18, 23, 29. According to 1 Kings
vii. 13, 2 Chr. iv. 11 — 16, the artist did not work in wood.
Before QiJ33nn DJ? (with the wise men) the infinitives pfltyyb
and nnD7 must be repeated thus : that he may work, &c. along
with the wise men, &c. For the last words of the verse see
1 Chr. xxii. 15, xxviii. 21. — V. 8. For Qi;3l3^N> here and
chap. ix. 10 seq., we find QVjft^ in 1 Kings x. 11 ; the word
denotes the genuine sandal-wood, which is said in the passages
cited to have come to Palestine from the land of Ophir ; accord
ing to 1 Kings v. 20 and 22, Hiram sent from Lebanon only cedar
and cypress wood ; the author ofthe Chronicles mentions in con
nexion with these the third valuable wood, which is also noticed
in I Kings x. 12, as employed in the building of the temple,
but which did not come from Lebanon. The last half of the
verse corresponds very closely to the words of Solomon as
reported in 1 Kings v. 20. — Ver. 9. The infinitive ^3p|Sl caimot
be regarded as a continuation of the words, to cut, in v. 8 ; it is
rather connected with the imperative " send me " in v. 8, mean
ing " and they shall prepare for me ;" on this use ofthe infinitive
with lamed see 1 Chr. xxii. 5. fr^QPfi> ^e infinitive absolute
in this passage has the meaning of an adverb, wonderfully, cf.
Ewald, Lehrbuch 280 c— V. 10. The word Q^tanS which
does not occur anywhere else in tlie Chronicles (cf. Josh. ix.
21, 23, 27), is explained by ?"rtjypj Vnif? (the lamed is the
introductory prefix) ; and behold, as for the hewers, who cut down
the trees, I give (the perfect as in 1 Chr. xxix. 3) wheat for food
for thy servants, viz. for those who were employed in felling trees
(cf. thy servants in v. 7, and 1 Kings v. 20). p\13)3 is quite
unintelligible ; the explanation wheat of strokes, or wheat that is
beaten, threshed, cannot be correct, for the reference here is to
measured wheat, which must necessarily have been threshed ; nor
can it be rendered, wheat for strokes, in other words for the
felling of the trees, for ry\yft is connected with Qij^pj in the

CHAPTER II. 10—12. 341
absolute state. According to 1 Kings v. 25 the reading should
be pH3£ (contracted from p\SbN?3 /0<K0 >' hy mistake a vav was
substituted for lamed, and hence the original word was changed
into the reading of our text. For the twenty kors of oil, men
tioned in 1 Kings v., we should read according to this passage
twenty thousand baths of oil. There are also various other respects
in which the account given here differs from that of 1 Kings v.
25. There it is arranged by treaty that Solomon shall give
Hiram every year 20,000 kors of wheat, and 20,000 baths of
oil, here we read of only one delivery; there the delivery is
intended for the house of King Hiram, here it is said to have been
applied to the maintenance of the wood-cutters. — (Bertheau
regards these as discrepancies, not so Keil who says (p. 218,
219) : " these differences show clearly that the two accounts con
tain partial extracts from more ancient sources, for they are not
at variance with each other. . . . There is no discrepancy
between the statement of the Chronicles, that Solomon promised
to give to the people of Hiram 20,000 kors of wheat, &c, and
that of Kings, that Hiram requested provisions for the mainten
ance of his court, and received them from Solomon every year ;
the two passages treat of different things, and each is the com
plement of the other, as most expositors have already observed
(cf. J. H. Michaelis adnott. uberr. ad 2 Chr. ii. 9, and Schulz
Schol. ad 1 Reg. v. 11). Studuit uterque scriptor sacer, says
Michaelis, ut lectori hoc insinuaret. Hinc scriptor libri Regum
expresse addit, 20,000 Mos coros tritici, et 20 coros old concessos
fuisse Chiramo pro domo sive familia ejus regia alenda. Scriptor
vero libri Chron. triticum, hordeum, vinum ac oleum data dirit servis
Hir ami, et ne quis per servos aulicos ejus intelligat, addit caesoribus,
ne hoc tantum, sed praeterea, exddentibus ligna, ut non possimus
commode intelligere, nisi eos, qui in ipso Tribano laborabant. So
lomon had promised to give to the Tyrian workmen the provisions
mentioned in the Chronicles; in addition to this Hiram required in
return for the cedars, which he sent him, a yearly supply of wine
and oil for his court, and according to the book of Kings Solomon
delivered it." Keil Chron. p. 218, 219).— Vv. 12—16. King-
Hiram's answer. V. 11. Because Jehovah loved his people, &c. ;
Similar words occur in chap. ix. 8 ; 1 Kings x. 9. — V. 12. The
fresh commencement ^73^1 "and he said" may be explained from

342 CHAPTER II. 13, 14.
the fact that in 1 Kings v. 21 the word is also found at the open
ing of a clause, which corresponds pretty closely with the words
of the verse before us.— V. 13. n3"»3 yTV * Chr. xii. 32. The
lamed before Huram is the sign of the Accusative ; the name
of the artist is given in 1 Kings vii. 13 as Hiram, for which
we have here Huram, just as King Hiram is called Huram
in the Chronicles, cf. v. 2 of this chapter. The king calls
tbe artist my father; father is here to be taken in tbe sense of
master, as we may see from 2 Chr. iv. 16, where Huram is called
the father of Solomon, because he was engaged as master in
Solomon's service and prepared for him different works of art.
Compare the word father in Gen. xiv. 8.— V. 14. According to
1 Kings vii. 14 the mother of the artist was a widow of the
tribe of Naphtali, whereas in the passage before us she is said
to have belonged to the daughters of Dan, i.e., to the tribe of
Dan. In order to reconcile these different statements early
scholars, following Kimchi and other Rabbins, have maintained
that in 1 Kings it is Hiram himself, and not his mother who is
said to have belonged to the tribe of Naphtali, and that the
actual state of the case accordingly was, that through his father
he was connected with the tribe of Naphtali, whflst his mother
belonged to the tribe of Dan. When the father is called a man
of Tyre, the reason of this is said to have been simply that he
lived in Tyre and was employed as an artist there. This expla
nation served also to remove the offence, which was taken by the
Jews of a later age, at the Tyrian descent of the'maker of the
sacred vessels. But in 1 Kings it is clearly stated that he was
the son of a widow of the tribe of Naphtali, and just as clearly
is it stated both there and in the verse before us that he was
a Tyrian man, i.e., that Tyre was his native place, for the two
expressions " of the tribe of Naphtali " (or " of the daughters of
Dan "), and " a Tyrian man," are placed side by side as both
indicative of the home and descent alone. Thenius thinks it
possible to reconcile the different accounts of Huram thus : " he
was the son of a Tyrian, who had married an Israelitish widow
ofthe city of Dan in the tribe of Naphtali (which was very near
to the city of Tyre)." But we know of no city of Dan in the
province of Naphtali, and we certainly are not warranted in
assuming the existence of such a city for the purpose of explain-

CHAPTER II. 14 — 16. 343
ing how the mother of Huram could belong to the daughters oi
Dan and be at the same time a Naphtalite. The question,
whether we are justified in expecting exact historical statements
in both passages, we have no hesitation in answering in the
affirmative, since the person referred to was a celebrated man,
about whom the Israelites, who had occasion to admire his works
of art, must necessarily have been anxious to possess exact in
formation. We must therefore attempt to unite these apparently
discrepant accounts, since there is no reason to question the
accuracy of either. Now it seems to us an important point, that
the mother is called in 1 Kings a widow of the tribe of Naphtali,
whereas in the Chronicles it is merely said that she belonged to
the daughters of Dan. The two accounts are related to each
other in the following manner : she was by birth a Danite,
married into the tribe of Naphtali, became a widow, and as a
widow of the tribe of Naphtali became the wife of a man of
Tyre, by whom she had a son Huram. Thus could two of the
tribes of Israel boast that on the mother's side Huram belonged
to them, v^ ty^, Septuagint dv-hp Tvpios ; v^ has been
changed by Josephus (Antiq. 8. 3. 4) into " Urias of an Israelitish
family" an alteration which can be traced to the desire to make
Huram a man of purely Israelitish descent. yyyi must be re
ferred to Huram, for he was the skilful man for whom Solomon
had just applied (v. 7). The skill of Huram, according to the
verse before us, embraced working in stone and wood, and also
the manufacture of byssus, articles not named in v. 7. The
words " to invent all kinds of clever devices" here used to describe
the skill of Huram, resemble Ex. xxxi. 4, cf. xxxv. 33. Which are
given to him (sc, to execute). The concluding words, " along
with thy wise men and the wise men of my lord David " (cf. v. 7)
are connected with the three infinitives, " to work," " to grave,"
and "to invent." By calling David, "my lord," king Huram
politely places himself on a level with David's subjects (cf. 2
Sam. xvi. 9 ; 1 Kings i. 31). — V. 15 cf. 10. V. 16. According
to all thy need ; 'yyy^ is found nowhere else in the Old Testa
ment, but is frequently met with in the Aramaean writings, e.g.,
the Targums (cf. Buxtorf, lex. chald. talmud. rabb.). The word
nT!DD"1 aiso occnrs in this passage alone ; in 1 Kings v. 23 we
have p\"n3"T, which removes all doubt as to the meaning : we will

344 CHAPTER II. 16 — 18.
convey the wood to thee in floats (raphsodoth is a loosely connected
accusative, explanatory of the mode of conveyance) ; we cannot
succeed in finding any satisfactory etymology of this peculiar
word. To Joppa, the nearest harbour to Jerusalem in the
Mediterranean Sea ; the name of the place is not given in
1 Kings v. 23. The letter of King Huram, as we have it here
in v. 10 — 15, differs in many respects from the words of Huram
in 1 Kings v. 21 — 23; at the same time it is very evident that
the two passages relate to the same negotiations between the
two kings. (See the commentary on the passage in Bangs — Tr.).
Josephus (Antiq. 8. 2. 6 seq.) also communicates the correspon
dence between Solomon and Hiram. The contents of these
letters agree so exactly with the statements in 1 Kings v. that
they must be regarded as freely worked up from the chapter in
question. Josephus also says (Ant. 8. 2. 8.) that the dvTir/pa<pa
of the letters are not only to be found in the historical books
of the Old Testament, but were stiU preserved in his day in
the public archives of Tyre ; but his words must not be taken
in their strict literality so far as the Old Testament is concerned,
since he does not give the letters in the form in which we have
them there. And from this we may conclude, that his meaning
is not that the letters still existed word for word in the Tyrian
archives, but that accounts of the negotiations between Solomon
and the King of Tyre were preserved in the Tyrian records in
the same manner as in the Old Testament. There is no reason
to question the credibility of this statement. " The letters from
Eupolemus given by Eusebius (praepar. evang. ix. 33, 34) are
evidently free compositions," Thenius on 1 Kings v. 23.
Vv. 17, 18. Recapitulation of the brief account in v. 1 (cf. 1
Kings v. 29 seq.). V. 17. "All the foreigners-" viz., the
Canaanites, who lived in the midst of Israel (cf. 1 Chr. xxii. 2).
According to the numbering (sephar only occurs in this passage)
wherewith David his father had numbered them ; in 1 Chr. xxii.
2 it is merely stated that David gave orders to gather together
the foreigners, but as the object for which these foreigners were
ordered to be collected together was that workmen might be ob
tained for the building of the temple, it is probable that this is
the passage referred to here, and that this assembling of the
foreigners in the time of David is what the author describes as

CHAPTER II. 18. 345
the first numbering. With this he now compares the second
numbering in the time of Solomon. Moreover, it is evident, from
the brief notice in2 Sam.xx.24, thatinDavid's time the foreigners
were obliged to perform tributary service under the superinten
dence of an officer, Adoram or Adoniram, and such regular ser
vice could not be carried out without a definite organisation and
numbering of those who served. The number 153,600 is the
sum total ofthe different numbers given in the next verse, 70,000,
80,000 and 3,600 ; hence the overseers were not included in this
amount.— V. 18. The numbers 70,000 and 80,000 we meet with
in v. 1, and 1 Kings v. 29. From a comparison with 1 Chr.
xxii. 2 it is evident, that the seventy thousand hewers on the moun
tain were appointed to cut the stones for the building. Accord
ing to Thenius, " on the mountain " meant on Mount Lebanon,
but there is no intimation that this is intended even in 1 Kings
v. 29 sqq., and it may be assumed at the outset, that at least the
greater part of the stones used in the buildings at Jerusalem
were procured from quarries in the neighbourhood ; " on the
mountain " is quite indefinite, and is merely equivalent to " at
the quarries in the mountains." The word Qipi2J273> denoting
the overseers of the tributary labourers, is only met with in the
Chronicles (here and v. 1, compare 2 Chr. xxxiv. 13). The
number 3600 given here and at v. 1 is undoubtedly exact ;
3600 x 50 = 180,000, the number which we obtain by adding
to the 70,000 bearers of burdens and the 80,000 stone cutters
the 30,000 tributary labourers mentioned in 1 Kings v. 27, who
were employed in cutting wood upon the Lebanon. Thus there
would be an overseer to every fifty men, which is clearly a very
just proportion. The number 3300 given in 1 Kings v. 16
stands in no such relation to the whole number. To keep the
people at work, an expression which is not found in the parallel
passage in Kings (cf. Ex. vi. 5). — If we substitute 3600 for
3300, according to the account contained in this passage, the
numbers given in 1 Kings v. 15, 16 correspond to those given
here ; but it is strange that nothing is said in this passage of the
30,000 hewers of wood mentioned in 1 Kings v. 13, especially
as the number of the overseers, 3600, seems to have been fixed
with reference to the whole number, including these 30,000.
We cannot tell for what reason they are omitted here. On the

346 CHAPTER 111.  VIII.
relation between the account given in these verses, and that con
tained in 1 Kings ix. 15 — 23, 2 Chr. viii. 7 — 10, we shall have
occasion to speak hereafter.
Chap. iii. 1 — 14. The building of the temple. Vv. 15 — 17.
The two pillars.
Chap. iv. 1 — 10. The holy things and the forecourts. Vv. 1 1
— 18. List ofthe brazen articles made by Huram. Vv. 19 — 22.
The articles of gold.
Chap. v. 1. Conclusion of the account of ihe preparation of the
holy things.
Chap. v. 2 — vii. 10. Consecration of the temple.
(For chap. iii. 1 — vii. 10 the reader is referred to the Com
mentary on 1 Kings vi. — viii. — Tr.)

4. Chap. viii. and ix.
brief notices of important events in solomon's reign,
account of his wisdom, his wealth, and his power.
his death.
Vv. 1, 2. Solomon peopled the cities, which Huram had given
him, with Israelites ; compare 1 Kings ix. 10 — 14, where it is
stated that Huram not only furnished Solomon with materials,
but also assisted him with money (no doubt for the purpose of
completing the great buildings), and that Solomon gave him in
return twenty small cities in the neighbourhood of Tyre and its
territory. Our historian says nothing about the assistance with
gold, or the cities which Solomon gave to Huram ; but speaks,
on the other hand, of cities which Huram gave up to Solo
mon, and which the latter peopled with Israelites. Attempts
were made in very early times to reconcile these two accounts.
It was assumed that Solomon gave twenty cities to Huram, and
that, as they did not seem to him a sufficient compensation, he
gave them back to Solomon, who then peopled them with
Israelites. This is the opinion expressed by Josephus (Antiq.
8. 5. 3). Jewish commentators (e.g. Kimchi) have conjectured
that, in order to strengthen the alliance between Solomon and
Huram, the former gave to the latter twenty cities, and Huram

CHAPTER VIII. 1. 347
again gave up to Solomon twenty others. In this way the
earlier Christian commentators have combined the two. But it
should be proved that the two accounts refer to different trans
actions, and this proof it would be difficult to furnish, as it is
evident from a comparison ofthe accounts in the Book of Kings
and the Chronicles, and their position in the two books, that the
different statements rest upon the same original foundation. (Keil
says, p. 221, 222 : — " however contradictory the two accounts
may appear at the first glance, the contradiction is only apparent
and is removed by the remark that the one author relates what
the other has omitted. Hiram had assisted Solomon with timber
and gold. In return Solomon, as soon as his buildings were
completed, gave up twenty cities which were under his dominion
but were not inhabited by Israelites. Hiram went to look at
them, but they did not please him. (So far 1 Kings ix. 11 — 13).
He therefore gave them back to Solomon, who finished building
them (for they were probably in very bad condition, and there
fore did not please Hiram) and sent Israehtes to dwell in them.1
In this way J. D. Michaelis, in his notes on 2 Chr. viii. 2, has
combined the two passages (cf. Dahler p. 86 note a). Still Gram
berg pronounces them hopelessly irreconcileable, and says that
there is something more than inconsistency in the statement of
the author of the Chronicles, v. 2 : that Solomon built the cities,
&c., since it is impossible to tell how cities could be built, that
were already in existence. But this remark does not indicate
much shrewdness, for it presupposes, first of all, that nothing has
happened in the world except the few events which have been
recorded in history, and moreover it seems to show that Gramberg
was ignorant of the fact that banah means also to build up again,
to finish building, restituere, instaurare, exstruere, &c, meanings
which may be found in every lexicon.") — V. 1. The time men
tioned in 1 Kings is the same as that given here. The twenty
years must be reckoned from the period when the building com
menced. This statement is in harmony with the notices in
1 Kings vi. 38 (the temple was finished seven years after the
commencement of the building) and with that in chap. vii. 1 (he
1 On the situation of these cities see Ritter's Erdkunde B. 2 p. 384.
This learned geographer also explains the two accounts in the manner
indicated above, without discovering any discrepancy between them.

348 CHAPTER VIII. 2 — 4.
was building his own house thirteen years) cf. 2 Chr. v. 2. —
And his house, cf. chap. i. 18.— V. 2. The building (according to
v. 4 sqq. 1 Kings ix. 17 and other similar passages) must be
understood as meaning the fortification ofthe cities. And caused
Israelites lo dwell (removed them) thither, 2 Kings xvii. 6.
Vv. 3 — 6. The cities which Solomon built (cf. 1 Kings ix.
17— 19).— V. 3. The account ofthe conquest ofthe city, and, as
appears from v. 4, of the kingdom of Hamath, whose king ap
proached David in a friendly manner, and apparently ensured
his independence by that means (cf. 1 Chr. xviii. 9 — 11), we find
in this passage only. That the kingdom of Hamath was con
quered by the Israelites is evident from 2 Kings xiv. 28 ; but
this is the only passage in which we are informed that it was
conquered by Solomon. On the name Hamath Zobah see 1 Chr.
xviii. 3, 9. — He went to Hamath (sc. for the purpose of conquer
ing it) cf. 2 Sam. xii. 29. ^y hjpj is used in other passages to
denote the conquest of countries or nations (chap, xxvii. 5 : Dan.
xi. 5). — V. 4. The building of Tadmor and all the store-cities in
the land of Hamath is evidently connected with the conquest of
the land of Hamath by Solomon, for after he had conquered this
land he built Tadmor and the cities in the land of Hamath.
From this, indeed, it does not follow that Tadmor was situated
in the land of Hamath, but we may infer from the context that
a connection was established with Tadmor through the conquest
of Hamath, and thus the territory of Tadmor acquired greater
importance for the Israelites. Hence we must look for Tadmor
or Tammor (1 Kings ix. 18 Keri) outside Palestine, and some
where towards the north-east. The identity of Tadmor (Tam
mor is certainly the original genuine Hebrew name, Tadmor a
later Aramaean form) and Palmyra, which is established by
tradition, is thus still farther confirmed. Palmyra was situated
on the great line of traffic between the coast district of Palestine
and Thapsakos on the Euphrates, and from its position became
a very important place in connection with the traffic in the cis-
Asiatic countries. It was in the desert, which stretches from
Damascus to Thapsakos, in the centre of a fertile and well-
watered plain, and was therefore very suitable for a place of call.
In 1 Kings ix. 18 the name Tammor occurs in such a place in
the list of cities mentioned there, as to suggest the notion that

chapter viii. 4—6. 349
the city referred to was in the south of Palestine, and therefore
not Palmyra (Thenius) ; but the brief notice in the Book of
Kings " and Tammor in the desert in the land" is evidently merely
a supplementary remark, for an explanation of which we must
look to the more complete account in the Chronicles. That the
same city is referred to is evident from the definition *^3^J33,
"in the desert" and we are led to conjecture that the words "in
the land" are the remains of a longer sentence, which could be
completed from the passage before us in the following manner :
" and all the store cities which he built in ihe land" namely in
Hamath. As the words " and all the store-cities " occur again in
the next verse, they might easily have been overlooked the first
time. According to 2 Chr. xxxii. 28 tlie store-cities were places
for collecting stores of provisions ; when they were situated on
the great trade-roads they were no doubt intended to relieve the
wants of travellers and their beasts of burden. — V. 5. In 1 Kings
ix. 17 lower Beth-horon only is mentioned. On the sites of the
two Beth-horons see 1 Chr. vii. 24. *^\>giy lyy must be regarded
as a second accusative to the verb banah : he built them as forti
fied toions (chap. xi. 5) ; the words which follow are in apposi
tion, and are added by way of explanation, namely, as walls,
gates, and bars (cf. chap. xiv. 6). — V. 6. Baalath (1 Kings ix.
18) was a city in the tribe of Dan, Josh. xix. 44. It is appro
priately named in connection with the fortified cities of Beth-
horon, which were also to the west of Jerusalem. By the store-
cities mentioned here we are to understand all, with the exception
of those in Hamath, which had already been noticed in v. 4, but
especially the store-cities in the land of Palestine. The chariot-
cities ; cf. chap. i. 14. In the other passages (chap. i. 14, ix.
25 ; 1 Kings x. 26) the cities of the horsemen are not specially
mentioned, but the chariot-cities are described as stations for
horsemen as well as for chariots, p^pj, as distinguished from
the fortresses and store-cities, can only mean pleasure-buildings.
 And on the Lebanon (cf. 1 Kings ix.. 19). — It is worthy of note,
that nothing is said in this passage about the fortification of
Jerusalem, nor are the cities of Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer
named among the fortresses erected by Solomon (1 Kings ix.
15) ; the account of the conquest of Gezer by Pharaoh is also
omitted (1 Kings ix. 16) ; cf. v. 11 below.

350 CHAPTER VIII. 7 — 10.
Vv. 7—10. The institution of tributary service. (See the com
mentary on 1 Kings ix. 20 — 23). — The question arises here, in
what relation does the statement contained in these verses and in
1 Kings ix. 20 — 23 stand to the account given in 2 Chr. ii. 2
and 17, 18, and 1 Kings v. 27—32? If we had only to deal
with 1 Kings v. 29 — 32, we should be warranted in saying with
out hesitation, that in this passage the reference is to labourers,
who were taken from the midst of Israel and required to perform
the less arduous work, and that in 1 Kings ix. 20 seq. and the
passage before us on the other hand the Canaanitish tributary
labourers are intended; but with this we could not reconcile
2 Chr. ii. 16, where it is expressly stated, that the labourers, the
number of whom is given in 1 Kings v. 29 seq., were foreigners
in the land of the Israelites, and therefore of Canaanitish origin.
Still on comparing the different accounts still further, the con
clusion to which we are brought is, that two different classes of
labourers are distinguished. First, those who were bound to render
tributary service, and who belonged to the Canaanitish tribes.
They are called ryft or ~J3y-D13' an(^ are referred to in 1 Kings
v. 13, 14, where "from all Israel" must mean out ofthe whole of
the land of Israel, and not from the midst of the Israelites in con
trast to the Canaanites, and also in 1 Kings ix. 20 — 23 and
2 Chr. viii. 7 — 10. There were thirty thousand of these, and
550 (according to the Chronicles 250) overseers were appointed
to superintend them. Now, if we reckon fifty labourers to each
overseer (cf. 2 Chr. ii. 17, 18) this would give us 27,500
labourers, a number which approaches very nearly to the 30,000
mentioned in Kings. Secondly, the Israelitish labourers, who
were bearers of burdens and stone-cutters. They are noticed in
1 Kings v. 29—32 and 2 Chr. ii. 17, 18. These labourers are
never called Qft, and when we read in the Chronicles that they
also were foreigners, whereas no such statement appears in
1 Kings v. 15 — 18, we are led to conclude that the two classes
of labourers have not been kept distinct. The very general re
mark in 1 Kings ix. 22 and 2 Chr. viii. 9, where the great
distinction between the Israelites and Canaanites is pointed out,
and Solomon is said to have made none of the sons of Israel
servants, refers to the fact, that no one was taken from the midst
of the Israelites to perform tributary service, because Israel was

CHAPTER VIII. 11, 12. 351
the ruling nation (the Israelites were men of war, princes, chariot-
soldiers, &c), but this did not prevent the employment of the
Israelites as workmen, e.g., bearers of burdens and stone-cutters.
V. 11. The daughter of Pharaoh takes possession of the palace
which Solomon built for her. Compare 1 Kings ix. 24, where
the event is but briefly referred to, though the notices in chap.
iu. 1 and ix. 16 had already prepared the way. Hitherto the
author of the Chronicles has not mentioned Pharaoh's daughter,
nor have we any account of the conquest of the city of Gezer
by Pharaoh, who gave it to his daughter as her dowry. And
here he merely observes in a very cursory manner, when speak
ing of the buildings, that Solomon also built a house for Pharaoh's
daughter, because he regarded it as improper that a woman should
live in the house of David, "for they are holy (the plural must
refer to the different rooms in David's house) because the ark of
Jehovah had come to them" According to 1 Kings iii. 1, Solo
mon brought Pharaoh's daughter into the city of David, that is,
no doubt, into the palace which was formerly inhabited by his
father and after his death by himself, that she might dwell there
till he had completed his other buildings and his own house.
Hence the queen was afterwards to live in his own house, from
which it follows, that " the house which he had built for her" formed
part of Solomon's own house, a portion, that is, of his royal palace.
The statement in 1 Brings iii. 1 requires the information in chap.
ix. 24 to render it complete. We have then in the Book of
Kings a full account of the entrance of the king's daughter into
the house which Solomon had built for her. — The Pharaoh re
ferred to here was Psusennes, the last king of the twenty-first
dynasty (the Tanitic). — In 1 Kings ix. 24, the words " Soldmon
built Millo then" follow immediately upon the account ofthe house
for Pharaoh's daughter; but they are omitted by our historian.
Vv. 12 — 16. Solomon's sacrifices and the rest ofthe offerings are
presented on the altar which he had built ; the priests and Levites
are appointed according to Davids plan. From the position of
these words they answer to 1 Kings ix. 25, the obscure state
ments of that verse being partly explained, or rather paraphrased,
and partly completed by the addition of farther particulars. —
V. 12. The point of time indicated in the word "then" refers to
the period immediately following the completion and consecration

352 CHAPTER VIII. 12  15.
of the temple, and the meaning is, as the next verse clearly
shows, that from this time forth the sacrificial worship prescribed
by Moses was regularly maintained and offered in the new
temple. The emphasis is laid not upon the fact that Solo
mon offered burnt-sacrifices, but upon their being offered on
the altar which he had built. In 1 Kings ix. 25 the mean
ing of the words (with the exception of the last three) is
that the sacrifices, presented by Solomon on the three great
festivals, were offered on the altar which he had built; the
Chronicles in the following verse emphatically state that all the
sacrifices were offered there. — "V. 13. The 3 in -q-q is difficult
to understand ; -^3^ alone, as in Lev. xxiii. 37, would be more
intelligible; but the beth is found in all the MSS. It must
therefore be rendered : they had to offer burnt-sacrifices with that
which was appointed for every day, i.e., they had to offer the
burnt-sacrifices appointed for every day. On the infinitive
pllSynV see f°r example 1 Chr. ix. 25, xiii. 4, xv. 2. On the
Sabbaths and on the new moons and, on tlie feasts, three times a
year; the plural' qy^j^q embraces under one term the three
great feasts mentioned immediately afterwards (cf. Hitzig Ezek.
xlvi. 10). The person sacrificing is not noticed, since reference
is made to the sacrifices of the congregation, which were pre
scribed by the law, and the emphasis is again laid upon the fact
that from that time forth they were offered upon the altar, which
Solomon had built. V. 14. He appointed (carrying out David's
arrangements) the twenty-four divisions qf priests (1 Chr. xxiv.)
for their service, and he appointed the Levites to their charges to
praise (cf. 1 Chr. xxv. 3) and to perform service before the priests
(1 Chr. xxiii. 28 sqq.) according to the regulation for every day,
and he appointed the door-keepers, &c. (1 Chr. xxvi. 1 — 19). On
the last words see Neh. xii/24. — V. 15. The verb y^Q with the
accusative of the object, meaning to depart from the command,
does not occur any where else, we find »q "YlD i° every other
passage, and a few MSS. have this construction here. It does not
seem to me improbable, that this was the construction originally
intended here, and that the mem was dropped from mimmazoth
for the sake of euphony. With reference to all things (especially)
with reference to the treasures, (1 Chr. xxvi. 20 — 28) ; i.e. those

CHAPTER VIII. 16— 18. 353
which had not been mentioned in the previous verse. — V. 16. The
whole of the work of Solomon toas prepared, i.e. was completed
(cf. chap. xxix. 35, xxxv. 10, 16) to this day ; what day is meant
we learn from the context, according to which we can only think
of the day, when the execution of David's plans brought the
activity of David in connexion with the temple to a close. The
nDM773 relates simply to the temple ; this is clearly shown in the
words which follow in apposition : the whole work, namely, from
the foundation of the temple and up to its completion. The house
of Jehovah is completed; with this postscript the author brings
to a close the entire narrative from chap, i. 18 to this passage,
the building of the temple is the principal subject, other things
being only incidentally named. It must be borne in mind that
these words correspond to the last three words of 1 Kings ix. 25 ;
we remark too here in passing that we find no reference in the
passage in Engs to any high-priestly functions exercised by
Solomon. Vv. 17, 18. Voyage to Ophir (cf. 1 Kings ix. 26—28). V. 17.
Instead of Qipj we have in 1 Kings m£ qi on the shore of the
Red Sea in the land of Edom. — V. 18. According to 1 Kings
Hiram sent his servants in the fleet along with the servants of
Solomon, but according to the account in this verse he sent
" by the hands of his servants ships and servants, and they went
to Ophir along with the servants of Solomon." We find it diffi
cult to explain how an Israelitish man can have pictured Hiram
sending ships from Tyre to Ezion-geber, since they can hardly
have been conveyed by land across the isthmus of Suez, and the
circumnavigation of Africa for that purpose is incredible, yet it is
evident that this is the meaning of the historian's words, and that
he saw no difficulty in the way of its accomplishment at the time
when he wrote. (Keil says : " Tyrian ships could reach the
Red Sea if they sailed round Africa. In favour of the supposi
tion that they did so we might adduce the account, given by
Herodotus [1. iv. 42] and defended by Heeren with most conclu
sive arguments [Ideen i. 2. p. 79 sqq. 4th ed.], that Necho sent
out Phoenician sailors who circumnavigated Africa. It is true
Herodotus says that he knows Necho to have been the first to
prove that Africa is entirely surrounded by water with the ex
ception of the small isthmus that connects it with Asia, and thus
VOL. II. Z

354 CHAPTER VIII. 18.
seems to imply, that previously this had not been known ; but be
also says that Necho instructed the Phoenician sailors to start
from tbe Arabian Sea, and return to Egypt by coming through
the Pillars of Hercules into the Northern [Mediterranean] Sea,
and from this the contrary might be inferred, so that we cannot
argue with any certainty from this account of Herodotus that the
Phoenicians had not sailed round Africa before. We admit that
there are no historical records of such voyages, but tlie Phoeni
cians, from commercial considerations, purposely threw a veil of
secrecy over their more distant expeditions [vid Heeren ut. sup.
p. 27 sqq., 55.] Huet1 and Michaelis [spicil. i. p. 99 sqq.],
though for different reasons, have both assumed the circumnavi
gation of Africa in the time of Solomon. But if the Phoenicians
had really already undertaken this voyage, they would certainly
have made it frequently, and in that case it could hardly have
remained a secret. If, however, any should assume, that it was
only occasionally, or under Solomon, that they sent a fleet round
Africa ipto the Arabian Sea, to trade in this gulf, they could
have attained their object much more easily by conveying their
vessels into the Red Sea over the isthmus of Suez. In ancient
times it was so well-known and frequent a plan to transport ships
and even whole fleets across isthmuses and tracts of country, in
order to take them from one sea to another, that there is no
difficulty in such a supposition. Thus Herodotus relates [vii. 24],
that Xerxes had the isthmus of Mount Athos cut through, merely
to show his power and leave a memorial of it behind him, as he
could have conveyed the ships over the isthmus without any great
difficulty. Wesseling also adduces a statement from Polyan
[strateg. v. 26] to the effect that Dionysius of Sicily made his
soldiers carry eighty triremes a distance of half-a-mile in one
day. According to Tliucydides [iv. 8] the Peloponnesians con
veyed eighty ships across the Leucadian isthmus. Arrian says
that Alexander had ships transported from the Indus into the
Hydaspes, and from Phoenicia into the Euphrates [Book v. and
vii.]. Cleopatra wanted to have her whole fleet, conveyed from
the Mediterranean Sea to the Arabian Gulf; and was only pre-
1 Comment, sur les navigations de Salomon, in his " traites " geo-
graphiques et historiques, t. ii. d la Haye 1730.

CHAPTER IX., X. 355
vented by the Arabians, who burnt the ships that were first
drawn on land [see Plutarch vit. Ant.]. Further examples
are mentioned by Diodorus Siculus iv. 56, Ammian. Marcellus
xxiv. 7, and Huet, p. 40 sqq. It was evidently in this manner
that the Tyrians under Hiram conveyed their ships into the
Arabian Gulf, that they might sail with Solomon's vessels to
Ophir and take part in the trade of that place, as we find nar
rated in 1 Kings ix. 26 seq., and x. 11, and also in 2 Chr. viii.
18, and ix. 10. On the situation of Ophir see Lassen indische
Alterthumskunde i. p. 537 sqq., [Lassen connects the name
with the people of the Abhira, who dwelt at the mouth of the
Indus] and C. Ritter die Erdkunde Thi. 14. p. 351—431 [his
thorough investigation also leads to the conclusion that Ophir
was in India]. It is well known that others suppose it to have
been situated in Jemen or Sofala ; Knobel [Volkertafel p. 190 —
193] also looks for it in the southwest of Arabia ; the arguments
adduced in favour of this site have been subjected by Ritter to a
careful examination ; those in favour of India are of much
greater weight"). — Four hundred and fifty talents of gold ; it can
not be determined whether they are to be regarded as the pro
duct of one voyage or of the whole trade with Ophir ; from
chap. ix. 13, however, it is more probable that the whole of the
gold imported from Ophir is intended here. See chap. ix. 10
andxi. 21.
Chap. ix. 1 — 12. Visit ofthe Queen of Sabaea; (cf. 1 Kings x.
1 — 13 ; and see the commentary on that passage. — Tr.)
Vv. 13 — 28. Solomon's wealth, his forces, and the extension of
his kingdom; answering to 1 Kings x. 14 — 29, see the commen
tary on that passage. — Tr.
Vv. 29 — 31. Close of Solomon's history ; v. 30 seq. agreeing
almost word for word with 1 Kings xi. 42 seq.

IH. Chap. x. — Chap, xxxvi.
HISTORY OF THE KINGS WHO REIGNED IN JERUSALEM, FROM
REHOBOAM TO ZEDEKIAH.
The account of the revolt of the northern tribes, which was
z2

356 CHAPTER X. — XI. 10.
followed by the division of the kingdom of David and Solomon
into two separate Israelitish kingdoms (chap, x.— xi. 4), forms an
introduction to the history of the monarchical government in
the southern kingdom and of the descendants of David who
reigned in Jerusalem. But as that account contains at the
same time a portion of the history of Rehoboam's reign, and
we intend for the sake of clearness to give each reign a chapter
to itself, we shall connect it with the general history of Reho
boam.

1. Chap, x.— xii.
rise of the southern and northern kingdoms.
history of rehoboam.
Chap. x. Revolt of ihe northern tribes ; cf. 1 Kings xii. 1 — 19 :
see the commentary on that passage.
Chap. xi. 1 — 4. In obedience to the word of God by the prophet
Shemaiah, Rehoboam and ihe tribes of Judah and Benjamin desist
from their intended attack upon the northern tribes : see the com-
•mentary on 1 Kings xii. 21 — 24.
V. 5 — 12. Tlie means adopted by Rehoboam for the defence of
his kingdom. The brief history of Rehoboam in the Book of
Kings contains no notice of this. — V. 5. And he built cities for
defence in Judah : the singular -y^Q7 is used, because the cities
were to serve for the defence of the southern kingdom ; Judah
is used here as the name of the southern kingdom, because the
fortresses mentioned in the following verses were situated in the
provinces of Judah and Benjamin.— V. 6 — 10. We may assume
that of the fifteen cities named here, Aijalon (in Dan Josh. xix.
42) and Zorah (first in Judah Josh. xv. 33, then in Dan Josh.
xix. 41), though they formerly belonged to Dan, were at this
time reckoned as belonging to the province of Benjamin, which
had extended over districts, that were at first assigned to Dan,
that tribe having conquered for itself a new inheritance in the
most northerly part of the land (Judg. xvii. seq.). Aijalon, now
Yalo (Robinson iii. p. 278), and Zorah (probably the present
Surah half way between Jerusalem and Jabneh, Robinson ii. p.

CHAPTER XI. 10—14. 357
592) are at least the only cities named here, which from their situ
ation could have belonged to the province of Benjamin, and accord
ing to v. 10 the cities, referred to, included fortresses in Benjamin-
Gath ; the city of the Philistines, which had been conquered by
David (1 Chr. xviii. 1). It is true that in 1 Kings ii. 39 we
read of a king Achish of Gath in the time of Solomon, but it is
evident from 2 Chr. ix. 26 and 1 Kings v. 1 that this city was
subject to Solomon, even though it had maintained a certain
independence under a king of its own. It cannot, therefore,
appear strange to us to find the name of this city of the Philistines
among the cites fortified by Rehoboam. Adoraim, afterwards
called Dora, now Dura, a village on the south west of Hebron
(Robinson Hi. p. 209). nWlSE "HSh the second accusative to
pY^ in v. 6 (cf. chap. viii. 5), he built Beth-lehem, &c, as for
tresses. The fifteen cities were on the south and^west of Jeru
salem, hence Rehoboam appears to have been more afraid of an
attack from the south and west, that is from the Egyptians,
than of a war with the northern kingdom  V. 11.* And he made
the fortresses strong; in this connection the meaning of these words
must be that he prepared them for defence in case of an attack,
by appointing commanders (cf. v. 23), stocking them with pro
visions, and (v. 12) supplying them with miHtary stores ; for all
these defensive measures are summed up again in the expression
" he made them exceeding strong." By the supplementary clause
" and he had Judah and Benjamin," the statement in chap. x. 17,
"he was king over the Israelites who dwelt in the cities of
Judah," is more precisely defined.
V. 13 — 17. The southern kingdom is strengthened *by the fact
that the priests and Levites, who are expelled from the northern
kingdom, take refuge in it and are followed thither by faithful wor
shippers of Jehovah from all the tribes. In the Book of Kings
reference is made in 1 Kings xii. 31 and xiii. 33, 34, to the cir
cumstances described here, but the facts narrated in these verses
are not recorded there. — V. 14. For the Levites left their suburbs
(Num. xxxv. 1 — 8) and their possessions ; according to v. 8 of
the passage cited we are to understand by their possessions the
cities of the Levites in the districts of the northern tribes, for
Jeroboam and his sons had thrust them out of the priesthood of
Jehovah ; Jeroboam had prohibited his subjects from visiting
the temple in Jerusalem (1 Kings xii. 26 — 28), and had appointed

358 CHAPTER XI. 14 — 18.
his Own places of worship in Bethel and Dan, where Jehovah
was worshipped in the form of an ox, and thus the priests and
Levites, who would not break away from the temple at Jerusalem,
were compelled by him to leave the kingdom. And his sons ;
by this we are certainly not to understand that the sons of
Jeroboam were associated with him in the administration of the
government ; nor are we even to interpret the words as denoting
his lineal descendants, since his second son Nadab was the last
of his house who reigned over the northern kingdom ; we con
clude, therefore, that the persons intended are the successors of
Jeroboam in general, and that the passage merely indicates the
relation in which all the kings of the northern kingdom stood to
the priests of the tribe of Levi and to the rest of the Levites. —
V. 15. "For the high places ;" cf. 1 Kings xii. 31, "a house of
high places ;" similar places of worship were certainly estab
lished in other cities of the northern kingdom (cf. 2 Kings xvii.
9, ix. 29 sqq.). For the goats, or for the demons ; according to
Lev. xvii. 7 this was an odious term applied to idolatry generaUy
(Hke 0^^3 in 1 Kings xii. 15), which, if not actually intro
duced by Jeroboam, may have been in existence in his time, and
may subsequently have spread further and further. In this
verse, as well as the preceding, reference is made to the state of
the northern kingdom in Jeroboam's time. For the calves ; see
1 Kings xii. 28, according to which the words " which he had
made" are to be referred to the calves alone. — V. 16. Such as
set their hearts ; cf. 1 Chr. xxii. 19. T/iey came to Jerusalem, not
only to offer sacrifices there, but, as we learn from the next verse,
to remain in the southern kingdom. In the same way, at a later
period, we find subjects of the northern kingdom connecting
themselves with the southern, chap. xv. 9, xxx. 11. For three
years ; there is no reason to question the antiquity of this record,
but on the contrary it is a priori probable, that the pressure
from the north occasioned a proportionally greater earnestness
in the religious life of the south, and that the former was weak
ened and the latter strengthened by the immigrations from the
north to the south.
V. 18 — 23. Family-records. In the brief account of the life
of Rehoboam we do not meet with these notices, which were
probably taken from the sources named in chap. xii. 15. — V. 18.
Instead of ben many of the MSS., the Septuagint, and the

CHAPTER XI. 18—23. 359
Vulgate adopt the reading bath (daughter) from the Keri ; in the
Syriac the family-records contained in these verses are not given.
Jerimoth is not mentioned among the sons of David in 1 Chr. iii.
1 — 8 ; if our text be correct he must be regarded as a son of
one of David's concubines (1 Chr. iii. 9). Before Abichail the
Septuagint translators read the vav copul. ; if we insert this in
the text the words may be rendered as follows : Mahalath the
daughter of Jerimoth the son of David, and of Abichail the daughter
of Eliab the son of Jesse. In this case there would be only one
wife of Rehoboam referred to in the verse before us, namely
Mahalath, whose father and mother are both given, and this
would fully agree with v. 19 fcf. v. 20, "after her), where we
have further details of only one wife. Eliab ; the first born of
Jesse, 1 Chr. ii. 13. — V. 19. The three sons of Rehoboam here
named are only mentioned in this passage. V. 20. Maacah ;
this is the name which we also meet with in 1 Kings xv. 2, but
in 2 Chr. xiii. 2 Michaiah is said to have been the mother of
Abijah ; the latter name, however, has crept into the text through
a copyist's error. Tlie daughter of Absalom ; i.e., o/David's son, for
this is the only Absalom we can think of, as there is no further
description connected with the name. Daughter must be inter
preted as meaning granddaughter, as we may see from 2 Sam.
xiv. 27. Maacah, then, is to be regarded as a daughter
of Tamar, as Josephus says (Antiq. 8. 10. 1), cf. 2 Sam.
xviii. 18. Abijah.; in 1 Kings he is always called Abijam;
the former of the two is no doubt correct. The other three
children of Maacah are only mentioned here. — V. 21. He
took; chap. xiii. 21. Instead of sixty concubines Josephus
mentions only thirty. — V. 22. He appointed him as chief, gave
him the pre-eminence among his brethren, or, as it is afterwards
said by way of explanation, appointed him as prince among his
brethren (not «)ipi^ ^yy 1 Sam. x. 1, xiii. 14). The short infi
nitive 13,'Vl3n'? must be interpreted thus : for (his intention in
doing this was) to make him king. — V. 23. And he (Rehoboam)
acted sagaciously and dispersed (v^q to scatter, to locate in dif
ferent places) of all his sons (the different individuals) into all
the provinces of Judah and, Benjamin, into all the fortresses, and
gave them provisions in abundance, and desired for them a multi
tude of wives. Are we to understand that the sagacity of Reho-

360 CHAPTER XII. 1 — 3.
boam was displayed in the fact that he entrusted the most
important cities of the land, the fortified places, to the care of
his sons, and thus put them into the hands of safe commanders ?
Or did he act wisely in securing for his sons an independent
position, an ample revenue and many wives, in other words, a
splendid court, and thus making them contented, and saving the
brother, for whom the crown was intended, from the fear of rival
claims'? On comparing chap. xxi. 2, 3, we are necessarily
brought to the latter conclusion. The multitude of wives, there
fore, is mentioned in connexion with the provisions in abundance
as an evidence of the splendour of their mode of Hving and the
glory of their respective courts. It is not at all necessary to
assume in explanation of this passage, that Rehoboam gave his
sons many wives, who were taken from the cities, which he had
assigned to them as their places of abode, in order that he might
thus establish a closer connexion between his sons and the inha
bitants of the cities.
Chap. xii. 1 — 12. The Egyptian king Shishak conquers Jeru
salem; (compare the brief account in 1 Kings xiv. 25 — 28.) — V.
1. The infinitive V»3pj3, " at the time ofthe strengthening," must be
regarded as an indefinite active, and resolved as follows : when
they had strengthened, or, as we should express it, " when the
kingdom of Rehoboam had become strong;" tbe reference is to
chap xi. 17. — " And when he had become strong ;" see chap. xxvi.
16. — All Israel; all the inhabitants of the southern kingdom
(cf. v. 6). The meaning is, that for the first three years of his
reign Rehoboam and his people adhered faithfully to God ; in
the fourth year the apostasy occurred ; in the fifth the punish
ment of the apostasy was inflicted (v. 2.) — V. 2 we find in pre
cisely the same terms in 1 Kings xiv. 25, with the exception of
the explanatory clause at the end. On Shishak, the first king of
the twenty-second (Bubast.) dynasty of Manetho, compare
Thenius on ] Kings xi. 40. On a piece of sculpture in the great
palace at Carnac Champollion found Shishak represented as the
conqueror of a large number of princes, among whom, if the
inscription was read correctly, the name Rehoboam was found.
— V. 3. Among the numberless troops, brought by Shishak from
Egypt, there were Libyans (chap. xvi. 8, Daniel xi. 43; in Gen

CHAPTER XII. 3—11. 361
x. 13 they are called Lehabim, probably the inhabitants of
Mareotis and Libya, to the west of the Canopian mouth of the
Nile, Knobel Volkertafel p. 283), Sukkiim (only mentioned in
this passage, according to the Septuagint and Vulgate, they
were Troglodites, probably the Ethiopian Troglodytes on the
mountains along the western coast of the Arabian gulf, cf.
Winer Reallexicon s.v. Suchim), and Ethiopians (from the dis
tricts to the south of Egypt). — V. 4. The fortresses ; viz. those
which had been put in a state of defence for the purpose of
resisting an invasion on the part of the Egyptians. — V. 5.
Whilst Shishak with his army stood before Jerusalem, She-
maiah spoke to Rehoboam and the princes, who had been
driven back by the Egyptian army and had retired to Jeru
salem for the purpose of defending the capital. Ye have
forsaken ; see 1 Chr. xiii. 11. By the concluding words, " there
fore have I left you " &c, the prophet sets before them utter
defeat and complete destruction, as we may infer from v. 7
and v. 12 (" I will not destroy them") ; see also the similar words
in chap. xv. 2, xxiv. 20, and Deut. xxxi. 16 seq. Into the power
of Shishak; Neh. ix. 28. — V. 6. Then they bowed themselves;
chap. vii. 14, xiii. 18, xxxii. 26. The princes of Israel; in v. 5
we find "the princes of Judah." Jehovah is just ; Ezra ix. 15;
Neh. ix. 33. — V. 7. ta^J33 in a little, i.e, in a short time ; com
pare the similar words in Ezra ix. 8. And my wrath shall not be
poured out upon Jerusalem by Shishak ; see on the other hand
chap, xxxiv. 25. — V. 8. For they shall be servants to him for a
short time, that they may discern my service and the service of the
kingdoms of the lands, i.e., that they may see that my rule is not
so oppressive as that of foreign kings. " Of the kingdoms of the
countries ;" cf. 1 Chr. xxix. 30. — V. 9. The account of Shishak's
invasion is renewed after this parenthesis, and the words of v. 2
are repeated. It was not necessary to say expressly that the
invasion did not end with a mere advance against Jerusalem, as
the temple and palace could not possibly be plundered till the
city was conquered. — Tlie golden shields ; cf. chap. ix. 16. There
is a clause appended to the Septuagint version of 1 Kings xiv.
26 to the effect that Shishak also carried away the golden armour,
which David had taken as spoil in the war with the king of
Zobah, cf. 1 Chr. xviii. 7. — V. 11. The runners, who kept guard

362 cnAPTER xn. 11— 14.
in the porch of the king's palace (2 Kings xi. 19) attended the'
king when he went to the temple, and then carried away the
valuable shields. It is probable that these shields were used on
other occasions in connection with solemn processions, in which
the king took part. They were kept in the guard-room of the
runner's ; the golden shields which Solomon had made were kept
in the forest-house of Lebanon (chap. ix. 16) — V. 12. Account
ofthe fulfilment ofthe promise contained in v. 7 seq. " And (it
was) not entirely to destroy (the infinitive after the negative as in
1 Chr. v. 1) the good things, which still remained in Judah ; these
were piety and faithful adherence to Jehovah, for the sake of
which Judah was not altogether destroyed, cf. chap. xix. 3.
Vv. 13, 14. Length of Rehoboam' s reign. His mother. Estimate
of his character (cf. 1 Kings xiv. 21, 22). V. 12. On the first
clause see chap. i. 1, xiii. 21. As Rehoboam's reign has been
described already, we must explain the verse as follows : King Re
hoboam (after the withdrawal of the Egyptians) strengthened his
government (he was not strong enough to resist Jeroboam, chap.
xiii. 7) and was king, for he was forty-one years old when he began
to reign, and he reigned seventeen years ; the word for is used
here, because it is evident from the chronological data, that he
reigned for a series of years after the conquest of Jerusalem by
Shishak, which took place in the fifth year of his reign. V3tlh>
in 1 Kings };3$j;|, in many MSS. the word is pointed thus in this
passage also. The composite Sheva is sometimes introduced in
this manner after *), to make it still more evident that the Sheva
does not close the syllable. Which Jehovah had- chosen ; cf. chap.
vi. 5, 6, and 20. Naamah the Ammonitess, see chap. x. 1. — V.
14. In the Book of Kings the judgment here pronounced is ex
tended to the conduct of Judah, that is, of the inhabitants of the
southern kingdom ; here it is restricted to that of the king. On
the conduct of the people the historian had already had occasion
to speak at chap. xi. 17, xii. 12, he had also given such an
account of Rehoboam in the chapter under revision, vv. 6 and 12,
that the general announcement " he did evil" would appear some
what strange if it were not modified and rendered more definite
by the further clause "for he did not direct his heart firmly to
seek Jehovah" (chap. xix. 3, xxx. 19; Ezra vii. 10).

CHAPTER XII. 1 5— XIII. 2. 363
Vv. 15, 16. Conclusion; cf. 1 Kings xiv. 29, 30.— V. 15.
And the wars of Rehoboam and Jeroboam were every day, i.e.,
they continued during the whole of Rehoboam's reign ; cf. chap.
xi. 4.— V. 16. Abijah, see chap. xi. 22.

2. Chap. xiii.
abijah.
Vv. 1 and 2 a. (cf. 1 Kings xv. 1, 2) Michaiah daughter of
Uriel of Gibeah ; in chap. xi. 20 — 22 and 1 Kings xv. 2, 10, 13,
his mother is called Maacah the daughter of Absalom. Caspari
(on Micha the Morasthite) concludes that she had two names ;
that the one, Maacah, was given her by her mother at her birth,
and that she received the other as a mark of her husband's
favour when she became queen-mother. But nothing of this
kind is said at chap. xi. 20 seq., where there was a fitting oppor
tunity for speaking of any such change of name, and although,
as Caspari says, we find the name Michaiah in the passage be
fore us in which she is first mentioned as queen-mother, yet in
the parallel passage of the Book of Kings the name Maacah
occurs just as on every other occasion. In the Septuagint and
Syriac the name Maacah is given here also, and if the Vulgate has
Michaia all that can be inferred from this is, that at a compa
ratively early time the name Michaia had been substituted for
Maacah through an error of the pen. It is further to be observed
that the mother of Abijah is always described as a daughter of
Absalom, and that this is the only passage in which she is said
to have been a daughter of Uriel of Gibeah. The two accounts
might be reconciled by assuming that the daughter of Absalom
was married to Uriel, and that Maacah the mother of Abijah was
their daughter, and might therefore be called a daughter of Ab
salom, whose grand-daughter she actually was. When, however,
we consider that the wife of Abijah and mother of Asa was also
named Maacah (1 Kings xv. 13; 2 Ch. xv. 16), and further
that in 1 Kings xv. 10 this Maacah is also said to have been the
daughter of Absalom, whilst there are no such statements in the
Chronicles, there is no improbability in the conjecture that

364 CHAPTER XIII. 2, 3.
Maacah, the mother of Abijah, the daughter of Absalom, has
been confused with Maacah the mother of Asa, the daughter of
Uriel of Gibeah, and that in the passage before us the mother
of Asa has been substituted by mistake for the mother of
Abijah.1 It is possible that the Uriel mentioned here may have
been the Levite spoken of in the history of David (1 Chr. xv.
5, 11), but this is improbable on chronological grounds. Whe
ther the Gibeah here named was the well-known city in the
tribe of Benjamin (Gibeath Benjamin or Gibeath Saul) or Gi
beah in the province of Judah (Josh. xv. 57, most likely the
village of Jeba on a conical hill to the southwest of Bethlehem,
Robinson ii. 580, 593) cannot be determined.
V. 2 b. — 20. War between Abijah and Jeroboam. The Book of
Kings contains no account of this war, which is merely referred to
in the few words " there was strife between Abijah and Jeroboam"
(1 Kings xv. 6, 7). — V. 3. And Abijah opened the war, 1 Kings
xx. 14. — With an army, heroes of war, four hundred thousand
young men ; ^ip-Q occurs in just this connection in chap. xiv. 8,
the number being placed afterwards in apposition, ^ipj 1133'
chap. xvii. 16 seq. in the same sense as py)3n7!3 "rVQ> — V. 4.
Abijah encamped on Mount Zemaraim ; when he stood up to
speak he rose up from upon (}jyft) the hill. The prep, al is
associated with the lamed of indirect subordination, though in a
somewhat less dependent position. Mount Zemaraim is only
met with here ; the city of that name, which is mentioned in
Josh xviii. 22 as situated near Bethel, and was therefore pro
bably a little to the south of this city on the northern frontier of
the kingdom of Abijah, was most likely a fortified city built
upon the mountain referred to here. The opinion that Zemaraim
was connected with Cherbet el Somra in the valley of the Jordan
(v. Raumer p. 204) is scarcely favoured by this passage. As
Abijah now spoke from Mount Zemaraim, so did Jotham the
1 It is difficult to see why the word " mother " may not stand for
grandmother in 1 Ki. xv. 10 as well as the word "daughter" for
grand-daughter in this passage, which Bertheau admits may be a
sufficient explanation. The same Maacah would then be intended
throughout, who would be daughter of Uriel, daughter (= grand
daughter) of Absalom, mother of Abijah, and mother (= grand
mother) of Asa. So Keil. — Tr.

CHAPTER XIII. 3 — 9. 365
son of Gideon formerly speak from Mount Gerizim to the inha
bitants of Sichem, Judg. ix. 7. — V. 5. 7s it not to you to know,
i.e. must it not be known to you ? The infinitive with lamed in
this connexion is one of the peculiarities of our historian (cf. 1
Chr. xiii. 4). A covenant of salt ; these words are added (in the
accusative) to give greater precision to the entire sentence : as a
salt covenant, or after the manner of a salt covenant (Num. xviii.
9). In Lev. ii. 13, we find a reference to the salt of the cove
nant, which had to be sprinkled upon all the meat-offerings
(offerings of corn ; according to Ezek. xliii. 24 it was sprinkled
upon the animal sacrifices also), so that every offering was made,
as it were, a covenant-offering by means ofthe salt. This was cer
tainly in accordance with an ancient custom, according to which
the salt durst not be omitted from the covenant-feasts, the salt
itself being regarded as a symbol of the perpetuity and indestruc
tibility of the covenant ; hence the salt-covenant was a firm
covenant, which had been concluded in a peculiarly solemn man
ner. — V. 6. The servant of Solomon; 1 Kings xi. 11. — V. 7.
The first clause calls to mind 1 Kings xi. 24. " Children of
Belial;" this expression does not occur anywhere else in the
Chronicles ; see 1 Kings xxi. 10 — 13. — Rehoboam was forty-
one years old when he began to reign (chap. xii. 13) and there
fore when we find him referred to here as a boy (cf. 1 Chr. xxix.
1) and of tender heart, i.e., modest and retiring, this must evi
dently be intended to make the conduct of Jeroboam appear the
more hateful when contrasted with the circumstances of the
youthful king. It must also be borne in mind, that in 2 Chr.
x. 8 Rehoboam is described as manifesting all the rashness of
youth. And did not shoiv himself firm; cf. chap. xii. 13. — V. 8.
And now ye speak (think) to show yourselves strong before the
kingdom of Jehovah through the hand of the sons of David (ye
expect to contend successfully against the kingdom, which Jeho
vah himself is governing through the descendants of David ; and
indeed) ye are a great multitude, and with you are the golden
calves (chap. xi. 15), but that can do you no good, for Jehovah
is on our side, not on yours (v. 10), for ye have offended Him as
ye vourselves must admit. — V. 9. Have ye not banished the priests
of Jehovah, &c. (chap. xi. 14), and made you priests like the
nations of the lands, whose priests are not sons of Levi (1 Kings

366 CHAPTER XIII. 9  14.
xii. 31, and particularly xiii. 33), making a priest, for example,
of every one who came for consecration (yy\ fc$^J3~j that they might
fill his hand, Ex. xxviii. 41, xxix. 9, i.e. that he might receive
authorityto perform theduties ofthe priest's office, cf. Judg. xvii. 5)
with a youngbullock and seven rams'? According to Ex. xxix., when
a priest was consecrated, a young bullock was sacrificed as an
expiatory offering, a ram as a burnt-offering, and another as a ram
of consecration. This had to be done for seven days, and hence
seven rams were required. It is evident, therefore, that the
sacrifices prescribed by the law are referred to in this passage,
though they are not fully described. But these sacrifices alone
were not sufficient to constitute any one a priest of Jehovah, and
hence Jeroboam's priests were merely priests of an imaginary
deity (lit. a non-Elohim), i.e., as Jehovah was really Elohim,
priests who could make no pretension to be priests of Jehovah.
— V. 10. And the Levites are in the service ; i.e., tbey perform
the service in accordance with the law, for it can be duly per
formed by members ofthe tribe of Levi alone. — V. 11. Thus we
are in possession of the worship prescribed by the law. The
words from Qi)3D ~n"^t2p onwards are very loosely connected :
and the sweet smelling incense and the showbread, Sfc. (exist among
us). Only one gilded table is mentioned here ; cf. 1 Chr. xxviii.
16, 2 Chr. iv. 19.— The charge of Jehovah ; Lev. viii. 35.— V. 12.
And behold, with us there are at the head (as champions and leaders,
not the two calves (v. 8) but) ihe God (Jehovah) and his priests,
(and beside this we have also) the sounding trumpets, that they
may sound against you, (but their sounding is the sure pledge of
victory on our side, Num. x. 9 and xxxi. 6, therefore) ye Israel
ites, (as distinguished from the men of Judah, v. 14 sqq.) fight
not against Jehovah, for ye will not succeed, cf. chap. xxiv. 20. —
Vv. 13 — 17. Abijah fought under the most unfavourable circum
stances, being attacked both before and behind, but yet he ob
tained the most complete victory, for his warriors cried to Jeho
vah, and the priests blew their trumpets  V. 13. Jeroboam
caused the troops appointed for an ambush to corne round to their
rear ; and the rest of their troops (evidently led by Jeroboam him
self) formed in front of Judah, and those who formed the ambush
in their rear. — V. 14. As soon as he was attacked, Judah prepared
to meet the enemy, and then first was it discovered that the

CHAPTER XIII. 15— 21. 367
attack had been made on two sides. — V. 15. ijp-^ ; in the con
nection in which this word occurs here it can hardly denote the
shout of the warriors. The reference to v. 12 is very conspicuous,
and we must therefore render the passage : ihe men of Judah had
(the war trumpets) sounded, which were blown by the priests at
their head, and in consequence of this " Jehovah himself smote
Israel" (cf. chap. xiv. 11 ; Judg. xx. 35). — V. 17. And Abijah
and his people slew among them a great slaughter; Num. xi. 33 ;
Josh. x. 20. — Vv. 18 — 20. Consequences of Abijah' s victory. —
V. 18. 1^33^ is an antithesis to " the sons of Judah became
strong," and therefore means " they were humbled, became weak"
(differently expressed in chap. xii. 6). — V. 19. The city of
Jeshanah (Septuagint 'Ieavvd) only occurs in this passage, it is
probably the same as Iadva^, Josephus Antiq. 14. 15. 12; we
are unable to discover the exact site on whicb it stood. Ephron
(Kethib, Septuagint and Vulgate) we should necessarily connect
with Mount Ephron on the south-western border of the tribe of
Benjamin (Josh. xv. 9) : but the Keri has Ephrain, and this
spelling rather points to 'Eippaip, (Josh. xi. 54), a city which
was situated, according to Josephus (B. j. 4. 9. 9), in the neigh
bourhood of Bethel. The three cities named here with their
surrounding districts did not continue long in the possession of
the king of the southern kingdom. They are apparently noticed
again in chap. xv. 8 as the cities which Asa had taken from
Mount Ephraim ; but Baasha, the king ofthe northern kingdom,
had reconquered the territory in which these three cities stood,
as we may infer from the fact that he made an attempt to fortify
Ramah, which was only about five miles distant from Jerusalem
(1 Kings xv. 17). — V. 20. "Recover strength;" see 1 Chr. xxix.
14. And Jehovah smote him (Jeroboam) and he died; do these
words refer to a sudden death, or some peculiarly painful disease
(cf. chap. xxi. 18) ; or does the word ipjS^PI recal the great event
recorded in v. 15, " and God smote Jeroboam ?" The latter is
the more natural conclusion. Jeroboam did not die for two
years after the death of Abijah.
V. 21. chap. xiv. 1. Abijah's wives and children. His death.
— V. 21. cf. chap. xii. 13. It was not in consequence of his be
coming strong on his throne that he took the wives, for he
only reigned three years, and must therefore most likely have

368 CHAPTER XIV. 1 — 4.
had the greater number of his wives before he became king ; by
the vav. conseq. in Ntl^"! the account of the wives and children
is only connected quite loosely with the previous words. — Chap.
xiv. 1 (cf. chap. xii. 16). During Asa's reign the land had rest
ten years, a remark which is no doubt made here because this
rest was the result of the great victory of Abijah over Jeroboam ;
the period of rest was spent by Asa (according to chap. xiv. 5)
in building fortresses in Judah (cf. chap. xv. 19).

3. Chap. xiv. — Chap. xvi.
ASA.
Chap. xiv. 2 — 5 (1 — 4). Asa, a pious king, removes the foreign
altars and endeavours to root out idolatry. In the history of Asa
in the first Book of Kings (chap, xv.) the 11th and 12th verses
correspond to these four verses, except that very different expres
sions are employed to describe the idols, which Asa removed. —
V. 1 (2). Compare the sentence on King Hezekiah, chap. xxxi. 20.
— Vv. 2 (3). He removed . . . the high places ; in chap. xv.
17, and 1 Kings xv. 14, on the other hand, it is said that the high
places were not taken away. In the same way do we find it said
of Jehoshaphat (2 Chr. xvii. 6) that he removed high places,
whereas in chap. xx. 33, a complaint is uttered that in his days
the high places were not taken away. These apparently contra
dictory statements must refer to two different kinds of high places,
as we may gather from the context. The high places which had
been set apart for idolatrous worship they removed, but those
which were consecrated to the worship of Jehovah, eg. the
Bamah in Bethel, where Jehovah was worshipped under the
image of an ox, were still left standing. Asherim ; compare
Thenius on 1 Kings xiv. 23, who has shown, as I think correctly,
that Ashera primarily denoted any image set up for the purpose
of idolatrous worship, and was afterwards applied more particu
larly to the image of Astarte. V. 3 (4). cf. chap. xv. 12. V.
4 (5). [3i3J3n ' the images or the pillars, which are described in
2 Chr. xxxiv. 4, as standing upon the altar of Baal. And the
kingdom was quiet before him ; this does not mean that there

CHAPTER XIV. 5 — 10. 369
were no wars at all during his reign, but that the southern king
dom had peace when he was king, though it may have been but
for a short time (cf. chap. xiii. 23).
Vv. 5 — 7 (6 — 8). Military defences ; in 1 Kings xv. 23 there
is also a reference to fortresses, which were built by Asa.
— V. 5. (6). He built fortresses; chap. xi. 5 sqq. During
these years; the ten years of rest mentioned in chap. xiii.
23. It is evident from the connection and the course of the nar
rative that the first ten years of his reign are intended. — V. 6
(7). Those cities there ; what cities we are not told, but the
historian was evidently thinking of other cities besides Gebah
and Mispah, which are described in chap. xvi. 6 as having been
fortified by Asa. We will build a wall round about ; the verb
3Q3 conveys the general notion of building and making ready
with reference to the following objects, towers, doors, and bolts.
The land is still before us ; we can move freely in it, and build
fortresses at pleasure, whereas at a future time, if the foe should
invade the country and keep possession, we should be prevented
from doing this. — So they built and succeeded ; correctly ren
dered by the Vulgate, nullumque in exstruendo impedimentum
fuit  V. 7. The sons of Judah also came to David with shield
and lance, that is as heavy armed (1 Chr. xii. 24), whilst Ben
jamin furnished archers, cf. 1 Chr. viii. 40. Judah and Benja
min contributed 580,000 men ; according to chap. xiii. 3 Abijah
led 400,000 men into the field.
Vv. 8 — 14 (9 — 15). The Cushite Zerach invades Judah with
a large army and is defeated. — V. 8 (9). We are certainly
warranted in coming to the conclusion that the Cushite Zerach
was the same person as Osorkhon, who followed Shishak (Seson-
chis) in the line of Egyptian kings, and was the second king of
the twenty-second dynasty. On the royal arms of Egypt he is
called Osorkhon, a name which reminds us at once of Zerach.
On the reason for his being called the Cushite, and not the king
of Egypt, see Thenius on 1 Kings xv. 23. Mareshah ; one of the
cities which Rehoboam fortified (chap. xi. 8). — V. 10. The
battle was fought in the valley of Zephathah which extends
to Mareshah. The valley of Zephathah must not be con
founded with Zephath mentioned in Judg. i. 17, since the
account contained in these verses clearly shows that it was situ-
VOL. II. 2 A

370 CHAPTER XIV. 10 — 14.
ated somewhere in the neighbourhood of Mareshah, and according
to Robinson, ii. 693, the latter city was about a Roman mile
and a-half to the south of Eleutheropolis. Mareshah was in the
plain of Judah (Josh. xv. 44). We must not imagine that this
extensive south-western plain was called the valley of Zephathah,
for in other places it is caUed nboitiTl ¦ on the contrary we may
conclude that the scene of the battle was a valley, which opens
into this plain, probably the fine open valley of which Robinson
speaks (ii. 613). — V. 10 (11). There is none beside thee to help
between the mighty and the powerless ; i.e. no other than thou
can help in an unequal conflict, meaning of course give help to
the weaker side. ^3 before the first word, ^ (for which in other
instances we find <ny-] e.g. Gen. i. 13) before the second, as in
Gen. i. 6 between water and between water. The Vulgate
renders the passage thus : Domine, non est apud te ulla dis-
tantia utrum in paucis auxilieris an ih pluribus ; in this the
translators were guided by 1 Sam. xiv. 6. The earlier exposi
tors (e.g. Rambach) adopt this rendering, and supply *yi^}fl3
before y%y from the passage referred to; cf. I Mace. iii. 18.
In thy name we have fallen upon this multitude ; a similar pas
sage occurs in chap. xx. 12 cf. 1 Kings xx. 13, 28. — V. 11
(12). So Jehovah smote, &c. ; cf. chap. xiii. 15. — V. 12 (13).
As far as to Gerar ; Rowland found in the Wady Gerar, about
eight miles to the south-east of Gaza, Kirbet-el-Gerar, which
stands no doubt on the siteof the ancient Gerar. ppn?3 DH7 TnVj
till they had nothing alive ; cf. Ezra ix. 8, 9, 14. For fi^b
we find the clearer expression li^^-iy 2 Chr. xxxvi. 16. Be
fore his camp ; the army of Asa is called a camp of Jehovah,
because God himself conducted it to victory. Earher expositors
fancied that the reference was to a heavenly camp, a host of
angels, according to Gen. xxxii. 2 seq. — V. 13 (14). The cities
round about Gerar were probably at that time in the possession
of the Philistines, who had very likely joined with the Cushite
Zerach in attacking Asa. For the dread of Jehovah had fallen
upon them ; viz. upon the inhabitants of tbe cities (chap. xvii. 10,
20, 29). p|3»i pft3 much spoil (chap. xxv. 13) ; the word bizzah
occurs once in Ezekiel (xxix. 19), otherwise we only meet with it
in the Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel, and Esther. — V. 14
(15). And they also smote ihe tents of the cattle ; probably they

CHAPTER XV. 1 — 5. 371
conquered the nomad tribes in the neighbourhood of Gerar and
in the desert to the south of Gerar, and took their camels and
sheep as prey.
Chap. xv. 1 — 15. Asa follows the injunctions of the prophet
Azariah ben Oded to root out idolatry, and serve Jehovah
alone. In a solemn assembly in the third month of the fifteenth
year of Asa's reign all Judah and Benjamin, and strangers
from other Israelitish tribes, pledged themselves to adhere faith
fully to Jehovah.— V . 1. On Azariah ben Oded see v. 8. — V. 2.
The prophet went to meet Asa, as he was returning from the
war ; 1337 N!TT occurs with the same signification in chap.
xxviii. 9 ; (cf. 1 Chr. xiv. 8). On the last clause of the verse
see chap. xxiv. 20. — Vv. 3 — 5. Earlier commentators disputed
whether these verses referred to past times, or to the condition of
the northern kingdom when the words were spoken, or to a
future period (namely, during the exile of the Israelites), and
whether the term Israel was applied to the inhabitants of the
northern kingdom, to those of the southern kingdom, or to the
Israelites universally ? Again, if the reference is to past times,
the question arises what particular period had the prophet in view?
(Compare on this subject Camp. Vitringa de Synag. vetere p. 335
— 347). From v. 4 it is evident that the prophet is speaking of
something, which had been confirmed by the history of Israel ;
and in v. 5 seq. it becomes stiU more apparent, that he refers to
times gone by. The fact that God only suffers himself to be
found by a faithful nation had been learned by experience, not
by the southern kingdom or the northern kingdom alone, but by
the whole of Israel, and especially in the time of the judges.
Particular expressions in vv. 4, 5, and 6 remind us directly of the
descriptions of the state of Israel during the period of the Judges,
• and from these we may infer that that is the period referred to
here. At the same time there is no doubt that the passage
before us contains a general description of the relation of God
to Israel, the truth of which is established not merely by the
history of the Judges, but by the whole of the history of Israel,
so far as our historian could trace it ; for it is evident, from the
address itself, that tlie historian reports the address of the ancient
prophet in his own way and with his own words. And for
many days the nation of Israel had no true God, and no

372 CHAPTER XV. 3 — 5.
teaching priest and no law ; $y\ is the expression used in the
text, not ji^S (if the latter had been the term employed the
meaning would be : so that there was no true God, &c, 1 Chr.
xxii. 4, 2 Chr. xx. 25) ; even without the repeated ^ before ^7
the words would be intelligible, and must be rendered in the
manner already indicated; the lamed is, therefore, inserted
according to later usage merely to give prominence to the
different nouns which are connected immediately with ^y, cf.
1 Chr. xxix. 6. The assumption that %£yb means without in
this passage is quite arbitrary. Many days ; this is an accusa
tive of time, Jer. xxxii. 14. — pfttf ^TlbiS, cf- l?3N TPfcto L. lxv.
16, and p/fttf D^n^N ^Qr- x- ^A where p\j3^ is in apposition to
Elohim. It is in vain to seek for any confirmation of the
opinion that the " teaching priest " means the high priest, and
Vitringa's method of explaining the words by asserting that
there was no high priest between Phinehas and Eli is altogether
inadmissible, for we have an unbroken series of high priests
named in 1 Chr. v. 30 seq., and it is a priori improbable that
our historian should intend to say that for a long time there was
no high priest, in direct opposition to the view which so decidedly
prevailed in late times, that the succession of high priests had
been unbroken. The simple design of the passage is to picture
in grand outlines the general condition of the people during the
period of the apostasy, when the mass of the Israelites had
turned to idols, paying no attention to the instructions of the
true Jehovah-priests and acting without regard to the law.
The words of the prophet, therefore, must be interpreted accord
ing to the other descriptions of a similar kind, relating to the
general condition ofthe people, e.g. in such passages as Judges ii.
11, iii. 7, cf. Deut. iv. 27— 31.— V. 4. See Deut. iv. 29, seq.
Judges ii. 15. — V. 5. And in those very times; the times of
the apostasy described in v. 3. For him who went out and for
him who cams in ; all free communication was interrupted, cf.
Judges v. 6 and vi. 2. Great vexations, Amos iii. 9 ; in Deut.
xxviii. 20 Jehovah is said to have sent Mehomah as a punish
ment of apostasy. The plural pfl2$")Nil (the countries ), so
frequently employed by this historian, can only refer in the present
connexion to the countries of Israel, i.e. to the different provinces

CHAPTER XV. 6—8. 373
of the country inhabited by the Israelites, cf. chap, xxxiv. 33. —
V. 6. And there were beaten in pieces ; the Pual of pp\3 only
occurs in this passage ; in some MSS. the word is pointed
^nn3l5 but in by far the greatest number and the best we find
the Pual. It is quite in harmony with the rhetorical nature of
the passage that the contentions of the Israelites among them
selves (e.g. in the time of the Judges between the inhabitants of
Gilead and Ephraim, and between Benjamin and the rest ofthe
tribes, Judges xii., 4 seq. xx. — xxi., and in later times between
the two Israelitish kingdoms) should be described as a crushing
of one people by the other ("H33-yi3) . For God had confounded
them with all kinds of oppressions, the result of which had been
the dissolution of the state and civil war, cf. Is. ix. 18 — 20.
But you, be strong, &c, do not cease to adhere faithfully to
Jehovah, for as ye have conquered Zerach and his army through
the help of Jehovah, so will Jehovah help you still ; on the last
clause see Jer. xxxi. 16. V. 8. These words and the prophecy:
the words of the prophet were the prophecy, hence the meaning
must be : these words and (to use a more expressive term) the
prophecy. Oded the prophet; the prophecy was not delivered
by Oded, but according to v. 1 by Azariah ben Oded. The
difficulty presented by this passage cannot be solved by assuming
that, through an error on the part of a copyist, the original
words Oded ben Azariah were transposed in v. 1, so as to read
Azariah ben Oded (Movers p. 261), or by the supposition that
Oded, the actual composer of the address, commissioned his son
Azariah to deliver it (Knobel Prophetismus ii. p. 68), for the
word piNl33Pf5 *a the absolute state with the article, would still
have to be explained, and we are not at Hberty to say, without
further reasons, that it is used here in the sense of the construct
nfrttl^ (e-9- chap- ix. 29). The Vulgate and Septuagint (Cod.
Alex.) read Oded in verse 1 instead of Azariah ben Oded, but
this can only be regarded as an unsuccessful attempt to improve
a corrupt text. The sole remedy is to erase the words " of Oded
the prophet," which are probably the remains of a marginal note,
referring the prophecy to Azariah ben Oded mentioned in v. 1}
which crept from the margin into the text. In the Arabic version
the words " of Oded the prophet " are omitted, but we cannot
lay much stress upon this. He took courage; Asa for his part

374 CHAPTER XV. 8  13.
complied with the injunction in v. 7 " be ye strong ;" the Hith
pael is written here as in chap. xiii. 7, with patach in the last
syllable. By " the cities which he had taken from Mount
Ephraim," we are no doubt to understand those which had been
taken by Asa's father Abijah, chap. xiii. 19. He renewed (chap.
xxiv. 4) the altar of Jehovah, which was before the porch of
Jehovah (chap. viii. 12), i.e. the altar of burnt-offering ; as it is
evident from the context that the renewal can only denote a
restoration of the altar to the worship of Jehovah, we must
assume that under the predecessors of Asa it had been defiled
by idolatrous priests. ob*\i$ with Kamez in the last syllable,
which is retained in this word in the construct state ; cf. 1 Kings
vii. 7, 12 ; Ezek. xl. 7.— V. 9. As strangers, i.e. Israelites be
longing to other tribes, had flocked at an earlier period into
the southern kingdom (chap. xi. 16), so did they now come in
the time of Asa, when they saw that he was a pious king, and
was desirous of restoring the worship of Jehovah, cf. chap. xxx.
11, 18. It is striking that among the strangers mentioned there
are members ofthe tribe of Simeon, for the inheritance of Simeon
was in the province of Judah, and in the historical books
it is always taken for granted that the tribe of Simeon
belonged to the southern kingdom. It is evidently ont of the
question to infer from this passage and the similar words in
chap, xxxiv. 6, that Simeon was one of the ten tribes of the
northern kingdom. The account given here might be explained
on the assumption that some of the Simeonites, who were living
at that time outside their own province, possibly within the limits
of tbe northern kingdom, came up to Jerusalem to take part in
the festival instituted by Asa. They fell to him ; see 1 Chr.
xii. 19 seq.— V. 11. On that day ; i.e. the day on which the
festival was celebrated in the third month of the fifteenth year
of the reign of Asa. The clause, " they offered of the spoil,"
which is attached without the copula, contains a more exact
definition of the foregoing sentence ; the perfect must therefore
be rendered by the present participle " offering of the booty."
There were no oxen mentioned among the animals taken as
plunder, chap. xiv. 14. — V. 12. And they entered into the cove
nant, they bound themselves in a solemn manner, to seek, &c. ;
0,1 n"H33 N3> followed by the infinitive with lamed, see Jer.
xxxiv. 10, and Nehem. x. 30.— V. 13. The obligation did not stop

CHAPTER XV. 14—19. 375
there, they also engaged that every one, who would not seek
Jehovah ihe God of Israel, should be put to death ; see the more
precise injunctions in the law in Deut. xvii 2 — 6. — V. 14. The
loud music, with which the conclusion of the covenant was
accompanied, is noticed very briefly here; compare the more
precise descriptions in chap, xxiii. 13 ; Nehem. xii. 27 — 43. — V.
15. All Judah, the whole of the southern kingdom ; they re
joiced at ihe oath, on account of its results, for with all their
heart they had sworn, Sfc-, and he suffered himself to be found
of them (v. 2), and God gave them rest round about.
. Vv. 16 — 18. Further particulars respecting Asa's conduct in
religious matters; compare 1 Kings xv. 13 — 15, which agrees
almost word for word with this passage. (See also the com
mentary on Kings. — Tr.) — V. 17. Out of Israel ; the con
text shows that the northern kingdom is not intended here.
After "perfect " we find " with Jehovah " in 1 Kings ; the
high places he did not remove, only he himself was attached
to God, devoted to him, i.e. he did not worship Jehovah upon
the high places, but in the temple at Jerusalem. This is not
at variance with either the account contained in chap. xvi. 7 — 10
of his conduct towards the prophet Hanani and some of the
people, or his behaviour during his last illness, chap. xvi. 12. —
V. 18. We are not told where the offerings (1 Chr. xxvi. 26),
which Asa's father Abijah ought to have brought to the temple
of Jehovah as part of the booty after his splendid victory over
Jeroboam (chap. xiii. 16 — 19), had been kept till now, when
Asa brought them into the temple. It has been assumed by
earlier expositors that Abijah had placed them among the things
that had been dedicated to idols ; but it is just as reasonable to
suppose, that he applied them to the improvement of the royal
treasury. The offerings of Asa himself were part of the plunder
obtained on the occasion of his victory over Zerach (chap. xiv.
12). Thenius very justly points out how the statements in 1
Kings xv. 15 "serve to confirm the accounts given in the
Chronicles of the victories of Abijah and Asa," whilst the latter
again furnishes an explanation of the former.
V. 19 — Chap. xvi. 6. Baasha the King of the northern king
dom invades Judah. cf. 1 Kings xv. 16—22. Verse 19 is closely
connected with chap. xvi. 1, and must therefore be interpreted

376 CHAPTER XV. 19.
thus : and there was no war (with Baasha) till the thirty-fifth
year of Asa's reign ; (and according to chap. xvi. 1) but in the
thirty-sixth year, fyc. But this does not remove the difficulty
which is caused by the chronological statement here made, for,
according to 1 Kings xv. 33, Baasha ascended the throne in
the third year of Asa's reign, and died after reigning twenty-four
years, that is, in the twenty-seventh year of the reign of Asa.
Earlier commentators thought that the two accounts could be
harmonised by assuming that the thirty-five years were reckoned
from the rise of the southern kingdom (annum 35 regni Asae,
h. e. regni Judae cui Asa prceerat, Rambach and the earlier
theologians) ; the thirty-fifth year of the kingdom of Judah is
the fifteenth year of Asa's reign, and the war with Baasha would
thus have broken out in Asa's sixteenth year. But it is evident
that we cannot rest contented with this assumption, for " the
reign of Asa " is expressly mentioned in this and the following
verse, and the assertion that there was no war in the first thirty-
five years ofthe existence ofthe southern kingdom, would stand
in open contradiction to the account of the war between Abijah
and Jeroboam, in chap. xiii. The chronology must therefore
be at fault here. Thenius assumes, that " in 2 Chr. xiii. 23 the
ten should be altered into six, and in this passage the thirty-five
into five (the thirty may have arisen by mistake from the intro
duction of ^ = 30 caused by the eye wandering to the word
ni3S?37 which follows immediately afterwards) ; and in the
same way the thirty-six must be altered into six in chap. xvi. 1,
so that the sense of the passage would be : till the sixth year
Asa had rest, and in the sixth year the war broke out between
him and Baasha. In this case the invasion of Zerach must have
taken place at a subsequent period. The whole would thus be ar
ranged in perfect order." But not without many alterations, and
the same result can be attained by a shorter road. If we assume
that the original reading of the verse before us was " the 15th
year of the reign of Asa," this number may easily have been
changed by mistake into 35 ; and the number thirty-five may
even more readily have found its way into the text, if some reader,
from a desire to give still greater precision to the chronological
datum, wrote in the margin that the 15th year of Asa's reign
was the 35th year from the rise of the southern kingdom, and

CHAPTER XV. 19. 377
the thirty-five crept from the margin into the text. If we read
fifteen for thirty-five, and sixteen for thirty-six in the next verse,
no further change would be required : there was rest for the first
ten years of Asa's reign (chap. xiii. 23); during this period the
preparations for war were made (chap. xiv. 5) ; between the tenth
and the fifteenth year the invasion of Zerach took place ; up to
the fifteenth there was no war with Baasha ; in the sixteenth the
war broke out. There are other ways in which we might try to
solve the difficulty, but it can never be solved without altering
the present text. It cannot be urged as an objection to the
method proposed by us, that the assertion, " there was no war till
ihe fifteenth year of Asa's reign," is too startling, when the in
vasion of Zerach had been mentioned just before ; for the context
shows that this statement is merely intended to refer to the rela
tion in which Asa stood to Baasha ; moreover it may be conjec
tured without hesitation, that it was taken from a source, which was
chiefly occupied with the wars between the kings ofthe two Israel
itish kingdoms. The account given in ] Kings xv. 16 that there
was war between Asa and Baasha throughout their entire reign
does not harmonise with the verse before us. — (We quote Keil's
explanation here, which differs somewhat from that of Bertheau.
He says : the words of the Chronicles are not in irreconcileable
contradiction to those of Kings. For when it is said in 1 Kings
xv. 32, " there was war between Asa and Baasha all their days,"
this may be explained as referring not to open war, but to the
hostile relation in which the two kingdoms stood to each other,
for there is no account in the Book of Kings of any other war
between them than the one described in the Chronicles in which
Baasha occupied Ramah, a city about thirty miles from Jerusa
lem that commanded the road to Judah [1 Kings xv. 17 sqq.].
There remains therefore merely the announcement, that this war
broke out in the 36th year of Asa's reign, and that there was
peace till the 35th, which is at variance with the Book of Kings.
If this discrepancy were irreconcileable, we might assume that
there was an error in the numbers. But there is no necessity
for this. Most commentators and chronologists, and the best of
them, regard the 35th year as referring not to the commence
ment of Asa's reign but to the separation of the kingdoms. In
this case it would coincide with the fifteenth year of Asa's reign,

378 CHAPTER XVI. 1  7.
and the war would thus have broken out in the sixteenth, when
Baasha was still alive. The objection, that there is no other in
stance in which the author of the Chronicles reckons the years
from the division of the kingdom, may be removed, if we sup
pose that the source whence this account was taken by the author
was one in which such a mode of reckoning was generally adopted.
Chronik. p. 291—292).
Chap. xvi. 1 . He fortified Ramah (the modern Ram, about
five miles to the north of Jerusalem) in order that they might
give (or send) none going out or coming in to Asa ; that is to
say, his intention was to prevent any towards the north from en
tering into alliance with Asa, and consequently to prevent Asa
from forming an alliance with them. The high road from Jeru
salem to the north passed by Ramah, and therefore the stoppage
of this road must have interrupted the communication with Jeru
salem in the most effectual manner. The infinitive ftft, which
should follow *ipH3^ according to the ordinary construction,
cannot be rendered : in order that Baasha might not give, for
what he wanted was to prevent freedom of communication. —
The fortification of Ramah by Baasha presupposes his recovery
ofthe cities, which had been taken by Abijah from the northern
kingdom, and which according to chap. xv. 8 were still in Asa's
possession. — V. 2. The account in 1 Kings xv. 18 is more ela
borate and precise. (For vv. 2 — 6 see the Commentary on 1
Kings xv. 16 — 22). V. 6. In Jeremiah xii. 9 there is a cistern
mentioned, which Asa constructed in Mizpah on this occasion.
By the fortification of Mizpah and Geba the road from the north
to Jerusalem was fully secured.
Vv. 7 — 10. Address of the prophet Hanani, and the manner
in which Asa received his reproof. — V. 7. The prophet Hanani
is only met with here ; his younger contemporary was the prophet
Jehu the son of Hanani, whose sphere of labour was in the
northern kingdom (1 Kings xvi. 1) and at a later period in the
southern kingdom also (2 Chr. xix. 2). It is natural, therefore,
to suppose that Jehu the son of Hanani was a son of the Hanani
referred to here. — And hast not relied upon Jehovah thy God
(chap. xiii. 18, xiv. 10), therefore the army of the king of Aram
has escaped out of thy hand : the meaning is that if Asa had
trusted in God, he would not only have defeated the army of

CHAPTER XVI. 8 — 12. 379
Baasha, but the army of the king of Damascus also, should the
latter, which was greatly to be feared, be induced by his alliance
with Baasha (v. 3) to make common cause with him and attack
the southern kingdom. The first act of Asa, namely his attempt
to dissolve the alliance between Damascus and the northern
kingdom by means of silver and gold, and the appropriation of
the treasures ofthe temple to that purpose, is blamed, because it
indicated a want of faith ; and the consequence of this want of
faith had been the disappointment of the inspired prophet's hope,
that Asa would gain a splendid victory over the king of Damas
cus on this occasion. — V. 8. By the help of God Asa would have
been able to conquer the armies of Damascus ; the proof of this
is his victory over the large army of Zerach (cf. chap. xiv. 8 — 12).
— V. 9. For Jehovah, his eyes move round about over the whole
earth, to search for an opportunity of interposing with his mira
culous power, that he may show himself strong in those, whose
heart is devoted to him (see 1 Chr. xi. 10). "p^N ftb'fi? D33^>
is a relative clause governed directly by the preposition Qy with
out "Tiyx ; cf. 1 Chr. xv. 12. — Thou hast acted foolishly on this
(i.e., on this occasion) for henceforth thou wilt have wars,
whereas by a decisive victory thou wouldst have deprived both
the northern kingdom and the kingdom of Damascus of the
power and the means of attacking thee. In our historical books
we have no account of the wars of Asa, referred to here. — V. 10.
The prophetical address of Hanani must have spread discontent
with Asa's conduct over a wide circle, for the king proceeded to
cast him into prison, and to punish some of the people ; in what
way, the word used here (t^-pl ; Septuagint Kal iXvprjvaro ;
Vulgate, et interfecit de populo in tempore illo plurimos) does
not enable us to determine. The explanatory parenthesis, for in
a rage with him at this (on that account), is quite intelligible, as
we may easily supply from the context the words, " he acted
thus." Vv. 11—14. Conclusion (cf. 1 Kings xv. 23, 24).— V. 12. yy
•pUpj Tlbyfeb- his disease having reached a great height, having
become very violent. What was the nature of his disease in the
feet we are not told. A Iso in Ms disease he did not seek Jeho
vah; seeking here includes the notion of turning to him with
confidence, and this explains the fact that at first the verb is

380 CHAPTER XVI. 13, 14.
followed by the accusative, and then in the antithetical clause,
like all verbs denoting confidence, is construed with the preposi
tion 3. The word 33 refers to Asa's conduct in the war with
Baasha ; as he trusted then in human aid so did he now during
his last illness. There is nothing to hinder us from assuming
that this remark was occasioned by more precise accounts of
Asa's conduct during his illness, and that it is not the fact that
he consulted physicians, but the manner in which he relied upon
physicians, that is here condemned. — V. 13. From a comparison
between this verse and 1 Kings xv. 24 and 10, it is evident that
the clause " and he died in the forty-first year of his reign," is
merely a loosely inserted supplementary statement, which would
stand more appropriately before the words, he lay with Ms
fathers. — V. 14. Asa had had his own private tombs excavated
for himself (and his family) in the city of David, possibly be
cause it was necessary to increase the number of the royal tombs.
The nominative to i&ft need not be Asa ; it may be rendered
thus : which they had filled with incense and spices, that had
been prepared by means of an ointment into an ointment-like
mass ; the Pual |3^pip1?3 only occurs here ; it is derived from
the substantive rypy, and the participle Pual may denote that
whicb has become a pjp-^ by means of artificial preparations, an
ointment-like mass. In the preparation of this they employed
p)p|p-\j3, 1 Chr. ix. 30, a word which certainly denotes an oint
ment ; whether it also denoted the cauldron used in the prepara
tion of the ointment, as some commentators suppose, is verv
uncertain. pftt^Ej as we may see at once, must be interpreted
according to Ex. xxx. 25, 35 ; earlier expositors supply pjp"n
from these passages, and render the words : by an ointment of
ihe work of ihe ointment-maker ; it is possible that p|pt3*1T3
ntlWS may he an abbreviated technical term, but it is just as
possible that in this instance ftpyy may have been left out of the
text by mistake. They kindled for Mm a very, very great fire
(chap. xxi. 9 ; Jer. xxxiv. 5) ; according to the latter passage
the kindling of a fire, that is the burning of incense, was custo
mary at the funerals of kings ; all that is emphatically noticed
here is the fact that an extraordinary quantity was burned when
Asa was buried.

CHAPTER XVII. 1. 381
The notices of Asa's reign, which are only met with in the
Chronicles, are set, as it were, in the framework supplied in the
Book of Kings :
2 Chr. xiv. 1—4 = 1 Kings xv. 11, 12.
2 Chr. xiv. 5 — xv. 15.
2 Chr. xv. 16— xvi. 6=1 Kings xv. 13—22.
2 Chr. xvi. 7—10.
2 Chr. xvi. 11—14 = 1 Kings xv. 23, 24.
The parallel sections are not word for word the same, but it is
evident at once that they are derived from a common source.
The Book of Kings gives merely a brief extract from a more
ample source ; and from the relation in which this extract stands
to the elaborate account in the Chronicles, we may readily infer,
that the notices of Asa, which are only given in the Chronicles,
were contained, in part at least, in this source, and in fact in the
order in which we have them in this book. There are also refe
rences in 1 Kings xv. 23 to the fortifications described in 2 Chr.
xiv. 5 seq. and to Asa's prosperous wars, among which the war
with Zerach must hold a prominent place. The accounts of the
prophet Azariah ben Oded and Hanani may perhaps have been
taken by the historian from another source. But he has also
recast in his own way what he found in these sources, for we
find the peculiar marks of his style and language spread over the
whole of these chapters.

4. Chap. xvii. — Chap. xxi. 1.
jehoshaphat.
Chap. xvii. Jehoshaphat' s anxiety for ihe security of his king
dom (vv. 2 and 10 — 19) ; his endeavours to root out idolatry
and to spread both laws and the knowledge of religion among
ihe people (vv. 3 — 9.) — V. 1. And he strengthened himself against
Israel, i.e., against the northern kingdom ; the words cannot be
interpreted in any other way, the northern kingdom being called
Israel in this passage (v. 4) and the southern Judah (v. 5). It

382 CHAPTER XVII. 2  6.
was not during the first years of his reign that Jehoshaphat
became related to Ahab by marriage and formed an alliance
with the northern kingdom (chap, xviii. 1), and it was during
those years that the attitude of the northern kingdom rendered
it necessary for the southern to make preparations for defence. —
V. 2. The warlike preparations were the following, the fortresses
of Judah were garrisoned with troops, and military posts (qyji^
1 Chr. xi. 16) were established in the land of Judah and in the
cities of Mount Ephraim which were subject to Jehoshaphat (cf.
chap. xv. 8). — V. 3. In the earlier ways of David his father,
the earlier ways, in contrast with the later (cf. 1 Chr. xxix. 29),
refer to David's conduct during the early part of his reign ;
hence his conduct in his later years, in which the adultery with
Bathsheba (2 Sam. xi. sqq.) and the numbering of the people
occurred, is not to be taken into account in the comparison
which is here established between Jehoshaphat and David. The
Baalim, which are placed in contrast with the God of his father
(David), are idol deities in general, Judg. ii. 11. He sought
not ; for the use of lamed after the verb see 1 Chr. xxii. 19. —
V. 4. In the last clause " and not after the doings of Israel "
we must supply the previous verb " he walked ;" by the doings
of Israel we are to understand the worship of Jehovah in the
form of a small ox, or of the golden calves at Bethel and Dan,
1 Kings xii. 28 seq. According to v. 3 Jehoshaphat abstained
from idolatry, and according to v. 4 from the worship of the
northern kingdom also. — V. 5. Then God established the govern
ment in his hand, 2 Kings xiv. 5. As it is expressly stated that
all Judah sent presents to Jehoshaphat (compare the presents of
the Philistines, v. 11), we are naturally led to think of freewill-
offerings, not of the ordinary taxes, which were paid to the royal
treasury. The last clause of the verse occurs again in chap.
xviii. 1 (cf. chap. i. 12).— V. 6. His heart was high; not, he
was proud (chap. xxvi. 16, xxxii. 25), for so depreciatory a
remark the context would by no means lead us to expect (vv.
3—6), nor is there any reason assigned for such an observation ;
moreover it would not tally with the sentence pronounced on
Jehoshaphat's conduct in other parts of the chapters under review
e.g. chap. xix. 3). We must take p|33>ii therefore in a favour
able sense : Ms heart was exalted by the ways of Jehovah, that is,

CHAPTER XVII. 6 — 9. 383
he walked in the ways of Jehovah himself and therefore possessed
alacrity and firmness enough to promote the general diffusion of
the worship of Jehovah in his kingdom by the destruction of
idols. And further he took away from Judah the high places
and the pillars ; y*)y refers to v. 3, he not only abstained from
idolatry, but besides that he removed, &c. This is the explana
tion generally given by expositors, Capellus alone is of opinion
that the reference here is to the pride of Jehoshaphat, the effect
of whicb is said to have been that he did not put an end to
idolatry in his kingdom, and in order to put this meaning into
the verse he proposes to read ^^ instead of y\yy ; but he
appeals without reason to chap. xx. 33 in defence of this altera
tion in the reading, for the statement, which we find there,
" the high places did not cease to exist," is not at variance with
that contained in the verse before us, " he removed the high
places," cf. chap. xiv. 2. The announcement that Jehoshaphat
aboHshed idolatry is most intimately connected with the account
in vv. 7 — 9, in which we are informed of his efforts to spread the
knowledge of the religion of Jehovah throughout his land. In
the third year of his reign Jehoshaphat sent five princes, that
is, five laymen of distinction, along with nine Levites and two
priests, with instructions to travel through all the cities of Judah,
having with them the book of the law of Jehovah, that they
might give to the people everywhere accurate instruction in the
laws. Ben-chail, according to the Hebrew text and the Vulgate,
is a proper name ; but the Syriac and Septuagint translators
read ^n->l33 T0V* vloix; twv BvvaTwv ; no doubt this is the only
place in which we meet with Ben-chail as a proper name, but we
need not feel any more hesitation to regard it as the name of a
man, than Benchesed in 1 Kings iv. 10 and other similar names.
The name Tob-adonijah in v. 8 we meet with in this passage
alone. The men named here are not mentioned anywhere else
in the historical books of the Old Testament. The book of ihe
law of Jehovah is probably a term employed by the historian
to denote our present Pentateuch, and even if this was not in
existence in the time of Jehoshaphat in the form in which we
have it now, there was certainly a collection of Mosaic laws,
which the men whom Jehoshaphat sent through the land may
have been commissioned to make known to the people. — V. 10.

384 CHAPTER XVII. 10 — 15.
Jehoshaphat had leisure to provide for the instruction of his
people, as the neighbouring tribes did not venture to make war
upon Judah. By this remark, in which we at once detect
expressions pecuHar to the historian (" fear of Jehovah" cf. chap.
xiv. 13, xx. 29 ; "all ihe kingdoms of ihe lands," cf. chap. xii.
8 ; and many other passages), he takes up the thread of the
narrative concerning Jehoshaphat's miHtary power, which was
dropt at v. 2. — V. 11. tS^niy^D 1)3 must be taken as the sub
ject : and some ofthe Philistines brought, w&ft ftD3> n°t silver
of tribute, as ^12^3 does not occur anywhere else in this signifi
cation, but a great quantity of silver, tf&ft, that which is
carried on men's shoulders (chap. xxxv. 3) or on the backs of
beasts of burden (Isa. xlvi. 1), may mean ihe burden, i.e., that
which can only be carried, hence a large quantity ; cf. chap. xx.
25, N1W3 V^i^O- By the Arbihim we must understood Arabian
tribes, which had probably sought the protection of Jehoshaphat
after his conquest of Edom. In the reign of Jehoram (chap.
xxi. 16) the Philistines and Arabians were once more dangerous
enemies of the southern kingdom. — V. 12. The participle -i^pj
before blS), like the infinitive (for example in Gen. viii. 3), indi
cates the continual increase of his strength. PW3T13 (only used
here and chap, xxvii 4) a noun derived from the adjective J-^,
which is formed from fiyiy, a castle, a word frequently met with
x ¦
in the historical books. On the store-cities see chap. viii. 4. —
V. 13. pj3») POnS?3 (" much business," Eng. V.) must, from the
context, refer to the works connected with the preparation and
provisioning of the fortresses (i.e., the cities of Judah), chap. xi.
11. — V. 14. The superscription, " and this is their census accord
ing to the house of their fathers," refers to the fact that the
numbers about to be given were taken from an account of the
warriors, who were arranged in the army according to their
fathers'-houses. — To Judah belonged ; in v. 17 there follows,
" and of Benjamin" there were. The princes of thousands were
the highest officers in command; there were three of them, and
Adnah held the highest post. Attached to the different names
we find after this only the shorter title " the prince." — V. 15.
yp ^yy refers back to Adnah in v. 14 ; by the side of him, who
commanded the largest division, Johanan and Amaziah had the

CHAPTER XVIII. — XIX. 2. 385
command of 280,000 and 200,000 men. Why Amaziah received
the honourable distinction, " he who had willingly given himself
to Jehovah," we are not informed. In the fuller account, from
which this remark has been taken, there was no doubt some
notice of a high-minded deed of Amaziah, which would explain
the allusion, though now it is unintelligible. — V. 17. One com
pany of the Benjamites consisted of archers, who are here
described as shooting with the bow (cf. 1 Chr. xii. 2) and (armed
with) shields, the word ip\y3 being made to refer by Zeugma to
both pj2 and ptyp. Besides the archers, who always formed the
principal force of the tribe of Benjamin (cf. Judges xix. — xx),
the Benjaminites contributed 180,000 equipped men of the
army, by which we understand the heavy armed soldiers in con
tradistinction from the archers. According to this account the
army of Jehoshaphat was composed of five great divisions; Judah
contributed 780,000 men in three divisions, and Benjamin
380,000 men in two divisions. The five divisions of the army
may perhaps have been connected with some existing division of
the provinces of Judah and Benjamin into five counties. —
V. 19. Besides these five leading generals Jehoshaphat had other
officers, who were entrusted with the command of the fortresses
in the southern kingdom (in all Judah), where portions of the
troops described above were no doubt stationed as garrisons.
Chap, xviii. Jehoshaphat' s connexion with Ahab by marriage;
their joint attack upon Ramoth ; death of Ahab. Compare
1 Kings xxii. 2 — 35. (See the commentary on that passage).
Chap. xix. 1 — 3. Sentence pronounced by the prophet Jehu
on Jehoshaphat' s alliance with Ahab. — V. 1. Jehoshaphat re
turned to Ms house in peace ; thus the prediction of Micah (chap.
xviii. 16) was fulfilled. — V. 2. Jehu the son of Hanani (chap.
xx. 34) had his sphere of action in the northern kingdom at the
time of king Baasha (1 Kings xvi. 1) ; he may possibly have
been banished from the northern kingdom, and compelled on
that account to take up his abode in the southern. — Should one
help the wicked ; how couldst thou make common cause with
Ahab ? On the infinitive with lamed see 1 Chr. v. 1 , ix. 25,
&c. The accusative 1^3^, which is placed first for the sake of
emphasis, has the lamed attached to it as the sign of the accusa-
vol. 11. 2 B

386 CHAPTER XIX. 2 — 7.
tive. On the last clause of the verse, see 1 Chr. xxvii. 24:
Instead of "wrath from before Jehovah" we find in 2 Chr.
xxxii. 26, " the wrath of Jehovah." We are to regard the
dangerous attack made by the eastern tribes (chap. xx. 1 — 30)
as the consequence of the wrath, which Jehoshaphat had drawn
upon himself by his conduct ; but the danger passed over because
(v. 3) " there are, nevertheless, good things also found in thee "
(chap. xii. 12 ; 1 Kings xiv. 13). On the last clause see chap.
xii. 14, xvii. 4.
V. 4 — 11. Jehoshaphat s measures for securing a proper
administration of justice. — V. 4. y<fff\ (and he turned back) is
T|T-
to be taken in connexion with the following verb, thus : then he
went out again among the people ; again, for though it is not
stated in chap. xvii. 7 sqq. that Jehoshaphat had personally gone
out, yet these words may refer to the passage cited, so as to mean :
he resumed his efforts for the instruction of the people. Mount
Ephraim denotes the northern frontier of the southern kingdom.
" And brought them back," see chap. xxiv. 19. As this refor
matory movement had been already described, it is but briefly
referred to here, so as to form a point of connexion between the
account of the arrangements made for the administration of
justice and the previous narrative (chap. xvii. 7 — 9). — V. 5. The
fortified cities were appointed as the residences of the judges,
because they were the central points for the traffic of the dis
tricts in which they were situated. yiy*\ yiyb with reference to
each particular city (compare the law in Deut. xvi. 18). Ye
shall not judge for men, i.e. not at their dictation or in compli
ance with their wishes, but for Jehovah, ftytyft -Q13 tD373}H>
these words are very obscure on account of their brevity, and
they are variously rendered in the ancient versions ; e.g. in the
Vulgate they are given thus: et quodcumque judicaveritis, in
vos redundabit. The simplest method is to supply the word
¦" Jehovah " from the previous clause (compare the conclusion
of v. 11 and chap. xx. 17) : and Jehovah be with you in the
affair of justice (i.e. in your decisions, Deut. xvii. 9), so that
with a consciousness of his presence ye may earnestly seek that
which is right. The next verse harmonises very well with this
interpretation. — V. 7. y\tfy\ •nft'ttf, correctly translated in the
Vulgate, cum diligentia cnncta facite. For there is no injus-

CHAPTER XIX. 8 — 10. 387
lice, or regard of person, or receiving of presents with Jehovah,
and therefore this must not take place on the part of judges,
who judge for Jehovah (see the law, Deut. xvi. 19). — V. 8.
From this verse we may conclude, that in the fortified cities,
(v. 5) as well as in Jerusalem, priests, Levites, and the heads of
the fathers'-houses were appointed as judges. -VNItW'^ with
the lamed of direct dependence : some of the heads of the fathers'
houses (1 Chr. viii. 6) of ihe Israelites. He appointed the
Levites, &c. (1) for ihe judgment of Jehovah, or, as it is stated
in v. 11, for all matters of Jehovah, for the affairs of religion
and worship, e.g. to decide in any disputes with regard to the
redemption of the first-born, or the payments to the temple, and
in any questions as to purification ; (2) for the dispute, or, as it
is explained in v. 11, for all the king's matters, to give judgment
in civil disputes or state prosecutions. Q^tyW 13tyi' this
does not mean that the Levites and others, who had been
appointed, returned to Jerusalem, for nothing has been said
about their leaving Jerusalem, nor that those who sought for
justice went to Jerusalem, for yyty does not mean to have
recourse to ; but it is a supplementary remark, induced by the
recollection of the expression in v. 4, he went out, and means :
Jehoshaphat (and those who had gone out with him) returned
to Jerusalem. — V. 9, 10. The validity of the court of justice in
Jerusalem is established. Thus shall ye do in the fear of
Jehovah, &c. ; what they are to do is mentioned in v. 10, where
the words }^yp\ H5 are repeated in the last clause. The •)
before 3^-*?3 is wanting in the Septuagint and the Vulgate.
The connexion between the announcement in v. 9 and the account
in v. 10 becomes more apparent if we erase it from the Hebrew
text : thus shall ye do, every dispute which come before you,
&c. Those of your brethren who dwell in their cities (and wish
for a decision, or for instruction on the part of the supreme court
in the following matters) ; cf. Deut. xvii. 8. It follows as a matter
of course tbat the dwellers in their cities included the inhabitants
of Jerusalem, q-j^j \yy v\y between blood and between blood
(ben followed by lamed, cf. Gen. i. 6) ; if there is any dispute
respecting a murder or a homicide, and an uncertainty as to
which of the laws given in Ex. xxi. 12 sqq. is applicable to the
2b2

388 CHAPTER XIX. 11— XX. 1.
case ; cf. Deut. xvii. 8. And between law and between com
mandment, between statutes and between judgments ; this might
be expressed more briefly thus : ppvin1? Pn,in-)'U» hut instead
of the second Thorah, the different elements of which the Thorah
was composed are given. The meaning is : if there be any dis
pute as to the interpretation or application of the laws ; in Deut.
xvii. 8, two particular cases are mentioned instead of the general
notice given here. Thus shall ye instruct them (viz. those who
bring the dispute before you) that they trespass not against
Jehovah, for first of all they would trespass by a false application
and interpretation of the laws, and then they would involve the
whole nation in guilt as well ; and (in this case) there will be
wrath upon you and your brethren, even upon all Israel. Thus
shall ye do (viz. according to v. 9 in the fear of Jehovah) that
ye may not trespass. — V. 11. The high-priest Amariah is des
cribed in 1 Chr. v. 37 as the fifth high-priest from Zadok the
contemporary of David ; and Jehoshaphat the king was also the
fifth king from David. Zebadiah the prince of the house of Je
hovah is only mentioned in this passage. For the matters of
Jehovah and the king's matters, compare v. 8. — Q3^V they
shall be over you, as your presidents, the Levites shall be officers
before you, as your assistants and servants ; a few only of the
Levites were appointed as judges, together with some priests,
and heads of fathers'-houses (v. 8). The officers of justice,
scribes, &c, were also to be taken from the remaining body of
Levites. Be strong and work ; work with strength (cf. v. 7,
" take heed and do)." With the good; if ye endeavour to fulfil
the duties of your office as good judges (cf. v. 6).
Chap. xx. 1 — 30. Invasion on the part ofthe Eastern nations ;
they destroy one another, and thus perish without being defeated
by Jehoshaphat and the Jews. — V. 1. Hillerus (Onom.) says that
the t3"i3TO^nQ must have been the nation ofthe Meunites ; in the
Septuagint (Kal per ainwv eK twv Mivaiwv) the translators have
adopted neither the reading Q^ftypjft, which is perfectly unin
telligible and not in accordance with vv. 10, 22, and 23, nor the
thoroughly suitable reading av^y^pflp-— °n the settlements of
the Meunites see 1 Chr. iv. 41 ; in the further course of the
narrative they are designated inhabitants of Mount Seir, v. 23,

CHAPTER XX. 1 — 5. 389
or called by the name of then- country, the mountains of Seir,
vv. 10, 22. Josephus (Antiquities ix. 1, 2) speaks of them as a
great multitude of Arabs. — V. 2. There came (fugitives and
messengers) Q-^73 ; as they invaded Judah from the country
to the east and south east of the Dead Sea (ry^y "Qyft) they
cannot have come straight from Aram : it has been said that
they were accompanied by troops from Aram, from the Syrian
provinces, but there is nothing to this effect in the narrative.
Earlier expositors (e.g. CalmetJ admitted that for Aram we
should read Edom ; the Septuagint and Vulgate have the false
reading Aram, but the Syriac appears to have read Edom, (the
clause is rendered thus : from the remote districts by the Red
Sea). The hostile tribes marched round the southern point of
the Dead Sea, and entered Judah from Edom. Hazazon-tamar,
which is Engedi, cf. Gen. xiv. 7 ; the situation of Engedi has
been accurately described by Robinson (ii. 439, 440), Lynch
and others. — V. 3. Jehoshaphat set Ms face (he resolved, cf. 2
Kings xii. 18 ; Jer. xlii. 15) to seek Jehovah, i.e. to turn to
him and implore his aid (chap. xv. 12, 13), and the consequence
of his resolution was that he summoned all the inhabitants of
his kingdom to meet at the sanetuary for a solemn fast (cf.
Judges xx. 26 ; Joel. ii. 15). — V. 4. To ask of Jehovah; we na
turally supply the word " help " (cf. Ezra viii. 21). At the end.
of the verse we find the words " to seek the Lord " in almost the
same sense, chap. xi. 16. The numerous attendance at the
assembly is thus described : " and Judah (that is, the inhabi
tants of the southern kingdom) gathered themselves together,
even out of all the cities of Judah they came." — V. 5. In the
assembly of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the other inha
bitants of the southern kingdom; the former are specially men
tioned again in v. 27 (see also Is. i. 1, and ii. 1) as constituting
the most important part of the whole population. Before the
new court, i.e. before the outer court, so that Jehoshaphat stood
in front of those who were assembled there, when he offered the
prayer vv. 6 — 12. From this it is evident that the new court
must denote the place in which the congregation assembled,
that is the outer court ; at least this was Solomon's arrangement,
for in chap. iv. 9 it is expressly stated that he built the great, i.e.
the outer court. The name " new court " must therefore have

390 CHAPTER XX. 6 — 14.
been given to it at a later period, possibly in the time of Jehosha
phat, either because it was enlarged, or from its being rebuilt.
With the prayer of Jehoshaphat compare the prayer of Asa,
chap. xiv. 10. — V. 6. Cf. 1 Chr. xxix. 12. Thereis no one near
thee so as to be able to offer resistance, i.e., according to chap.
xiv. 10, thou alone canst resist the powerful enemies, who have
attacked us ; these words of course imply that they cannot resist
God : the same verb is used in 2 Sam. xxi. 5 with this significa
tion.— V. 7. cf. Gen. xiii. 15 seq., xv. 18— 21.— V. 8- The pro
mise was fulfilled : " the Israelites dwelt in the land of Palestine,
and built therein a sanctuary for thy name (chap. vi. 8, 5, 6),
saying," i.e. expressing their confident expectation in the words
of v. 9. — V. 9. A brief summary of the particular cases described
in Solomon's prayer chap. vi. 22 — 39. taiDtiJ stands by itself in
the Hst, and is not dependent on the other words (not gladius
judicii, Vulgate; cf. Lev. xxvi. 25); hence it can only mean_;Md!<7-
ment, judicial punishment (L^KSr. Kplo-i<;, Syr. ]i-»?); the word
occurs nowhere else. Then will we come before this house and
before thee ; assembling in the court and turning our faces to the
temple, in which thou dwellest. — Vv. 10, 11. Such a calamity
has now befallen us : tribes, into the midst of whom thou wouldst
not let the Israelites come (i.e., to enter their land), when they
came out of Egypt, and (though they were strong enough to
destroy them) thou didst not suffer it, for (merely in obedience
to thy command) they (the Israelites) kept far away from them
and did not destroy them — and behold they (the ungrateful
tribes) requite us by coming to drive us out of thine inheritance,
which thou hast caused us to inherit (cf. v. 7). The Edomites
(the Meunites, v. 1, were inhabitants of Mount Seir, i.e., of the
land of Edom) refused to allow the Israelites to pass through
their land (Num. xx. 14 — 21), but the Israelites were ordered
to abstain from any hostilities against Edom (Deut. ii. 5 seq.),
and also against Moab (ii. 9) and Ammon (ii. 19) ; see Judges
xi. 17 seq. with reference to Edom and Moab. — V. 12 cf. chap.
xiv. 10. And we, we know not what to do, in the consciousness
of our weakness in contrast with our powerful foes we are in utter
despair. — V. 13. cf. Judith iv. 9, 10. — V. 14. Jahaziel, one of the
sons of Asaph, and therefore a Levite, is suddenly filled with the

CHAPTER XX. 15 — 18. 391
Spirit of Jehovah in the midst of the ceremony and stands for
ward as a prophet. He was the fifth in descent from a Mat
taniah, not the Mattaniah mentioned in 1 Chr. xxv. 4, 16 as a
contemporary of David, for he was a descendant of Heman.
There is a Nethaniah, whose name occurs in 1 Chr. xxv. 2, 12,
among the sons of Asaph, and by the change of nun into mem
this might easily have been altered into Mattaniah. — V. 15 — 17-
The prophet calls upon the king and all present, to go forth the
following day to meet the foe, that they may be witnesses of
their destruction by the hand Jehovah. — V. 15. Be not afraid
nor dismayed ; the two Hebrew verbs employed in this passage
are found together in 1 Chr. xxii. 13, Deut. i. 21, and many
other places.— V. 16. The names Hazziz and Jeruel are not met
with any where else, but the situation is clearly described : from
Engedi (v. 2) the enemy marched towards Jerusalem, advancing
along the mountain road Hazziz, which led up to a Wady (^>p|2n)j
at the upper end of which they found themselves before the desert
of Jeruel. According to v. 20 the latter was not far from the
desert of Tekoa, which stretches away to the south east of Jeru
salem, and therefore the desert of Jeruel is to be regarded as a
continuation of that of Hazziz. The mountain road Hazziz
must therefore have passed through one of the Wadys, which run
from the level country on the west of the Dead Sea, through the
mountains forming its western border, to the neighbourhood of
Engedi (Robinson ii. p. 410). The desert of Jeruel may be
supposed to be the " large flat district called el-Husasah from a
Wady on its northern side " of which Robinson speaks in ii. p.
480. " The name Hazziz (Septuagint 'Aaaeh) has probably
been retained in that of the present Wady Husasah j . . . .
for there is no necessity to suppose that the pj is part ofthe article"
(Ewald, Gesch. 190). — V. 17. Ye must not fight in this ; i.e.,
because Jehovah himself will fight, compare chap. xix. 2 for the
expression " in this "). 0373^ is appended as a dependent rela
tive clause: the help of Jehovah who is with you. — V. 18 seq.
Account of the joyful thanksgiving for tbe glorious promise : the
king and all the congregation bow low before Jehovah, the
Levites then rise up first to praise God with a loud voice. There
is something striking in the expression " ofthe Kohathites and of
the Korahites," as the latter belonged to the descendants of Kohath,
3

392 chapter xx. 20—24.
(1 Chr. vi. 22). — V. 20 seq. According to the prophet's command
the assembled Israelites went the next day, not to fight but to
be witnesses of the miraculous deliverance effected by Jehovah.
Jehoshaphat stood there (probably in the gate of Jerusalem,
where the people assembled preparatory to departing), and with
solemn words exhorted them to believe in Jehovah and his pro
phets (the Hiphil and Niphal ^3i)3Nn ai)d 1373«n occur together
in the same way in Is. vii. 9, cf. Deut. i. 32 ; Is. xxviii. 16), and
having thus exhorted the people he arranged the solemn procession
"he appointed singers of Jehovah (not ihe singers of Jehovah, but
singers generally, hence the word is not in the construct state
but governed indirectly by lamed, as in the expression mizmor
T David, a Psalm of David), who sang praises in sacred costume
on their going out in front of the army and said, §fc. — V. 22.
•^pfi-j the relative is indispensable in such a connection : at the
time when they began the singing and praise, Jehovah placed
j3i3"^N13 against the sons of Ammon, fyc, and ihey destroyed
one another, in the manner described in v. 23. It is evident
from the context, that Q^3^N!3 can only mean angels, powers
sent by God, who were called insidiatores on account of the part
they had to perform in relation to the army of the hostile tribes.
This is the explanation given by the earlier expositors (cf. Ram-
bach in loco) and by Ewald (Gesch. p. 190). We only observe
in addition that the ?^3-iNft cannot have been Jews placed in
ambush, for, according to vv. 15 and 17, the Jews were not to
fight, but to be simply witnesses of the destruction effected
by divine power ; nor can they have been certain portions
of the army of the Moabites, Ammonites, and inhabitants of
Mount Seir, who destroyed the rest of the army, for the Mearbirn
do not fight, they only cause the different parts of the hostile
army to fight one against another. — V. 23. First Moab and
Ammon combined together and fell upon the inhabitants of
Mount Seir for the purpose of utterly destroying them (Dan. xi.
44), and when they had finished among (or in the midst of) ihe
inhabitants of Seir they helped to destroy one another, (Moab
and Ammon turned their weapons against each other). p^nti^D
is a substantive, it occurs also in chap. xxii. 4 ; Dan. x. 8 ;
Ezek. v. 16. — V. 24. Thus had the army completed its own des
truction during the time occupied by the Jewish procession in

chapter xx. 25, 26. 393
going from Jerusalem to the spot, from which the battle-field
could be seen. p(Kft3i"f 1S not a watch-tower here, but an ele
vated situation, the summit of a hill which overlooked the desert
of Jeruel (v. 1 6). pjto^Q Vifc-yi not one having escaped ; not one
survived, they aU lay there dead. — V. 25. Thus according to the
word of the prophet the Jews had not to fight at all, but were
able to proceed at once to take possession ofthe immense amount
of booty. QpQ among them or with them. 3^, in abundance,
is the accusative of the object meaning " an abundance." The
words recush and pegarim could not be rendered in any other
way than " live animals" and " dead animals," for as pegarim
in v. 24 is used to denote the human corpses, and it is evident
that they must have lain upon the field of battle, the only dead
bodies of which we could possibly think here are the carcases of
animals whose trappings and hides may certainly have constituted
a booty of no little value. Some MSS. and many old editions
(including the Bibl. Brix. employed by Luther) read 0^133 for
DTOQ - the Vulgate and apparently the Septuagint adopt the
same reading. In other lists of articles carried off as booty we
are generaUy accustomed ta find clothes mentioned ; and as the
alteration of begadim into pegarim could easily occur, the latter
word having been written just before, we need not hesitate to
accept begadim as the original reading. The \£^3^, moveable
goods (such as cattle, tents, &c), and the valuable articles (cf.
Judg. viii. 26) are then appropriately noticed in connection with
the clothes. w&ft Vifc^, they plundered for themselves till there
was no hading, to such an extent that they could not carry the
booty away. — V. 26. The valley of blessing, according to these
verses, must be looked for near the battle-field, for the Jews, who
had been engaged for three days in collecting plunder, assembled
on the fourth day in this valley, for the purpose of returning to
Jerusalem in solemn procession and betaking themselves to the
temple, v. 27 seq. In the neighbourhood of the battle-field there
is still to be seen not only a hill called Kaphar-Barucha, of which
Jerome speaks (cf. RelandFal. 356. 685), but at a short distance
off a place called Bereikut, which has been discovered by modern
travellers (Robinson iu. 2 p. 863, Wilkinson, the lands ofthe
Bible 1. p. 386) and a Wady Bereikut (Wollcotts Excursion.
C. Ritter Erdkunde pt. 15. p. 635). As the ancient name

394 chapter xx. 26—32.
" Valley of blessing" is apparently retained in the Wady Berei
kut, and the situation of the Wady squares with the places men
tioned in this section, and on the other hand as there is not a
word to indicate that the festival in the valley of blessing was
celebrated in the immediate neighbourhood of Jerusalem, we
cannot subscribe to the opinion held by those, who consider that
the valley of blessing was "the valley of Kidron, on the road
back to Jerusalem from the desert of Tekoa, to which valley, at
least where it touches Jerusalem, tradition continues to give the
name of " valley of Jehoshaphat" (Thenius cf. Hitzig on Joel).
When Joel (chap. iii. 2. 12) calls the place of the grand divine
decision the valley of Jehoshaphat, he does so no doubt because
the destruction of the enemies of Israel, which was effected by
the miraculous interposition of God in the time of King Jehosha
phat, floated 'before his mind as a type of the future judgment,
but it does not follow from this that the valley, which is now
called the valley of Jehoshaphat, .must be the same as the valley
of blessing mentioned here. The name " valley of Jehoshaphat"
does not occur anywhere in the Old or New Testament as the
name of a portion of the valley of Kidron, nor is it so called in
the works of Josephus, though Eusebius knew it by that name
(cf. Robinson ii. p. 31 sqq). — V. 27. For Jehovah had given them
joy ; the same expression occurs in Ezra vi. 22 and Nehem.
xii. 43. — V. 28. The same ceremony was observed on their return
as on their departure (v. 21). — V. 29. There was a dread of God
over all the kingdoms of the countries ; compare chap. xvii. 10,
where it is clearly stated that the countries intended are those
round about Judah, though we should naturaUy infer that no
others could be meant. — V. 30. On the last clause see chap.
xv. 15.
V. 31 to Chap. xxi. 1. Further notices of Jehoshaphat, by
which Ms history is brought to a close (vv. 31 — 34 and chap.
xxi. 1). These accounts are divided by a supplementary notice
of the fitting out of ships in Ezion-Geber, vv. 35 — 37. Vv.
31—33. cf. 1 Kings xxii. 41—44. V. 31. The words "Jehos
haphat reigned over Judah" we have already met with in chap.
xvii. 1 ; they are repeated here to serve as an introduction to the
notices which follow respecting Jehoshaphat's age when he began
to reign, and the number of years that he sat upon the throne.

chapter xx. 31. 395
V. 32. Instead of P1373J3 we find in 1 Kings the masculine
131313 » *pT occurs as both masculine and feminine. (See chap.
xvii. 3). — V. 33. But the high places they (the inhabitants of the
southern kingdom) did not remove, a statement which is not at
variance with chap. xvii. 6, where we read " moreover he took
away ihe high places" (see the remarks on that passage). The
words " as yet the people had not firmly directed their hearts
unto the God of their fathers," refer, as the context clearly shows,
to the fact that Jehovah was not only worshipped in Jerusalem,
but upon the high places also ; hence they are substantially the
same as those which we find in the parallel passage in 1 Kings :
the people still offered and burnt incense in the high places.
V. 34. The earlier and the later ; the same expression occurs
in 1 Chr. xxix. 29. — Vv. 35 — 37. Vessels fitted out at Ezion-
Geber ; compare 1 Kings xxii. 48 — 50, where we find the intro
ductory remark, " no king had been appointed king in Edom,"
the intention of which is to show that as Jehoshaphat ruled
over the land of Edom, he was therefore able to fit out vessels
in the Edomitish harbour of Ezion-Geber. Whether Jehosha
phat had once more subdued the land of Edom by means of suc
cessful wars, or whether he " prudently availed himself of disputes
which had arisen in Edom with regard to the succession, and
thus established the supremacy of Judah over Edom " (Thenius),
or whether Edom, notwithstanding its revolt in the time of
Solomon ( 1 Kings xi. 14 sqq.) still remained subject to the
Israehtes, and all that Jehoshaphat did was to display greater
force in the government, which the southern kingdom had exer
cised over Edom from the time when the nation was divided, our
historical books do not enable us to determine. — V. 35. The loose
connection " after this " contains merely an indefinite statement
as to the time, cf. chap. xx. 1 ; if Ahaziah was king of the nor
thern tribes in the seventeenth year of the reign of Jehoshaphat
and reigned only two years (1 Kings xxii. 52), the fitting out of
the ships must have taken place in the 17th or 18th year of Jehos
haphat. -QnnN the Aramaean form of -Qprnn. He, viz.
Jehoshaphat, acted wrongly ; the context shows that the purport
of these words is to blame Jehoshaphat for his connection with
the king ofthe northern kingdom (cf. chap. xix. 2) ; earlier ex-

396 CHAPTER XX. 36 — XXI. 1.
positors regarded them as directed against Ahaziah, cujus opera
erant impiisima (Vulgate). — V. 36. And he joined himself with
Mm to build ships to go to Tarshish ; in 1 Kings we read of
ships of Tarshish, (i.e., large ships, such as were built to sail to
the distant port of Tartessus), which were to sail to Ophir ; but
here we find, instead of ships of Tarshish, ships which were de
signed to sail to Tarshish, with which design their being built
in Ezion-Geber would only harmonize, provided the name of
Tarshish is used by the historian to denote that distant eastern
country which is usually called Ophir ; (compare chap. viii. 18
and ix. 21. See also the totally different explanation given by
Keil in the commentary on 1 Kings xxii. 48. Tr.) — V. 37.
The form of the word sipfnVl reminds us of the names Hoda-
viah and Joshaviah, but it stands quite isolated in this passage,
and is very striking; AwBla, the name given in the Septuagint,
points to the intelligible form ^p|*iTn friend of God ; the
x ¦
Vulgate read Dodau, the Syriac Dodo (in the latter the passage
is rendered, Eliezer the son of Ms relative). Mareshah, cf. 1
Chr. ii. 42. The perfect wy% in the prophet's address denotes
that which wiU certainly come to pass. Keil (p. 308 seq.)
endeavours to harmonise the different accounts given in the
Books of Kings and Chronicles, or rather he keeps them distinct
and refers them to different transactions (see the commentary on
Kings, Vol. i. p. 329). Chap. xxi. 1. The last clause, " and
Jehoram Ms son reigned in his stead," forms the commence
ment of the history of Jehoram (cf. chap. xvfi. 1 ) ; in other
places (e.g., chap. xxiv. 27) they can stand at the end ofa verse
as they do here.
The brief account of the reign of Jehoshaphat, given in the
Book of Kings, is amplified in many respects by the fuller
history contained in the Chronicles, which must rest upon
definite historical traditions. For (1) in the description of the
course adopted by him for spreading the knowledge of the law
and securing the due administration of justice among his people,
the various details and the names (including that of the high
priest Amariah, chap. xix. 11, whom we learn from other sources
to have been a contemporary of Jehoshaphat), contain the surest
evidence that exact accounts were found by the historian in the
documents which he employed. If he worked up the historical

CHAPTER XX. 31. 397
material in his own way (see e.g. xvii. 10, xix. 7, 9, and other
passages particularly in the words of Jehoshaphat, chap. xix. 6 —
11), there is no ground for the assumption, that the author desired
to increase the importance attached to the institutions of a latter
period, by attributing their origin to a pious king of an earlier
age ; for the names of the men, appointed by Jehoshaphat, were
evidently known solely in connection with these arrangements,
and they have been handed down to us simply because the
historians of a later age felt an interest in describing their
official labours. — (2) The same may be said of the preparations
made for the defence of the country and the organization of the
army, see especially chap. xvii. 15 — 19. — (3) In the remarkable
account of the war, in which the Moabites, the Ammonites, and
theMeunites destroyed one another (chap. xx. 1—30), we find, it is
true, on every hand the style and language peculiar to our his
torian (compare e.g., Jehoshaphat's prayer, chap. xx. 6 — 12 with
that of Asa, chap. xiv. 10, the infinitives with lamed, chap. xx.
6, 17, p|^yi37> chap. xx. 19, &c), but we meet also with his
torical notices of a very definite character: the localities are
minutely described, vv. 16 — 20; the term " new court" is only
met with in v. 5, (it must have been taken from a source, in
which its recent erection was noticed). The list of ancestors of
the Levite Jahaziel (v. 14) is a proof of the fact, that he had
attracted the attention of the early historians, who were still in a
position to give an account of his pedigree. This exterminating
struggle floated before the mind of the prophet Joel, when he
called the place of the divine decision the valley of Jehoshaphat
(cf. chap. xx. 26). The opinion has been expressed, that in the
narrative before us we have merely the shorter account of 2
Kings iii. 25 seq. freely remodelled, but in the Chronicles some
of the events described are totally different from those referred
to in the Book of Kings, and it is impossible to see how the latter
can have supplied a starting point or historical foundation for the
statements contained in 2 Chr. xx. Lastly (4) the historian
must have had before him notices of the labours of the prophets
Jehu and Eliezer (chap. xix. 2, 3, and xx. 37), though he puts
the substance of their addresses into his own words (cf. the in
finitive with lamed and ftUp, chap. xix. 2, "good things" and
"firmly directing the heart" chap. xix. 3). — The brief account

398 CHAPTER XXI. 2 — 4.
in 1 Kings apparently refers to the substance of some of the
narratives in the Chronicles : in 1 Ki. xxii. 47 the extermination
of idolatry (2 Chr. xvii. 3 — 6) is noticed ; in 1 Ki. xxii. 46 there
is a reference to Jehoshaphat's miHtary power, of which we have
a more elaborate account in 2 Chr. xvii. 2, 10 — 19. Again in
sections, which we do also find in the Book of Kings, though
there are not wanting certain alterations and additions on the
part of our historian, yet on the whole they are given in the
form in which he found them in the sources he employed. The
history of Jehoshaphat, as it lies before us, has not been cast in
one mould ; the historian followed his sources so closely, that he
did not always connect together sections which were intimately
related, but took different paragraphs from different sources, and
set them down in the connection in which he found them.

5. chap. xxi. 2 — 20.
JEHORAM.
V. 2 — 4. Jehoshaphat had appointed Jehoram his first-born as
his successor ; his other six sons, like Rehoboam, he had richly
endowed (cf. chap. xi. 22 seq.), and had given them the com
mand of some of the fortified cities. Two of the six were named
Azariah ; but there is sufficient difference in the spelling of the
Hebrew names to distinguish the one from the other, the one being
spelt Azarja, the other Azarjahu. Jehiel was supposed by early
Jewish expositors to be the same person as the Hiel mentioned
in 1 Kings xvi. 34, but this is not correct, for the latter was a
native of Bethel in the northern kingdom. — V. 4. And Jehoram
stood over (i.e. governed) the kingdom of Ms father and strength
ened himself (chap. i. 1). We are not told what it was that
induced Jehoram to kill his brethren (cf. v. 13) ; he slew some
of the princes of Israel as well, i.e. princes of the tribes of Israel,
belonging to the southern kingdom, from which we may con
clude that Jehoram had to contend against internal divisions and
commotions, which may have been stirred up by the brethren
themselves, or may possibly have originated in their murder by
Jehoram.

CHAPTER XXI. 5 — 18. 399
Vv. 5—10. (cf. 2 Kings viii. 17 — 22, and see the commentary
on that passage).
Vv. 11—19. The letter of Elijah and infliction of the suffer
ings predicted in it. The occasion ofthe letter (v. 12 — 15) is
mentioned in v. 11. Not only did Jehoram forsake the God of
his fathers, he also established high places on the mountains of
Judah (the Septuagint and Vulgate read " in the cities of
Judah) ;" this must have been for the Phoenician gods, for the
word wv^ (he led away to adultery) refers to the introduction
of Phoenician idolatry (cf. v. 13). fXV\ he led them away by
force from the right way ; this must be explained from Deut.
xiii. 6, 11, 14. — V. 13. The Hiphil of p^f occurs nine times in the
Old Testament, but only three times in the Chronicles, twice in
this verse and once in v. 11. 3^nN n^l mitPD » as the house
of Ahab seduced to adultery (cf. v. 6). Thy brethren ; cf. v. 4.
— V. 14. The great plague, announced here, refers to the con
quest of Jerusalem by the Philistines and Arabians (v. 16 seq.).
— V. 15. And thou (wilt be) in great pain from a disease in thy
bowels ; compare the fulfilment of this threat in v. 18. The
chronological notice, 01731 by tPiy* one number of days to another
(just like Is. xxix. 1, year to year), renders it probable that the
course of the disease up to the time of Jehoram's death occupied
a period of two years (cf. v. 18). — V. 16. Stirred up the spirit of
the Philistines (cf. 1 Chr. v. 26). The Arabs who (dwell) by
the side of the Cushites were Arabian tribes from the southern dis
tricts. — V. 17. ypy to split, to open, hence to conquer cities (chap.
xxxii. 1), here with reference to the conquest of the land of
Judah. It is evident from what follows that they conquered Je
rusalem also. y?13rrn,Ql> indirect government by means of
lamed : all the discovered property of the king's house ; com
pare the dependence indicated by the construct state which was
not admissible here on account of the article, and the adjective
attached to the substantive (see chap. xii. 9). Except Jehoahaz
the youngest of his sons; in chap. xxii. 1 — 9 he is called
Ahaziah, which name he probably first received, when he became
king; on the chronological notice see chap. xxii. 2. — V. 18.-
,,L,_L a second accusative with the government indicated by
lamed : Jehovah smote Mm in Ms bowels with a disease, p^,

400 CHAPTER XXI. 19— XXII. 1.
NB"1)D> stiii more definitely expressed in chap, xxxvi. 16,
"so that there was no cure. — V. 19. And it came to pass
at days of days, when out of a long series of days many
had passed away ; the same idea is conveyed more briefly by
O^tt^O ai°ne in Judg. xi. 4, xiv. 8, xv. 1. But this indefinite
• x ¦
statement was not sufficient, for the purpose of the writer was to
show that the prediction in v. 15 was fulfilled as to the exact
period also ; he therefore adds, " and (in fact) at the time of the
arrival of the end of two times (we render qiqi, a number of
days, somewhat more clearly by times), or two periods of time,
the extent of which is certainly not stated, but which we do not
hesitate to regard as years. The Vulgate, the Syriac, and most
of the commentators give as the translation two years, but the
text of the original is not ftifti DirCtlH Ce-9- 2 Sam. xiii. 23) ;
it is only in the Septuagint that the exact rendering is given.
Qi3\2J CD"''? bas, therefore, the same meaning as ryifti bv Q^fti
in v. 15. yi^n DJ? *'w his disease can only mean while his
disease lasted, so that his suffering continued to the very last.
The \yyy D^^Vnn are oad, grievous pains. His people insti
tuted no burning for him (see on the other hand chap. xvi. 14) ;
the nation made known its sentence upon the deceased monarch
by refusing the usual honours at his burial. — V. 20. Conclusion;
2 Kings viii. 1 7. J~ni3n fc$73 \?*\ discessit a nemine desider-
atus ; the Vulgate, on the contrary, gives ambulavit non recte,
but ppiDH does not mean good conduct. But not in the sepul
chres of the kings ; a more precise statement, which is not found
in the Book of Kings.

6. Chap. xxii. 1 — 9.
AHAZIAH.
V. 1 ; taken from the same source as chap. xxi. 11—19.
qii^^Pj, the elder sons in contradistinction to the youngest
one. The band, which came to ihe camp along with ihe Ara
bians (probably to the camp of the Jews) ; we understand this
obscure passage to mean that Ahaziah's brothers were attacked

CHAPTER XXII. 2 — 5. 401
and slain by a band of wild men, who served in the army of the
Arabians, possibly against the will of the leaders of the Philis
tines and Arabians, chap. xxi. 16.
Vv. 2—6. (cf. 2 Kings viii. 26— 29.)— V. 2. The age assigned
to Ahaziah when he began to reign, forty- two years, does not
tally with chap. xxi. 20 and 2 Kings viii. 17 ; for according to
these passages his father Jehoram was thirty-two years old, when
he ascended the throne, and reigned eight years. Instead of
forty-two we find in 2 Kings twenty-two years old (the latter
reading is adopted by the Syriac and Arabic in the passage
before us, but the Septuagint says he was twenty years old).
The best accredited reading, which we must insert in our text
also, is twenty-two years. According to this Jehoram begat
Ahaziah, when he was seventeen years old, which would still
leave it a remarkable fact that in chap. xxi. 17 and xxii. 1 he
is called the youngest son. It is possible that Jehoram may have
had other sons before the birth of Ahaziah, though they may
have had different mothers, but we can hardly suppose that he
was the youngest of forty-two brethren (2 Kings x. 13 seq.)
— (On this Keil says, " the two accounts in 2 Kings x. 13 — 14,
and 2 Chr. xx. 1 — 8 can easily be reconciled when we consider
the latitude allowed to the use of the word pj^. The expression
includes grandsons and other near relatives." Apol. Versuch,
p. 414). — Daughter of Omri, more exactly granddaughter of
Omri ; the intention of the writer was simply to show that she
was a member of the idolatrous dynasty of Omri. — Vv. 3, 4,
given more briefly and in somewhat different words in 2 Kings
viii. 27. His counsellor to do wickedly ; she induced him to join
in the idolatry of the northern kingdom, and to enter into alli
ance with that kingdom, chap. xx. 35. For they (the members
of the house of Ahab, who were related to him on his mother's
side), ihey were his counsellors after his fathers death ; this simply
means that the weak-minded king allowed himself to be swayed
by his mother's relations. To his destruction ; chap. xx. 23.
The destruction which came upon him is described in v. 9. —
V. 5. He also walked after their counsel; the meaning of these
words, which are wanting in 2 Kings, evidently is, that Ahaziah
went with Joram to the war, hence they establish the correct
ness of the reading in Kings, " he went with Joram." Hazael,
VOL. II. 2 C

^02 CHAPTER XXII. 6 — XXIII. 21.
a courtier or commander-in chief of Ben Hadad, and subse
quently his successor in the government (2 Kings viii. 8 sqq.,
xiv. 28). Ramoth in Gilead, see 2 Chr. xviii. 28. The Aramceans
smote Joram ; according to v. 6 this is equivalent to " they
wounded him." Qift-^pj contracted from QiQ^^n- — V. 6. ln
Jezreel (now called Zerin, Robinson iii. 393 seq.), not in Samaria,
the capital ; possibly they could not take the wounded king farther
than Jezreel. In the place of the thoroughly unintelligible
expression Qi3)3pi-i3, we must adopt the reading of Kings,
D^OiTto which good MSS. contain in this passage as weU.
Azariah; hardly another name for Ahaziah, who has already
been called by a second name Jehoahaz in chap. xxi. 17 ; it is
merely an error of the pen for Ahaziah, and this name is found
in the versions and some of the MSS. He went down " from
Ramoth, which stands upon an eminence, so that the war was
now carried on by the generals." (Thenius).
V. 7 — 9. Compare the more extended account in 2 Kings,
chaps, ix. and x. (See also the commentary on that passage.
Tr.)

7. Chap. xxii. 10— xxiii. 21.
athaliah, ahaziah's mother.
Vv. 10 — 12. Athaliah seizes upon the government. Compare
2 Kings xi. 1—3.
Chap, xxiii. 1 — 11. Jehoiada caused Joash to be proclaimed
king. Compare 2 Kings xi. 4 — 12.
Vv. 12 — 15. Athaliah comes to the temple, and is murdered
outside the gates. Compare 2 Kings xi. 13 — 16.
Vv. 16 — 21. Oath of fidelity to Jehovah administered; Joash is
conducted to the palace in solemn procession. Compare 2 Kings
xi. 17-20.
(For chap. xxii. 10— xxiii. 21, see the commentary on
2 Kin^s xi. 1—20).

chapter xxiv. 1—21. 403
8. Chap. xxiv.
joash.
Vv. 1 — 4. Compare 2 Kings xii. 1 —3. — Vv. 4 — 14. Tlie restor
ation of the temple and preparation of the- necessary furniture.
Compare 2 Kings xii. 4 — 16. (See the commentary on Kings.
Tr.) Vv. 15 — 22. — Death of Jehoiada and apostasy of the people;
appearance of the prophet Zechariah and his death. — V. 15.
According to 2 Kings xii. 7, Jehoiada was still engaged in
building the temple in the twenty-third year of Joash, hence the
events narrated here must belong to the later years of his reign.
— V. 17. They bowed before the king, i.e. they presented their
request in the most obsequious manner, that he would allow
them to worship idols. And the weak-minded king did not
venture to refuse the petition of the princes of Judah. It is not
stated that he worshipped idols himself; he is only blamed for
not strictly maintaining the worship of Jehovah. There was
wrath (from Jehovah) upon Judah and Jerusalem; see chap.
xxix. 8.— V. 19. Compare Nehem. ix. 26— 29.— V. 20. Of the
many prophets, who are said in v. 19 to have been sent by God
into the midst of Israel, Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada the high
priest, is the only one named. Under the power of prophetic
inspiration he announced the punishment of God upon the faith
less nation, and, by the command of the king, was stoned in the
court of the temple. This is the Zechariah, who is called in
Matth. xxiii. 35 the son of Barachiah, (cf. Luke xi. 51) Above
the people ; he stood, as we may infer from v. 21 and Matt, xxiii.
35, and addressed the people from the inner court, which was
somewhat elevated, and thus he was raised above the people,
who were assembled in the outer court. And wherefore do ye
not wish to prosper, this is the proper rendering of the imperfect
with ^y ; if they desired prosperity, they must observe the con
dition of prosperity, fidelity towards Jehovah. On the last.
clause see chap. xii. 5, xv. 2. The fulfilment of the threat is
described in v. 24. — V. 21. The subject of the verbs is under
stood : the princes and the people. In the court of the temple ;
2 C 2

404 chapter xxiv. 22—24.
the spot is more minutely described in the New Testament,
namely between the temple and the altar, hence he was stoned
close to the temple in a place that was peculiarly holy. — V. 22.
" But slew his son ;" Joash is described as the murderer, because
his command (v. 21) rendered him guilty of the death of the son
of Jehoiada. " The Lord look upon it and avenge it ;" this pre
diction, which was uttered in the form of a wish, was afterwards
fulfilled (v. 25 seq.).
Vv. 23 — 26. Infliction of the punishments announced by Zecha
riah (compare 2 Kings xii. 18 — 22). — Vv. 23, 24. A small army
of Syrians defeated the numerous army of Joash. Many of the
earlier expositors and Thenius assume, that the account given in
these verses refers to a totally different occurrence from that
described in 2 Kings xii. 18 seq. This is possible, but by no
means probable. As neither the Book of Kings nor that of
Chronicles refers to more than one campaign of the Syrians, in
which the southern kingdom was thoroughly worsted, it is natural
to assume that both accounts refer to the same campaign, especi
ally as they complete each other in a most appropriate manner.
For it is a priori probable, that Joash did not purchase peace by
means of the heavy sacrifices, described in 2 Kings, till after a
shameful defeat, and of this we have an account in the Chronicles
alone. Moreover, the price paid for this peace explains the fact
that the Syrians retired without prosecuting their victory further.
— n2t£M nsipn'? ¦ that is, a year after Zechariah's death, when
the recollection of that event must have been fresh in the minds
of the people, and when, therefore, there was no room to doubt
that the invasion of the Syrians was the punishment of their
apostasy, which he had predicted. To Jerusalem ; they came
near the city to besiege it. They destroyed all the princes of ihe
people from the people ; the punishment fell upon the princes as
the originators of the apostasy (v. 17). Tyyft has been left un
translated by the Vulgate and Syriac, the Septuagint has iv tw
Aop ; according to Ps. lxxxix. 20 the word is added to show that
they were singled out from the body of the people, the people
generally being spared. The spoil of them ; as part of the spoil
we may include the treasures which Joash is said in the Book of
Kings to have handed over to the Syrians. — Darmesek, cf. chap.
xvi. 2. — V. 24. On the other hand a small number of pious

chapter xxiv. 24—27. 405
Israelites had formerly defeated the very large army of the
Ethiopians, chap. xiv. 10 seq. — And they executed judgment on
Joash ; in other cases the preposition beth is employed in such a
connection (e.g., Ezek. v. 10, 15), here p|^ is used (Hke niyj?
p\N n31t0 1 Sam. xxiv. 19) : to execute judgment with, or at a
person. These words refer to the disease and pain, with which
Joash was afflicted. He had probably been wounded in the
battle. — V. 25. And when they departed from him— for (he did
not perish in the fight, as he deserved, but) they left him in great
pain, Ms own servants conspired against him, &c. Instead of the
sons of Jehoiada we must read " the son of Jehoiada" according
to the text. This reading is adopted in the Septuagint and Vul
gate. The Makkeph has been altered by mistake into Yod. And
slew him ; they murdered him as a just retribution for having
murdered Zechariah (cf. v. 22). They slew the sick monarch
in his bed, according to 2 Kings in the Millo house. They buried
him in the rity of David, but did not bury him in the sepulchres of
the Kings ; in Kings we read, " they buried him by his fathers in
the city of David." The two accounts are not at variance with
each other; he was buried in the city of David, where his
fathers were also buried, but not in the sepulchres of the kings.
The design of the historian is to point out the fact that the
king, who had permitted the apostasy from Jehovah and was
guilty of the murder of Zechariah, was not thought worthy of the
honour of resting in the sepulchres of the kings. — The names of
the conspirators were Jozakar and Jehozabad according to
2 Kings, the former is called the son of Shimeath, who is de
scribed in this passage as an Ammonitess, the other was the son
of Shomer, or, as it is spelt in this passage, the son of Shimrith
the Moabitess. — V. 27. The Keri ^i would have to be inter
preted thus : and as regards his sons, may the utterance con
cerning him be increased, which might mean, may the wish
expressed by the dying Zechariah (v. 22) be fulfilled in them in
a still higher degree than in the case of his father. A later
reader might look for some such meaning as this in the words,
but it is evident tbat they are to be taken in a different sense.
The Syriac and Septuagint (the latter read, instead of NtW3!"J>
ntt>DH five) deviate very far from the Hebrew text, whereas the
Vulgate follows it exactly. We render the passage thus : and

406 CHAPTER XXV. 1  5.
his sons and the multitude (Kethib 3^",) of the prophetic utterances
with regard to him and the founding of the temple, behold they are
written, fyc. His sons must have been celebrated for their deeds
or their fate (cf. v. 3). — yby N1W3 has been referred by-some
to the tribute imposed upon him (2 Kings xii. 19) ; by others to
the money which came in from the " collection (pi^toft) °f
Moses upon Israel," vv. 6 and 9 (but here we have yfjy not ^y
b&'w) 5 hy others again, according to 2 Kings ix. 25 and the
fixed meaning of the word fr$^j3, to prophetic utterances. If
there were such prophetic utterances in the work quoted here,
this would explain the reference made by the historian in v. 19
to prophets in the time of Joash.

9. Chap. xxv.
amaziah.
Vv. 1 — 4. Compare 2 Kings xiii. 1 — 6. (See the commen
tary on Kings).
Vv. 5 — 10. Amaziah' s preparations for ivar ; he hires mercenary
troops from the northern kingdom, but sends them away again in
consequence of the warnings of a prophet. These notices, which
are not found in the Book of Kings, form the introduction to the
accounts in vv. 11 — 13. — V. 5. He arranged them (i.e. the
whole of Judah and Benjamin) by fathers'-houses, according to
the princes of the thousands and the princes of the hundreds. The
members of the different fathers'-houses were first formed into
companies under the princes of the thousands and hundreds.
The words " all Judah and Benjamin," which are shown to be in
the accusative by the preposition " lamed" are put in apposition
to the accusative suffix in QTiftjpT (Angl. " and made them").
The number of warriors in the time of Jehoshaphat (chap. xvii.
14 — 19) was much larger; according to the passage before us
Amaziah collected together 300,000 heavy armed soldiers. Over
the same number of ^ipj 1^33, whom we may suppose to have
been heavy armed in distinction from the archers, Adna held
the command in the time of Jehoshaphat, and besides him four
other leaders of large bodies of troops are named. The great

CHAPTER XXV. 5 — 11. 407
difference in the numbers may perhaps be explained from the
fact, that iu this passage it was not intended to give the total
number of the troops. It must also be borne in mind, as earlier
expositors have suggested, that since the days of Jehoshaphat the
southern kingdom had been engaged in disastrous wars, and hence
in Amaziah's time could not have been in a position to raise an
equally numerous army. — V. 7. With Israel; to prevent misun
derstanding the clause, " with all the sons of Ephraim," is placed
afterwards in apposition. — V. 8. The versions give only a gene
ral notion of the contents of this verse, so that we cannot tell
whether the translators had our present Hebrew text before them
or not. The text, as we now have it, is quite unintelligible, for
(1) the antithetical clause which is introduced with the words 13
Qk$ can only mean : but do thou come, thou alone, and not the
mercenary soldiers of the northern kingdom with thee ; (2)
the injunction pjpj implies, that the king was to take courage
and trust in God, and not in the hired troops ; but, if the
king yielded to the prophet's injunction, the prospect held
out to him could not have been : God will bring thee into
a snare, but, be will not lead thee into a snare. Hence
we must adopt Ewald 's suggestion and insert tfy\ in the text :
but do thou come alone, act, be strong (show thyself strong)
with regard to the war, and God will not bring thee into a snare.
The arbitrary conjecture, that we are to supply : " but if thou wilt
go to the war with the hired troops, God will bring thee into a
snare," is not sufficient, for in that case we should have to com
plete the sense of the opening words of the verse by adding : and
God will not bring thee into a snare. — V. 10. *Tn3i"T^> an accu-
sative with lamed, in apposition to the suffix in O^i-qi^ (cf. v. 5) ¦
be separated them, the troops, away from his army. They went
home full of wrath, and then afterwards invaded the southern
kingdom (v. 13) destroying and plundering as they went.
Vv. 11, 12. War with Edom (cf. 2 Kings xiv. 7).— V. 11.
" Strengthened himself, chap. xv. 8. — The valley of salt ; to the
south of the Dead Sea, cf. 1 Chr. xviii. 12. — The statement that
ten thousand of the Edomitish prisoners were thrown down from
the top of a rock is only found in the Chronicles ; on the other
hand the fact that Sela, the capital of Edom, was taken by.
the Jews at this time is only noticed in the Book of Kings.

408 CHAPTER XXV. 12—28.
In opposition to the conjecture, that the account contained in
the Chronicles originated in the attempt to restore the illegible
text of the Book of Kings (Thenius), it is sufficient to say that
the change would be very great indeed, as the words employed
in the text of the Chronicles, if we except the word jpjg, do not
correspond to those of the passage in Kings, either in their
sound or in the number of their letters. Should it be said,
however, that the passage might have been taken, not from the
text of our Books of Kings, but possibly from the same source
as the account in Kings, though after the text had become
illegible, the one conjecture would only rest upon the other,
without gaining any force in consequence. The war with the
hateful Edomites cannot have been carried on without cruelty,
and there is no reason to doubt that the historian may have
found in the sources he employed some more minute particulars
of the events connected with the war. Of course we must not
lay too much stress upon the round number ten thousand.
V. 13. The soldiers of the northern kingdom invade the country.
After the relative clause, the narrative is carried forward in the
imperfect with vav conseq., the subject being placed first for the
sake of emphasis ; and the men belonging to the company (men
tioned in v. 10) .... they invade, &c, cf. Gen. xxii. 24.
The cities of Judah from Samaria to Beth-horon, a singular des
cription of the cities in the northern parts of the kingdom of
Judah, which must be explained as meaning : all the cities of
Judah, which stood in the line of march from Samaria to Beth-
horon. Hence Samaria is mentioned as the starting-point of
the invading army, not as the boundary line of the cities of
Judah. On the site of Beth-horon, see 1 Chr. vii. 24. The
attack upon the northern cities of Judah was probably made
when Amaziah was absent with his army in Edom.
Vv. 14 — 16. Amaziah introduces the Edomitish idolatry, and
repulses with harsh words a prophet who blames him for doing so.
V. 15. cf. chap, xxxii. 13. — V. 16. The question, have we ap
pointed thee a counsellor to the king, calls forth the appropriate
reply : 1 know that God hath taken counsel to destroy thee,
because thou hast done this (the worship of the Edomitish idols
is referred to here) and hast not hearkened to my counsel.
Vv. 17 — 28. Disastrous war with Joash, the king of the

CHAPTER XXVI. 1, 2. 409
northern kingdom, and conclusion. Compare 2 Kings xiv. 8 — 20;
(See the commentary on Kings, Vol. ii. p. 12 — 15).

10. Chap. xxvi.
uzziah.
Vv. 1—4. (Compare 2 Kings xiv. 21—22, xv. 2, 3)  V. 1.
Uzziah is the name always given to this king in the present
chapter, and in the Books of the Prophets Amos, Hosea, and
Isaiah. In the Chronicles he is only once called Azariah, 1
Chr. iii. 12. In the second Book of Kings we find the name
Uzziah in chap. xv. 13, 30, 32, 34, and Azariah in every other
passage, e.g. chap. xiv. 21, xv. 1. It has been supposed that
Azariah was his original name, and that the name Uzziah was
either assumed when he ascended the throne (compare Jehoahaz
and Ahaziah, 2 Chr. xxi. 17, and xxii. 1) or given to him by his
soldiers after a prosperous war (Thenius). But, as we find a
descendant of Kohath, who is called both Uzziah and Azariah
(1 Chr. vi. 9 and 21), and a descendant of Heman named
Uzziel, and also Azarel (1 Chr. xxv. 4 and 18), it is more na
tural to suppose that the names were used interchangeably as
having almost the same meaning. — It is expressly stated, that
the whole nation took Uzziah, who was sixteen years old, and
made him king, from which we are probably to infer, that there
was a first-born son of Amaziah, whom they passed over when
the choice was made. — V. 2. It is singular that the account of
the fortification of the port of Eloth on the Red Sea, which Uz
ziah restored to the kingdom of Judah (chap, xxxiii. 13), is
placed before the chronological notices in v. 3, not only here,
but in the Book of Kings, where we regularly find the chronolo
gical accounts ofthe commencement and duration of the reigns
ofthe different kings placed first. This position might have
been chosen either on account of the importance attached to the
conquest of Eloth, or from the desire of the historian to intro
duce Uzziah to his readers as the king, who was known to them
as the conqueror of Eloth (n33 Nirt ^e *5 the king, who built).
Thenius assumes, as an explanation, that the conquest of Eloth

410 chapter xxvi. 2—4.
occurred in the early part of his reign (this is certainly intimated
in the clause " after that the king slept with his fathers"), and
that it was associated with the murder of Amaziah and the choice
of Uzziah as king. The possession of Eloth was of such import
ance to Uzziah, that he fortified the city. It could only be as a
port that it was important, and hence it is probable that in his
time voyages were made by Israelitish nerchants to the coun
tries of the East, as in the time of Solomon. — V. 4. On the
announcement that he did right according to the judgment of
Jehovah, like his father Amaziah, see chap. xxv. 2. The esti
mate of Uzziah's character in v. 5 differs somewhat from that in
2 Kings, being restricted to the assertion that he sought Jeho
vah as long as Zechariah Hved. By this limitation the historian
explains the fact, that a king, who is described in vv. 16 — 21 as
rashly encroaching upon the rights ofthe priests, was yet able to
wage the most prosperous wars, and received the assistance of
God in his undertakings, lyy^ TPl* the infinitive with lamed
is here connected with the verb pppf, to describe a continued
action, in the same manner as the participle ; cf. chap. xxxi. 21,
(he did that which was right . . . seeking his God). When
Zechariah is described as a prophet, in the words " who under
stood the sight of God" (cf. Dan. i. 17), we must understand the
sight of God as denoting that intercourse with God, which was
the condition of prophetic activity ; still tbere is something strik
ing in the expression he understood the sight of God, for the sight
of God, which was granted to the prophets only in moments of
the highest inspiration, cannot be regarded as the effect of human
culture or activity. Moreover this expression is not used anywhere
else as a description of a prophet. There arises therefore a suspi
cion as to the correctness ofthe reading. Some of the MSS. have
a different reading, and that of the text is not adopted in the ver
sions, or in the earlier writings of the Jews. The Septuagint,
Targum, Syriac, Arabic, Talmud, R. Salomo, Jarchi, Kimchi,
and others, read QippNn nN"Y3 t^ftn* wh° was a teacher in
the fear of God. In some of the MSS. we find pfiN-^3 an<^
n^Tl' c^r de Rossi var. lect. The Zechariah mentioned here
is not known to us any further ; we may therefore conclude that
he was a celebrated prophet, who stood to Uzziah in the relation
of a counsellor and teacher.

chapter xxvi. 6 — 10. 411
Vv. 6 — 15. Prosperous ivars, buildings and warlike power of
Uzziah. — V. 6. Jabneh, which is here mentioned in connection
with Gath and Ashdod as a city of the Philistines, was probably
the same place as the Jabneel spoken of in Josh. xv. 11, as a
city in the province of Judah ; after the time of the Maccabees
it is frequently mentioned under the name of Jamnia. In Ash
dod ; i.e., in the district of Ashdod and in the other districts of
the Philistines. — V. 7. The place called Gur-baal occurs no
where else ; it is rendered in the Septuagint iirl t-jj? 7reTp<x?,
probably because the translators were thinking of Sela, the capi
tal of the Edomites ; according to the Targum it was the well
known city of Gerar. — V. 8. Instead of " the Ammonites," the
Septuagint has ol Mivaloi, but there is no reason to question the
correctness of our reading, as there are other proofs that the power
of Uzziah extended over the countries to the east of the Jordan,
cf. v. 10. " To the entering in" (Judg. iii. 3) ; his name reached
as far as the boundary of Egypt ; this does not mean that his fame
had spread as far as this, but that his kingdom touched the
Egyptian frontier. The Hiphil pifpin is use& here, as in Dan.
xi. 7, 32, with the meaning to exercise power, to be victorious. —
V. 9. The corner gate, (cf. chap. xxv. 23) probably at the north
west corner of the city ; the valley-gate, on the western side,
wThere the Joppa-gate now stands (cf. Thenius, die Stadt § 4).
jjljjpftp!, the springing corner, must be looked for, according to
Nehem. iii. 19, 20 and 24, 25, on the eastern side of Zion (see
Thenius § 5), and refers to a curve in the city wall. The tower
at this point commanded the horse-gate, and thus defended Zion
and the temple-hill also against an attack from the south-east.
DDtn>,1 and he put the towers ina state of defence, v. 15, cf. chap.
xi. 11. — V. 10. He built towers in the desert, in the district to
the south-east of Jerusalem, on the west ofthe Dead Sea. The
towers in this district, which was adapted for grazing, were in
tended to protect the cattle. For he had many herds in the desert
just referred to (as the previous clause evidently implies), and
in the lowlands between the mountains of Judah and the Medi
terranean Sea (1 Chr. xxvii. 28), and in the plain on the other
side of the Jordan in the province of Reuben (Deut. iv. 43 ;
Josh. xx. 8; Jer. xlviii. 21). As the situation of the plain is
not more minutely described, we can only suppose it to have

412 CHAPTEK XXVI. 11 — 15.
been the district on the east of the Jordan, which is called pre
eminently the plain. It is evident from Is. xvi. 1 that at this time
the kings of the southern kingdom ruled over the countries to the
east ofthe Jordan (cf. 1 Chr. v. 17). By the Carmel, as distin
guished from the bills, on which the vineyards were, we must
understand the local districts adapted for agriculture, cf. Is. xxix.
17 ; Jer. ii. 7 (cf. 1 Chr. xxvii. 25— 31).— V. 11. -p-^ in
crowds, in organised masses. The numbering was carried out by
two officers who were skilled in writing and in the preparation
of lists ; these officers were placed under (yi bv) Hananiah, who
was one of the king's supreme officers. — V. 12. The number of
the heads of the fathers'-houses, the number of the military heroes
was two thousand six hundred ; hence the army was divided into
fathers'-houses, so that each father's house formed a distinct body.
— The heads of the fathers'-houses are distinguished from the
rest of the men as miHtary heroes. — V. 13. ^ip| pj33' not with
the power of an army, but with mighty power, the notion of power
being greatly strengthened by the addition of the word chail;
the same gradation is expressed in Zech. iv. 6 by the juxtaposi
tion of the two words. To help ; the verb with lamed is also met
within chap. xix. 2. — V. 14. For them; namely for the whole
army. This is afterwards added to render it more emphatic. The
whole army was thoroughly equipped. Shields, lances, helmets,
and coats of mail were provided for the heavy armed troops, bows
and stones for slings for the light armed. The lamed before 133^
is a sign of the accusative, and is attached to the noun on account
of its distance from the verb. The stones for slinging are cer
tainly mentioned to show the completeness of the equipment, but
the lamed does not mean even to, or and even the stones for slinging.
— V. 15. pfi33tt}pf> W1th the dagesh in the ^,and therefore derived
from a singular fi32jp| (I'DtlJn in Eccl. vii. 25, 27 has a different
meaning), according to the explanatory clause the cunning work
of an artificer, and according to the description given here cleverly
constructed machines for slinging. The subject to the verb ^i^sn
is not God, as in Ps. xxxi. 22, but Uzziah, he was helped in a
marvellous manner so that he became strong.
Vv. 16 — 21. At the very moment, in which ihe king is about to
usurp the priestly rights, notwithstanding the opposition of the priests,
the leprosy shows itself in his forehead. In 2 Kings xv. 5 it is

CHAPTER XXVI. 16—21. 413
merely stated that God smote the king, and he was a leper till
the day of his death. Josephus (Ant. 9. 10. 4) carries out the
account still further, and states that the earthquake, which is men
tioned in Amos i. 1 as occurring in the time of Uzziah, happened
at the very moment when Uzziah resisted the priests, and also
that the leprosy was caused by a ray of the sun which came
through a crack in the roof of the temple and fell upon Uzziah's
face. — V: 16. The word 1]^ptn3 connects this account with the
foregoing one, which closes with the same verb in v. 15. His
heart was so proud that he did wickedly ; cf. chap, xxvii. 2. He
went into the large hali*of the temple to offer a burnt-offering
upon the golden altar, contrary to the law contained in Num.
xviii. 1 — 7. Thenius is of opinion that Uzziah wanted to restore
the high-priesthood exercised by David and Solomon ; Ewald
(Alterthiimer p. 277) also expresses the same opinion. Accord
ing to our view, which we have not room to defend, David and
Solomon certainly took the lead in religious festivals on special
occasions, but did not discharge those official duties, which,
according to the precepts of the law, belonged to the priests alone
(cf. Hitzig Psalmen ii. p. 175). — V. 17. Azariah the priest is
expressly described in v. 20 as the high priest at that time ; but
in the list of high priests 1 Chr. v. 27 — 41 (in which Amariah,
the contemporary of King Jehoshaphat is mentioned, so as to
furnish a chronological starting-point) we find no Azariah who
could have lived in the time of Uzziah. Valiant men; so called
because they were courageous enough to oppose the king. — V. 18.
And it does not redound to thine honour before Jehovah Elohim ; ^y,
where we generally find "ji^, appears to have been chosen on
account of the <^y $}y, which immediately precedes it before the
infinitive with lamed (thou durst not burn incense !) — V. 19. Be
side the altar of incense; the words "from beside'' are used
because we are to imagine the king and the priests standing
before the altar. — V. 21. In the infirmary (Krankenhaus), see
Thenius on 2 Kings xv. 5 ; compare the law in Lev. xiii. 46 ;
Num. v. 2. The reason assigned here, "for he was shut out from
the house of Jehovah," is not given in 2 Kings ; it must mean
that, because he was declared unclean and durst not come into
the temple, he was obliged to withdraw from intercourse with
others, and to live in the infirmary. During the illness of the

414 CHAPTER XXVI. 22 — XXVII. 2.
king, Jotham was set over the king's house, i.e. he was prime
minister, and in this capacity he judged the people of the land
as ruler on behalf of the king.
Vv. 22, 23. Conclusion ; compare 2 Kings xv. 6, 7. The
earlier and later ; chap. xxv. 26 ; 1 Chr. xxix. 29. — V. 23.
Instead of " in the city of David," which we find in 2 Kings, we
have here the words, " in the burial ground belonging to the kings,
for they said, he is a leper ;" he was buried, therefore, near the
sepulchre of the kings (by his fathers), as they durst not bury a
king, who had died from leprosy, in the sepulchre itself for fear
of polluting it.

11. Chap, xxvii.
JOTHAM.
Vv. 1 — 4. Compare 2 Kings xv. 32 — 35. — V. 1. Jerushah,
his mother, was probably the daughter of the high priest Zadok
mentioned in 1 Chr. v. 38. — V. 2. The exception, " only he
entered not into the temple of Jehovah" is wanting in 2 Kings,
where there is also no notice of Uzziah's entering the temple ;
the further limitation, " and the people still did wickedly" means
the same as the passage in 2 Kings, " only the high places were
not taken away," &c. The words, " he built the upper gate of tlie
house of Jehovah," are found in the brief extract in Kings, but
the account of the other buildings we find only in the Chronicles.
The upper gate of the temple is certainly the upper gate, which
was situated towards the north (Ezek. ix. 2) and which, according
to the representations in Ezek. viii., led into the upper or inner
court. In Jer. xx. 2, it is called the upper gate of Benjamin,
which is in the temple. It was called the upper gate, not to
distinguish it from the other gates of the inner court, which
were on the same level with it, but probably because it was
situated towards the north, towards that part of the temple hill,
which was the upper as compared with the southern portion.
There is good reason to doubt, whether it was called the upper
gate because it was the chief, as Thenius supposes, for we seek
in vain for any adjective, which would express the antithesis to

CHAPTER XXVII. 2 — XXVIII. 4. 415
Yv?y in this sense, and would be employed with reference to a
gate or a building. He built the gate ; these words are not to be
understood as denoting the erection of a gate, which was not
previously in existence, but the restoration and beautifying of an
old gate. As it was situated towards the north, the holy quarter,
and was the principal entrance, this may have led Jotham to
think it necessary to embellish it with architectural ornaments.
And on the ivall of the Aphel, the southern slope of the temple-
hill, he built much, feeling the same desire as his father (chap.
xxvi. 9) to secure the city and the temple against attacks from
the south and east. In the wooded hills, i.e. on the summits of
the mountains of Judah, where fortified cities could not be built,
he erected castles (chap. xvii. 12) and towers.
V. 5 seq. Successful war with the Ammonites. — V. 5. They
brought him tribute again both in the second and also in ihe third
year. — V. 6. He fortified himself, that is, according to v. 7, he
secured his throne by other prosperous wars. For he made his
ways firm (Prov. xxi. 29), he walked firmly and modestly before
Jehovah. Vv. 7—9. Conclusion, cf. 2 Kings xv. 36— 38.— V. 8. The
repetition of the chronological notices already given in v. 1 may
possibly be explained on the assumption that the historian found
them in one of the sources, which he employed, at the commence
ment of the history of Jotham, and in another at the end. In
v. 37 of the Book of Kings, the position of which answers to
that of the present verse, it is stated that in the time of Jotham
the war between the allied kings, Rezin and Pekah, and the
nation of Judah had already broken out.
12. Chap, xxviii.
ahaz.
V. 1 — 4. Compare 2 Kings xvi. 1 — 4. See the commentary
on Kings, Vol. ii. 34—40.
Vv. 5 — 16. War with Rezin, king of Aram, and Pekah, king of
the northern kingdom; cf. 2 Kings xvi. 5, and Is. vii. 1. The
attempt to determine the relation in which the different accounts

416 CHAPTER XXVIII. 5 — 16.
stand to one another, has led to various results. Expositors are
not agreed as to whether the description in the Book of Kings
and that in Isaiah relate to the campaign, of which we have an
account in the Chronicles. Of those who answer this question
in the negative some are of opinion, that the account in Kings
and Isaiah refers to the first campaign, and that in the Chronicles
to the second ; others, on the contrary, regard the latter as a
description of the first campaign, and the former of the second.
A very complete list ofthe representatives ofthe different opinions
is given by Caspari in his work iiber den syrisch-ephraimiti-
schen Krieg p. 28, 29. His own opinion is that the Book of
Kings and the passage in Isaiah treat of the same campaign as
the Chronicles. The order of events he supposes to have been
the following : the allied kings invade Judah (2 Kings xvi.
5 a) ; a great battle is fought between Pekah and Ahaz to the
north of Jerusalem (2 Chr. xxviii. 5) ; Rezin fights with Ahaz
in Idumsea (2 Chr. xxviii. 5 a ; this result is said to be obtained
from a comparison of 2 Chr. v. a and 2 Kings xvi. 6 !) ; the
Jews taken prisoners by the two kings, both during and after the
engagements, and the plunder collected by them, are sent away
to their capitals in charge of a division of the army (2 Chr.
xxviii. 5, 8, 12) ; and with the remaining troops they make an
ineffectual attempt to besiege Jerusalem (2 Kings xvi. 56). But if
this were adopted as the order of events, we should have to assume
that the foUowing, to say the least, very complicated movements
were made by the armies : first, that both armies advanced
into Judah, then that a division took place and two battles were
fought with divided forces, one to the north of Jerusalem, the
other in Idumaea ; and that after this the two armies reunited for
the purpose of besieging Jerusalem. The following arrangement
appears much more simple : it is probable that one or more
battles were fought anterior to the siege of Jerusalem, and there
is nothing to hinder us from assuming, that a reference is made
to these battles in v. 5, and that Ahaz, who was defeated in them
all, found it necessary to retreat to Jerusalem. When the royal
conquerors approached Jerusalem to besiege it, Ahaz and his
people looked forward to their approach with trembling, Is. vii. 2.
But the allied kings were unable to take the city, and Rezin
marched round the southern point of the Dead Sea into the land

CHAPTER XXVIII. 5—9. 417
of Edom, 2 Kings xvi. 6. (In 2 Kings xvi. 6 Rezin alone is
named, but it does not follow from this, that Pekah had gone
away from him with his army, since the historian might attri
bute to Rezin, as the leader of the enterprise, that which had
really been effected by the joint exertions of Rezin and Pekah).
It is true that if we may arrange the events in this order, the
question is not therefore decided, whether they all occurred
in the campaign of a single summer. As it is expressly stated in 2
Kings xv. 37, that the war with the allied kings broke out during
Jotham's reign, it is a very natural conclusion that the whole
war was not confined to one summer or one campaign. Even
the elaborate researches of Caspari fail to prove, that all the
notices must refer to the events of the same campaign. — V. 5.
13 i3i>) (cf. v. 17) they effected a defeat in him, i.e., in his army ;
so also y^ftft from, him, i.e., from his army. — V. 6. So great a
loss as the death of 120,000 soldiers in one day could not have
befallen the inhabitants of the southern kingdom from any other
cause, than because they had forsaken Jehovah the God of their
fathers; this is clearly stated in chap. xv. 2. — V. 7. Among
those who fell was a king's son, probably an elder member of the
royal house, as the sons of Ahaz were still very young and can
hardly have taken part in the battle ; a prince of the house, that
is, not a prince of the house of God, chap. xxxi. 13, 1 Chr. ix.
11, but a superior officer of the royal house ; and a prime minis
ter (cf. Esther x. 3. 1 Sam. xxiii. 17) ; they were all three
slain by Zikri a hero of the northern kingdom. — V. 8. Of their
brethren ; this term is emphatically applied to the inhabitants of
the southern kingdom both here and in v. 11 ; the soldiers of
the northern kingdom did not scruple to take the wives, sons,
and daughters of their brethren captive. — V. 9. The prophet
Oded, concerning whom we have no further information, went
to meet the army, which was returning with the prisoners and
the booty, as Azariah ben Oded, chap. xv. 2, went to meet Asa.
On account of the anger of Jehovah — towards Judah, Jehovah
hath given them into your hand ; ye have not gained the victory
by your own power, and therefore ye ought to have shown
yourselves gentle towards those with whom Jehovah was angry ;
but ye have slain among them in a rage, which reaches to heaven,
i.e. not in a rage without bounds, but in a rage which God will
VOL. II. 2 D

418 cnAPTER xxviii. 10— 15.
not suffer to go unpunished, cf. Ezra ix. 6. The words of this
verse remind us of Is. x. 6 seq  V. 10. Tbe accusative, and
now the sons of Judah and Jerusalem, is placed before the verb
for the sake of emphasis ; these, your brethren, from whom
Jehovah has withdrawn his aid for a short time, "ye think to
enslave'' In this spirited address tbe word Qp)^, which is placed
first, points to the suffix in Q3)3}? : are there not, as regards you,
yes among you, sins against Jehovah ? — V. 11. As the measure
of their iniquity was filled by their taking the wives and others
captive, so could the wrath of God, the fearful judgment which
was suspended over them, only be averted by sending back the
captives. — V. 12. The names of the four men are only men
tioned here ; according to v. 14 the princes at the head of the
whole congregation opposed those who were coming from the
army. — V. 13. pnrp n?3WN> a crime which must excite the
anger of Jehovah, see v. 10; for in order that an offence of
Jehovah may come upon us, ye think (ye intend) to add to our
sins, &c, i.e., according to v. 10, to bring upon yourselves the
further sin of making the captives your servants and maids. — V.
14. The armed men; i.e. those who were sent to bring the prisoners
to Samaria. The spoil; chap. xiv. 13. — V. 15. By the men,
who were mentioned by name, we need not understand the four
men referred to just before (cf. chap. xxxi. 19 ; 1 Chr. xvi. 41).
From the plunder ; sc. which had been taken in Judah (v. 8).
They anointed them, for they wished them to return home, not
Hke the mourners mentioned in 2 Sam xiv. 2, but in a joyous
procession. VttflD b^hr an accusative of which lamed is the
sign : they conducted them upon asses, not all of them, but only
every one who stumbled, that is, who was weary. Jericho the
palm city (see Judges iii. 1 6) was in the southern kingdom, and
therefore when the prisoners reached this city they had come to
the side of their brethren. — This account of the defeat of Ahaz
and the release of the captive women and children rests, as the
names show, upon precise historical reminiscences. The historian
presents the occurrence in such a Hght, that the reader may see
in it an example of the way in which, according to the will
of God as made known by the prophet, the inhabitants of the
northern kingdom were always bound to act ; but that which
happened in the time of Ahaz, was to occur again, as Is. xliii. 5, 6,

CHAPTER XXVIII. 16— 21. 419
and lx. 3 sqq. and other similar passages show, on a much larger
and more glorious scale at the time of the great redemption. We
see at once from the words themselves with what pleasure the
historian dwells upon this event. He describes it in his own
way, and gives the substance of the addresses of Oded and the
princes in his own words. — V. 16. The general expression " at
this time " shows that the application for help was made during
the war with Syria and Ephraim. The kings ; in all the ancient
versions have the singular. We regard the singular as the
original reading. Caspari (p. 44) supposes that the plural was
intentionally chosen by our historian, who regarded the Assyrian
kingdom or empire as represented or displayed in a concrete form
by the line of Assyrian kings.
Vv. 17 — 21. Judah invaded by the Edomites and Philistines ;
oppressed by the Assyrians. — V. 17. The invasion of Judah can
hardly have been attempted by the Edomites, till after Rezin
had delivered them from the power of Judah, to which they had
again been subjected since the days of Uzziah, (cf. 2 Kings xvi.
6 where, instead of Aram and the Aramaeans, we should read
Edom and the Edomites). — V. 18. Gimzo, according to Robinson
now called Jimsu, a large village on the road from Lydda to
Beth-horon. — V. 19. Ahaz is called here King of Israel, not
because he acted as if he had been a king of the northern king
dom rather than the king of Judah, nor yet from irony, because
his reign was the bitterest satire upon the name of " King of
Israel, the people of God" (Caspari); but Israel is rather to be
considered here, as in v. 27, chap. xii. 6, xxi. 2, &c, as a term
applied, according to well-known usage, to that portion of the
Israelitish people which dwelt in the southern kingdom. yi*i3p|>
used in Ex. v. 4 with the accusative of the object, here written
with beth in the sense : " he had acted in a licentious manner in
Judah," not, he had made the people of Judah licentious.— V. 20.
yfyy ^311, as the following words show, can only denote a
coming in a hostile sense. pfp| sVl must he explained from
Jer. xx. 7, and 1 Kings xvi. 22, as meaning : arid did not over
come him ; if the usual interpretation, " and strengthened him
not," or, " did not assist him," were correct, the verb chazak would
be construed here with the accusative in a sense which it cannot
be shown to bear anywhere else. — V. 21. p^n according to the
1 2d2

420 CHAPTER XXVIII. 21.
earlier expositors to divide, with the meaning : he took one part
from the temple and another from the king's house ; but the ex
pression " he divided the temple," could not be paraphrased in
such a way as this. We agree with Gesenius and others, who
regard the word as meaning to plunder, though this is the only
passage in which it is so employed ; compare the substantive p^n*
There are other similar passages, in which the temple and the
king's house are spoken of (e.g. chap. xii. 9, xvi. 2, and 1 Kings
xvi. 8) ; in the passage before us the latter is called the house of
the king and the princes, probably because the intention of the
writer was to show, that Ahaz seized upon the valuables belong
ing to the superior officers and others, who lived in the king's
palace, and gave them up to the king of Assyria. But in what
relation does the account here given stand to that contained in the
Second Book of Kings ? According to the Book of Kings the
circumstances were as follows : — Ahaz solicited help from king
Tiglath-Pileser, sent him silver and gold, and Tiglath-Pileser
assisted him by going to war with the king of Damascus.
According to the accounts in the Chronicles Ahaz applied to the
king of Assyria for help in the time of the Syrio-Ephraimitish
war (v. 1 6), but the latter inarched against Ahaz himself,
pressed him sore, but did not overcome him, for though Ahaz
had sent treasures to Tilgath-Pilneser, this did him no good, i.e.
in spite of the treasures Tilgath-Pilneser attacked him (v. 20
seq.) The difference between the two accounts is this : accord
ing to both of them Ahaz applied to Tiglath-Pileser for help at
the time of his war with the Syrians and the inhabitants of the
northern kingdom, and also according to both he sent treasures
to Tiglath-Pileser. But in 2 Kings the application is said to
have been successful. Tiglath-Pileser actually rendered assist
ance by the conquest of Damascus ; in the Chronicles, however,
this is passed over in silence. This, in itself, is not at all sur
prising ; but when it is further stated in the Chronicles, that
" Tilgath-Pilneser attacked Ahaz, and, though the latter had
sent him treasures, no help was afforded him," we have here a
different fact communicated from that referred to in the Book
of Kings. We may safely affirm, then, that the statement con
tained in this verse, to the effect that the sending ofthe treasures
did no good to Ahaz, is made with the whole result in view ; and

CHAPTER XXVIII. 21 — 23. 421
that the account in Kings may be brought into harmony with it
in the following manner: though assistance was rendered to
Ahaz for the moment by the conquest of Damascus, the nego
tiations with Tilgath-Pilneser secured him no real help, but
brought upon him eventually calamity and disgrace. We cannot
dismiss the definite statement contained in this verse, that the
calamity consisted in the fact that Tilgath-Pilneser attacked Ahaz
and sorely pressed him, with a simple reference to the rhetorical
character of our narrative as Caspari (p. 70) does, when he says
" the words are not to be taken in a strictly historical sense, but
as_ rhetorical in their character ; they contain a bitter irony ; if
the author had intended to say that Tilgath-Pilneser made a
regular attack upon Ahaz, he would most likely have chosen a
different expression." It is conceivable, that, after the king of
Assyria had rendered the first assistance to Ahaz by the conquest
of Damascus, he was induced to turn against him and attack
him, and that he sent an army, possibly only a flying company
of marauders into the southern kingdom, for the purpose of
extorting tribute. It is true, there is no mention of this in the
Book of Kings (for there is no ground • for the opinion, which
some have expressed, that there is a reference in 2 Kings xvi. 18
to the outbreak of hostilities between Tiglath-Pileser and Ahaz),
but it does not necessarily follow that the account in the Chro
nicles is an arbitrary invention, for the author is just as likely to
have taken the account of the attack made by Tiglath-Pileser
upon the southern kingdom from a source with which we are
unacquainted, as that of the invasion of the Philistines (the his
torical character of which is attested by Is. xiv. 28 sqq. and
2 Kings xviii. 8), or of the Edomites.
Vv. 22, 23. Introduction of Syrian deities. Compare 2 Kings
xvi. 10 — 16, where Ahaz is said to have caused a new altar to
be made in the place of the old brazen altar of burnt-offering,
after the pattern of an altar, which he had seen in Damascus. —
V. 22. I2n3> at the time when he was distressed, i.e. when
Tilgath-Pilneser was oppressing him. He, King Ahaz ; who dis
tinguished himself above every other king by the wickedness he
displayed. V. 23. Who had smitten him ; not only according to
the opinion of Ahaz (so as to mean as if they had smitten him)^
but the historian himself describes them as the most dangerous

422 CHAPTER XXVIII. 24 — XXIX. 3.
enemies that Ahaz had. All Israel ; the judgments which the
Assyrians were commissioned by God to inflict upon Judah are
regarded by the historian as peculiarly the effect of the idolatry
of Ahaz.
Vv. 24, 25. Destruction of the sacred vessels and spread of
idolatrous worship. Compare 2 Kings xvi. 17, 18, where we
read that, on account of the king of Assyria, that is in order to
procure his assistance, Ahaz took away the valuable works of
art from the temple. In the passage before us the rest of the
narrative is omitted, and these circumstances serve as the ground
work of a description of the hatred which Ahaz displayed to the
temple of Jehovah and hfe preference for the rites of the heathen.
— V. 24. Ahaz collected together the vessels ofthe temple and broke
them to pieces, he gathered them together that he might destroy
the whole of them at once ; V^jpvi occurs in the Second Book of
Kings also, where it is used with the meaning " to break off,"
as the context shows. But here it refers to the vessels, which
Were already Collected together, gathered in a heap, and there
fore must have the more general signification : to break in pieces.
He shut the doors of ilte house of Jehovah ; in order, as we gather
from chap. xxix. 3, 7, to put an end, by forcible means, to the
worship of Jehovah in the temple, inasmuch as Ahaz had erected
altars for heathen worship in every corner of Jerusalem, and
therefore the temple worship was superfluous.

11. Chap, xxix.— xxxii.
hezekiah.
Chap. xxix. 1, 2. Compare 2 Kings xviii. 1—3. — V. 1. Abijah;
in 2 Kings we find the very abbreviated form AM, which most
likely differed from the other, not merely in the spelling (as
Thenius supposes), but in the pronunciation also.
Vv. 3 — 36. Purification and dedication ofthe temple. Compare
the short account in 2 Kings xviii. 5 seq. — Vv. 3 — 17. In the
first sixteen days of the first new year, after Hezekiah ascended the
throne, the priests and the Levites purified the temple. — V. 3. It is
evident from v. 17 compared with chap. xxx. 2, 3, that by the

CHAPTER XXIX. 3—1 1 . 423
first month we are to understand the month prescribed in the law
for the offering of the paschal sacrifice ; it must therefore havo
been Nisan, the first month of the sacred year. It is not said
that this first month was the month in which Hezekiah began to
reign, all that is stated is that in the first year of Hezekiah's
reign, the commencement of which year must be reckoned from
the first of Tisri, and on the first day of the sacred year, the
temple was opened. He opened the gates ; see chap, xxviii. 24.
And he strengthened them; according to 2 Kings xviii. 16,
Hezekiah had provided for the beautifying of the doors, and to
this the indefinite expression, "he strengthened them," will refer, as
this expression could be used with reference to a new building,
or the restoration of an old one. — V. 4. The eastern open space
before the temple was the inner court ; see Ezra x. 9. — V. 5.
Sanctify yourselves (v. 15, chap. xxx. 15) ; that ye may set about
the work of sanctifying the temple in a state of levitical purity.
— Vv. 6, 7. Our fathers ; this must mean Ahaz and his contem
poraries, since the charge of entire apostasy from Jehovah, con
tained in these very general words, could only apply to the
generation immediately preceding Hezekiah. And they turned
the back ; not literally so by looking towards the rising sun, like
the twenty-five in Ezek. viu. 16, and turning their backs upon
the temple and God, who was enthroned upon the ark, but in
this sense : they despised the dweUing-place of Jehovah. — V. 7.
The doors of ihe porch are the doors ofthe house of Jehovah (chap.
xxviii. 24), which led from the open space in the porch to the
larger space in the temple. When they were shut, the lamps in
the larger room could not be lighted, and the incense could not
be burned upon the golden altar. The words, "ihe burnt sacrifices
also have not been offered," are probably based upon the account
in 2 Kings xvi. 14. — V. 8. On the first clause of the verse, see
ehap. xxiv. 18, xxxii. 25. As ye see with your own eyes ; this
refers to the calamities, which befel the people under Ahaz : viz.,
the wars with the Syrians, Ephraimites, Philistines, and Edomites,
and the oppression on the part of the Assyrians ; cf. chap. xxx.
7 ; Neh. ii. 17. -V. 9. cf. chap, xxviii. 6, 8— V. 10. Now I have
it in my mind; see 1 Chr. xxii, 7. The concluding clause
occurs again in chap. xxx. 8. — V. 11. My sons ; the king applies
this term to the priests and Levites in his hearty appeal. The

424 CHAPTER XXIX. 12 — 19.
Niphal i^\^p\ only occurs here, see Deut. x. 8. — Vv. 12, 13.
Two Levites are named belonging to each of the three great
Levitical families Gershon, Kohath, and Merari ; two from the
family of Elizaphan, who is mentioned in Ex. vi. 18, under the
name of Elzaphan (the son of Uzziel, the son of Kohath), and
in the time of Moses was the prince of the family of Kohath, Num.
iii. 30 ; then two each from the descendants of Asaph (the family
of Gershon), of Heman (the family of Kohath), and of Jeduthun
(the family of Merari, cf. 1 Chr. vi. 29 — 32) ; in all fourteen. Of
the names given here, Machath, Eden ben Joach and Jechuel
or Jechiel (chap. xxxi. 13 — 15) occur again. Some ofthe names,
e.g. Kish ben Abdi, Joach ben Zimma, have already been given
in the genealogical list in 1 Chr. vi., and appear to have been the
names of Levitical families, by which the head of the family
may always have been known. — V. 15. The fourteen chiefs
gathered their brethren, at whose head they stood. At the com
mand of God (chap. xxx. 12, cf. 1 Chr. xxv. 5) ; in the manner
prescribed by the law. — V. 16. They went within into the house
of Jehovah or into the XT\7V b^Tl- *,e- they went into the holy
place, and possibly into the holiest of all ; compare Ezek xii. 3,
where pi^iD^ occurs with the meaning within, into the holiest
of all. The priests alone were permitted by the law to go into
the actual temple. In this case, whatever they found there, that
was unclean (we must assume, notwithstanding the account in
chap, xxviii. 24, that the historian was thinking here of the
pollution of the inner part of the temple by the idolatry of Ahaz,
cf. v. 18), they brought into the outer court, where the Levites
took it from them to carry it beyond the boundary of the
sanctuary. Into the brook Kidron, chap. xxx. 14; 2 Kings
xxiii. 12. — V. 17. On the first day they commenced with the
sanctification or purification of the courts, this was finished on
the eighth day, and then they came to the porch of Jehovah, i.e.
they were able to enter upon the work of purifying the actual
building, which required eight days. — V. 18—30. Consecration
ofthe temple by the offering of burnt sacrifices, cf. Ezra vi. 17,
viii. 35. — V. 18. Within ; into the king's palace. Here only one
table of show bread is mentioned, cf. 1 Chr. xxviii. 16. — V. 19.
Which Ahaz had cast away (see 1 Chr. xxviii. 9) during his
reign ; by perverting them from their sacred use (it is expressly

chapter xxix. 20 — 27. 425
stated in 2 Kings xvi. 14, that he removed the brazen altar out
of its place). Hence in chap, xxviii. 24, the historian must have
referred to other articles. " Here he is speaking simply of those
which had fallen into disuse. The altar of Jehovah is the altar of
burnt-offering, cf. v. 21.— Vv. 20, 21. Early the next day Hezekiah
went to the temple with the princes ofthe city (his wish to proceed
with the expiation immediately after the purification prevented
him from assembling the representatives ofthe whole community).
The bullocks, rams, and lambs were to be sacrificed as burnt-offer
ings, the goats as sin-offerings; together they formed the sacrifices
of purification and consecration. — V. 23. The imposition of hands,
which took place in the case of burnt-offerings and thank-offerings
also (Lev. i.4,iii. 2), is here particularly noticed in connection with
the sin-offerings, probably because confession of sin accompanied
the imposition of the hands (cf. Lev. xvi. 21), which gave to this
symbolical action peculiar importance in the case of the sin-
offerings. — V. 24. iNton"1")' n°t IpTPl as in v. 22, for the blood
of- the sin-offerings they brought as an atonement to the altar, the
priests sprinkhng the horns of the altar with a portion of the blood
and then pouring the rest of the blood on the floor of the altar
(Lev. iv. 30 — 34). For all Israel, i.e., for all the Israelites in the
southern and northern kingdom, the king had commanded the burnt-
offering, Sfc, for Hezekiah regarded the temple as the sanctuary of
all the Israelites, and at a later period invited the northern tribes
also to take part in the passover, chap. xxx. 1. — V. 25. Comp.
1 Chr. xv. 16. The king's seer; cf. 1 Chr. xxi. 9. — According
to ihe commandment of David, fyc. (and at the same time in
obedience to a command of God) for the command was through
Jehovah (or as it is afterwards added by way of explanation),
through his prophets ; it does not follow from this that David is
represented as one of the prophets, for as a man of God (2 Chr.
viii. 14) he was able to issue injunctions on behalf of God. — V.
26. With the instruments of David; see 1 Chr. xxiii. 5. — V. 27.
At the time when the burnt-offering began (Num. xvii. 11), the song
of Jehovah (1 Chr. xvi. 42, xxv. 7) and the trumpets also began, and
that according to the lead of (or together with) the instruments of
David. In the Septuagint the Vav is not expressed before ^y
yti ; in the Vulgate and Syriac tbe passage is rendered very
freely. The text would be less obscure if either the Vav or by

426 chapter xxix. 28—35.
i-p was omitted, but we have no right to make any alteration.
— V. 28. The word song is used here for all the singers ; see
Hitzig on Ezek. xxxiii. 32. The trumpeters ; see 1 Chr. xv.
24. — V. 29. iy\byr\b> here used without the accusative of the
object, which may be omitted, as it is evident from v. 27 that
it is to burnt- offerings that the passage refers. — V. 30. Tlie seer ;
this title is applied to Asaph here, to Heman in 1 Chr. xxv. 5,
and to Jeduthun in 2 Chr. xxxv. 15. — Vv. 31 — 36. In the newly
consecrated temple numerous thank-offerings, praise-offerings, and
free-will burnt-offerings were presented at the request of the king.
V. 31. The king addresses the priests, who were newly conse
crated by the sacrifice of the burnt-offerings and sin-offerings,
and who were therefore fitted to resume the duties of their office
in connection with the offering of sacrifice (cf. Ex. xxviii. 41,
xxix. 1 sqq.). The thodoth were also thank-offerings, but of a
peculiar description ; on the occasion of their presentation songs
of praise were sung, probably according to some fixed plan (cf.
Nehem. xii. 31 — 40 ; Lev. vii. 11 — 15, xxii. 29 seq.). The as
sembly ; not assembled priests, but chiefly the princes (v. 20), and
the rest of those who took part in the meeting. — V. 34. Compare
chap. xxx. 3, 15,24. The removal ofthe skin ofthe burnt-offering
was to be the work, according to Lev. i. 6, of him who offered
the sacrifice ; but here the priests are referred to as having this
work to do, and they were assisted on the present occasion by the
Levites, simply because a sufficient number of them had not yet
sanctified themselves. Till the work was ended ; that is till the
animals were flayed and the priests had sanctified themselves ; cf.
chap. xxxv. 11. For the Levites had been more honourable with
reference to their own sanctification than the priests, they had
shown greater alacrity than the priests, who may perhaps have
had a greater share in the introduction of the idolatrous practices
of Ahaz, and may, therefore, have been more reluctant to comply
with the wishes of Hezekiah. — V. 35. Another thing which pre
vented the priests from finishing the flaying by themselves was
that the actual service of the altar made too great a demand
upon their time, for there were burnt-offerings in abundance with
the fat ofthe thank-offerings (which might be regarded as a part
of the burnt-offerings, seeing that it had to be burned by the
priests upon the burnt-offerings, Lev. iii. 5, vi. 5), and with the
3

chapter xxix. 36 — xxx. 5. 427
drink-offerings, which belonged to ihe burnt-offerings (Num. xv.
1 — 16). On the last clause of the verse see chap. viii. 16, xxxv.
10. By the service of the house of Jehovah we must understand
the act of purification and consecration. — V. 36. The article
before ^13-5 takes the place of the relative, see 1 Chr. xxvi. 28 :
that God had prepared the people, for the thing was done sud
denly, and yet the people took such interest in it I Cf. chap.
xxx. 12.
Chap. xxx. Celebration of the passover. — V. 1 — 12. The king
invites all the Israelites to take part in the festival. — V. 1. To
all Israel, and (as the writer adds to prevent misunderstanding,
cf. chap. xxv. 7) also to Ephraim and Manasseh, the two leading
tribes of the northern kingdoms, which are mentioned by name
not as single tribes, but to denote the entire body of the inhabi
tants of the northern kingdom (cf. v. 10), he wrote letters. — V. 2.
In the second month ; as it was lawful for individuals to celebrate
the so-called minor passover on the 14th of the second month, if
they were prevented from keeping it in the first month (Num.
ix. 6 — 13), the celebration of the passover on this occasion was
postponed till the 14th of the second month (v. 13) after the
king, the princes, and the whole assembly had held a joint con
sultation, for (v. 3) at that time (this indefinite expression refers
to the period mentioned in chap. xxix. 3, so that we may substi
tute "in tbe first month") they could not keep it, (1) because
the priests had not sanctified themselves in sufficient numbers
(i-jj2^ is composed of ¦}, pjQ and 1-7, to that which was enough,
see 1 Chr. xv. 13), (2) because the people had not assembled.
This seems to imply that, although the purification of the temple
was not completed till the sixteenth day of the first month (chap.
xxix. 17), the passover would have been kept in the first month,
though possibly not on the legal fourteenth day, if it had not
been necessary to postpone it for the reasons given here. — V. 5.
-q-. "niJ3Vi"|> correctly rendered in the Vulgate et decreverunt,
see Neh. x. 33. To issue a proclamation, cf. chap, xxxvi. 22.
For they had not kept it in a body, as it is written ; these words
are sometimes supposed to mean : they had not kept it for a long
time according to the precepts of the law (thus explained by
early Jewish expositors, and among those of modern times by
De Wette). But it may be objected to this explanation that

428 CHAPTER XXX. 6 — 14.
3«l^ is not used by itself to denote a number of days or of years.
In our view it relates to the crowd of participators : all Israel
was summoned, for they had not kept it en masse, in the assem
bly of the whole people, as the law required, cf. vv. 13, 24.
Nothing is said respecting the length of time during which it had
not been celebrated by them as a body, see on the other hand v.
26 ; 2 Kings xxiii. 22. — V. 6. The runners (v. 10), like those
mentioned in Esther iii. 13, 15, viii. 14, are royal messengers ;
the soldiers of the king's body-guard (chap. xii. 10, 11) were
employed in this capacity, as we learn from chap, xxiii. 1 sqq.
They went away with letters — and according to the king's command
to say ; they were to add a verbal exhortation to the written invi
tation. And he may return to the remnant which is left to you from
the hand of the kings of Assyria ; according to this, certain kings
of Assyria had carried some of the inhabitants of the northern
kingdom into exile as early as the time of Hezekiah. There
were none carried away in the time of Phul (2 Kings xv. 19) ;
in the time of Tiglath-Pileser, however, there may have been
(1 Chr. v. 26 ; 2 Kings xv. 29). The expedition of Shalmanezer,
which occurred in the sixth year of Hezekiah, 2 Kings xvii. 6,
xviii. 9 — 12, cannot be intended here, if a strict chronological
arrangement is to be preserved. — V. 7. On the last clause see
chap. xxix. 8.— V. 8. Be not stiff-necked (cf. 2 Kings xvH. 14;
Neh. ix. 16, 17). Give the hand, see 1 Chr. xxix. 24.— V. 9.
Your brethren and sons, who are living in exile, will be an object
of compassion (this expression also occurs in Neh. l. 11) to those
who led them away and for a return to this land. — V. 10. They
laughed them to scorn, the Hiphil only occurs in this passage. —
V. 11. Humbled themselves ; see chap. xii. 7. — V. 12. In Judah
was the hand of God that he gave them, <fc. ; cf. chap. xxix. 36.
By the word of Jehovah, chap. xxix. 15. — Vv. 13 — 22. The fes
tival. — Vv. 13, 14. The Israelites, who were assembled to sacri
fice the passover and to keep the Mazzoth-festival connected with
it, removed the altars (of burnt-offering) and the altars of incense
erected by Ahaz (chap, xxviii. 24), that they might purify and
sanctify Jerusalem the city of the festivals before the passover
was offered, and threw them into the brook Kedron (chap. xxix.
16). The mikteroth (altars for incense), the altars upon which
the ketoreth was offered are only mentioned here by this name ;

CHAPTER XXX. 15 — 19. 429
they had their place in the idolatrous worship by the side of the
altars of burnt-offering as well as in the Israelitish ceremonial.
— V. 15. Y3~>33 ; according to chap. xxix. 34, xxx. 3, this means
they were ashamed, and were driven by the feeling of shame to
make haste and sanctify themselves for this festival. Although
the Levites are also mentioned here, notwithstanding the fact
that they are said to have been ready before this to sanctify
themselves (chap. xxix. 34), the passage refers especially to the
negligent priests. — V. 16. In their place (chap. xxxv. 10) accord
ing to the order prescribed (see 1 Chr. vi. 17) ; m^y in this
sense only in the Chronicles, Nehemiah, and Daniel. Tliey
sprinkled the blood of the paschal lambs from the hand of the Le
vites ; the latter handed it to them, but they only did this as an
exception on the present occasion, for — (v. 17) since many in the
assembly had not sanctified themselves, the Levites presided over
the slaying of the paschal lambs for every one that was unclean,
to sanctify the lambs to Jehovah (chap. ii. 3), whereas at other
times tbe heads of the families slew the lambs, and the priests
received the blood from them, as the passage before us shows,
and sprinkled it on the altar. In 2 Chr. xxxv. 6 the Levites are
said to have superintended the slaying of the paschal lambs in
the same manner as on this occasion, without any special reason
being assigned ; cf. Ezra vi. 20. — Vv. 18, 19. Of the three tribes
named in v. 11 only two are noticed here, besides Ephraim and
Issachar, viz., Manasseh and Zebulon. For such of them as had
not purified themselves (^pttoil the form in pause, in which the
Kametz under the tet is changed into Seghol in consequence of
the new Kametz which is introduced, see Ezra vi. 20) the Le
vites took charge of the slaying of the paschal lamb, for they
also ate the passover, otherwise than it was written (another excep
tional feature and one opposed to the law, Num. ix. 6, cf. Jose
phus b. j. 6. 9. 3) but this exception was allowed, because Hezekiah
had prayed for them in these words : may Jehovah the good (that is,
the kind and merciful) forgive every one who has set his heart (see
chap. xii. 14) to seek the God Jehovah the God of his fathers
though not according to the purity of the sanctuary (^Vl introduces
a conditional clause, if it be not according to the purity of the
sanctuary, even if he have not purified himself according to the
law). We follow the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the Syriac,

430 chapter xxx. 20—23.
which contains a somewhat freer translatiori, and connect yyy at
the end of v. 18 directly with v. 19 ; it stands here before a rela
tive clause without yQjtf, like ^ in 1 Chr. xv. 12 (see the note
on this passage). Moreover the freedom of mind displayed hereis
worthy of regard; in order that the principal end might be attained,
viz., the participation of the inhabitants of the northern kingdom
in this festival, no stress was laid upon a form prescribed by the
law. — V. 20. And God healed the people ; we must imagine the
whole affair to have been the following : in consequence of their
transgressions they had cause to fear disease and even death
(Lev. xv. 31) ; Hezekiah prayed for the nation, which was on
the point of being diseased, and might therefore be regarded as
sick already, as Abraham had once prayed for Abimelech when
sick (Gen. xx. 7, 17), and restoration immediately ensued. No
doubt, ^q-^ means to pardon in this as in other similar passages,
but only in the sense of averting the punishment of transgres
sions, cf. Jer. iii. 22 ; 2 Chr. vii. 14. — V. 21. On every one of
the seven days the Levites and priests praised Jehovah with
the instruments of the "praise to Jehovah," i.e., in the usual
manner and with the instruments which they generally em
ployed in their songs of praise. — V. 22. 'yy -q"T he spake en
couraging words of praise to the Levites, who showed good knowledge
with reference to Jehovah, i.e., who distinguished themselves by
their playing and their acquaintance witb sacred music. And
they ate; not the priests and Levites only, but the whole
assembly ate, for many thank-offerings were sacrificed, the flesh
of which was for the most part eaten by those who sacrificed,
and such as were invited to participate in the sacrificial meals.
"TJJTOn the festival, here with the meaning the festal sacrifice;
cf. chag, Ex. xxiii. 18 ; Ps. cxviii. 27. QiTinftV not making
confession of guilt (for tlie reference in these verses is merely
to the utterance of joy), but approaching Jehovah with offer
ings of praise, presenting thodoth (chap. xxix. 31) as well as
the than k- offerings. — Vv. 23—27. When Hezekiah and the princes
presented the assembled congregation with rich gifts for farther
sacrificial meals, it was decided that they should remain together
for the next seven days, that they might celebrate a further festival,
us a supplement to the joyous feast already kept. Compare the
fourteen days' festival described in chap. vii. 8 seq. ; though on

CHAPTER XXX. 23—27. 431
tbat occasion the seven regular feast days were the last of
the fourteen. — V. 23. Instead of nroiP niany MSS. read
nnft\173> as for example in 1 Chr. xxix. 22 ; but the former
reading without the beth must be retained, for a dependent accu
sative is by no means rare in such a construction : they passed
seven days in gladness. — V. 24. Qi^pi, to present on condition
that the animals should be offered in sacrifice (as a pjftl^n ^x>
xxxv. 24; Num. xv. 19 sqq.) ; cf. chap. xxxv. 7 sqq. The last
words, and all the priests had sanctified themselves in a body, refer
back to chap. xxix. 34, xxx. 3 ; there was therefore no longer
any reason to fear that the strength of the priests would be in
sufficient to offer so extraordinary a number of sacrifices. — V. 25.
Those who took part in the festival were, first, the whole assembly
of Judah, and the priests and Levites ; secondly, all who had
come from the northern kingdom ; thirdly, the strangers (pro
selytes), both those who had come from the northern kingdom
and those who dwelt in Judah. — V. 26 piNT3> there had been
nothing of this kind in Jerusalem ; the meaning is, that the fes
tival at the dedication of the temple in the time of Solomon was
the only one that could be compared with this either as to the
time of its duration, the sacrifices offered, the number of partici
pants, or the joy with which it was attended. — V. 27. In some
MSS. there is a vav conjunctive before QY)7pj, which has been
adopted in the Vulgate, Septuagint (Alex.), and Syriac versions.
It does not follow, however, that it originally formed part of the
text, for it may have been inserted in these versions for the sake
of clearness. As the two words stand side by side a<7w8eTw?on
other occasions, we are not warranted in putting the vav into the
text; compare Hitzig on Jeremiah xxxiii. 18, and in addition to
the passages cited there, 2 Chr. xxiii. 18. — According to the
account contained in chaps, xxix. and xxx. the improvement ofthe
worship by the purification of the temple and its fresh consecra
tion was entered upon at the very beginning of Hezekiah's reign,
bpcause the pious king was desirous of celebrating the first pass-
over and the feast of unleavened bread connected with it in the
newly consecrated temple. The purification, however, occupied
so long a time, tbat the passover could not be kept on the day
prescribed in the law ; it was therefore necessary to postpone it
till the following month, when it was celebrated in a large as-

432 CHAPTER XXX. 27.
sembly, the inhabitants of the northern kingdom taking part. It
is a priori a probable thing, that Hezekiah set about the purifi
cation of the temple at the commencement of his reign, and no
where, either in the Book of Kings or in that of Isaiah, do we
find any statements at variance with the account given here, that
it was undertaken in the first year of his reign. At the same
time our historian must have found in his sources more precise
details with regard both to the feast of dedication which was
celebrated after the purification of the temple (chap. xxix.
20 — 36), and also to the feast of passover and of unleavened
bread (chap. xxx.). This is apparent not only from the names
mentioned in chap. xxix. 12 — 14, but still more evidently from
the account of the postponement of the feasts of passover and un
leavened bread till the second month, from the reference to the
priests who delayed to purify themselves (chap. xxix. 34, xxx.
3, 24), and also from the statement that of those who took part
in the feast, some who had come from the northern kingdom ate
the passover without having purified themselves according to the
law, and that the Levites undertook the slaying of their paschal
lambs (chap. xxx. 17, 18). With regard especially to the celebra
tion ofthe passover in the time of Hezekiah it is not very strange
that it should be passed over in silence in the Book of Kings, for
that book refers but very briefly in any case to the improvement of
worship ; but if it be indisputable that Hezekiah abolished the
worship of idols (see especially 2 Kings xviii. 22), it must be as
sumed that the great spring-festival, the passover and unleavened
bread, was celebrated in his time in a different way, that is, in a
manner more in accordance with the law of Moses than it had
been before ; we say : more so than before, because we think it
probable that even during the prevalence of idolatry there were
certain festivals observed at the same times as those appointed
in the law for the celebration of the great Jewish festivals. The
account given in 2 Kings xxiii. 23 has been appealed to as alto
gether at variance with the statement in the Chronicles respect
ing the feast of the passover in the time of Hezekiah, and it has
been said that apparently the narrative in Kings, which refers to
the time of Josiah, has been applied in a somewhat altered shape
to that of Hezekiah ! In our opinion there is no discrepancy be
tween the account in the Chronicles and that in the Book of

CHAPTER XXX. 27. 433
Kings, for 2 Kings xxiii. 22 evidently stands in the closest con
nexion with the preceding verse, and is to be interpreted thus : such
a passover, as that kept in the time of Josiah, i.e. one conducted
in all respects so completely in accordance with the precepts of
the book of the covenant, had not been celebrated since the time
of the Judges. According to the account before us the passover
was celebrated in the time of Hezekiah with greater joy and on
a larger scale, than any that had been held since the days of So
lomon, but still, as it is expressly stated, neither at the legal time
nor in a strictly legal way. We are warranted therefore in
maintaining the historical basis of the present narrative, still we
do not overlook the mode of treatment adopted by the historian,
and the freedom with which he has worked up the historical ma
terial, especially in the section chap. xxx. 5 — 11, where the pas
sages are very numerous in which we can detect the style and
particular expressions, which are peculiar to the Chronicles. We
read there, that the messengers of Hezekiah and his princes
were sent to the inhabitants of the whole northern kingdom, who
had been visited by grievous calamities, and that they called
upon the remnant, which had been spared by the kings of
Assyria, to turn to Jehovah ; but the greater number laughed
at this summons, and very few, principally members of the tribes
inhabiting the most northerly districts, paid any regard to it at
all. Is Thenius correct in saying, that, when the historian wrote
that the special reason for the celebration of the passover was
the calamity which had befallen Israel in consequence of the
captivity (chap. xxx. 6 sqq.), he was carried away by his zeal,
and forgot or did not wish to remember that the captivity had
not taken place so early as the first year of Hezekiah ? On the
contrary, we believe that he did think of this, and wished to
think of it. His intention was to represent the majority of the
inhabitants ofthe northern kingdom, and especially those dwell
ing on Mount Ephraim, and in the city of Samaria as men, who
refused to be warned by the calamity which had befallen tbem
from the hand of the Assyrians, and which was even then before
their eyes, namely the invasion of Pul, and the captivity into
which the fathers and brethren had been carried by Tiglath
Pileser (the inhabitants would therefore be called in the strictest
sense a remnant saved from the hand ofthe Assyrian kings, chap.
VOL. II. 2 E

434 CHAPTER XXXI. 1 — 4.
xxx. 6). He also meant to show that they ridiculed the last
earnest appeal of Hezekiah, and therefore brought upon them
selves by their own crimes the greatest calamity of all, the con
quest of Samaria, the destruction of the northern kingdom, and
the captivity of the time of Shalmaneser. The first year of He
zekiah was the third year of Hosea, the last king of the northern
kingdom. He is said in 2 Kings xvii. 2 to have been a better
king than his predecessors, and therefore we may safely assume
that he did not oppose the wish of Hezekiah, that all Israel
should assemble in Jerusalem to keep the passover.
Chap. xxxi. 1. Destruction of the bamoth and idolatrous altars
in both the southern and northern kingdoms. Cf. 2 Kings xvni.
4. Even before the celebration of the passover the idolatrous
altars in Jerusalem had been destroyed (chap. xxx. 14) ; imme
diately after the festival all who had taken part in it set out to
cleanse the whole land of the altars and images (from all Judah
and Benjamin, i.e. from the southern kingdom ; in Ephraim and
Manasseh, that is in the northern kingdom). It was not till
this had been accomplished that every one went to his own home.
The purification was completely effected, because, as we may
assume the historian to mean, the force of those who went
forth inspired by the festival was such as to frustrate all the
attempts of the contemptuous Israelites (chap. xxx. 10), whether
King Hosea or any one else, to preserve idolatry.
Vv. 2 — 11. Arrangements for properly conducting the wor
ship of God, and for the maintenance of the priests and Levites.
— V. 2. To every one, according to his service, of the priests
and the Levites ; the dependence of Q^nsVl D^lb^ upon the
word ^i^, which stands at some distance off, is shown by the
preposition lamed. In the gates ofthe tents of Jehovah; see 1
Chr. ix. 18, 19. — V. 3. The king's contribution from his posses
sion (we may see from chap, xxxii. 27 — 29 of what the possession
consisted) was for the burnt-offerings, and indeed for all the
burnt-offerings, which had to be offered according to the words
of the law of Moses, Num. xxviii. 3, 4, 9, 11, 19, sqq. In py^jypn
the L, must be supplied from jyfoyb I as pil^H has tbe article,
mn3\^S 1S made dependent by lamed: and for the burnt-offer
ings of the Sabbaths, fyc. — V. 4. He commanded the people, namely
the inhabitants of Jerusalem (the passage must be rendered thus,

CHAPTER XXXI. 5 — 10. 435
not the people and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for the contribu
tions of those who did not dwell in Jerusalem are not mentioned
till v. 6), to give the contribution for the priests and Levites (Neh.
xiii. 10), that they might hold fast by the law of Jehovah ; i.e. in
order that they might discharge the duties imposed upon them,
and be released by their incomes from the trouble of maintain
ing themselves by their own exertions, cf. Neh. xiii. 10 sqq. —
V. 5. -^3"fpf is the king's commandment in v. 4. The first-
fruits were assigned to the priests, Num. xviii. 12, 13, the tithes
to the whole of the tribe of Levi, vv. 20 — 24. — V. 6. The sons of
Israel are the inhabitants of the northern kingdom ; the sons of
Judah, who dwell in the cities of Judah, are the inhabitants of the
southern kingdom, with the exception of the inhabitants of the
city of Jerusalem. To the tribe of Levi all the kodashim were
given, which had been consecrated to Jehovah, Num. xviii. 8.
These kodashim were sacred gifts, v. 19. In this chapter they are
mentioned in v. 12 along with the tithes, but that differs from
the present verse in which the tithe of the consecrated things is
said to have been delivered. The Vulgate has copied the text
as we have it ; but the translators of the Septuagint appear to
have read QitfcTT&m W1j f°r in Edition to the tithe of the oxen
• tIt- : •• t
and sheep they mention also a tithe of the goats, pfiftiy
jy\iyyy, they laid in heaps, and even in many heaps, the fruits,
which were offered as first-fruits and tithes. — V. 7. "71517 with
Dagesh in the Samech (cf. Ewald Lehrb. 245 a.) ; it also occurs
without the Dagesh in Is. li. 16. In the third month, that is
immediately after the end of the wheat-harvest, they began to
lay the foundation of the heaps, i.e. to deposit the under layer,
and in the seventh month, that is at the close of the fruit-time
and vintage, they had finished. The summer-harvest festival
was kept in the third month, and the feast of the ingathering of
corn in the seventh. — V. 9. Hezekiah questioned the priests and
Levites concerning the heaps ; to ascertain whether the amount
of first-fruits and tithes was sufficient for the maintenance of the
priests and Levites. — V. 10. Azariah the high priest of the house
of Zadoc, the prince of the house of God, v. 13, is possibly the
Azariah mentioned in chap. xxvi. 17. He cannot be the high
priest Azariah referred to in 1 Chr. v. 39, for the latter was a
Jt E £

436 CHAPTERXXXI.il — 16.
son of Hilkiah, the high-priest in the time of Josiah ; see chap.
xxxiv. 9, 2 Kings xxii. 4. ^13^ for fc$i3pta aiso f°und in Jer.
xxxix. 7. The infinitives to eat and to be satisfied, and to leave in
abundance, are used in a lively discourse for the first person
plural. Moreover, in a spirited address the ry& before wy^
pjjpl does not appear strange, for that which is left means we have
left this large quantity. — V. 11. This passage leaves it uncertain
whether new rooms were built, or the old ones fitted up as stores
for the corn and fruits. — V. 12. piftTip) is the name applied
here to the first-fruits. They brought in . . with safety,
acting both carefully and honestly in the matter, chap. xix. 9.
Over them; over the first-fruits, &c. Shimei, chap. xxix. 14. —
V. 13. Jehiel and Mahaih are also mentioned in chap. xxix. 14. —
-jiQ by the side, in the same sense as -p ^y v. 15. "|pQ}33 must
mean according to the arrangement ; it occurs in 1 Chr. xix. 5,
and Ezek. xliii. 21, with a different meaning. — V. 14. The door
keeper to the east, see 1 Chr. ix. 18. He was over the freewill
offerings of God, i.e. over all that had been voluntarily offered to
God (Deut. xii. 17), to give the lifting of Jehovah (that is the
share, of the thank-offerings for example, which was actually the
property of Jehovah, and had been handed over by him to the
priests, Lev. vii. 14, 32, x. 14, 15; Num. v. 9), and the most
holy things, the portion of the sin-offerings, &c, which had to be
eaten by the priests in a holy place ; see for example Lev. vi.
10, 22, vii. 6. — V. 15. Eden, chap. xxix. 12. The men, whose
names are given here, were in the priests' cities with a trust,
namely to distribute to their brethren in the divisions, who
dwelt in the priests' cities and were unable to come to the
temple on account of their youth or their age, their proper share
of the free-will offerings. 1t2p3 StTSDj n°t as to the higher so
also to the lower (Rambach), but as to the old men, so also to the
children. — V. 16. Besides their list of males (with the exception
of those whose names were contained in the list) from three
years old and upwards, namely the Hst of all those who came
into the house of Jehovah for the portion set out for them every day
(cf. Neh. xi. 23), for their service in their offices according to their
divisions. The children were allowed to go into the temple if
they were over three years of age, and could therefore receive
and eat the portion allotted to them in the place of the sanctuary

CHAPTER XXXI. 17— XXXII. 1. 437
as well as the priests who performed the service. — V. 17. The
sign of the accusative p)^ is used here to give prominence to
the word upon which the emphasis falls (Ewald, Lehrb. p. 570) :
as for the list of priests, it was according to fathers'-houses, and
for that of the Levites, ihose from twenty years old and upwards
were in their offices. From twenty years old, see 1 Chr. xxiii.
24. — V. 18. After the parenthetical clauses in vv. 16 and 17,
which contain more precise details, ^n^nnSl may he regarded
as a continuation of ryr^y in v. 16 : the men were in the priests'
cities also to register their children, fyc. br\p~h^b is subordinate :
their children, namely those of the whole assembly. bTlT) must
mean the corporation of priests. They were obliged to keep a
register of the children, &c, that the gifts allotted fo them
might be regularly distributed, for according to their trust (v.
12) they occupied themselves with the distribution of ihe conse
crated things ; ^"jppipf is not used anywhere else in this sense,
but there is nothing to hinder our giving this interpretation
to the Hithpael. — V. 19. The priests also, who lived in the
suburban fields of their cities (Lev. xxv. 34), and indeed of
each particular city (y as in the accounts of the eensus : includ
ing every particular city), had their own servants, who are men
tioned by name (chap, xxviii. 15, just as the inhabitants of the
priests' cities are said to have had such servants, v. 15), to give
the portions to every male among the priests and to every one who was
registered among the Levites. The third person perfect tl^n^nn
is placed after ^3 without an intervening relative, compare the
similar combination in Gen. xxxix. 4. — Vv. 20 — 21. Hezekiah did
that which was good, &c, and in every work, which he began for
the service of the house of God, and for the law and for the com
mandment seeking his God (the infinitive with ^ as in chap. xxvi.
5), he acted with all his heart (" with a perfect heart" in other
places, e.g. chap. xix. 9), and prospered.
Chap, xxxii. 1 — 23. Invasion of Sennacherib and destruction of
the Assyrian army, cf. 2 Kings xviii. 13 — xix. 37 ; and Is. xxxvi.
— xxxvii. — V. 1. Instead of the chronological statement in 2
Kings xviii. 13, we have here only the indefinite connecting
formula : after these things, &c. pi73Ni~n> and after ^us fidelity
(chap. xxxi. 20), which Hezekiah had shown in the restoration
of the worship of God. And he thought to conquer them for him-

438 CHAPTER XXXII. 2 — 5.
self ; according to 2 Kings he succeeded in taking the fortified
cities. Our historian does not mention this, or the event re
corded in 2 Kings xviii. 14 — 16, in order that he may not weaken
the narrative of the miraculous deliverance of the Jewish state
during the reign of this pious king, by a description of the mis
fortunes which befel Hezekiah at the commencement of the
Assyrian war. — Vv. 2 — 8. This account of the fortification of
Jerusalem, and the preparations for resisting tlie Assyrians, is
only given in the Chronicles. It is confirmed, however, by Is.
xxii. 8 — 11. — V. 26 is a conditional clause : his face being directed
to war against Jerusalem. — V. 3. To hide the water of the foun
tains, which were outside the city; by covering them over and
drawing them off in subterraneous channels. And they helped
him ; by taking care (v. 4), that a sufficient number of labourers
were procured for this difficult undertaking. The brook that
flowed through the midst of the land, and which was formed by
the overflowing of the water of the fountains, and therefore was
necessarily dried up when the fountains were covered up and
drawn off, was the brook Gihon ; the Septuagint reading is
" in the midst of the city," but the reading of the text is per
fectly appropriate ; cf. v. 30, Jes. Sir. xlviii. 17 ; 2 Kings
xx. 20, and Thenius (Stadt. § 9). — The kings of Assyria, the
plural is used here because the thoughts of the speakers were
directed not merely to the invasion of Sennacherib, but to aU
the future wars in which they might possibly be engaged with
the Assyrians and their kings. — V. 5. pfnnv1 must be ex
plained, according to such passages as chap. xv. 8, xxiii. 1,
as meaning : He showed himself strong. He built up the wall
that was broken down, repairing the breaches, &c. (Neh. iv. 1),
see Is. xxii. 9, 10. niVliftn-'?}? by*1} - Thenius follows Gese-
nius and others, and renders this : he caused to ascend (that is,
he raised the masonry) upon the towers, an explanation, which
certainly gives a suitable meaning to the passage, but for which
there is no good foundation in the words employed, for if it is ne
cessary to supply an accusative to py^yn he brought up, we may
supply masonry, no doubt, but we may just as well supply ma
chines for keeping off the enemy (chap. xxvi. 15) or any other
object. As the words stand in the text they mean : he ascended
the towers and the outer wall outside them, for the purpose of sur-

CHAPTER XXXII. 6 — 12. 439
veying them, and making preparations for defence. There is
ground, however, for questioning the correctness of the text, for
the words lyy by**\ are n°t expressed at all in the Septuagint,
and the translators of the Vulgate appear to have read ^jpi
n>,7i^ (this is the reading which Ewald defends) ; the Syriac and
Arabic depart altogether from our text. It is possible that *yyi-\
lyy may have arisen by mistake from pp^yi, and that the origi
nal reading was : he built the whole wall — and upon it the towers,
and upon them the other wall, which ran round the lower city
(see Thenius die Stadt § 3, 4). pfifl as ™ chap. xi. 11. Millo
in the city of David, see 1 Chr. xi. 8. On the last words see
chap. xxvi. 14. — V. 6. On the open space at the rity gate ; which
gate we are not told, see Neh. viii. 1, 16. And he spoke en
couraging words, see chap. xxx. 22. — V. 7, 8. The first words
resemble Deut. xxxi. 6 and similar passages. 3-^ is not to be
referred without further definition to God, and interpreted as
meaning : with us is a greater and more powerful God than with
him. On the contrary, as v. 8 clearly shows, the passage must
be rendered thus : with us there is more, something greater than
with him, for with him there is only human power, with us
there is God, &c. And to fight in our wars ; pflftlibft iQ this
passage is a subordinate accusative, see 1 Sam. viii. 20, xvfii. 17.
— V. 9. Brief summary of the accounts, which are narrated
more ftdly in 2 Kings xvfii. 17 — 19 a. As he himself was near
Lachish, and his whole kingdom with him ; "\jyyQ}ftft not only
his princes (Gesenius in thes.) but the whole force of his kingdom,
see the more definite expression Jer. xxxiv. 1. On the situation
of Lachish see chap. xxv. 27.— Vv. 10 — 15. Brief summary in
the accounts in 2 Kings xviii. 19 b. — 35. — V. 10. 0131^11
'"112133 a continuation of the question : " wherein do ye trust ?"
meaning why do ye sit in the vice (according to Jer. x. 17) in
Jerusalem ? — V. 11. To deliver you up to die by hunger and thirst;
in writing these words the historian had probably 2 Kings xviii.
27 in his mind. — V. 12. Compare 2 Kings xviii. 22, where, how
ever even more emphatically than in this passage, God is des
cribed as he whose bamoih and altars Hezekiah had taken away.
The words of Kings are, " is it not this God, whose bamoih" &c. ;
here on the other hand we have : " is it not this Hezekiah, who

440 CHAPTER XXXII. 13—21.
has taken away his bamoth, &c, namely those of the God men
tioned in the previous verse. By one altar (2 Kings : this altar)
a more distinct reference is made to the exclusive validity ofthe
worship in the temple, which had once more been established by
Hezekiah.— Vv. 13, 14. See 2 Kings xviii. 35. The original
words are found in Is. x. 8 — 11, but Is. xxxvi. 20, and more par
ticularly Is. xxxvii. 11 — 13, appear to have floated before the
mind of the historian. Who is there among all the Gods of these
nations, who  who was powerful enough to deliver
 that your God should be strong enough to deliver
you out of my hand ? in other words, as the Gods of the more
powerful heathen nations are stronger than your God, and
yet could not deliver, so will your God, even if he wish to
do so (and according to v. 12 this is by no means to be ex
pected) not be able to deliver you. — V. 15. The first clause
resembles 2 Kings xviii. 29, 32. In addition to reviling the
God of Israel (cf. Is. x. 14, 15) he adds still farther: for there
was no God of any nation and kingdom (1 Kings xviii. 10) who
was able to rescue his people, . . . and that your God will
not save you out of my hand ! (we may easily supply : " is quite
certain)." In this way we must explain 13 n^, which introduces
the antithesis to an earlier negative clause ; see on the other hand
Ezek. xv. 5. — V. 16. His servants ; see v. 9. — V. 17. Compare
2 Kings xix. 14 and 10—13; Is. xxxvii. 10— 14.— Vv. 18, 19.
After the parenthetical remark in v. 17 the acts of the servants
of Sennacherib are farther described ; compare 2 Kings xviii.
26 — 35; Is. xxxvi. 11 — 22. The historian expressly states why
the servants of the Assyrian king spoke loud and in the Jewish
tongue, intending by this explanation to indicate to his readers
the subject of the address, which he did not think it necessary to
communicate in full. To affright them ; the infinitive of the
Pual occurs in Neh. vi. 19 also (cf. v. ix. 14). As against the
Gods of the nations of the earth, the work of men's hands ; see 2
Kings xix. 18. — V. 20. Compare 2 Kings xix. 15 — 34 and Is.
xxxvii. ntfi \>y with reference to this, i.e., with reference to
the contempt shown to the God of Israel, to which reference is
so emphatically made in the prayer of Hezekiah (2 Kings xix.
15 sqq.) and in the words of Isaiah v. 22 sqq. — V. 21. Cf. 2
Kings xix. 35 sqq. ; Is. xxxvii. 36 sqq. The words, " with all

CHAPTER XXXII. 2] — 23. 441
the brave warriors" refer to the common soldiers in distinction
from the princes and leaders (see for example chap. xvii. 14) ;
hence the entire number of the dead is not given here, on the
contrary it is expressly stated that even the princes and leaders
were not spared. The deviation from the account in Kings is
therefore very small. ifc^JJift (Keri) compounded of vq and
the plural of fc^i^i, some of those, who proceeded from his bosom,
in other words some of his sons, ^ijji is a Kal participle in the
intransitive form for ^\ The Kethib can hardly be satisfac
torily explained as it stands in the text ; it was probably written
originaUy ^fc^ftj some of those who had proceeded, <ny being
attached to the perfect without an intervening relative, cf. chap.
i. 4 ; 1 Chr. xv. 12.
V.22. After thewordaZ/,someMSS. read 1131^ hisenemies. The
Septuagint and Vulgate follow our text ; in the Syriac and Arabic
(from the hand of all round about) the word a^n^l 1S omitted.
This word is quite unintelligible, for if we should render it, God
led Hezekiah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem carefully as a shep
herd leads his flock, 3130*3 would be unsuitable. The reading
adopted in the Septuagint and Vulgate is Qpj^ TO^V an<^ this we
v x -~x —
must accept as the original text, not only because it could easily
have given rise to our present reading, but because the same ex
pression is so frequently employed by our historian (e.g. chap.
xiv. 6, xv. 15, xx. 30 ; cf. 1 Chr. xxii. 18). We observe further
that the verse before us gives merely a general outline of the
account contained in 2 Kings xviii. 7, 8. — V. 23. Among the
many, who brought presents to Hezekiah, were the Babylonian
ambassadors (2 Kings xx. 12), and therefore we are not war
ranted in concluding that the many, who brought gifts to Jehovah
at Jerusalem, were all of them Israelites, especially as the verse
concludes with a reference to the honour in which Hezekiah was
held by all the heathen after his rescue from the Assyrians.
Heathen inhabitants of Palestine (e.g. the Philistines, who were
delivered from a powerful enemy by the destruction of the Assy
rian army), might be induced to send gifts to the God, who was
worshipped in Jerusalem, the city that had been so miraculously
spared. On the presents, which were brought to Hezekiah, see
chap. xvii. 10 and xx. 29.

442 chapter xxxii. 24—30.
V. 24. Hezekiah's sickness. Compare 2 Kings xx. 1 — 11, and
Isaiah 38. (See the commentary on Kings).
Vv. 25, 26. Pride of Hezekiah. Compare 2 Kings xx. 12 — 19,
and Is. xxxix. — V. 25. Hezekiah did not render to God according
to the benefit done to him, for, though he promised in his sick
ness to walk humbly (Is. xxxvHi. 15), his heart became proud
after he recovered. His pride showed itself in the fact, that he
displayed all his treasures to the Babylonian ambassadors, not
merely from vanity, but, as Thenius observes, that they might see
the extent of his resources, and be convinced of the worth of an
alliance with him. " And there was wrath upon him," which
necessarily fell upon his people also on account of the close con
nection between the king and the nation (compare the wrath
which fell upon Israel when David numbered the people, I Chr.
xxvii. 24 ; 2 Chr. xix. 10) ; but the next verse appears to show
that the inhabitants of Jerusalem also rendered themselves
guilty by their proud behaviour. — V. 26. The words " in the
days of Hezekiah" call to mind the expression used by Hezekiah
in 2 Kings xx. 19. The fact that the wrath of God was excited
is evident from the word of God by Micah : Zion shall be ploughed
as a field, &c, but his wrath did not break out, because Hezekiah
feared Jehovah and prayed to him, or, as it is expressed here,
humbled himself.
Vv. 27 — 31. Hezekiah's wealth and prosperity. — V. 27. cf.
2 Kings xx. 13 and Is. xxxix. 2. — V. 28. Like David and
Uzziah (1 Chr. xxvii. 25 sqq. and 2 Chr. xxvi. 10) Hezekiah
had large stores of corn, &c, and numerous herds. pii"1N> an<l
at the end of the verse JTiTlN* apparently in the same sense :
stalls for all kinds of cattle and herds for the stalls ; the first form
occurs in chap. ix. 25 (with but a slight variation) and 1 Kings
v. 6 ; the latter we do not find anywhere else, nor can we say in
what relation it stands to the former, for whether it arose from
a transposition of the letters, or is to be referred to a somewhat
different root, and therefore has a slightly different meaning (e.g.,
hurdles for sheep) we cannot tell. — V. 29. Qiyy ; in this con
nection, " towers for the watchmen of the flocks" (cf. chap. xxvi.
10) ; according to 2 Kings xvii. 9 the term yiy, which denoted
any enclosure, might also be applied to them. — V. 30. And this

CHAPTER XXXII. 31, 32. 443
same Hezekiah shut up, &c. ; reference is emphatically made here,
as in 2 Kings xx. 2 0, at the close of the history of Hezekiah, to the
aqueduct which he made, and which had already been mentioned
in vv. 3, 4. He conducted the water underneath (below the ground)
to the west of the city of David ; see chap, xxxiii. 14. And Heze
kiah prospered; chap. xxxi. 21 ; 1 Chr. xxix. 23. — V. 31. The
account of his conduct towards the Babylonian ambassadors (vv.
25, 26) appears to be at variance with the statement that he was
prosperous in all that he did, for did they not come to Jerusalem
to his hurt ? The question is answered thus in the verse before
us : and accordingly God left him to the ambassadors of ihe princes
of Babylon — to prove him, and find out his ivhole heart, i.e.,
God permitted the ambassadors for a moment to take posses
sion as it were of Hezekiah, and draw away his heart from
God ; he did this, however, not for the purpose of bringing him
into misfortune, but to put him to the test, and see whether he
was ready to confess his fault and humble himself. yy^, not in
an antithetical sense, and yet, but rather to show the connec
tion with the previous sentence, and to point out one of the re
sults. The melizim were the ambassadors themselves, who
are caUed quite indefinitely ambassadors, Babylonian princes,
because aU that was required was to describe them as Babylonian.
Tlienius is of opinion that the persons referred to were attaches
of the ambassadors (in other words of the princes of Babylon),
who made enquiries on their own account concerning the sign
(v. 24) ; but the meaning of this verse evidently is, that the
ambassadors of the astronomical Chaldaeans came to Jerusalem,
to make enquiries as to the miraculous sign, which had occurred
in the land of Palestine, and had excited the notice of the Baby
lonians. Vv. 32, 33. His goodness, which is also mentioned in the
case of Josiah (chap. xxxv. 26) means his pious deeds, see Neh.
xfii. 14. — The statement that Hezekiah was not buried in the
family sepulchre ofthe descendants of David, but by the road that
led to the sepulchre, we only meet with here. Thenius (on 2
Kings xx. 21) conjectures that there was no room for Hezekiah
in the family sepulchre, and therefore a private tomb was con
structed for him, and for the kings that succeeded him. — And

444 chapter xxxiii. 1 — 13.
showed him honour at his death, &c. ; these words suggest parti
cularly the burning of many spices, compare chap. xvi. 14 and
xxi. 19.

14. Chap, xxxiii. 1 — 20.
manasseh.
Vv. 1 — 10. His idolatry; compare 2 Kings xxi. 1 — 16. —
(See the commentary on Kings.)
V. 11 — 1 3. His imprisonment in Babylon, conversion and return.
V. 11. cnirQ does not niean they took Manasseh, who was
hidden among the thorns (1 Sam. xiii. 6), nor they took him
with hooks (in other words, by stratagem), and certainly not
" they took him at a place called Chochim, which is not met with
anywhere else" (Thenius); but y y^fo has nearly the same
meaning as 3 ^DK which follows, and Qi)-ppj means fetters, the
explanation adopted in the Septuagint, Vulgate, and Targum,
and by Jewish expositors. — V. 13. The prayer which Manasseh
offered in his distress is said, in vv. 18 — 19, to have been re
corded both in the history ofthe kings of Israel, and also in that
of the prophet Hozai, where there was no doubt a full account
of Manasseh's captivity. Whether the prayer of Manasseh, con
tained in the Septuagint, was taken from these works, we cannot
tell. The Targum and Georgius Syncellus contain miraculous
accounts of the deliverance of the king, which were probably
copied from an apocryphal work composed at a later time. We
have no further particulars in the Old Testament respecting his
escape ; but this is not to be wondered at, as the Books of Kings
merely contains a very short notice of the whole of the period
embraced by the reigns of Manasseh and Ammon. We agree
with Ewald, Thenius, Keil, and others, in their opinion that the
release of Manasseh took place in the reign of the Assyrian king
Esarhaddon. Manasseh may have been taken to Babylon by
the Assyrians ; for, according to an account of Abydenus quoted
in Eusebius, Sennacherib had again succeeded in subjugating the
Babylonians.

chapter xxxiii. 14 — 20. 445
Vv. 14 — 17. His plans for securing the safety of his kingdom
and restoring the worship of God. — V. 14. He built an outer wall
from the city of David westioards (the direction may have been
given thus, on account of the wall stretching first of all towards
the north-west, and from the north-west corner of the city of
David) to Gihon in the valley, and thence to the fish-gate (at the
north-eastern corner of the lower or new city), and he enclosed
the Opel (carrying the wall from the north-east corner towards
the south and then round the Opel, which Uzziah and Jotham
bad already done something to fortify), and he made the wall very
high. It is not stated that this outer wall was begun by him
(Hezekiah had already done something towards the erection of a
second or outer wall, and Uzziah and Jotham towards the forti
fication of the Opel), but that he had it raised. — V. 15. Com
pare vv. 3 — 7 ; the last clause must be explained in accordance
with chap. xxix. 16 and xxx. 14. — V. 16. In many MSS. and
editions the Kethib is nil, in other MSS. and a large number
of the ancient editions the Keri is pY| and the Kethib pvj ; the
latter is confirmed by the Vulgate and Syriac. Probably all
that the word implies is that Manasseh repaired the ancient altar
by building it afresh. Ewald infers from this passage that
Manasseh removed the altar of Jehovah from the forecourt and
subsequently restored it. — V. 17. The intention of this verse is
to show that Manasseh removed all the idolatrous altars, but that
the unity of the worship of God was not maintained in his days
so perfectly as in the time of Hezekiah (chap, xxxii. 12), since
the people sacrificed to Jehovah on the bamoih as well, in the
same manner as in the time of Jehoshaphat (chap. xx. 33). The
statements in vv. 15 — 17, which are not found in the Book of
Kings, are closely connected with the account of the release of
Manasseh, they ascribe to Manasseh, after his conversion, a share
in the restoration of the purer worship of God, which is ascribed
in Kings to Josiah alone.
yv. 18 — 20. Conclusion. — V. 18. Manasseh' sprayer ; see v. 13.
— V. 19. And his suffering himself to be intreated of him, in other
words, the manner in which God hearkened to him, v. 13. —
V. 20. Instead of ipp3 we must follow the Sept. and 2 Kings,
and read ipp3 133 ; in 2 Kings the garden of his house is also

446 chapter xxxiii. 21 — xxxiv. 3.
called the garden of Uzzah. The Syriac has " in his house in
the garden of the treasure" but very little importance is to be
attached to this. Thenius assumes that the burial-place of
Manasseh was in the hill of the Opel which was opposite to
Mount Zion.

15. Chap, xxxiii. 21 — 25.
AMON.
Compare 2 Kings xxi. 19 — 26. (See the commentary on
Kings.)
16. Chap, xxxiv. and xxxv.
josiah.
Chap, xxxiv. 1 — 7. His piety ; extermination of idolatry. —
Vv. 1, 2. Compare 2 Kings xxii. 1, 2. Josiah is the only king
of whom it is said that he turned aside neither to the right hand
nor to the left. — Vv. 3 — 7. In the eighth year of his reign Josiah
began to seek God, and in the twelfth year he began to purify
Judah and Jerusalem and to exterminate idolatry. These
chronological notices appear to differ from the account in the
Book of Kings, where the extermination of idolatry is said to
have taken place after the events which occurred in the eighteenth
year of Josiah's reign, and in the same year as those events ; for
the notice respecting the abolition of idolatry, in 2 Kings xxiii.
4 — 20, refers to the same facts as are assigned by the verses be
fore us to the twelfth year of Josiah's reign (compare v. 4 with
2 Kings xxiii. 4 — 6, v. 5 with 2 Kings xxui. 7 — 14, vv. 6, 7, with
2 Kings xxiii. 4 — 20). If it had been expressly stated in the
Chronicles, that idolatry was rooted out in the twelfth year of
Josiah's reign, or that it was thoroughly exterminated before his
eighteenth year, the chronological order of events, as described in
the Chronicles, would not be the same as that given in the full
and regular account contained in the Book of Kings. But in

chapter xxxiv. 3 — 6. 447
that case the Chronicles would also be at variance with them
selves, for in chap, xxxiv. 33 the complete extermination of ido
latry is assigned to the same period as in the Book of Kings.
But all that we find stated in v. 3 is that Josiah began to purify
Judah and Jerusalem in the twelfth year of his reign, and this
chronological notice may have induced our historian to proceed
at once to complete his account of the purification of the land
from idols. Subsequently, at chap, xxxiv. 33, very few words
suffice to call attention to the time when the purification was
finished. On the other hand, in the Book of Kings, the cleans
ing of the temple, which took place before the passover, afforded
an opportunity for giving a general account of the measures
adopted by Josiah for the extermination of idolatry, and there is
nothing to hinder our assuming that the comprehensive descrip
tion contained in 2 Kings xxiii. 4 — 20, includes such events as
occurred before the eighteenth year of his reign. A strictly
chronological account of the order in which the events occurred
is not to be found either in the Book of Chronicles or in that of
Kings ; but from the information contained in the Chronicles it
is evident that the abolition of idolatry commenced in the twelfth
year of Josiah's reign, and was completed in the eighteenth. In
other respects the Book of Kings contains the more complete
history of the two, but so far as the chronology is concerned it
must be filled up from the Chronicles. — V. 4. cf. chap. xxxi. 1.
The pillars, which stood upon ihe top of them ; chap. xiv. 4. He
crushed them to powder ; v. 7, chap. xv. 16 ; 2 Kings xxiii. 6.
D',n3frt is here connected immediately with QVflppjj so that the
graves themselves are regarded as guilty of the crimes of those
who were lying in them ; we must render it rather freely : on the
graves of those who brought sacrifices to them. — V. 5. And bones
of the priests, which he caused to be taken out of the graves, he
bnmed upon their altars, thus punishing the idolatrous priests
after their death by removing them from their graves and at the
same time defiling the altars, which they had maintained during
their life-time. — V. 6. The Keri Qpiipi3"in3> w^h their swords,
does not convey any meaning, although the Masora and the earlier
Jewish expositors have taken the same view of the word. In
the versions only is the general sense of the passage given.
The sole reason for dividing the word into two seems to have

448 chapter xxxiv. 7 — xxxv. 2.
been, that the last part was thought to be QnYO. their houses.
The correct pointing is DH^nilinS 'n their ruins (cf. Ps. cix.
10). This verse must be taken in close connection with the next,
Vni^l introducing the continuation of the unfinished sentence :
and in the cities of Manasseh as far as to Naphtali,
(yet not exactly in the cities, for the land had been full of ruins
since the time of Shalmanezer, but) in their ruins, he destroyed
the altars, &c. Simeon is named here along with the northern
tribes, as in chap. xv. 9. — pmb> the perfect after lamed, where
we should expect the infinitive ; the perfect is chosen here be
cause in that case the two verbs py^ p|p)3 could be written side
by side : he broke, he crumbled, that is, he broke crumbling or so
as to crumble ; the lamed is affixed according to later usage to
point out more definitely the relation of the two perfects to each
other. Vv. 8 — 18. Restoration of the temple and discovery of the book
of the covenant. Compare 2 Kings xxii. 3 — 9.
Vv. 19 — 28. Deputation to Huldah the prophetess, and her ad
dress. Compare 2 Kings xxii. 11 — 20.
Vv. 29 — 32. Conclusion of the covenant. Compare 2 Kings
xxiii. 1 — 3.
V. 33. Introduction of the worship of Jehovah into all the lands
of Israel. Compare 2 Kings xxiii. 5 — 20.
(For Vv. 8 — 33 see the commentary on Kings).
Chap. xxxv. 1 — 19. Description of the passover in Josiah's
eighteenth year. A tolerably exact translation of this section,
though somewhat free in certain places, is to be found in the
third Book of Ezra (in Tischendorfs edition of the Septuagint
the first Book of Ezra) chap. i. 1 — 22 (compare 2 Kings xxiii.
2 1). — The description of the passover in the time of Hezekiah
(2 Chr. xxxix. 13 — 27) contains by no means so exact an account
of the proceedings connected with the festival, as we find in the
verses before us, which are of peculiar importance, since they
give us a more complete picture of this festival than even the
laws and regulations contained in the Pentateuch. — V. 1. The
time prescribed by the law was adhered to ; see on the other
hand chap. xxx. 2, 13. — V. 2. According to their watches, arranged
according to their classes (cf. chap. vii. 6) ; in 3 Ezra we find tear

chapter xxxv. 2 — 4. 449
tynpeplas. And he strengthened them for the service of the
house of Jehovah, by words of encouragement and by instruc
tions with reference to the duties which devolved upon them,
according to tbe precepts of the book of the law ; compare the
edict of Hezekiah, chap. xxix. 5 sqq. See also Neh. ii. 18.
The Kethib is I3131373PT, a word not met with anywhere else ;
the Keri [31313^ is found in many MSS. and ancient editions
as the Kethib, and is also confirmed by testimony of an early
date. Who taught all Israel ; compare Neh. viii. 9 and 7, where
they are referred to as those who teach the people the law ; the
same expression is used in 2 Chr. xvii. 8, 9, with reference to
the time of Jehoshaphat. Those who were holy to Jehovah ; not
they alone, but the priests also were holy to Jehovah (cf. chap.
xxiii. 6) ; here, however, the holiness of the Levites is mentioned
on account of the command to bring the ark of the covenant into
the temple, and none but holy persons were suffered to approach
it. The command, " put the ark of the covenant into the house,
8cc." cannot be made to mean, leave it on the spot where it has
hitherto been standing. On the contrary, we must suppose that
on the celebration of the passover the Levites carried the ark of
the covenant upon their shoulders under the impression that
they were required to do so by the law, and that Josiah pointed
out to them the alteration, which had taken place in this respect
since the erection of the temple by Solomon ; they were to be
bearers of the ark no longer, all that they had to do was to put
it in its place and find other duties to perform. On the question,
whether the ark of the covenant was still in existence in the time
of Josiah, see Hitzig on Jer. iii. 16 and Thenius on Kings. Its
existence is presupposed in this passage, and neither in Jer. iii.
16 nor in any other place is it stated that it was destroyed in the
time of Manasseh. There is no burden upon your shoulders; cf,
1 Chr. xv. 22. Serve Jehovah, Sfc. (since ye no longer need to
carry the ark of the covenant) in the manner indicated in vv. 4
— 6. — V. 4. And prepare yourselves after your fathers'-houses,
according to your divisions ; that is in such a manner that those
who belonged to the same fathers'-house should stand together in
the same division ; see v. 5. By the writing of David (cf. 1 Chr.
xxviii. 19) and the writing of Solomon we are probably to under
stand writings, in which the injunctions of David and Solomon
vol. 11. 2 F

450 CHAPTER XXXV. 5—8.
were described at length. The translators of the Vulgate and
some modern expositors suppose that reference is made to pre
cepts, or plans of David and Solomon, but in that case we should
find a similar expression to that in chap. xxix. 25, " according to
the command of David." — V. 5. The versions do not follow the
words of the text very closely, hence it is impossible to detect any
errors by their means. The sense must be as follows : and stand
in the sanctuary, for the separate companies of the fathers'-houses
of your brethren, the men of the people, a portion of a fathers'-
house of the Levites, that is to say, in such a manner, that for
every fathers'-house of the laity there should be only a portion of
a fathers'-house of the Levites, cf. v. 12. But this meaning
cannot be found in the words without erasing the i before pip^n*
which we need not hesitate to do. — V. 6 Kill the passover, and
sanctify yourselves ; from this expression it is evident that there
was a sanctification of the Levites, which took place after the
animal was slain. It may have been performed when the blood
was handed to the priests (chap. xxx. 16), and possibly it merely
consisted in the fact that the Levites were required to wash
themselves, before performing any further duties. — And prepare
(the paschal lamb, v. 14) for your brethren (of the people) pro
ceeding according to the word of Jehovah by Moses. On the
slaying of the lambs by the Levites, see chap. xxx. 16 — 18. —
V. 7. The thirty thousand lambs and kids were most likely for
the poor or for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, in short for such as
had brought no paschal lamb. N2fl32n 737 for all the laity who
were present, to be divided among them ; for the paschal lambs
and oxen were presented to the priests and Levites by the princes
of the house of God and by the princes of the Levites. Of the
king's possession; cf. chap. xxxi. 3, xxxii. 29.— V. 8. And the
princes of the king, they gave voluntarily to the people, to the priests
and to the Levites ; the amount of their contribution is not men
tioned here ; but in chap. xxx. 24 the princes of the time of
Hezekiah are said to have given a thousand bullocks and ten
thousand sheep. In the third book of Ezra the princes are not
mentioned among those who made presents. Of the three princes
of the house of God (chap. xxxi. 13 ; 1 Chr. ix. 11) Hilkiah
was the high priest (chap, xxxiv. 9), Zechariah, of the line of
Eleazar, was probably " the second priest " (Jer. Hi. 24 ; 2

CHAPTER XXXV 9—12. 451
Kings xxv. 18) ; and Jehiel was perhaps the head of the Hne
of Ithamar, which we know to have been in existence after
the captivity, Ezra viii. 2. — V. 9. It is worthy of remark,
that Conaniah (Kethib ; in the third book of Ezra we find the
name 'le^oi/ia?), Shemaiah andJozabad are also mentioned in chap.
xxxi. 12 — 15 as Levites of distinction in the time of Hezekiah.
No doubt the same names occur at very different periods in the
priestly and Levitical families, and therefore we need not be sur
prised to meet with the same names in the history of Josiah as
in that of Hezekiah. At the same time the very frequent recur-
ence of certain names seems to give support to the conjecture,
that some of them were not names of individuals but names of
families or fathers'-houses, which were borne by the princes or
chiefs for the time-being. Shemaiah and Nethaneel may per
haps be called brothers of Conaniah, merely because they were
associated with him in office. For the Pesachim lambs and
kids were presented by the king and by the princes of tlie priests
and Levites (after tlie numbers mentioned in vv. 8, 9, 2600 and
5000, we cannot supply the words lambs and kids from v. 7), and
also oxen, the purpose of which is not described (compare,
however, v. 13). — V. 10. So the service was prepared, i.e., as v.
1 6 clearly shows, the preparations were completed. The last
clause refers to the command of Josiah in v. 4. — V. 11. Then
(the Levites) slew the passover ; this verse is a direct continuation
of the preceding one. And the priests sprinkled (the blood of the
paschal lambs, which they received) from the hand of the Levites
(cf. chap. xxx. 16), the Levites taking off the skins ; this tbey are
said to have done in chap. xxx. 17 ; but there it was merely as an
exception for all who were unclean. — V. 12. Tfiereupon they took
off the burnt-offering' (according to the context from the lajnbs,
after the skin had been removed) ; the burnt-offering, therefore,
can only mean such portions of the paschal lamb as were to be
burned upon the altar of burnt-offering, no doubt the same parts
as were cut off and burned in the case of sheep and goats, when
they were offered as thank-offerings (Lev. iii. 6—17). As these
portions were burned in precisely the same manner as tbe burnt-
offerings (cf.Lev. i. 9, 17 with chap. iii. 11, 16), they might very
well be called n^Pfc so that this word is used here in the sense
2 F

452 CHAPTER XXXV. 13 — 15.
of pjejn, e'9- -^ev. iii. 9. This explanation is confirmed by the
words at the end of the present verse : " and the same also with
reference to the oxen." The oxen themselves, therefore, were not
offered as burnt-offerings, but the parts appointed were cut off
and burned, the rest of the flesh being cooked and eaten (v. 13).
To give them (namely the portions cut off, which together made
pjl^pj) according to the divisions of the fathers'-houses to the sons
of the people, i.e., to the laity that they might offer to Jehovah
(31-^ppf means to offer, e.g., the fat of the burnt-offerings, Lev.
iii. 9, 14). We must suppose the following to have been the
way in which this was done : all the sub-divisions of the different
fathers'-houses came one after another to the altar in solemn
procession, to bring to the priests the portions which had been
cut off, and the priests laid these pieces upon the fire of the
altar of burnt-offering. — -V. 13. The flesh of the paschal lamb
they cooked at the fire, i.e., they roasted it, according to the law
(Ex. xii. 7 — 9), which prescribes roasting for the paschal lamb
alone, not for any other sacrifice. The Kodashim on the other
hand (i.e. the oxen, cf. chap. xxix. 33) they cooked in pots,
kettles, (1 Sam. ii. 14) and in dishes, in precisely the same
manner as the flesh of the thank-offerings was accustomed to be
cooked. From this it is evident, that the oxen were offered as
thank-offerings along with the paschal lambs; hence the meal
did not consist exclusively of the paschal lamb, but of the meat
of the thank-offerings also, for the latter were required to be
consumed on tbe day, on which they were offered, though the
eating of them on the second day was not strictly prohibited
(Lev. vu. 15 — 18). — V. 14. ipiNI ; as an adverb " and after
ward." They prepared it for themselves arid for the priests ; for
the latter, however, merely because they were occupied with
their official duties till night-time, and had no leisure to prepare
it for themselves : Qi3~>pin are the pieces of fat taken from the
oxen, which were also burned upon the altar, but were appa
rently not reckoned as part of the pi^iy, — V. 15. And the singers
the sons of Asaph were at their posts — and the doorkeepers at
every door, they (the singers and doorkeepers) did not require
to leave their service ; for their brethren the Levites made pre
parations for them and then brought them the flesh, so that they

CHAPTER XXXV. 16 — 20. 453
were able to partake of it during their service and without leaving
their posts. — V. 16. The emphasis is laid upon the words, "ac
cording to the command of king Josiah." The expression " all the
service " is more fully defined by the subordinate infinitives : in
connection with the preparing (inf.) of the passover and the
offering (inf.) of the burnt sacrifices. The jyfoy were the piSiy
and the Qi37n» v* 1^- There is no reference in these verses to
burnt-offerings in the ordinary sense of the word. Hence there do
not appear to have been any burnt-offerings presented at the pass-
over except the continual burnt-offering, Num. xxviii. 4. The
fat of the paschal lambs and of the thank-offerings must, there
fore, have supplied sufficient fuel to keep up the fire on the altar
of burnt offering. — V. 17. Prominence is here given to the fact
that according to the law the passover was celebrated by the
assembled Israelites, and immediately afterwards the feast of un
leavened bread. — V. 18. In 2 Kings xxiii. 22 we find the expres
sion "from the time of the judges, who judged Israel;" in the
passage before us the time is fixed with greater exactness, viz.
the end of the period of the judges ; for Samuel was the last
judge (1 Sam. vii. 15), and it is stated that there was no such
passover "from the days of Samuel the prophet." — The inhabitants
of the northern kingdom who were present ; the meaning of the
historian is not that all Israel was present, for the greater part
was in exile, but there were some of the inhabitants left behind,
who came to Jerusalem to the feast of passover. — V. 19. In the
eighteenth year of his reign, cf. chap, xxxiv. 8. Thenius attaches
great importance to the statement found in the Septuagint at 2
Kings xxii. 3, to the effect that Josiah sent Shaphan to Hilkiah
in the eighteenth year, in the eighth month. If this statement
rests upon a historical basis, all the events narrated in 2 Chr.
xxxiv. 8 — xxxv. 19 must have happened in about the space of
five months and a half. We should then have a proof that the
eighteenth year of Josiah's reign was reckoned from the autumn
{cf. chap. xxix. 3). The eighth month of the sacred year in the
eighteenth year of his reign would be the second month of his
eighteenth year, and the first month of the new year would be
the seventh month.
Vv. 20—25. The war with Necho. Compare 2 Kings xxiii.
29 and 30 a., and 3 Ezra i. 23, 30.— V. 20. "All this" is more

454 CHAPTER XXXV. 20, 21.
closely defined by the clause which follows in apposition : " after
all this, that-Josiah-had-prepared-the-house." — Necho king of
Egypt was the successor of Psammitichus, and the Ne^am
Beurepo(; of Manetho. He was the fifth in the series of kings of
the 26th dynasty (the Saitic). The place at which the decisive
battle was fought is mentioned at the outset as serving to indicate
at once the direction and destination ofthe army : " to fight at Car
chemish on the Euphrates." In 2 Kings we find instead the words :
" he marched to the king of Assyria to the Euphrates (this is the
reading of the Septuagint in the present passage), whether with
the intention of fighting or of assisting him the text does not
enable us to determine with absolute certainty. The decision of
this point rests upon the question, what king is referred to by the
name of the king of Assyria, whether Nabopolassar, " who might
be called king of Assyria as being the actual ruler of the old
Assyrian monarchy" (Thenius), or Sardanapalus, the last king
of the Assyrian empire? In modern times v. Gumpach (die
Zeitrechnung der Bab. u. Assyr. p. 146 — 147) has pronounced
it impossible that any other king than Sardanapalus can be in
tended. In this case the design of Necho must evidently have
been to assist the king of Assyria, and oppose the Medes and
Babylonians, for which purpose he marched to the countries of
the Euphrates (this is the explanation given by Josephus Ant.
x. 5, 1). But although we are obliged, as I think, to regard
this as the design of the expedition, the king of Assyria men
tioned in 2 Kings must still be Nabopolassar, for according to
settled usage the rulers over the Syrian provinces are always
called kings of Assyria. If Nabopolassar is intended, ^y ^-fyy
in 2 Kings must mean he marched to fight against (as for example
2 Kings xvii. 3), and this explanation is certainly more natural
than the other : he marched to his assistance. Josiah went out
against him ; the battle was then fought in the plain of Kishon,
from which we may conclude that Necho had brought his troops
to Palestine by water, and landed them somewhere near Akko
(cf. Herodotus 2. 159). nnN is an emphatic repetition of the
suffix (cf. chap, xxviii. 10). inonS?3 j"T3 would mean " my
warlike house," (1 Chr. xviii. 10, and xxviii. 3), which, however,
would hardly denote tlie house which is at war with me or my
hereditary foe (Keil). According to 3 Ezra i. 27 and Josephus,

CHAPTER XXXV. 22—27. 455
the reading should be ipi!3pj^?3 H1Q by. mV war IS on *he Eu
phrates ; of the versions the Vulgate is the only one in which the
word pp3 is adopted. — And God has said that he will speed me ;
the God, whom Josiah would not refuse to obey, therefore Israel's
God, not an Egyptian God, as some modern writers infer from
Herodotus ii. 158. — Leave off from God; do not resist his will.
— V. 22. " The words of Necho" are changed into words ofthe
prophet Jeremiah in 3 Ezra i. 26, from which we may infer, that
the translator regarded the words of God, to which Necho ap
pealed, as a prophecy of Jeremiah (we might call to mind Jer.
xv. 7 — 9) of which Necho had heard. In the plain of Megiddo ;
according to Herodotus ii. 1 59 the battle was fought at Magdol,
not far from Megiddo, cf. Tlienius. — V. 23. Take me away ; that
is, according to v. 24, let me get down from the war-chariot ; in
chap, xvfii. 33 Ahab says to his charioteer : turn round and carry
me away from the battle. — V. 24. The chariot of the second order ;
here probably the king's second, ordinary chariot, in which the
king could ride more comfortably than in the war-chariot, hence
it is not exactly a chariot of the second rank as in Gen. xii.
43. In the sepulchres of his fathers (2 Kings, in his sepulchre) ;
Thenius supposes, that it was in a chamber in the burial place of
the kings which had lately been built by Manasseh, see chap, xxxiii.
20. — V. 25. And all the singing men and singing women spake
in their lamentations (i.e., in the lamentations, which they were
accustomed to sing on certain days) about Josiah also, and they
made them (namely such songs of lamentation) a custom in Israel,
and behold they are written in the lamentations (a collection of
dirges, which contained among others the psalm composed by Jere
miah on the death of Josiah). In this Thenius, Keil, and Ewald
agree. That the historian does not refer to the canonical Book
of Lamentations is evident from both the contents and style of
that book.
Vv. 26, 27. Conclusion. Compare 2 xxiii. 28; 3 Ezra i. 31.

456 CHAPTER XXXVI. 1 — 4.

17. Chap, xxxvi. 1 — 4.

jehoahaz.

Compare'2 Kings xxfii. 30 b.— 35 ; 3 Ezra i. 32— 36.— V. 1.
By the will ofthe people, Jehoahaz, who is also caUed ShaUum,
was chosen king in the room of his father, although he was not
the first-born. " The people, who were anxious to exclude the
elder son from the government, appear to have been aware what
they had to expect from him." Hitzig, on Jer. xxu. 10 — 12. —
V. 2. He reigned three months ; it was probably on account of
the shortness of his reign that he received the name of ShaUum
(Jer. xxii. 22), as he was called so after the other kings of this
name who reigned in the northern kingdom, 2 Kings xv. 13. —
V. 3. According to 3 Ezra yi 'bftft should be suppHed before the
words " in Jerusalem." In the verse before us it is stated that
" ihe king of Egypt removed him from ihe government in Jerusa
lem." The Vulgate alone renders the last words " cum venisset
in Jerusalem." In the other versions and in 3 Ezra it is not
stated that the king of Egypt came to Jerusalem to depose
Jehoahaz. According to the more precise account in 2 Kings,
the Egyptian king stayed at Riblah, on the Orontes, after he had
defeated Josiah ; Jehoahaz came to him (whether he came will
ingly or was treacherously decoyed there we cannot teU), was
taken prisoner in Riblah and led away as a prisoner to Egypt.
Our history will be by no means at variance with this, if we
supply "t^)3)3 in the text. Keil assumes that the king of Egypt
came to Jerusalem, deposed Jehoahaz, and then took him away
as a prisoner, and put him in chains in Riblah (see Thenius). —
V. 4. Eliakim was the elder brother of Jehoahaz ; the Egyptian
king did not confirm Jehoahaz, who had been chosen king by
the will of the people, no doubt because he expected a more
ready submission from Eliakim, and a more thorough departure
from the principles of Josiah's government. — " A nd took him "
(2 Kings, " and he came ;") the two statements amount to the

CHAPTER XXXVI. 5, 6. 457
s me thing. In 2 Kings it is added "and died there," cf. Jer.
xxii. 12. If we do not find the fact that Pharaoh Necho had
been in Jerusalem recorded in our third verse, it is not impro
bable that he visited Jerusalem at this time for the purpose of
making Jehoiakim king. But it is not of the city of Jerusalem
that the capture is described in Herodotus ii. 159, for the great
city of Kadytis is not Jerusalem, but Gaza (cf. Hitzig, Ge-
schichte und Mythol. der Philistaer p. 95 sqq. and Thenius on
Kings).

18. Chap, xxxvi. 5 — 8.
jehoiakim.
Compare 2 Kings xxiii. 36 — xxiv. 7 ; 3 Ezra i. 37 — 41. —
V. 6. Nebuchadnezzar is the name, which ordinarily occurs in
the Chronicles, the Books of Kings, and some chapters of
Jeremiah ; but we also meet with Nebuchadrezzar here and
there in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and even Nebuchadrezzor in the
Kethib of Ezra ii. 1 and Jer. xlix. 28. The latter spelling cor
responds to the Greek Naj3ovKoBpooopo<; in Eusebius and other
authors, and bears a great resemblance to the inscriptions dis
covered by Rawlinson, though they have not been deciphered with
complete certainty. And he bound him with chains (cf. chap, xxxiii .
11) to lead him (^yhrlb) toBabylon; the reading must be retained
though the lamed is not expressed in 3 Ezra, the Septuagint, and
the Vulgate. Are we to gather from the infinitive with lamed
that Nebuchadnessar did not carry out his intention of leading
him away, or is the meaning of the passage rightly given in
3 Ezra, the Vulgate and the Septuagint, where it is rendered
somewhat as follows : he bound him with chains and led him away
(cf. Dan. i. 2) ? These questions cannot be decided with certainty
from the words of the text. Movers is of opinion that if Jehoia
kim was not actually led away to Babylon, and if our historian
had intended to say this, he would have expressed his meaning
more clearly, and would probably have added that it happened
on account of his sins. Keil writes to the same effect (p. 24).

458 chapter xxxvi. 6.
And certainly if we compare the words of our historian in chap.
xxxiii. 11, we shall be inclined to conclude that he purposely
selected the infinitive with lamed because he did not intend to
say that Jehoiakim was really led away to Babylon. Later
writers, on the other hand, who were desirous of making this ex
pedition of Nebuchadnezzar against Jehoiakim the commence
ment of the captivity, might easily interpret the passage before
us as meaning that Jehoiakim was actually led away. There
was nothing in the statement contained in 2 Kings xxiv. 6 to
disconcert them, for it is easy to reconcile the fact of his being
carried away with his death and burial near or in Jerusalem, if
we suppose that he was taken prisoner or led away to Babylon,
that he remained there in captivity, but subsequently obtained
permission, as Manasseh had done before him, to return to Jeru
salem, where he assumed the reins of government as a vassal of
the Chaldaeans. In this manner the Septuagint combines
together the removal to Babylon and the burial in Jerusalem ;
for in v. 6 of this chapter we find an account of the former, and
the burial of Jehoiakim in the garden of Uzzah is mentioned in
v. 8. In the same way we find in Dan. i. 2 a notice of the
removal of Jehoiakim in the third year, or shortly after the
third year of his reign, from which it necessarily follows that he
afterwards returned to Jerusalem, since the author certainly did
not intend to contradict the account contained in the Book of
Kings and in the Chronicles, of Jehoiakim's eleven years' reign.
But all that can be inferred from this is, that at a later period
the word 131^!"!^ was supposed to imply that Jehoiakim was
really led away, as the Vulgate and 3 Ezra evidently assume,
not that our historian intended this. In our opinion the verse
before us refers to the same events as 2 Kings xxiv. 1, viz. to
the first expedition of Nebuchadnezzar against Palestine not
long after the battle at Carchemish, which was followed by the
defeat of Jehoiakim and his three years' servitude. The words
" he became his servant " merely state that he became tributary
to him, not that he was led away. In 2 Kings xvii. 3 they
simply denote dependence or tributary subjection 5 and in chap.
xxiv. 1 we cannot infer that they mean anything more from the
words, " then he turned and rebelled against him." These words
do not imply (as v. Gumpach imagines), that after an imprison-

chapter xxxvi. 6, 7. 459
ment of three years in Babylon he returned and revolted ; on
the contrary, according to a fixed usage of speech, they state
that, after being the servant of Nebuchadnezzar, he once more
renounced his allegiance. There is no discrepancy, therefore,
between the account before us and 2 Kings xxiv. 1 ; for, whilst it
is stated here that Nebuchadnezzar set out to lead him away,
the result of the expedition is more distinctly given in 2 Kings,
viz. that Jehoiakim became subject to him. When did this
happen? Certainly before the death of Nabopolassar, which
occurred in the year 604, and after the battle at Carchemish,
for Nebuchadnezzar could not possibly have undertaken his
expedition to the land of Palestine and the neighbouring coun
tries as far as the Egyptian frontier before the death of Pharoah
Necho. Moreover, we learn from Berosus (in Josephus contra
Apion, i. 19) that Nebuchadnezzar occupied the countries on this
side of the Euphrates with his troops, as far as the Egyptian
frontier, before the death 6f Nabopolassar, and that when he hur
ried back to Babylon with a few of bis soldiers on receiving tbe
tidings of his father's death, he delivered the prisoners belong
ing to those countries, among whom Jews are expressly named,
into the charge of bis friends, who were to bring them to Babylon.
It is true that he is called Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon,
both in this passage and in 2 Kings, but we cannot infer from
this that the expedition did not take place till after the year 604,
when NebucbadnLSsar actually succeeded his father in the
government, for "Nebuchadnezzar, the general, is called king
by the Hebrew historians (also Jer. xxv. 1) the very first time
they have occasion to mention his name " (Hitzig on Dan. i. 2),
and similar anachronisms are by no means rare where titles are
concerned. It is certainly very difficult to determine with greater
precision the period in which this first expedition of Nebuchad
nezzar occurred. — V. 7. Of the vessels of the house of Jehovah
Nebuchadnezzar carried (some) away to Babylon : a similar ac
count is given in Dan i. 2, where we find it stated that he had
them taken into the treasury of his god ; according to the passage
before us he brought them into his (i.e. the royal) palace; cf.
Dan. v. 2 — 3. Hitzig (on Dan. i. 2) says, "the statement con
tained in this verse probably rests upon a confusion of the names
Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin." This is possible, at least we are not

460 CHAPTER XXXVI. 8, 9.
in a position to determine more exactly the source from which it
was taken. But it must be borne in mind, that our historian
makes a distinction between some vessels, which were carried
away in the time of Jehoiakim, and the costly vessels of the house
of Jehovah mentioned in v. 10, and there is nothing at all im
probable in the delivery of vessels' by Jehoiakim, for when he
became the servant of Nebuchadnezzar he must certainly have
agreed to pay him tribute, and under such circumstances the
Jewish kings were accustomed to have recourse to the treasures
ofthe temple.- — V. 8. And his abominations, which he had com
mitted; this refers, not so much to his evil deeds (e.g. 2 Kings
xxiv. 4) as to the idols which were made by his orders (cf. Jer. vii.
9, 10 ; Ezek. viii. 17), for the following words refer to his evil
deeds': "and that which was found in him" (cf. chap. xix. 3).
Jewish expositors have supposed that the latter words contain a
reference to signs and figures, with which he had covered his
body in honour of the idols. — Our historian passes quickly over
the calamitous times of Jehoiakim ; he merely intended to record
the event, which gave to his reign the character of an epoch, viz.
the subjugation of Jehoiakim by Nebuchadnezzar. Every thing
that happened both before and after this subjugation he passes
over. He does not even speak of his death and burial. As in
the case of Ammon (chap, xxxiii. 21 — 25) the burial of Jehoia
kim could very properly be left unnoticed in a history so in
tentionally brief as the present.

19. Chap, xxxvi. 9, 10.
jehoiachin.
Compare 2 Kings xxiv. 8—17; 3 Ezra i. 41— 44.— V. 9.
Eight years ; this is the reading adopted in the Septuagint, the
Vulgate, and 3 Ezra. In 2 Kings we find eighteen years, both in
the Hebrew text and many of the versions ; a few MSS. have
the same reading in this passage, and of the versions the Syriac,
the Arabic, and many MSS. of the Septuagint. In 3 Ezra also
many of the MSS. have eighteen years. Thenius says that eight

CHAPTER XXXVI. 11—21. 461
may have sprung from eighteen through a copyist's error. But
we look upon eight as tbe original reading, as Hitzig also does in
opposition to Thenius, who lays too little stress upon the intro
duction of his mother's name in 2 Kings xxiv. 12, 15, Jer.
xxviii. 26, which is evidently intentional, and from which we
conclude that she acted as guardian over the young king. (For
the rest see the commentary on Kings. — Tr.)

20. Chap, xxxvi. 11—21.
zedekiah.
Compare 2 Kings xxiv. 18 — xxv. 21 ; Jer. Hi. ; 3 Ezra i. 44 —
55. — V. 13. cf. 2 Kings, xxiv. 20. Wlio had made him swear by
God; in Ezek. xvii. 13 it is expressly stated, that Nebuchadnezzar
administered to Zedekiah an oath of fealty, when he made him
king, on which occasion he will naturally have made him call
his God to witness. Hence by his rebellion Zedekiah broke the
oath which he had sworn by Jehovah, and Jehovah punished
him for his perjury. Zedekiah might be the subject of the verb
" hardened" but according to Deut. ii. 30 the words should be
interpreted thus : God made him stiffnecked and hardened his
heart, so that in spite of the warnings of the prophets he did not
return to Jehovah the God of Israel. — V. 14. The princes of the
priests and the people are here charged with idolatry and the
desecration of the temple, from which, however, it does not
follow, that the historian referred exclusively to princes of the
priests and to the people in the time of Zedekiah, who were not
liable, so far as we can gather from the Book of Jeremiah, to the
reproach of idolatry. He is rather intending to point out the
criminafity of the whole nation, especially in the time of
Manasseh, evidently according to the representation given in
Ezek. viii. (cf. Hitzig). The princes of ihe priests are referred
to in Ezek. viii. 16 seq. — V. 15. For he spared, fyc. ; namely,
inasmuch as he did not immediately inflict the punishment, but
continued again and again to send his prophets to call to repent-

462 chapter xxxvi. 21—23.
ance.— V. 17. The subject of all the verbs in this verse is
Jehovah. And God slew their youths in the sanctuary ; thus the
temple, which the Israelites had polluted by idolatry, he for his
part polluted by the blood, which he caused to be shed there
(cf. chap. vii. 20.) — V. 21. The word of Jehovah by Jeremiah is
the prophecy, according to which the supremacy of the Chaldaeans
was to last seventy years, Jer. xxv. 11, 12 ; xxix. 10. The
period, at which the captivity terminated, is mentioned in v. 20 ;
the same period is indicated here in the following terms : until
the land had finished her years of rest, all the days of the desola
tion she rested, that seventy years might be fulfilled. According
to this passage the captivity lasted seventy years, as Jeremiah
had foretold, that is to say, the captivity in the strictest sense of
the term, for seventy years of desolation are spoken of here. The
captivity is no doubt reckoned from the third year of Jehoiakim,
just as in Dan. i. 1, viz. from the invasion of Nebuchadnezzar
mentioned in v. 6. But when it is said that the land was deso
late for seventy years, the general statement of the prophet is
taken as the measure of a chronological reckoning, which is not
strictly in harmony with the historical records. The Sabbatical
years terminated, according to our historian's representation, at
the end of the captivity or in the year 536. Now if the seventy
Sabbatical years had been celebrated according to the law laid
down in Lev. xxv. 1 — 7, they would have spread over a period
of 490 years, that is, if one were kept every seven years. Hence
the year 1000 must be taken as the period at which the Sab
batical years ceased to be celebrated, that is to say, in the time
of Solomon, or, as we cannot look for complete chronological
accuracy, about the commencement of the monarchical period.
This would be quite in harmony with chap. xxxv. 18, where the
passover is said to have been celebrated according to the precepts
of the law until the end of the period of the Judges.
Vv. 22, 23. Compare 3 Ezra ii. 1—5. In Ezra i. 1—3 these
verses are repeated : " That the word of Jehovah might be
brought to an end," i.e., that the period of time pointed out in that
word might not be departed from ; in 3 E«ra ek avvreXetav.
The royal will was proclaimed by means of heralds, and also by
a written edict, just as in chap, xxx, 5, 6.— V. 23. Compare

chapter xxxvi. 22, 23. 463
Is. xiv. 1 sqq. After the expression, of all his people, we have
here the word Jehovah, whilst in Ezra i. 3, and also'in 3 Ezra,
we find ipji (may he be) instead. The latter is certainly the
original reading : whoever he be among you of his whole nation,
may his God be with him, and let him depart. The sentence,
which is broken off abruptly at this point, is continued in the
Book of Ezra.

FINIS.

A

9002

00550

8677